Police Executive Research Forum: We aren't involved in guiding Occupy crackdowns. Oh wait, yes we are.

Discuss

13 Responses to “Police Executive Research Forum: We aren't involved in guiding Occupy crackdowns. Oh wait, yes we are.”

  1. devcoder says:

    After reading through this publication, I hope that this agency is getting involved! The sections in there strongly support non -violence on the part of police and basically tell them to suck it up.

  2. PapayaSF says:

    I don’t see this as contradictory. A group can “participate on a number of conference calls” and have a report “used as a guide” without actually “coordinating” anything. Coordinating implies directing or having power. I’ve been on conference calls and written guides that were used, but that doesn’t mean I “coordinated.”

    • Lemoutan says:

      Yup. The two statements aren’t at all contradictory.

      OTOH we aren’t being invited to do anything other than contrast them.

      Don’t know why really. Perhaps it’s just a way of mentioning the existence of the PERF document, interesting enough in its ‘don’t go bad-ass’ approach? Except that such a document would be ‘news’ only if it proposed the methods actually being used in the field.

    • Marja Erwin says:

      “Coordinating implies directing or having power.”

      It can also refer to where someone isn’t directing, and and is helping other people, groups, etc. keep in touch and keep from working at cross purposes.

    • EH says:

      Coordinating implies directing or having power. 

      In my experience, no person with a title that includes the word “coordinator” has ever had any power to speak of.

  3. Michael Hasse says:

    It’s quite common for subject-matter experts in any field to be asked to sit in on conference calls, review data, advise in court cases etc.  They are usually paid a consulting fee for their time and that’s it.  I myself have been paid to sit in on conference calls for up to several hours without ever actually participating in the conversation simply because my expertise turned out not to be needed.  And even when it has been needed I simply provided an expert opinion and often never knew if it was taken into account in the final decision-making processes or simply round-filed.  (Given the stark contrast between the pamphlet and what played out in reality I’d say round-filed in this case.  :)

       At any rate, unless somebody can come up with a heck of a lot more interesting/scary boogeyman to investigate there is literally no story here…

  4. Eric Rucker says:

    Yeah, I’m not seeing the contradiction here, either.

    They appear to be acting in an advisory role only, not a leadership role (so they’re not coordinating), and their advice appears to actually be good.

    Let’s turn this around… let’s say that Boing Boing posts an article about how to defend oneself against tear gas in the Occupy protests. Should an anti-OWS blog post that Boing Boing is coordinating the Occupy protests?

  5. drukqs says:

    Take a gander over to the Democracy Now interview with Chuck Wexler. http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2011/11/17/paramilitary_policing_of_occupy_wall_street

  6. Daniel says:

    The BoingBoing commentariat has given this revelation the royal “meh”.  This thread is my answer the next time someone accuses BB commenters of being hysterical bandwagoners.

    Also, that snow owl is sweet.

  7. John Walter says:

    It’s interesting to compare how the Vancouver police approach their role: “We are here to protect your right to protest. We will stand in harm’s way to protect your right to protest” (managing events pdf, chapter 2) with UC Davis — We are ordered to obliterate you and your right to protest.  We will use our power to harm you and punish you for having a voice.  

  8. peregrinus says:

    The story is that this PERF bunch created and advocated a guide and proudly publicised its usage, to then back off when things got ugly.  It’s a story of PR emergency, reverse back-pedal.

    In the mud-slinging that ensues, it seems the firm is wont to evade any sticking of ick to itself, and unable to declare itself nothing to do with the problems, has said it hasn’t been co-ordinating the police behaviour.

    So the guide they wrote is not being adhered to – as generally happens to weak-willed and non-backboned things – and they’re being implicated in the monstrous collusion resulting in ruptured spleens and pepper-sprayed students.

    They don’t want to say everyone’s ignored their guidelines, as that will annoy their customers (the police! right?!).

    But their guidelines are clearly being tossed aside, or were never even looked at.  Such was the passion of presentation and persuasiveness of content.

    So in the end, they look like a wilting flower.  Such is life in the hot sun, sitting on the fence with a small and squeaky voice.

    Surely they should in all moral conscience be standing best foot for’d and denouncing the brutality and ignorance of the police?  Just wondered, y’know.

  9. Donald Petersen says:

    I feel the lede may be slightly buried here.  That Bob Ostertag post at HuffPo is fairly essential reading.  He’s Professor of Technocultural Studies and Music at UC Davis, so he definitely has an opinion on what went down at Davis this weekend.  He includes contrasting photos of a Columbia University campus cop (armed with, apparently, a windbreaker and a whistle) gently arresting a cocaine dealer, next to the riot-geared squadron of batons and helmets and toxic aerosols bravely facing down the students who were, in Ostertag’s words, “defending public education.”

    Do read that article when you get a chance.

Leave a Reply