Should the police [infiltrate protest groups]?

[Zebra]

Infiltrate protest groups.
From The New York Times (registration required)

Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.

That doesn’t sound so bad but,

Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

That seems over the line to me.

Ms. Clancy, a founder of I-Witness Video, a project that collected hundreds of videotapes during the Republican National Convention that were used in the successful defense of people arrested that week, has assembled videotape of other public events made by legal observers, activists, bystanders and police officers.

She presented examples in October at a conference of defense lawyers. “What has to go on is an informed discussion of policing tactics at public demonstrations, and these images offer a window into the issues and allow the public to make up their own mind,” Ms. Clancy said. “How is it possible for police to be accountable when they infiltrate events and dress in the garb of protesters?”

The videotapes that most clearly disclosed the presence of the disguised officers began in August 2004. What happened before that is unclear.

In a tape made at the April 29 Critical Mass ride, a man in a football jersey is seen riding along West 19th Street with a group of bicycle riders to a police blockade at 10th Avenue. As the police begin to handcuff the bicyclists, the man in the jersey drops to one knee. He tells a uniformed officer, “I’m on the job.” The officer in uniform calls to a colleague, “Louie - he’s under.” A second officer arrives and leads the man in the jersey - hands clasped behind his back - one block away, where the man gets back on his bicycle and rides off.

That videotape was made by a police officer and was recently turned over by prosecutors to Gideon Oliver, a lawyer representing bicycle riders arrested that night.

Another arrest that appeared to be a sham changed the dynamics of a demonstration. On Aug. 30, 2004, during the Republican National Convention, a man with vivid blond hair was filmed as he stood on 23rd Street, holding a sign at a march of homeless and poor people. A police lieutenant suddenly moved to arrest him. Onlookers protested, shouting, “Let him go.” In response, police officers in helmets and with batons pushed against the crowd, and at least two other people were arrested.

The videotape shows the blond-haired man speaking calmly with the lieutenant. When the lieutenant unzipped the man’s backpack, a two-way radio could be seen. Then the man was briskly escorted away, unlike others who were put on the ground, plastic restraints around their wrists. And while the blond-haired man kept his hands clasped behind his back, the tape shows that he was not handcuffed or restrained.

The same man was videotaped a day earlier, observing the actress Rosario Dawson as she and others were arrested on 35th Street and Eighth Avenue as they filmed “This Revolution,” a movie that used actual street demonstrations as a backdrop. At one point, the blond-haired man seemed to try to rile bystanders.

So the undercover officers are trying to get people to protest violently so they can be arrested. Isn’t that entrapment?

[AFAIKnow]

@Zebra

So the undercover officers are trying to get people to protest violently so they can be arrested. Isn’t that entrapment?

I haven’t read the link (not registered), and am assuming it is an opinion piece. The author says things like “seemed to” and somehow equates a fake arrest to keep an officer under cover as intentional incitement. In every example in your quotes it states that the undercover had to explain to the arresting his identity. Were the cops supposed to just let him go with a pat on the back and maybe blow his cover? If a mob decides to riot because the police are doing their job, why blame the police?

[Sunspace]

Stageing arrests to keep undercover officers under cover is one thing that I don’t object too strongly too: if we are going to place undercover officers in the protests to observe at all, then the staged arrests follow.

What is more serious, though, is whether the undercover officers were merely observing, or were serving as agents provocateursa: operatives placed there specifically to stir things up, incite illegal activity, and/or discredit the protestors.

Undercover surveillance might be justifiable (although you’d have to do a good job of convincing me of it). Agents provocateurs are right out. They should be illegal.

[Bricker]

It goes beyond entrapment – although it is entrapment if the police encourage the commission of a crime where there was no predisposition to commit the crime before the police involvement.

If the police are in fact encouraging violence, they are actively working to hurt the image of a group. Even beyond the issue of entrapment, this is wrong.

[Zebra]

Itr is not an opinion piece. This is a large group of video tapes that have been anylized to see what officers are up to at these protest. During the Republican National convention, there were many protests and many arrests. Many of the arrested were set free when videos of the incidents did not agree with what the police had said was going on.

i.e. This man charged officers and attacked them. Video does not show this.

Since this happened to a lot of people, the tapes were put under more scruinty and they appear to show undercover officers, posing as demonstrators, trying to get the group to ‘cross the line’.

The fake arrest was done in a manner that the protesters near by, didn’t see why he was being arrested and then they questioned the police. “Why are you arresting him?” This leads to 'Interfering with a Police Officer" charge. Of course they were interfering with a Police Officer acting out and arrest of another Police Officer for no reason but to get people to react.

[lissener]

As noted, despite the conclusion jumping from AFAIK, it was not an opinion piece but straight reportage. The officers’ direct involvement–they were not observing from the sidelines–raises disturbing questions.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Right on, Sunspace. You nailed it.

[redtail23]

This isn’t new, y’know.

I know people who were involved in protests in the 60s - the same thing happened. Guys that no one had ever seen would show up at protests or final planning meetings and try to get people to commit criminal and/or violent acts, either by persuasion or by example. The people I know didn’t fall for it, since their plans were always for peaceful protest - but I wonder how much of the violence back then was caused by government agents.