I guess this would be another example of the President’s war on terror failure…
The initial reports of the latest anarchist-initiated violence in San Francisco seemed oddly septic, with “protesters” (or maybe they were “demonstrators”) attacking two police officers. Michelle Malkin has a clarifying update.
Now I’m just waiting for ACLU to sue the cop for interefering with the forward movement of whatever object hit the officer in the head.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
As usual, Michelle Malkin doesn’t get the story right. Indymedia wasn’t boasting of the officer’s injury. It was showing what occurred on the street when it happened. Thanks to the photographer, the public seems to have an accurate record of the officer’s injuries. The officer’s injuries are obviously unfortunate, but as is usually the case with these protests, inaccuracies and downright LIES are spread by the Right. I didn’t see Malkin write about the allegations that the police may have turned on a bystander who was trying to help the downed officer.
July 12th, 2005 at 8:12 am
Rob,
did I write anything about IndyMedia’s reaction? No, I didn’t, so please tell me what LIES I have been spreading. Personally, I find it unfortunate that all you have to say about a cop getting bloodied is “unfortunate.”
If you want to be part of a political discourse, then your starting point shouldn’t be a dismissive attitude towards violence against police officers, especially not when said violence shows a lot of signs of having been planned.
July 12th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Firstly, I was Malkin’s entirely inaccurate description of the event and Indymedia. I thought that was clear. My apologies if it wasn’t. You posted the story to your site. Just because Maklin writes it doesn’t mean it happened.
It would be wise to keep in mind that police are not always blameless in these events. Time and time again it has been proven that have proven that police here and abroad have instigated a lot of violence against protesters themselves. A lot of times they simply don’t handle the situation correctly. If the allegation that the officer got out of his car swinging his nightstick are accurate, then that’s obviously not the best way to handle it.
And believe me, the police do indeed sometimes overreact in these situation. Case in point, In 1998 I met up with friends in D.C. to go to an Orioles game in Baltimore. We had NO idea that the World Bank/IMF meetings were happening that day. We were accosted by police officers while leaving our hotel to go to the car to head north. The were rude and needlessly threatening. We told them to settle down, and they did. We were about a mile from the protests.
Yes, it was unfortunate that the officer was injured. What signs were there that violence was planned? If an innocent protester was injured, what word would you have used?
July 12th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Rob,
according to the Indymedia report Malkin links to the anarchists were shooting “fireworks, putting barricades in the street and breaking windows.” When a cruiser was immobilized by one of the barricades the anarchists fired some kind of firework at the cruiser. When the police officer exited to arrest the perpetrators he was attacked.
I’d say those events are signs that the attack was planned in so far that the anarchists were planning on attacking officers when given a chance. They clearly weren’t throwing up makeshift barricades to enable them to escape. They presumably didn’t bring the fireworks to distract zombies.
The officer was absolutely right to get out of the cruiser and try to apprehend the suspects. The situation, as described by Indymedia, is one that the very vast majority of people would expect police to intervene against. Less restrained police, like the Italian Carabinieri or Swedish riot police, might have used hand guns when surrounded and confronted, but the San Fran cop (apparently) didn’t, and for that he deserves respect.
The question isn’t whether cops are blameless, but whether they use appropriate tactics and equipment. Police forces around the world constantly try to come up with new crowd-control techniques to minimize harm to officers, bystanders, and, yes, the demonstrators themselves. Militant protesters adapt accordingly to ensure that they remain capable to destroy property, disrupt civil life, and injure officers.
What to call it if a bystander is injured? Unfortunate could be an appropriate word, tragic another, depending on circumstances and outcome. But the police officer’s injury wasn’t unfortunate, it was caused deliberately.
Just out of curiosity: It seems a little odd that you wouldn’t have known anything about the WB/IMF meeting you mention in your comment. Was that before you got into the cause/movement (or however you would like to characterize it) that led you to check out Malkin’s post?