Why do cops have to lie all the time?
NYPD RNC Mass-Arrests Challenged
The Associated Press | New York Times | Wednesday 22 March 2006
New York - A civil liberties group accused police Wednesday of lying about the circumstances surrounding the arrests of hundreds of protesters during the Republican National Convention.
In a letter to police and prosecutors, the New York Civil Liberties Union demanded a review of cases brought against protesters arrested on Aug. 31, 2004, at demonstrations near the World Trade Center site and Union Square.
"We are concerned that false police statements may have tainted hundreds of cases of people arrested at the two largest mass arrests during the convention," wrote the group's attorney, Christopher Dunn.
City law officials have said the arrests were justified.
[zombienote: Of course they said that. Why would they ever say anything else?]
The accusations stem from a tense standoff in 2004 between police and the tens of thousands of demonstrators at the GOP convention, where President Bush accepted his party's nomination for a second term.
[zombienote: "Tens of thousands, my ass. Hundreds of thousands. Check the pics below]
While demonstrations were mostly peaceful, sporadic clashes between police and protesters resulted in more than 1,800 arrests, mostly on misdemeanor charges like obstructing governmental administration.
Up to 10,000 officers were deployed at the four-day event - a show of force the civil liberties group called overkill and a threat to free speech. Two pending federal lawsuits claim most of the arrests were illegal.
The group's letter cited sworn statements by officers who said they were told by a supervisor, Deputy Inspector James Essig, that the protesters near Union Square had been warned to stop blocking traffic and disperse before the arrests began. About 400 people ended up in custody, including some rounded up with a mesh net.
During a deposition earlier this month, Essig testified that "at no time did he give an order to disperse nor did anyone else give such an order to disperse," Dunn wrote.
The group contends the contradictory statements are grounds to dismiss cases and discipline police officers.
A spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said prosecutors "have been reviewing these arrests as the situations merit, and of course we'll continue to do that."
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said police acted properly.
[zombienote: Of course he did.Those evil civil liberties groups just have so much money to pay for trial lawyers and file frivolous suits.Unless, of course, it was them getting the jackboot and spy treatment. Then instead of liars, they become liberal whiners.""That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Mr. Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations — many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides — were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains I wonder if they learned anything.... ]
The Associated Press | New York Times | Wednesday 22 March 2006
New York - A civil liberties group accused police Wednesday of lying about the circumstances surrounding the arrests of hundreds of protesters during the Republican National Convention.
In a letter to police and prosecutors, the New York Civil Liberties Union demanded a review of cases brought against protesters arrested on Aug. 31, 2004, at demonstrations near the World Trade Center site and Union Square.
"We are concerned that false police statements may have tainted hundreds of cases of people arrested at the two largest mass arrests during the convention," wrote the group's attorney, Christopher Dunn.
City law officials have said the arrests were justified.
[zombienote: Of course they said that. Why would they ever say anything else?]
The accusations stem from a tense standoff in 2004 between police and the tens of thousands of demonstrators at the GOP convention, where President Bush accepted his party's nomination for a second term.
[zombienote: "Tens of thousands, my ass. Hundreds of thousands. Check the pics below]
While demonstrations were mostly peaceful, sporadic clashes between police and protesters resulted in more than 1,800 arrests, mostly on misdemeanor charges like obstructing governmental administration.
Up to 10,000 officers were deployed at the four-day event - a show of force the civil liberties group called overkill and a threat to free speech. Two pending federal lawsuits claim most of the arrests were illegal.
The group's letter cited sworn statements by officers who said they were told by a supervisor, Deputy Inspector James Essig, that the protesters near Union Square had been warned to stop blocking traffic and disperse before the arrests began. About 400 people ended up in custody, including some rounded up with a mesh net.
During a deposition earlier this month, Essig testified that "at no time did he give an order to disperse nor did anyone else give such an order to disperse," Dunn wrote.
The group contends the contradictory statements are grounds to dismiss cases and discipline police officers.
A spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said prosecutors "have been reviewing these arrests as the situations merit, and of course we'll continue to do that."
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said police acted properly.
[zombienote: Of course he did.Those evil civil liberties groups just have so much money to pay for trial lawyers and file frivolous suits.Unless, of course, it was them getting the jackboot and spy treatment. Then instead of liars, they become liberal whiners.""That's Big Brother watching you," the demonstrator, Walter Liddy, said in a deposition.
Mr. Liddy's complaint about police tactics, while hardly novel from a big-city protester, stands out because of his job: He is a New York City police officer. The rallies he attended were organized in the summer of 2004 by his union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city.
Now the officers, through their union, are suing the city, charging that the police procedures at their demonstrations — many of them routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches and mass bike rides — were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated.
A lawyer for the city said the police union members were treated no differently than hundreds of thousands of people at other gatherings, with public safety and free speech both protected. The department observes all constitutional requirements, the city maintains I wonder if they learned anything.... ]
posted by Doc | 6:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home