[Seattle-editorial] FP: POLICE VIOLENCE AT WTO RIOTS COST SEATTLE TAXPAYERS $250,000

[sheri at speakeasy.org]

third.
dn't know enough to post yet....
xo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gentry Lange [mailto:g at art13.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 09:27 PM
> To: seattle-editorial at indymedia.org
> Subject: [Seattle-editorial] 	FP: POLICE VIOLENCE AT WTO RIOTS COST SEATTLE TAXPAYERS $250,000
> 
> This is a no-brainer decision... I second this proposal, someone for a 3rd
> that can please post?
> 
> Gentry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org
> [mailto:seattle-editorial-bounces at lists.indymedia.org]On Behalf Of
> sheelanagig at juno.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 9:01 AM
> To: ticket9 at aol.com; imc-portland-workerbees at lists.indymedia.org;
> seattle-editorial at indymedia.org; sheelanagig at juno.com;
> editor at nwcitizen.us
> Subject: [Seattle-editorial] POLICE VIOLENCE AT WTO RIOTS COST SEATTLE
> TAXPAYERS $250,000
> 
> 
> POLICE VIOLENCE AT WTO RIOTS COST SEATTLE TAXPAYERS $250,000
> by Kirsten Anderberg  Copyright 2004
> 
> In a time when Seattle is in deep need of money for its schools, its
> health care systems, for affordable housing, for public transportation,
> etc., we are paying $250,000, and rightly so, to protesters who were
> grotesquely violated at the WTO protests in 1999. And Seattle did not
> learn from that riot, as it produced two more unnecessary police riots in
> 2003, which still need to be addressed properly by officials, and perhaps
> the courts. Perhaps using this WTO case as precedence.
> 
> According to the Seattle Times, the City of Seattle just settled a
> lawsuit with protesters for $250,000, over the WTO police riots in 1999.
> In December 2003, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said the police
> lacked probable cause to arrest the protesters outside a “no protest
> zone.” Pechman said the police had done an “atrocious” job at record
> keeping, as well as citing the use of improper warrant and arrest
> procedures to round up protesters. Fearing civil lawsuits that were sure
> to follow that legal determination, the City ran to beat the lawsuit,
> with a settlement offer they certainly fought earlier. Since ex-Seattle
> Police Chief Stamper was in charge during the WTO riots, and he resigned
> right after the WTO riots in disgrace, that would also make it a bit
> harder for the City to win over a jury in courts, for several reasons.
> The City agrees that it would be the Mayor and the Police Chief that are
> ultimately responsible for the WTO riots in 1999 if it went to court. And
> since they would be liable parties, and they are City representatives,
> that is why the City of Seattle, itself, is footing the bill for this
> disgrace, rather than the individual officers, for example, who should
> have all been tried for violent criminal behavior on top of this, in my
> opinion. It is sickening that protesters who did nothing wrong were
> criminally bullied, processed and charged, while the violent police never
> were charged for violent crimes they DID commit.
> 
> Now, this WTO settlement is some great precedence, since the Seattle
> Police rioted upon peaceful anti-war protesters in Seattle on March 22,
> 2003, on First Avenue, between Spring and Marion streets, and again on
> 5th Avenue and Union on June 2, 2003, at the LEIU protests. I witnessed
> both events firsthand. Many of the issues in these WTO trials will affect
> the outcomes of these antiwar and LEIU riot situations from 2003. In
> weeks after the violence by Seattle police at the anti-war protests in
> March 2003, the Seattle City Council was flooded with complaints from
> citizens about the violence on that day, and the ACLU and local
> organizations reprimanded the Mayor and City government, publicly, for
> the police brutality we all witnessed. Many of us, myself included, have
> put in claims against the city for the police and mayoral behaviors at
> the 2003 protests in Seattle. My contention is that if Seattle police had
> no right to arrest those protesters at the 1999 WTO protests, for simply
> protesting, they also had no right to beat, assault, and falsely
> imprison, from what I saw, (and arrest in some cases), any of the
> approximately 500 people on March 22, 2003 that police abused in Seattle.
> The Seattle Police also had no right to riot, from what I saw with my own
> eyes, using unnecessary force without discretion, as they did at the LEIU
> protests in Seattle. Attorneys for the WTO protesters argued it was
> unconstitutional to herd bystanders together and arrest them, without
> giving them a chance to disperse. Yet that is EXACTLY what Seattle police
> did on March 22 and June 2, 2003.
> 
> The WTO riot abuses took 3 years to go to courts and finally have the
> city settle. The antiwar and LEIU police riots in 2003 may take a few
> years to litigate also. But, I hope the system will likewise find the
> City to be vulnerable in civil proceedings regarding the 2003 police
> riots also. And the City will continue to pay out in damages and
> settlements, in my estimation, until it REINS IN THE SEATTLE POLICE AND
> ITS UNSAFE, VIOLENT BEHAVIORS, WITH SERIOUS CITIZEN ACCOUNTABILITY
> REVIEWS. The current Seattle Office of Police Accountability is
> laughable.
> 
> This concept of acceptable police violence, and “no protest zones,” has
> been pushed as far as possible by Bush. I even saw a mainstream TV news
> story on how no president in American history has needed to be protected
> from protesters by “no protest zones” like Bush has established each and
> every place he visits! Another legacy of the WTO riots is a challenge to
> this “no protest zone” and its Constitutionality. How do you have free
> speech WITH “no protest zones” that hide the protesters away from
> sight?!! That is what Seattle, and American Homeland Security, are trying
> to argue for. “No protest zones” undermine the Constitutionally-protected
> freedoms of speech and assembly so fundamentally that it is amazing this
> is even up for argument. We will see how it all plays out in the 9th U.S.
> Circuit Court of Appeals shortly. As that part of the WTO protest case is
> still to be heard, in an appeal to a 2001 ruling by U.S. District Judge
> Barbara Rothstein.
> 
> Rothstein upheld the no-protest zone, saying, according to the Times
> article, "Free speech must sometimes bend to public safety." But that
> would mean they had better PROVE there was a public safety issue, and
> THAT is the crux of it all. Free speech is being “bent” PREEMPTIVELY with
> an EXCUSE of public safety, by the Bush administration and police in
> Seattle. Just as the Bush administration lies about weapons of mass
> destruction, it also lies about public safety issues when it comes to
> political protests. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
> and there were no “anarchist threats to safety” in Seattle on March 22,
> or June 2, 2003. When Seattle Police were beating, assaulting, and
> containing us against our will on March 22, THEY were the ONLY public
> safety issue present. Police were the only ones using violence. I SAW the
> protesters, they were crossing with the lights! They were using sidewalks
> and crosswalks until the police stopped us, contained us like animals and
> had a field day. That had NOTHING to do with public safety. It had to do
> with REPRESSION OF POLITICAL FREE SPEECH AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE. I,
> personally, was there to PROTEST THE WAR. I was not violent, I was
> breaking no laws. Yet I was assaulted by both Seattle and Federal riot
> police. Where was the threat to public safety? IN THE MESSAGE? Because
> there was no PHYSICAL threat to anything or anyone when police attacked
> us on March 22, 2003 in Seattle.
> 
> If this concept of extreme police violence upon hundreds of unarmed
> protesters in Seattle at the WTO 1999 protests, is found to be
> unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit courts, the City of Seattle will be
> liable for even more in damages to WTO protesters, still to come. And to
> LEIU and anti-war protesters after that. The City did not admit any
> liability in this quarter million dollar settlement, but I think the
> amount rewarded in this case speaks for itself. May this begin a new
> precedent for freedom of assembly and freedom of speech without risk of
> physical attack by violent unaccountable police in Seattle, and America.
> 
> “All we say to America is be true to what you say on paper.
> Because somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly,
> Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech,
> Somewhere I read of the freedom of press,
> Somewhere I read that the greatness of America
> IS THE RIGHT TO PROTEST FOR RIGHT.” – Dr. Rev. MLKing. Jr.
> *************************************************************************
> *********************
> For near-daily political ramblings from Kirsten, visit her blog at
> www.kanderberg.blogspot.com
> or go to her writing website at www.kirstenanderberg.com. For email
> alerts when articles by Kirsten
> are published, go to google.com and sign up for their news alerts in her
> name.
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seattle-editorial mailing list
> Seattle-editorial at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/seattle-editorial
>