By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007, 7:26 pm
Filed under: Society/Culture: Civil Unrest, Human Rights, Videos: Documentary, Society/Culture: Law/Order, Society/Culture: Racism, Videos, Society/Culture: Immigration, US Politics

18 Responses to “LAPD Attacks Peaceful Protesters on International Workers’ Day”

1. This police riot is devastating, especially considering how well the earlier march and demo at City Hall went, and the excellent cooperation of the Police earlier in the year at the Hollywood anti-war demo.

   It’s inexcusable, even if the police where attacked by black flag anarchists at the demonstration. The level of their response was beyond inappropriate. Whoever the CO was should be fired.

   At the Hollywood march and demo, the most visible cops were the bike cops, who did a great job of maintaining order without being intimidating. The riot police were tucked safely out of sight, where their presence wouldn’t be provocative.

   As for our part in this mess, we have got to have better control of the radicals and provocateurs that try to instigate these sorts of things. The police are to blame, but let’s not forget how it started.

   marcos
   05/3/07 at 8:25 am
   
2. 

   To be fair, there was a bunch of knuckleheads who thought it would be a good idea to throw rocks and bottles at the cops. Now I agree with marcos, and probably the rest of LM readers, that this doesn’t excuse the actions of the LAPD. But c’mon, it’s the LAPD! What the hell did you think would happen? These guys are the most hated, hateful, trigger happy, punch drunk police force in America! All they need is an excuse to beat your ass, and they’ll do it! (Albeit, sometimes they don’t need one!) Rocks and Bottles? Those are as good excuses as any.

   Of course, one could also argue that the LAPD attacked even without the rocks and bottles, and that just the fact that they were Latino was enough. One would have a point.

   PapaFigue
   05/3/07 at 9:00 am
   

3. I have no problem with police responding to rock- and bottle-throwers. However, if they did not use discretion so as to not target the whole crowd and not attack the peaceful demonstrators (which, by the accoutn I have seen, seems to be the vast majority), then they acted in a criminal manner. Of course, I’m sure an “investigation” will be launched that will show they “acted appropriately with appropriate force.”

   Chris
   05/3/07 at 10:23 am
   
4. 

   Call me a cowboy, call me a libertarian, but if more RESPONSIBLE people carried firearms on them, I would imagine pigs might think twice before acting like jackasses… not to mention other fuckers who embrace random acts of violence, no matter how noble their causes might be.

   Meanwhile, LAPD is designed for this kind of reaction. It’s what they do. They are the most brutal, racist, nazi, police force in all the land. They were built on corruption. On their badge is a big, huge, cock. Look at it, it’s the Washington Monument. Masonry at its best. The white man has come to roost. Shit, haven’t you seen “L.A. Confidential?” Remember Ruben Salazar?

   To play devil’s advocate, in other countries, police beat the shit out of people all the time. And, in some cases I’d have to agree with such a response. Why crowd up the jail or prison when you can give the fucker a quick beating and he’ll never do it again. BUT!!! And maybe I’ll eat shit on this, but in the U.S.A. I can’t help but see a big difference between a white cop beating up Latinos and an Italian cop beating up other Italians in Italy. Maybe it’s me… I dunno.

   But I can’t help but feel a difference in the energy here, shown in these videos, comes from something deeper, uglier than bottles being thrown…

   yazo
   05/3/07 at 11:21 am
   
5. 

   The argument here really isn’t who started what. I used a story by the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition as my source because I trust their account of the incident more than that of the LAPD. They say the police instigated the violence. I’ve been to many marches and I really don’t see a small group of people actively attacking police without provocation. I can see how an incident would start with protesters defacing property or having words with police, but attacking them outright? C’mon.

   However, let’s assume for the sake of conversation that protesters did attack first. That is still no excuse for what happened. Sure, it’s the LAPD and we’ve come to expect this kind of overreaction from them, but isn’t that part of the problem? Much like the failings of the Bush administration, we’re so accustomed to hearing about scandals that we’re no longer outraged when another one surfaces. We can’t afford to allow this to occur any longer. From my experience, I believe police officers fall into one of three categories: those who genuinely want to help their community, those who have a complex where they need to be in a position of authority, and those who simply want to beat the shit out of people. Judging from this situation and quote from the newscaster (”double time, it’s tussle time”), it seems the LAPD is comprised primarily of officers who actually enjoy beating people.

   What the police have done is deter hundreds, if not thousands of people from marching for workers rights again. A little scandal is a small price to pay for their backers who want to keep the immigrant population in check. They’ve succeeded in doing that if we cower and place the blame on the victims.

   Manila Ryce
   05/3/07 at 1:07 pm
   

6. “The argument here really isn’t who started what. I used a story by the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition as my source because I trust their account of the incident more than that of the LAPD.”

   Are you kidding? ANSWER has an ongoing feud with LAPD — they are NOT a legitimate primary source.

   Last night on KPFK, before the rhetoric started building higher and higher castles of propaganda and hysteria, several interesting points were elicited.

   • One interview was with a person struck by a baton at 7th & Alvarado — before the scheduled/permitted event took place. He said “and no one was throwing anything any more!” He was pissed he got hit even though the crowd was no longer attacking the police.

   • Both interviewees claimed that the attacking force was SWAT. If that’s true, that suggests that SWAT was deployed for an officer down situation (or that rightwing elements in LAPD, the Gov’s office, or the Shitehouse, took advantage of the officer attack). SWAT of course receives a lot of anti-terrorism funding/training, so if they were involved, that is the difference between downtown and MacArthur park rallies.

   The fact that LAPD did not attack the downtown march, which was FAR larger, and the fact that the MacArthur Park event organizer on Democracy Now! yesterday, Angelica Salas, said “what I saw, instead of isolating a problem group, they (LAPD) pushed them into the crowd.”

   So there was a problem group. The KPFK interviewee at 7th & Alvarado (at a corner of the park) said that an officer on a motorcycle hit a woman with her (?) (three-wheeled) motorcycle, and someone in the crowd knocked the officer down.

   IF that occured, and if the people at that corner also threw stuff at the officer — as is attested by the KPFK interviews (certainly not on the LAPD side) — then the deployment (?) of SWAT may have been an unfortunate result of those actions against an LAPD officer.

   So, tone down the rhetoric, because the facts are not all in. IF LAPD at large was attacking the entire rights movement, then they missed their big opportunity downtown. IF an officer was attacked and knocked off their motorcycle — that’s cause enough to change LAPD from doing crowd security to dispersing the crowd.

   Final note: a lot of innocent people are in the park every day, and the LAPD did not use Spanish (as well as English) to order the crowd to disperse. That certainly added to the confusion, and may suggest a rightwing element as well.

   Paul in LA
   05/3/07 at 2:23 pm
   
7. 

   @Paul in LA
   Thanks for responding. As stated, I really don’t see much point in arguing who started what (which seems to be the major point of contention now). Yes, I imagine there was a “problem group” amongst a rally of thousands. Whether this group was reactionary to police action or instigating the conflict is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I’d also like to point out that all either of us have are eyewitness accounts, whether they be from ANSWER, Democracy Now!, or KPFK. Not to mention that the main quote in the source was from Ernesto Arce, who is both an ANSWER organizer and KPFK radio host.

   However, like I said, I don’t find that argument as interesting since it’s merely one interviewee account vs. another. What’s more interesting to me is your suggestion that this incident does not have repercussions which go any further than MacArthur Park. I stated that this was an attack on the immigrant rights movement as a whole because it has instilled fear into those who would protest again. Don’t you anticipate that people will think twice before they partake in another rally? My interest is in the psychological message behind this excessive use of force, and what effects it will have on activists throughout the nation if nothing is done.

   Manila Ryce
   05/3/07 at 2:50 pm
   

8. “Yes, I imagine there was a “problem group” amongst a rally of thousands.”

   No, the contention is that this problem group was not the rally proper (which had not begun before the incident at 7th & Alvarado).

   Ernesto Arce from Pacifica Radio (on Dem Now! today) has stated that SWAT was deployed. He is from ANSWER, but video does suggest SWAT was deployed.

   “Whether this group was reactionary to police action or instigating the conflict is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.”

   If you blame LAPD for that instigation, then your claim that it is moot is disproved.

   “I’d also like to point out that all either of us have are eyewitness accounts,”

   Of course, which is why it is wrong to simply assume that LAPD was attacking the Latino rights movement (or whatever you want to call it), as opposed to SWAT responding to an officer down situation.

   “What’s more interesting to me is your suggestion that this incident does not have repercussions which go any further than MacArthur Park.”

   Of course it does. My entire point is with the demonization of the entire LAPD, the assertion that it was a planned action against the entire movement, and the propagandizing of leftist news sources.

   “I stated that this was an attack on the immigrant rights movement as a whole because it has instilled fear into those who would protest again.”

   That is entirely irresponsible.

   “Don’t you anticipate that people will think twice before they partake in another rally?”

   Of course not. We’ve been rallying and protesting actively for seven years now. There have been HUNDREDS of safe and peaceful rallies, marches, vigils, and actions.

   • As a general rule, you do NOT want to give LAPD an excuse to deploy SWAT.

   “My interest is in the psychological message behind this excessive use of force,”

   Messages as conceived and perceived, as spun and exaggerated, versus the actual facts?

   “what effects it will have on activists throughout the nation if nothing is done.”

   Done about what? The issue is whether you intend to be a reporter or a propagandist. We have enough problems without demonizing the LAPD. Ten people were injured, seven of them journalists who were trying to move toward the incident area to report. Once SWAT was deployed, the area was being cleared, and even reporters are not respected in such orders. ONLY THREE PERSONS who were not reporters were injured, and we know from KPFK last night that two of those were young men, one of whom was involved in the melee at 7th & Alvarado that triggered the incident (he was hit in the ribs with a nightstick).

   Those are minor injuries, and the sweep is ugly, but those of us who have seen sweeps before know that the REAL issue is evacuating people so they don’t get trampled — something which this VERY POORLY ORGANIZED event appears to have utterly failed to do.

   Paul in LA
   05/3/07 at 4:21 pm
   
9. 

   @Paul in LA

   “No, the contention is that this problem group was not the rally proper”

   I don’t think anyone has argued otherwise. Nowhere have I argued that the problem was with the main group.

   “If you blame LAPD for that instigation, then your claim that it is moot is disproved.”

   Only if my point rests on them being the instigators, which it doesn’t. It is a minor detail aside from my argument, and hardly disproved otherwise. I might also bring up the fact that you’ve dismissed ANSWER as an illegitimate source for having an “ongoing feud with LAPD”, yet quote Arce from ANSWER when it suits your own argument.

   “…it is wrong to simply assume that LAPD was attacking the Latino rights movement, as opposed to SWAT responding to an officer down situation.”

   Actually, I called it an immigrant rights movement and a working class protest. Also, my “assumptions” come from a variety of sources in the mainstream media and videos above which claim the LAPD was used to break up the crowd, not respond to an officer down situation. That assumption is yours. Even if it were true, my argument still stands. I don’t know why you continue to argue details which have nothing to do with the overall situation of excessive force.

   “My entire point is with the demonization of the entire LAPD, the assertion that it was a planned action against the entire movement, and the propagandizing of leftist news sources.”

   Speaking of irresponsible accusations, where have I stated at all that this was a “planned action” or that the entire LAPD was responsible? I said the chief must be held accountable and “that those officers responsible be brought to justice”. Your argument that I’m demonizing the entire LAPD by reporting this story is tantamount to saying I don’t support the troops if I report on a soldier raping an Iraqi girl.

   “We’ve been rallying and protesting actively for seven years now. There have been HUNDREDS of safe and peaceful rallies, marches, vigils, and actions.”

   Yes, and how many of them ended like this? Do you honestly believe that if this occurred after every rally that just as many people would continue to show up for the next one? It’s a rather well known fact that arrests and police brutality have been used throughout history to deter protesters and strikers. What do the intentions of the officers matter if the result is the same? Judging from history, I’m asserting that the continuation of such actions by law enforcement against a public exercising its First Amendment freedoms will have negative consequences for our democratic society as a whole.

   “Messages as conceived and perceived, as spun and exaggerated, versus the actual facts?”

   And what exactly are those facts? I’ve posted 3 videos so people could see what happened for themselves. There’s no question that the use of force was excessive, or that similar incidents have happened in the past, and will continue to happen if we let them. Your “facts” are merely your own interpretation of the situation, hardly based on any actual evidence. Simply put, the actions of these officers (be they LAPD, SWAT, the military, etc) are inexcusable, and should not be tolerated in a society which is supposedly for the people, and by the people. Do you deny that this was a case of police brutality? Or do your “facts” contradict the videos?

   “As a general rule, you do NOT want to give LAPD an excuse to deploy SWAT.”

   You’ve said that my claim about the police instilling fear into protesters is irresponsible, yet state yourself that we should be afraid of the LAPD deploying SWAT. So we should be afraid, but it’s irresponsible of me to point out that this fear can cripple the movement? Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Which side do you think came out fearful after the demonstration? Overall, your argument that subjection to authority be given prominence over individual freedoms is an argument for authoritarianism.

   Manila Ryce
   05/3/07 at 6:46 pm
   
10. 

    @Paul in LA
    I’ve just added another video to the post of an interview with Ernesto Arce. He says SWAT was deployed alongside regular LAPD officers, but states that the “original skirmish” occurred when pre-Columbian Mexican dancers were pushed onto the ground for not being able to move out of the area fast enough. There’s no mention that a downed police officer was the start of this, as you’ve claimed.

    Manila Ryce
    05/4/07 at 12:28 am
    

11. The report on KPFK from the eyewitness/injury case was that a motorcycle officer was trying to force people off the street, and bumped a woman. Someone in the crowd then pushed the vehicle/bike over. Then the crowd reportedly threw various objects at the cop.

    Whether this was because of hitting the woman, or because of some generalized anger, this incident gave the LAPD or factions in the LAPD the excuse they needed to deploy SWAT.

    Since the LAPD is not composed of angels, it is a big mistake to give SWAT the go ahead. Part of that resulted from this event. The rest may have been induced by factions, by individuals in power, by Gov. Swarztika, or Bushco, but it doesn’t yet appear that Chief Bratton has done anything wrong. Yet Latino activists on KPFK are now calling for Bratton to resign.

    Apparently it doesn’t occur to them that the fascist Governor’s cabal within these agencies might choose someone even worse (if that is your assessment).

    Me, I give Chief Bratton considerable credit for the many hundreds of protests we have had against the war, without significant incident. In that context, I believe that Chief Bratton may be the thin blue line against all the federal terrorism/police state mania. UNLESS activists have a lot more bona fide evidence of malfeasance, they should not be calling for his resignation. All that accomplishes is the goal of the factions behind the deployment of SWAT — to create polarization, which serves an ICE agenda, but not one that has been evidently linked to Chief Bratton personally.

    Wrongly attacking the Chief will alienate some of the LAPD officers, and make conditions worse.

    Finally, I have marched at the back plenty of times, and there are particular LAPD cops who bump or harrass the people at the back. I have spent a fair amount of time PREVENTING those individuals from doing that. I would, however, NEVER push an officer, or touch an officer, because doing so opens the floodgates. Part of the job is to protect the people by a NONVIOLENT, non-inciting relationship to the police.

    Paul in LA
    05/4/07 at 3:48 am
    

12. “No, the contention is that this problem group was not the rally proper”

    “I don’t think anyone has argued otherwise. Nowhere have I argued that the problem was with the main group.”

    I am of the impression that an incident at the end of the march gave SWAT the excuse. Ignoring that incident in the reporting leaves the impression that no such trigger event can be said to have occured. The guy who was hit by baton at 7th & Alvarado said on KPFK, with his lawyer on the line, gave these details, and FOR SURE the LAPD will defend itself with that event, if it occured.

    “I might also bring up the fact that you’ve dismissed ANSWER as an illegitimate source for having an “ongoing feud with LAPD”, yet quote Arce from ANSWER when it suits your own argument.”

    I quote this reporter when he gives evidence that SWAT was deployed. News reports have said that this is come new incident squad, not SWAT, and that’s entirely possible. That raises the suspicion of state and federal incitement in this issue.

    “…it is wrong to simply assume that LAPD was attacking the Latino rights movement, as opposed to SWAT responding to an officer down situation.”

    “Actually, I called it an immigrant rights movement and a working class protest.”

    The only reason I say ‘Latino rights’ is because I don’t consider it an ‘immigration’ issue but a MIGRATION issue, as in the long cultural history of seasonal migration to work, and a criminalization of poverty issue.

    “Also, my “assumptions” come from a variety of sources in the mainstream media and videos above which claim the LAPD was used to break up the crowd, not respond to an officer down situation. That assumption is yours.”

    Indeed, but you perform the fallacy of presuming you know why this incident occured, but you don’t observe the trigger. I am not saying that LAPD of whatever stripe should have cleared the park. I totally oppose that excesssive action in response to a minor event like an assault on an officer (who may themselves have been commiting assault under color of authority, something that a VIDEOTAPE would have been a far better response to).

    “Even if it were true, my argument still stands. I don’t know why you continue to argue details which have nothing to do with the overall situation of excessive force.”

    You have speculated about the motivation and focus of numerous parties as a singular conspiracy. I’d say that the burden of proof for that generalization by you is still unmet.

    For instance, that same event could have left twenty people dead. Instead, seven journalists and three civilians had minor injuries. The trauma to the innocent, the evident racism of the orders — on this we already agree. I tend to believe this is the result of an inciting incident, and this new squad’s commander, who may in fact have been forced on Chief Bratton — I have no information on that either way.

    “Speaking of irresponsible accusations, where have I stated at all that this was a “planned action” or that the entire LAPD was responsible? I said the chief must be held accountable and “that those officers responsible be brought to justice”.

    The Chief may not be the accountable person. You may be scapegoating a local official with a track record of NOT causing police riots at last year’s Mayday marches, and NOT attacking in any gross way all the various 100s of protests during his tenure.

    “We’ve been rallying and protesting actively for seven years now. There have been HUNDREDS of safe and peaceful rallies, marches, vigils, and actions.”

    “Yes, and how many of them ended like this?”

    Your point is to the chilling effect, and I agree. It’s not good for the city, its people, or its police. But blaming the Chief before there is an investigation, or taking a monolithic view that was reported out as if it was actually evidenced instead of supposed — that is why I ended up here, and why I am remonstrating with you.

    “Do you honestly believe that if this occurred after every rally that just as many people would continue to show up for the next one?”

    I don’t believe protest is a matter of rolling every innocent and elderly person in the city out into the streets where the triggerhappy LAPD can scalp them IN THE FIRST PLACE. I don’t believe big marches are better than small marches that make the same point. The ‘plebicite’ view behind trying to pack some part of the city with people is a perilous form of magical thinking. Better organized marches don’t allow the LAPD to overreact. There is an interface.

    When I marched in the mostly- ANSWER march in SF a few months ago, I spoke with an ANSWER organizer who told me that the SFPD has also not been a particular problem during their marches.

    How many monitors were at the back of the march? How is it possible that a major march can have a police incident at the back, and there aren’t monitors there to interface?

    “It’s a rather well known fact that arrests and police brutality have been used throughout history to deter protesters and strikers.”

    Is that the generality? Some reference to the existence of excessive police authority? I ran from the LAPD forty years ago — I am not pretending that they haven’t committed many wrongs, over time. But you also cannot pretend that Chief Bratton is Darryl Gates just by saying so.

    “What do the intentions of the officers matter if the result is the same? Judging from history, I’m asserting that the continuation of such actions by law enforcement against a public exercising its First Amendment freedoms will have negative consequences for our democratic society as a whole.”

    Right now we are dealing with LAPD and some new squad. If you push hard enough on moderate elements with your demonization approach, your argument may be made with Blackwater instead. A more measured approach is needed.

    “Do you deny that this was a case of police brutality? Or do your “facts” contradict the videos?”

    Obviously the clearing of the park was completely unacceptable from any real police purpose. Beyond that, it bears noting the many such events where such instigators have not been able to start a disaster.

    “You’ve said that my claim about the police instilling fear into protesters is irresponsible,”

    No, I said that your suggestion that the LAPD en block was attacking the immigrant rights movement in its entirety by this event is irresponsible because your evidence is circumstantial, the injuries were minor, and the downtown march had no comparable event.

    What would it take to trigger this off? One overly emotional person whose mom was knocked down by a single officer. A few months back someone threw a cigarette from a parking lot and burned down four $8 million beachfront mansions. A spark can ignite something THAT DID NOT NEED TO HAPPEN.

    And the best evidence of that is that it does not happen as a rule, and did not happen elsewhere on the same day (and at a larger march).

    “yet state yourself that we should be afraid of the LAPD deploying SWAT. So we should be afraid, but it’s irresponsible of me to point out that this fear can cripple the movement?”

    That claim is not the one in the title.

    “Overall, your argument that subjection to authority be given prominence over individual freedoms is an argument for authoritarianism.” –Manila Ryce

    On the contrary, my argument is that the rightwing police factions need to create incidents to feed the further violence that will justify further repression. The radicalized rhetoric is going to get more people hurt, and it would be better to avoid that.

    Paul in LA
    05/4/07 at 4:27 am
    

13. “For instance, that same event could have left twenty people dead. Instead, seven journalists and three civilians had minor injuries.”

    Comparatively minor, the worst was a broken collarbone, which I’m sure will be worth a few million in the inevitable court cases.

    And, when I wrote that at the back I prevent the cops from hitting people, that wasn’t meant as bravado. I think the march in general has to buffer these dancers, and not leave them at the end of the group taking crap from hotshot LAPD.

    Paul in LA
    05/4/07 at 4:40 am
    
14. 

    @Paul in LA

    “I am of the impression that an incident at the end of the march gave SWAT the excuse. Ignoring that incident in the reporting leaves the impression that no such trigger event can be said to have occurred.”

    Nothing was ignored in the reporting. You’re the only person I’ve heard state that such an event even occurred or was the trigger. Arce and ANSWER say the police started the conflict, others state it was anarchists. I’d like to remain on topic.

    “Indeed, but you perform the fallacy of presuming you know why this incident occurred, but you don’t observe the trigger”

    Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

    “You have speculated about the motivation and focus of numerous parties as a singular conspiracy.”

    Conspiracy? I’ve stated that some officers simply like to beat the shit out of people. Hardly a conspiracy. If you’re once again referring to my statement that “the LAPD attacked the immigrants rights movement as a whole” then you’ve completely crafted my point into a dismissible charge. The evidence supporting my claim is not in the intentions of the police, but in the negative consequences to the movement which I’ve already discussed.

    “For instance, that same event could have left twenty people dead. Instead, seven journalists and three civilians had minor injuries.”

    Do we hand out cookies to thieves and rapists because they’re not murderers? No matter how you spin it, these officers did not exercise restraint. By the way, a minimum of 10 were sent to the hospital. I’m also sure not everyone pushed to the ground, or hit by a rubber bullet, or baton sought medical attention. The streets were littered with rubber bullets.

    “You may be scapegoating a local official with a track record of NOT causing police riots at last year’s Mayday marches, and NOT attacking in any gross way all the various 100s of protests during his tenure.”

    If I ever get arrested, I’ll be sure to tell the officer that I should get off with a warning due to all the times I’ve actually obeyed the law.

    “…it doesn’t yet appear that Chief Bratton has done anything wrong. Yet Latino activists on KPFK are now calling for Bratton to resign.”

    And why shouldn’t they demand change? Many of the working class people at the event work for dirt cheap wages with few rights, and when they demand better treatment they’re shot at and beaten. Is it not bad enough that they are slaves, but that they must also be physically abused when celebrating International Workers Day in a park with their family? Chief Bratton is responsible for the actions of his police force, and his relaxing of hiring standards was most likely a factor here. This is not a job where you’re allowed many fuck-ups. The LAPD is a group of lethally-armed individuals with a history of attacking minorities. If Bratton was unaware that his officers were engaging in this action (and I don’t see how he could be), or was unable to control them then he’s an incompetent chief at best. If a police chief is unable to control his force then that raises a whole new host of reasons for him to resign.

    “Is that the generality? Some reference to the existence of excessive police authority?”

    As I stated, police brutality used to deter protesters and strikers is a historical fact, especially between the 1800-1900s in America. The work of labor activists and the working class in general was continually undermined by police brutality. Luckily today, the bullets are rubber.

    “But you also cannot pretend that Chief Bratton is Darryl Gates just by saying so.”

    I’ve never said so. I don’t know who you’re replying to half the time since you’re often arguing against things I’ve never claimed.

    “No, I said that your suggestion that the LAPD en block was attacking the immigrant rights movement in its entirety by this event is irresponsible because your evidence is circumstantial, the injuries were minor, and the downtown march had no comparable event.”

    Why exactly does it matter if the incident occurred in the park or amongst the larger crowd? It doesn’t need to be a literal attack on every immigrant in the country to be an attack on the movement as a whole. This is what is called a metaphor. I was applying the physical attack on the protesters at MacArthur Park to an attack on the entire movement of people who share their same position. Likewise, I remember when the ban on partial birth abortions was upheld, that people were saying it was an attack on a woman’s right to choose despite the fact that only 1 percent of abortions are performed that way. To paraphrase MLK, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

    “I believe that Chief Bratton may be the thin blue line against all the federal terrorism/police state mania. UNLESS activists have a lot more bona fide evidence of malfeasance, they should not be calling for his resignation.”

    What we saw on Tuesday WAS the work of a police state. This IS terrorism by definition. Bratton is responsible for the actions of his men, and has proven ineffective at doing what you claim he’s done best. As with the Cardenas video tape, the chief seems more concerned with damage control than justice. He’s finally admitted he is “disturbed” by the incident, but it may be too little too late.

    “Wrongly attacking the Chief will alienate some of the LAPD officers, and make conditions worse.”

    You’re worried about alienating officers? What about the millions of immigrants and working class people who are already alienated? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about polarizing them with this attack? In a police state, law enforcement is not held accountable. Do we choose to upset officers by enforcing the law against them, or do we alienate millions by allowing the police to beat up on working class people with no repercussions? Sorry, but I have little sympathy for the officers who may finally have to deal with the consequences of treating people like dogs. The problem is with the police, not the people.

    Manila Ryce
    05/4/07 at 6:09 am
    

15. “Nothing was ignored in the reporting. You’re the only person I’ve heard state that such an event even occurred or was the trigger. Arce and ANSWER say the police started the conflict, others state it was anarchists. I’d like to remain on topic.”

    You ARE in fact ignoring the timeline, because the ‘anarchist’ (or whomever) who knocked down the police motorcycle and then the pelting of that downed officer by the crowd, or some similar events ARE the report from the eyewitnesses broadcast by KPFK (with their lawyer on at the same time).

    Then there was nearly an hour delay, as LAPD prepared this new squad (?) of their for deployment. And then they swept out the park. To the people in the park, the event had no continuity with events on the street (at the end of the march). So they generally ignored or did not understand the police orders, and did not move, and instead demanded to know why the police were doing that. All of which is quite understandable, but you have detached it from its legal cause, in order to simply define it as unprovoked.

    It WAS provoked, in the street, an hour before.

    “You have speculated about the motivation and focus of numerous parties as a singular conspiracy.”

    “Conspiracy? I’ve stated that some officers simply like to beat the shit out of people.”

    Officers liking to kick shit are individuals who are breaking the law– not some grand LAPD strategy against the immigrant rights movement.

    “The evidence supporting my claim is not in the intentions of the police, but in the negative consequences to the movement which I’ve already discussed.”

    We both agree that the effect is negative. I see you ignoring the faction that set off this repression. You ignore the stimulating cause of the fire. You don’t have any blame for the anarchists or punks who set off the LAPD riot.

    I think it is very highly likely that this new terrorism squad isn’t entirely under Bratton’s control. But HE is the civilian commander, and given the known fascist nature of the governor, and the known fascist Shitehouse, he may not be to blame for the behavior of this squad once they had the go ahead — which may not or probably was not ordered by the Chief. In any case, he immediately declares that he observed illegal activity on the videotape. Clearly that’s so. So the focus of anger at the Chief may be myopic.

    “Do we hand out cookies to thieves and rapists because they’re not murderers? No matter how you spin it, these officers did not exercise restraint.”

    Clearly their intention was illegal on many counts. But who is pulling the strings on that squad? And is the Chief to blame for what may be a MOUNTAIN of executive orders from guess who about the ‘war on terrorism.’

    I say that the HUNDREDS of safe and legal demonstrations, including the huge one downtown last year, is evidence that Chief Bratton is not the origin of this hostility.

    “By the way, a minimum of 10 were sent to the hospital.”

    Of course. Many others were beaten and went home. Clearly. The whole event was illegal. All I am arguing with is your thesis that this was ‘LAPD’ (the Chief’s) attacking the immigrant rights movement. More likely, this was the governor/chief executive faction overriding the otherwise markedly peaceful accomplishments of Chief Bratton, for years.

    “…it doesn’t yet appear that Chief Bratton has done anything wrong. Yet Latino activists on KPFK are now calling for Bratton to resign.”

    “And why shouldn’t they demand change?”

    They certainly can. They may also be shooting themselves in the foot.

    Chief Bratton is responsible for the actions of his police force,”

    In times of peace, when the chief executive isn’t a criminal and the governor has been elected. WHO runs this special squad? Given that Bratton immediately repudiated the excessive force, what makes you think he approved of such a display of naked aggression? He clearly did not.

    “The LAPD is a group of lethally-armed individuals with a history of attacking minorities.”

    Which describes every police force in the history of the world. This is NOT Darryl Gates’ LAPD. I have lived in LA for a ton of time, and I’ve protested actively on the streets for over 500 hours since 200. And the LAPD I see doesn’t want to get involved. At marches the bike cops and the NORMAL crowd control officers are sometimes assholes, but they aren’t a snarling mob. There IS evidence of an earlier assault on a cop, and that may have been all the trigger they needed. They may even have tried to create such an incident. But I don’t see enough evidence that the Chief was complicit in such a conspiracy, or that ‘LAPD’ was attacking the entire movement.

    “If Bratton was unaware that his officers were engaging in this action (and I don’t see how he could be), or was unable to control them then he’s an incompetent chief at best.”

    He may not be sufficiently empowered because of –ahem– things out of his control. Blaming a city chief for not being able to override the govenor’s secret orders or the president’s secret orders or any other delegated authority is blaming the guy trying to hold the line against their greater weight. He may be on YOUR side of that line more than you think.

    “If a police chief is unable to control his force then that raises a whole new host of reasons for him to resign.”

    The chief resigns, and you get instead some asshole from the governor’s faction. And you’ve made your situation WORSE.

    “Why exactly does it matter if the incident occurred in the park or amongst the larger crowd? It doesn’t need to be a literal attack on every immigrant in the country to be an attack on the movement as a whole. This is what is called a metaphor.”

    You were being metaphorical? I think you’re monolithically objecting with the feigned perspective of innocence about the complexities with which we deal. When peacefully protesting, it is VERY important not to flip police officers off their bikes and pelt them with trash!

    “I believe that Chief Bratton may be the thin blue line against all the federal terrorism/police state mania. UNLESS activists have a lot more bona fide evidence of malfeasance, they should not be calling for his resignation.”

    What we saw on Tuesday WAS the work of a police state.”

    No, what is meant by ‘police state’ was that you DO NOT get courts to win millions in recompense, where you DO NOT get a Chief who immediately institutes an investigation, where you DO NOT get to videotape the proceedings, and where you DO NOT get to talk about it on an Internet. We are a LONG way from the fruition of a police state, but factions of the fascist illegal gov’t are definitely pushing the boundaries as fast as they can.

    “Wrongly attacking the Chief will alienate some of the LAPD officers, and make conditions worse.”

    You’re worried about alienating officers? What about the millions of immigrants and working class people who are already alienated?”

    We need to de-alienate both groups, not just the one. How many LAPD ARE PERSONALLY OFFENDED by what that squad did. What level of NEGOTIATION can we have with the local agency. What laws can we pass at the local level to protect those people from overreaching state and federal pogroms on them? Instead, the monolith, the rhetoric of which INCITES acts of violence like the one that triggered this fiasco.

    Paul in LA
    05/5/07 at 1:09 am
    
16. 

    @Paul in LA
    “You ARE in fact ignoring the timeline, because the ‘anarchist’ (or whomever) who knocked down the police motorcycle and then the pelting of that downed officer by the crowd, or some similar events ARE the report from the eyewitnesses broadcast by KPFK (with their lawyer on at the same time).”

    I grow weary of traveling back to this “who started it” argument with you. The interview you keep referencing about a motorcycle being knocked down was not included because I didn’t and still don’t have knowledge of it. It was hardly ignored to serve some agenda you recklessly accuse me of having. The written source I used from ANSWER and interview with Arce do in fact differ from the posted Fox televised report which say it was “a group of young guys” who were “provoking the police”. These are two different perspectives on what the trigger was. I included both in the post. You’re welcome to post a link to a third source since you’re so confident that the other two accounts are wrong.

    “Officers liking to kick shit are individuals who are breaking the law– not some grand LAPD strategy against the immigrant rights movement.”

    Do you ever get tired of making strawmen?

    “You don’t have any blame for the anarchists or punks who set off the LAPD riot.”

    Are you for real? If someone attacks an officer they are to be arrested. If an “LAPD riot” occurs, whose fault is it other than the LAPD for enacting collective punishment? Anyone who attacks an officer is responsible for their own actions, just as the LAPD is completely responsible for their overreaction. You might as well blame a woman for provoking rape because she wasn’t covered up.

    “I think it is very highly likely that this new terrorism squad isn’t entirely under Bratton’s control. But HE is the civilian commander, and given the known fascist nature of the governor, and the known fascist Shitehouse, he may not be to blame for the behavior of this squad once they had the go ahead — which may not or probably was not ordered by the Chief.”

    There are an awful lot of maybes in your reasoning to absolve the chief of responsibility.

    “And is the Chief to blame for what may be a MOUNTAIN of executive orders from guess who about the ‘war on terrorism.’”

    Now who’s being irresponsible in throwing around baseless accusations and conspiracy theories? Anything else you’d like to blame Bush for? Maybe he was the one who knocked down that motorcycle.

    “All I am arguing with is your thesis that this was ‘LAPD’ (the Chief’s) attacking the immigrant rights movement.”

    Well then you’ve been arguing for nothing. You frame my argument as a sinister “grand LAPD strategy” against immigrants. Replace “LAPD” with “Bush” and you seem to have your own thesis. However, that was never the spirit of my argument in the first place. I stated that the movement was attacked as a whole regardless of the intentions of officers or lack thereof. That’s pretty self-evident seeing as how such events are also psychologically damaging in nature. I’m not one for grand collective conspiracies which extend beyond self-interest. Is it possible that higher powers ordering this attack have an agenda against the movement? Yes, but I’ve never stated that the agenda was that of the LAPD, whom I consider working class pawns with guns. The conspiracy element is something you’ve thrown on top of my original statement (which merely says that the movement has been damaged by this attack). Strawman, or genuine incomprehension?

    “Blaming a city chief for not being able to override the govenor’s secret orders or the president’s secret orders or any other delegated authority is blaming the guy trying to hold the line against their greater weight.”

    Until you have evidence that the governor and president were involved in this decision, I’m going to keep the blame in its logical place with the police chief.

    Manila Ryce
    05/5/07 at 1:56 am
    

17. 2001 - 2007: LAPD’s Reign of Terror Unchecked

    Ending LAPD’s Reign of Brutality & Terror : Remove LA Prosecutor Steve Cooley & Fire Bratton

    Los Angeles, May 4, 2007 — The brutal rampage by LAPD in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was culmination of a 6-year old secret but intricate policy by the Bush administration and local forces of the extreme right in reversing attempts to reform LAPD after Rodney King Beating and Rampart Corruption Scandal.

    In early 1999, the US Department of Justice under then-US Attorney General Janet Reno began an aggressive plan to impose reform upon LAPD. By the time the LAPD’s Rampart Corruption Scandal became public in 1998, the Clinton Administration had learned that previous attempts to reform one of the largest police departments in the World had largely failed.

    In June 1999, rumors began to circulate within the ranks of the LAPD and its powerful union (Police Protective League - PPL) that President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno were about to implement drastic anti-corruption measures against LAPD. At the time, the LAPD and PPL complained that these acts represented the federal government’s attempt to “violate the LAPD’s 10th amendment rights” and interfere in LAPD’s “internal affairs.” These rumors, however, were not baseless. During 1999, Ms. Reno’s Assistant US Attorneys in Washington, D.C. were busy drafting a historical federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD in which the Clinton administration was charging LAPD with “endemic corruption and systematic violation of constitutional rights of residents of Los Angeles.” Additionally, at US DOJ headquarters at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C., serious discussions were taking place about using the federal funding of the LAPD as a leverage in imposing anti-corruption reform upon LAPD.

    Sensing the warnings of the incoming tsunami from Washington in their direction, the LAPD and its PPL began to brace for a defensive position by attempting to secure the local front. Securing their local front meant getting rid of Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles County District Attorney (DA) who in the post-Rampart LA politics had begun criminal investigation and prosecution of a large number of LAPD officers for corruption and other crimes. Garcetti’s public statements at the time, such as, “I can’t tell you whether we will wind up with three, four or five dirty cops or 25 or more,” were making LAPD and PPL extremely frightened. In a desperate attempt to shield corrupt LAPD officers from Garcetti, LAPD and PPL funded and fielded Republican Steven Lawrence Cooley, an LAPD Reserve Officer, as their own candidate to run against Garcetti for the LA DA position. Public court records from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco show that at the same time the PPL-sponsored Cooley was campaigning to unseat Garcetti, PPL, through its high-powered lawyers, was filing multiple motions and appeals against Attorney General Janet Reno’s attempts to impose a federally mandated reform program upon LAPD. The above multiple attempts by PPL to prevent the Clinton administration from initiating its anti-corruption program proved to be legally frivolous since the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied all of them.

    In September 1999, the Republican Cooley began his PPL-funded campaign to unseat DA Garcetti. PPL was against Garcetti’s criminal prosecution of LAPD officers. In his 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti, Cooley received more than $1 million from PPL while publicly speaking against LAPD’s Rampart Corruption Scandal and criticizing Garcetti for not being forceful and efficient enough in his criminal prosecution of the corrupt officers. Of course, Cooley was engaging in blatant public deception since he knew that he had received the $1 million from PPL to unseat Garcetti and thus shield the corrupt LAPD officers from any further criminal prosecution. History would show that Cooley’s 1999-2000 campaign against Garcetti for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office was one of the biggest frauds brought against the voters of Los Angeles since at the same time PPL was waging federal court battles against President Clinton’s attempts to fight corruption in LAPD, PPL was paying for Cooley’s campaign and commercials which depicted Garcetti as not forceful enough in fighting the LAPD’s corruption.

    On the federal level, significant developments were taking place. Attorney General Reno was putting her final touches on the draft of the federal civil rights lawsuit against LAPD. About three weeks before the document was filed in the federal court, on October 11, 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush made the following statement in his televised debate with Al Gore in North Carolina: “One of my concerns, though, is I don’t want to federalize the local police forces. I want to — obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don’t there needs to be a consequence at the federal level.” Bush, however, knew well that according to the Christopher Commission’s Report, the LAPD’s “Internal Affairs” was a source of corruption in itself.

    On November 2, 2000, Attorney General Janet Reno filed her historical anti-corruption lawsuit against LAPD in federal court in Los Angeles. LAPD was charged with systemic violations of civil rights, including, “having established a pattern of violating the people’s constitutional rights and arresting residents of Los Angeles without probable cause.” SEE page 2 of the Complaint at: http://www.freemarje.com/US%20Fed%20Lawsuit%20v%20LAPD%2011-03-00.pdf

    Nevertheless, two significant historical events followed which reversed the course of anti-corruption attempts at LAPD for the following six years. In fact, these two historical events resulted in emboldening, empowering, and expanding the forces of corruption within the ranks of the LAPD on a gigantic and unprecedented scale. On November 7, 2000, Reserve LAPD Officer Cooley (Republican), with substantial backing from PPL, defeated Gil Garcetti. On December 12, 2000, George Bush was declared as the new President of the United States. On January 1, 2001, Cooley took office as the new District Attorney of Los Angeles. According to the recorded statement of one of the senior Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles, within two weeks after taking office, Cooley walked into the six-man office of Rampart Task Force which Garcetti had set up within the Special Investigations Division of the DA Office and simply said: “wrap it up!” Shortly thereafter the office was closed and all Rampart Corruption Scandal investigations in DA office ended.

    The above two historical events had drastic and severely detrimental consequences for the people of Los Angeles. On the federal front, Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2001, the Bush administration brought the federal litigation against LAPD to a screeching halt. The management of the Federal Consent Decree by John Ashcroft and later by Alberto Gonzales became a practice in public deception. All federal efforts to reform LAPD were abandoned and the Bush administration became LAPD’s “partner in war on terror.” Having realized it was now a major force in Los Angeles politics and having successfully rolled back attempts to “interfere in its internal affairs” by both Reno and Garcetti, LAPD and PPL’s tentacles began to rapidly grow into the only remaining component of the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice System, the Criminal Division of Los Angeles County Superior Court system. With full support from the Bush administration, police brutality, misconduct, deception, fraud, perjury, criminal conspiracy, fabrication of evidence, and criminal activities by police officers became institutionalized and achieved new high marks in the history of Los Angeles.

    On local level, Cooley shielded corrupt LAPD officers from any and all criminal prosecution. No more LAPD officers were prosecuted. Even when an LAPD officer fired multiple shots at a black 13-year-old boy (Devin Brown) backing a car at 2 miles-per-hour, the prosecutor Cooley refused to prosecute the liable LAPD officer for the boy’s killing. When the LAPD’s 250-lb. white Edward Larrigan shot a frail 5’1” 102-lb. 55-year-old mentally ill homeless African-American woman (Margaret Mitchell) in the chest from a distance of several feet away and killed her, Cooley, without ever requesting to examine the six boxes of relevant documents in possession of the attorney for the family of Ms. Mitchell under a federal protective order, said the killing was justified and refused to prosecute even though the Police Commission, on a 3-2 vote, had disagreed. When a disabled black teenager (Donovan Jackson) was beaten up by white LAPD officers on national TV, Cooley and LAPD conspired to prevent a Rodney King type of reaction from the public by deceptively putting the officers on a bogus circus-style criminal trial while at the same time undermined the chances of their conviction by removing a seasoned prosecutor and assigning a young lawyer with no experience in such prosecutions. Cooley further allowed the officer’s seasoned defense lawyer to put up evidence before the jury that the “beating” was a “training issue” and not a criminal act. By botching the trial, Cooley guaranteed that LAPD officers Jeremy Morse and Bijan Darvish would not be convicted. Cooley proved to be a loyal puppet of LAPD. He also began to aggressively bring criminal charges against victims of police misconduct, knowing that winning criminal convictions against victims of LAPD misconduct prevented them from filing future civil rights lawsuits and forever closed chances of investigation for these cases. In his reelection campaign in March 2004, Cooley received more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions, mostly from the LAPD’s PPL. Thomas Higgins, his most serious challenger, had collected $25,000 in campaign contributions. With enough PPL money to send colorful brochures to every LA voter and substantial TV commercials, Cooley easily won his reelection to a second-term as the LA’s District Attorney.

    During the 2001-2007 Bush-Cooley’s reign of terror in Los Angeles, hundreds of victims of police brutality and police misconduct cases were charged with baseless and fabricated criminal charges. Cooley and LAPD worked together on fabrication and manufacturing of false evidence against the victims. At the same time, LAPD’s PPL, having flexed its political muscles and having realized the extent of its power, began to more actively finance the reelection of those Superior Court judges whom Cooley and PPL viewed as valuable assets in the complex political empire they had built. With federal protection for residents of Los Angeles evaporated under George W. Bush, hundreds of innocent victims were falsely convicted and sent to prison. State convictions guaranteed that LAPD was shielded forever from future civil rights lawsuits. During the above period, no LAPD officers were ever charged with any crime arising from fabrication and manufacturing of false evidence.

    An example of this institutionalized policy of terror and criminal activities is in the case of a Swedish woman and mother who was held in pretrial detention for more than four years (2002-2006) based on evidence fabricated by Cooley’s DA office and LAPD. Despite four years of incarceration, the woman refused to plea guilty to the charges fabricated by LAPD and Cooley. The case had begun as a police misconduct case when LAPD officers had entered the woman’s home without a warrant and by mistake had arrested her while she was unconscious from a wrongly prescribed prescription medication. The officers had wrongly assumed the woman was suffering from an illegal drug overdose. Cooley filed criminal charges against the woman in order to cover up the LAPD’s initial misconduct. Further information on this case and the inner workings of Cooley-LAPD’s empire can be viewed at www.freemarje.com.

    What happened in McArthur Park on May 1, 2007 was the culmination of LAPD’s reign of terror under Bush-Cooley policy during 2001-2007. During the above period, the residents of Los Angeles were left defenseless against forces of the extreme right which implemented an institutionalized policy built on deception, fraud, perjury, and criminal activities.

    The events of May 1, 2007 showed that LAPD with the help of its DA Cooley and under the protection of the Bush administration has succeeded in establishing a police state in the most populous county of the United States. As the video footage of the rampage shows, LAPD officers engage in criminal acts against the population with impunity. The message from the video footage of the assault is clear: LAPD and its thugs exerting undue influence over the largest metropolis of the United States with an iron fist.

    It is clear that with substantial support from George W. Bush and the local forces of the extreme right, the LAPD, PPL, and Cooley have succeeded in transforming the 4,000-square-mile Los Angeles County to an autonomous police state where a brutal junta composed of the LAPD, Cooley, and an army of 600 mostly corrupt judges who owe their reelections to financial contributions from LAPD’s PPL rule. For further information on how various intricate components of this police junta operate in tandem, SEE pages 19-26 at http://www.freemarje.com/Federal%20Complaint%20Filed%20Against%20Defendants.pdf

    Kelly McSwain
    05/5/07 at 9:37 pm
    
18. 

    Thanks Kelly. That was an interesting read. I can’t wait to see what these separate investigations turn up.

    Manila Ryce
    05/6/07 at 1:17 am
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>