- Be very polite.
- Be very extraordinarily polite.
- Get the encounter on video.
- If possible stream the encounter live.
- Involve the officer’s supervisor.
- Be very, extraordinarily, amazingly brave.
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/03/asking-an-oakland-pd-officer-why-hes-hidden-his-badge.html
Thanks for that one, Jim.
Brave men, indeed, considering the violence some of those guys are prone to inflict on innocent protestors.
I get it, but I’m not sure why the “politeness and courtesy” aspect is one way only- from us to the police. I’ve seen police cars in more than one city with these words boldly proclaimed: “To Serve and Protect”.
Clearly the OWS movement again demonstrates what The Clash (and others) said years ago- “You have the right to free speech.. unless you are dumb enough to actually try it”.
The negative/threatening reaction by various police forces (and recent elitist statements by Mayor Bloomberg) proves The Clash’s observation very prescient.
Even prior to the OWS protests, we’ve seen just how far our so called “free speech” goes with the protests that regularly occur at recent GOP and Dem conventions– the protestors are required to get a “permit” and the protest “zone” is restricted to a fenced in area blocks from the convention hall. We’re totally treated as cattle by “the authorities”.
Thus it’s really no surprise, now that there are active protests in numerous cities, we see efforts by respective city governments and police forces to limit free speech.
Again, as I’ve pointed out here and over at the orange site, the credibility of our entire system is seriously doubtful.
But no! The credibility of the system is perfectly intact! It’s just not the system you think it is. It’s not about the common good; it’s about the concentration of power.
Right, credibility is important, very important. Looking only at the public approval rating of congress (approaching single digits) and the economic situation, the credibility of our system is highly questionable at this point (I’m speaking to our political and economic credibility).
As I’ve pointed out over at the orange site- once a system fails to deliver the goods, i.e. the basics like food and shelter, the support of that system becomes difficult to maintain.
It’s not by accident that conservative think tanks and others wishing to spin the meaning of our increasing level of poverty like to point out, “Yes, but this percentage of people have air conditioning, big screen TV’s and computers”. AS IF having a few material possessions makes you wealthy, comparable to the 1%.
What a Load.