Comments

1
protests will be tolerated as long as you dont scare the downtown business association.

Also it seemed like they had way more cops this year, but that is of course anecdotal.
2


And in the streets, the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken...

3
"Mocek asked them to identify themselves (as they are required to do by law if they're police)."

No they are not. Undercover officers are under no obligation to identify themselves as police when asked.
4
Mocek asked them to identify themselves (as they are required to do by law if they're police).
Is this really true? I assumed it was urban myth.
Either way, nice to hear that the cops were being monitored, especially if the monitors included non-SPD. Watching from home, the protest seemed less angry and the police presence greater than years past, but the monitoring may have also helped keep things mellow.
5
Um, are you sure about them not pushing the crowd and pepperspraying journalists? Because there's video playing right here in my home showing a journo being hit with pepperspray and coughing his lungs out...
6
SPD needs to stop with the chemical weapons. I've had a headache and breathing trouble all day. They sprayed them into the air and people's faces all day long. One person lights a firecracker and dozens or hundreds of people, mostly bystanders including journalists, get attacked with chemicals. It's just as violent as hitting people with batons or bicycles, and just like that violence, it's completely unnecessary. They surrounded those convertible drivers without lobbing teargas on the whole block for example -- they clearly just don't want to attack the wrong kind of bystander who makes 7 figures.
7
@5

Video from last year maybe? Or possibly from the folks that went up to Broadway. That splinter had some people who seemed determined to start shit, I didn't go.

The other incident that comes to mind is the car that got attacked - the police response to the car attack seemed pretty reasonable honestly, but it figures that the news would run with those 4 minutes and ignore the hours of relative cop calm.
8
@7

I filmed people from this year getting pepper sprayed. A lot of it is blowback, and some peopled panicked as they were pressed against a wire mesh fence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl1ZCJVYY…
9
@7, I see @8 has shown you the folly of your ways. Good evening.

And great job with the shitty reporting Ansel. Your job *is* to be a shitty reporter, right?
10
Wow I feel so much better about how the cops handled May Day after watching your video @8. All I saw was a bunch of white youth who refused to listen and got a very light touch by the cops (It looked like they pepper sprayed into the air, not directly at people).

Honestly Ansel, I like your writing, but the paragraph about how the cops "hurt" people when anarchist where trying to destroy cars reads the same as FOX news trying to focus on the two d-bags breaking windows.

All and all the cops handled themselves very well and Seattle should be proud.
11
" I've had a headache and breathing trouble all day"

That's your period.
12
Looks to me that the anarchists just pussied out.
13
Am I the only one that is picking up on a tone that Ansel wants to convey the SPD's behavior as unprofessional and brutal, but he has too little evidence (all of it apparently based on conjecture or hearsay) to support the assertion?
14
@10 I was the one in the blue shirt and I assure you the first, longest spray was not into the air but rather directly at us. They were moving us back after they had arrested an individual. We were already between the line of bikesand that chain fence and when they first gave the orders to move back, they quickly began advancing their line. All in all, I think the SPD certainly improved their handling of the march but I do believe them to have escalated that situation. They could have advanced the line without the pepperspray.
15
@14 faced to faced with cops shooting move back on may day? I'm shocked, shocked you got sprayed.

Why? Just why? What's the point of screaming at cops like this?

@13, Agreed. This post should be about how well May Day was handled compared to the last couple of years but seems to struggle to point out flaws.
16
Also, look at what CM Sawant has done. She's gotten the 15 buck min-wage as the major issue right now and she sure as heck didn't do it by screaming/getting peppered sprayed at cops.
17
Also if people where doing this to cars, they deserved to be peppered sprayed.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/slideshow…
18
Those of us that studied Psych 101 should recall a famous study in the 60's or 70's about how those in power - in that case study a control group(s) of jailers, and those in subjection - a control group(s) of prisoners. What was found was not surprising. That those with power become empowered by its affects and (in the ultimate sense) sadistic. So that is human nature.

If we are to consider our police (a lower to middle class occupation in our society) whose recruits not only encompass the expected percentage of "bad apples" but also those whose metal and physical capabilities are pushed in the performance of their duties, any evaluation on the Seattle City Police must consider all those factors if we are a just and compassionate society.
19
@15 Not much sense in arguing with somebody who wasn't there. I'm plenty proud to have marched to honor the rights I have as a worker and the folks who gave their lives for it, remaining peaceful as well. I'm also fairly pleased as I said with SPD's response. Even with a face full of mace. I just think that particular situation was unnecessarily escalated.

Im not mad and I don't have any intentions of filing a complaint or anything. I mean the guy they were arresting had a gun for christs sake so I am happy that he was apprehended. I knew chemical crowd control measures were a risk when participating in an unpermitted march and it was one I knowingly took. Felt good to participate in the march in a positive manner.
20
Wow the police "allowed" a protest? Well good god damn, give them a fucking halo, those saints! All the beatings, racism, and murder are forgiven! God bless SPD!
21
That's quite an outfit.
22
@3, Giffy wrote, "No they are not. Undercover officers are under no obligation to identify themselves as police when asked."

@4, McBomber wrote, "Is this really true? I assumed it was urban myth."

Yes, it is true.

Unless it would jeapardize an investigation, hinder police function, or pose a risk to safety, all Seattle Police Department staff, sworn and unsworn, uniformed or not, are required by department policy to identify themselves upon request, in writing if requested. Whether the requestor asks for name, badge number, or serial number, the employee is required to provide name, department, and serial number.

From Seattle Police Manual 5.001 – Standards & Duties, VII. Professionalism:
5. Duty to Identify

a. Provided that no investigation is jeopardized, no police function is hindered, and safety considerations permit, when a citizen requests a Department employee engaged in Department related activities to identify themselves (including but not limited to requests for name, badge number, or serial number), the employee shall do the following:

(1) Uniformed, sworn employees and Parking Enforcement Officers shall provide their name, and Department serial number verbally, or if requested, in writing, or provide a Department-issued business card that contains their name and serial number.

(2) Non-uniformed, sworn employees shall display their badge and Department identification card, and shall provide their name and Department serial number verbally, or if requested, in writing, or provide a Department-issued business card that contains their name and assignment.

(3) Non-sworn employees shall verbally provide their name and Department serial number, or provide a Department-issued business card that contains their name and serial number, and shall display their Department identification card if specifically requested to do so.


And from Seattle Police Manual 5.001 – Standards & Duties, IV. Communication and Confidentiality:
F. Recognition and Identification of Civilian Attired Officers

1. Any employee in uniform who meets another employee (sworn) dressed in plain clothes shall not indicate recognition unless greeted first, as the anonymity of sworn employees dressed in plain clothes must be maintained.

2. Plain clothes officers shall properly identify themselves when officially engaging in public contacts with citizens, except where anonymity is essential to the performance of duty.


I prefer to have any SPD employee identify himself or herself prior to our interaction. If they balk at verbal identification, or do so in a manner that is difficult to understand, I prefer that they identify in writing.
23
@10, referencing Sam Levine's video @8, J2patter wrote, "All I saw was a bunch of white youth who refused to listen"

Those people are allowed to be white and (despite the expressed belief of former SPOG president Rich "We wouldn't have these problems if people would just do what police tell them to do" O'Neill) those people have no obligation to listen.

"and [the young white non-listeners] got a very light touch by the cops"

In your view, J2patter, did the police observe what they believed to be wrongdoing, collect evidence, apprehend suspects, and arrange for the suspects to appear before a judge?

"[Ansel's] paragraph about how the cops `hurt' people when anarchist where trying to destroy cars"

1) The word "hurt" is not used in Ansel's post. 2) He wrote nothing about the political beliefs of those people who twice surrounded drivers and expensive sports cars, only that they were "angry establishment-haters."

"All and all the cops handled themselves very well and Seattle should be proud."

I arrived at 9:00 p.m. and observed from the rear and to the side of the march until midnight. Based on what I saw, I agree that the police handled themselves well. However, I don't think this is something of which we should be proud. It is the minimum we should demand from people we employ to do the exceptionally dangerous job of enforcing public policy with force.
24
"...reportedly broke windows"? C'mon, Ansel.
25
The march often felt more anti-police than anti-capitalist.

You should recognize, Ansel, that these are not mutually exclusive. At all.
26
@17: You're including the people who were doing that to cars out of joy of having their team win the Big Game, correct? Because you're not a hypocrite and all...
27
@13: Pretty much ALL of Ansel's "reporting" has that "I'm not quite sure if this actually happened this way as I wasn't present at the time, but dammit I need the page hits!" style to it.
28
@27: So naturally, he fits right in at The Stranger!
29
@22 "Unless it would jeapardize an investigation, hinder police function, or pose a risk to safety"

Which is why I said undercover. In this case, the officers would have been completely within their rights to refuse to identify themselves, or to lie about it.
30
@29: These were not undercover officers. They were non-sworn staff. I'll post video later.
31
@14, Fig wrote, "@10 I was the one in the blue shirt and I assure you the first, longest spray was not into the air but rather directly at us."

That sounds somewhat bad, but it's at least partial compliance with new rules approved this year. When using OC spray (pepper spray) SPD staff are required to target specific subjects. See #8 below.

"They were moving us back after they had arrested an individual. We were already between the line of bikesand that chain fence and when they first gave the orders to move back, they quickly began advancing their line."

Did they issue you and nearby officers a verbal warning before spraying you? If not, they violated their policy. See #4 below.

Did they assist you with decontamination and water-flushing after they sprayed you? If not, they violated their policy. See #9 below. If they did, and if you complained of continuing effects after decontamination, did they call for medical assistance? If not, that's a violation of #9.

SPD's Use of Force Policy Manual: 8.200--POL--6 Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray includes the following rules:

1. Education & Training Section (ETS) Will Train and Certify Officers in the Use of OC Spray Every Two Years
2. Officers Shall Only Use Department-Issued or Approved OC Spray
3. Officers Will Use OC Spray Only When Such Force is Objectively Reasonable, Including When Used for Crowd Dispersal or Protection [Hyperlink to definition and explanation of “objectively reasonable” in 8.100.]
4. Officers Shall Issue a Verbal Warning to the Subject, Fellow Officers and Other Individuals Present Prior to Using OC Spray
5. Officers Must Justify Each Separate Application of OC Spray
6. Officers are Required to Report the Use of OC Spray, Regardless of the Effect, as Well as the Decontamination Procedures That Followed. See 8.300-POL-1.5.
7. The Application of OC Spray on Persons in Restraints Such As Handcuffs Must Be to Protect an Officer or Member of the Public from Physical Injury.
8. Officers Shall Direct OC Spray at the Specific Subject(s) Who are Posing a Threat
9. Officers Shall Assist Exposed Subjects with Decontamination and Water- Flushing of Exposed Areas as Soon as Feasible
10. The Department Shall Maintain Written Documentation of the Number of OC Spray Canisters Annually Distributed to, and Utilized by, Each Employee

More detail is provided in the policy itself.
32
@17, J2patter wrote, "Also if people where doing this to cars, they deserved to be peppered sprayed."

If people violate the law, involving cars or not, they deserve to be brought before a judge, not punished on the spot by police.
33
Ansel wrote, "The police advanced in formation--macing journalists and protesters as they did so--buffeting the crowd up Pine and Olive towards Capitol Hill. That riled the crowd, and some of the demonstrators reportedly broke windows."

@24, M. Wells responded, "`...reportedly broke windows'? C'mon, Ansel."

What would prefer someone write if he didn't observe an action, but someone reported to him that the action occurred? C'mon, M. Wells.
34
@23 you know "hurt" and "showed me a bloody gash on her leg" mean the same thing right?
35
@30 I don't really see how that matters.
36
@26, yep people who jump on cars after games should be arrested to. But the major difference is when this happens the 100's of people around them usually aren't shouting "Fuck the cops" and in the cops faces, so there's usually less need for harsh crowd control.. Have 100 people up in the cop face and screaming "fuck the cops" then yeah, maybe the pepper spray comes out when they need to control the crowd. Personally I'm ok with that. (I support your right for free speech, but be smart and put some space between you and the cops, give them a couple of meters).
37
@23 also you can't say that he wrote nothing about the peoples political beliefs. This is the anti-capitalist march and he did call them "angry establishment-haters". And he stated " In 2013, when anticapitalists and anarchists gathered at Westlake Plaza on May Day". So yeah, it's not that big of a jump to assume that those jumping on cars thought of themselves as anarchists.
38
Hey, Phil M. Thanks for all you do. You're a standout citizen.
39
@19, that sounds pretty reasonable :)
40
@35: It matters because the rules are different for undercover officers and for non-sworn staff. Refusal to identify is allowed by undercover sworn staff in situations that would not be acceptable for non-sworn staff.
41
@36, J2patter wrote, "yep people who jump on cars after games should be arrested to. But the major difference is when this happens the 100's of people around them usually aren't shouting `Fuck the cops' and in the cops faces, so there's usually less need for harsh crowd control."

So it's your position that people attempting property damage when drunkenly celebrating a sportsball event is more acceptable and less deserving of police use of chemical weapons than people engaging in precisely the same activity while expressing dissent. Noted.
42
@41, my position is people doing property damage should all be arrested. But if the crowd is in the cops face screaming obscenities at the cops while the arrest is happen and those people out number cops, then yes pepper spray is a reasonable means to control the crowd to ensure the arrest happens safely. And I've seen this happen in Montreal after coffee games. But I haven't seen it happen here after sports games, the crowd usually gives the cops SOME space.

Scream all you want at the cops, but give them some room while you do it. Cause if you're in the cops face and some dipshit does something to cause arrest, it's reasonable that they use some means to ensure the arrest happens safely.

But Phil, I'm getting the feeling that you're unable to comprehend arguments that aren't your own and try to make everything into a straw man argument (HE DIDN'T SAY HURTTTTTTTT HE SAID BLOODY GASH!! TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!).
43
@40
But above you said:
"Unless it would jeapardize an investigation, hinder police function, or pose a risk to safety, all Seattle Police Department staff, sworn and unsworn, uniformed or not, are required by department policy to identify themselves upon request, in writing if requested."

In this case it could "jeapardize an investigation, hinder police function, or pose a risk to safety"
44
Bah by coffee games I meant hockey games....
45
@41 While both are crimes deserving of arrest, there is a difference between an organized group, openly hostile to the police, engaging in premeditated destruction, and some unorganized drunks carrying on.
46
@45 Exactly! Thanks! :)
47
The three people with whom Ansel and I spoke were:

* Karim L. Miler #5068, a Manager III, as of 2012 (see SPD roster) with the Video Unit
* Sean P. Jordan #7234, who as of 2012 was a Photographic Services Supervisor in the Photo Lab
* Christopher Moblen (my guess on spelling) #7835, who was not employed by SPD in 2012
48
@47: I misunderstood his name. That was Christopher Mobley (not Moblen), who describes himself as a Forensic Sr. Photographer for Seattle Police Department.
49
Miller was the most informative SPD employee I've spoken to on-scene at any demonstration. Mobley didn't say much, but reviewing my video, I see that when I ran into him earlier in the evening, he identified himself immediately, in perfect compliance with department policy, upon request. After poking around a bit, I think he's a good person to have working at our police department. Jordan came across as a cocky asshole.
50
@31 Thank you Phil M for posting that info! Given how quickly the situation escalated, it is honestly hard for me to say the exact order of events. Before they began advancing their line, we spotted the pepper spray being handled and we began calling out warnings to prepare for it. The only warning that I received from SPD was "MOVE BACK" as I was checked with their bikes and pushed back toward the chainlink fence but that does not mean that they did not issue a warning because as I said, it was crazy and hectic.

I just don't understand why they didn't get the clearance required to make their arrest BEFORE they already had the guy up and walking to the paddy wagon.
51
@8 Right on, thanks for the video!

The important thing to notice here is the arrest taking place. I think we can all recognize that this is a period of time which can be dangerous - does the person being arrested have friends in the crowd who will resist? Will the crowd attack to free this person en masse?

At any rate, you will see this routinely in crowd management. When an arrest is made in a crowd situation, one of the first orders of business for the police is to clear the immediate area around the arrest. This is unpleasant, but it does seem likely to be the safest way to handle the situation.
52
I thought all in all it was pretty even handed by the SPD. The pepper spray incident next to the second convertible was unfortunate, but I understand the police wanting to get in their quickly after some people put dents in the blue BMW and broke a headlight a few blocks back.
53
@51

You're welcome, glad to help shed some light on the events of the day.
54
The smashing of windows by protestors on May 1, 2013 is actual reportable, recorded fact, Phil, not some subjective fiction. Ansel's phrasing indicates bias that is not accurate or acceptable.
55
@54: Oops. I mis-re-read that paragraph to describe what reportedly happened this year. Assuming that the 2013 window-breaking was found to have been performed by protesters and not by provocateurs or by people who just got caught up in the action but were not actually protesting anything, I agree with you.
56
@54: A lot of the reporting from last year says things like "windows were broken," but doesn't identify the culprits. In the case of Bills Off Broadway's window, KOMO interviewed an eyewitness who said, "It was three kids that don't have anything to do with this whole thing"--yet it was widely assumed May Day protesters were responsible. I covered May Day last year and didn't see protesters break windows. Provide a link or source to back up your claims and I'll make a correction.
57
Numerous reports claim that protestors smashed windows on May Day, 2013, from the Huffington Post to the Seattle Times and everyone in between. Now, whether those demonstrators/protestors defined themselves as "members" of a march or protest or as outside of those efforts is a straw man argument. Windows were smashed by people involved in marching on Pine Street on that day. That is not up for debate.
58
@57: Events surrounding expression of dissent, particularly dissent of the sort that challenges the authority of police, are often widely reported inaccurately. Numerous reports last year said that protesters were firing explosives at police, but the truth is that police were firing explosives (stun grenades, sparkly spicy crowd-motivator balls, or whatever they want to call them) at protesters, seemingly in an effort to get those protesters to move along faster from downtown and up the street to Capitol Hill.

Can you cite a specific report that indicates windows were broken on May Day 2013 by protesters and not by provocateurs or by people who just got caught up in the action but were not actually protesting anything?

Do you agree that given Ansel's first-hand observations on that day, and given the report by KOMO he references, that it is appropriate to write not that protesters did break windows, but that they reportedly did? We can't even find a specific report of such, it seems. As far as I know, nobody known to have been protesting was found guilty of this crime, or even arrested for it. There must have been dozens of eyewitnesses, many of them police. Where are they?

It's easy to assume that any bad behavior in the vicinity of a demonstration one dislikes was perpetrated by those engaged in the demonstration. That such is the case makes it easy for opposition to, say, break windows, and let misguided community furor shape the policing of future demonstrations.

I think we should refrain from reporting hearsay as fact, and I'm happy to see a reporter doing so, even in the face of what may be widely-believed misinformation.
59
We cannot agree on this, Phil.
60
@22 thanks for posting that. I'll need to start carrying more than the one business card I have in my wallet.
61
@59: I want to make sure I understand. You're unaware of any evidence, observed by you or reported by others, that any of the people who broke windows on May 1, 2013, were involved in the political demonstration happening nearby, right? You just assume that the window-breaking action was part of the demonstration, lump it all together, and insist that reporters state that demonstrators broke windows as if it is a verified fact, right?

There were dozens of private witnesses, the streets were streaming with hundreds of police and non-sworn forensic photographers, all of the police were specifically looking for people who might engage in property damage, camera phones everywhere, private surveillance cameras all over the place, and yet all we have is one witness interviewed by KOMO who said the window-breakers were not apparently part of the group of demonstrators. We have no other witness interviews, no photos, no video, no police reports, no prosecutions, and no convictions, to back the claim that demonstrators broke windows last year---just folklore.
62
@49, I wrote, "After poking around a bit, I think [Christopher Mobley #7835 of Seattle Police Department is] a good person to have working at our police department."

I take that back. This is a different Chris Mobley.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.