The NYPD famously used the “broken windows” theory of crime control to crack down on ‘quality of life’ crimes in the early 90s, as the inroad for ‘cleaning up our city’ and paving the way for expanded elite control of New York City via rising rents, Business Improvement Districts and open hostility with undesireable elements of street life like vendors or the homeless.
The Wonkster reported on an interesting study on the theory that showed ‘quality of life’ crimes encouraging other quality of life crimes, but very rarely more serious crimes. The report demonstrates that the political popularity of the theory neccesarily derives from its protection of property owners who contribute significant sums to political campaigns and organizations like BIDs, rather than its relevancy as a serious crime-fighting technique. Additionally, the Wonkster points out that just because broken windows lead to more broken windows, this does not support the conclusion that police need to ‘crack down’ on property crime – less incarceration reliant responses might be more sensible and cost less in terms of people’s lives. Waging war on the folks that live on the street should not be the cost of a clean city.
Last year, just before NYPD officers were acquitted (predictably) for the murder of Sean Bell, the New York City media filled with stories about anticipated violence on the part of black folks, and the NYPD took the occasion to showcase some of their new crowd suppression tools.
But the violence never materialized. And hasn’t, for a long time – not since Rodney King, at least, and that was one acquittal, out of thousands. But every time another cop goes free, the rumor mill gins up new ‘anticipated unhappiness’ or some bullshit.
And it’s happening again for the election: The Boston Globe reports that police the cities of Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia have geared up for a night of violence if Obama loses. Not only does this serve as needless race-baiting (those cities are pop culture code-words for dangerous urban black folks), but it encourages the further militarization of any totally legitimate protests that do occur. It sets the wrong tone, identifying black people in America with irrational, riotous violence, but also sets the stage for the truly violent suppression of free speech and assembly bound to follow in the wake of this election.
More guns than you. from mudpig's flickr photostream.
Serious dissonance in the NYC news today. Bloomberg just donated six figures to an independent campaign called Americans United for Safe Streets, who mailed out a flier that features police officers in their formal wear best under crosshairs.
Now, I can think of a number of cases of (black and latino) folks killed by police in the past year (NYPD killed 13 ppl in 2006 via gunfire), but very very few cops killed during the same time. The 758 NYPD officers have been killed since 1806, a rate of less than 4 a year, with only 321 of those the result of gunfire. The point being, that in the majority of violent interactions between police and citizens, the police do the shooting and killing. That means that maybe Mr. Mayor might do well to focus on reigning in police before ginning up fear to support move overzealous policing of city streets.
It keeps coming, and it keeps coming. from bluegoa's flickr.
As the economy sours, expect to read more stories like thisone on meth and cocaine in New York City. Not only will increasingly time-strapped reporter types resort to pre-packaged stories like this, but police departments will be struggling to justify high spending on law enforcement as civic budgets tighten. The solution?
Pump news about crime waves and developing drug epidemics to whip up some fear and indignation on the part of decent citizenry, and keep plowing money into police and prisons. Reports on drug busts are simple stories that echo dramatic narratives people see dramatized on TV all the time, plus busts happen all the time, leading to the fear of a ‘crime wave’ – the neat connection to an economic downturn brought out in the Post article no doubt makes things worse as well.
Ride of the future. from derfasaurus' flickr photostream
Naomi Klien quite brillianty documents the rise of a disaster industrial complex in her book the Shock Doctrine. The Chicago School of Economics and their hangers on have crafted an ideology that uses political, ecological or military crisis to ram through the creation of a neoliberal-military hybrid state.
Now, the process is continuing with un-shocking events of political stagecraft.
First, there was Miami in 2003, where the Miami PD turned an FTAA meeting into a police riot, funded by millions of dollars in Homeland Security funds, spent on weapons that no doubt remain in the hands of the department today. Handling of the protests became a “model for Homeland Security,” in the words of Miami’s mayor. He was right.
Then, there was the 2004 RNC, an event still echoing through New York’s legal system and political consciousness. The convention and protests surrounding it involved a mind-numbing abuse of police power, and the pretext of convention security provided the excuse to bulk up on security devices still in use today – cameras, riot gear, tasers and more. More importantly, it provided a pretext to break down convergence points in New York’s activist networks, creating capacity building problems that
More recently, there was the Olympics, where China spent $12 billion on security measures. That’s about 10 times more than what was spent in Athens, and 20 times more than what was spent in Salt Lake City. Almost none of that will disappear after the Olympics end – those cameras, weapons, personnel, etc., will become permanent features of China’s police infrastructure.
I say ‘illegal’ because I think there is a conscious effort on the part of the police to make arrests that they know to be unauthorized: since it remains illegal to resist an illegal arrest, and police accountability is so so broken in this country, police can make arrests without fear of serious retribution. Any legal ramifications down the road are minuscule compared to the millions in free equipment and more in publicity cities earn from hosting these conventions ‘trouble free.’
The Miami Model and its inheritors risk not only the right to free speech and vital civil rights, but also a severe backlash. Using overwhelming force to execute the whim of police administrators and politicians leaves no recourse to serious protesters except a violent response. That’s not a threat: that’s a fact of how people will respond to this strategy.
I’m not normally an AMNY-er, but the front page today caught my attention: two reporters counted surveillance cameras on the south side of Union Square and found 170 cameras on one block, and used that as a prop to discuss the proliferation of cameras in the city, primarily Manhattan.
I wonder where it stops – how many cameras is enough? Getting to JFK for my flight last week, I counted 15 (visible) cameras in the Air Train station alone. NYU’s Kimmel Center is slathered in them.
The invisible surveillance creeps me out the most. I was sitting with a friend in Riverside Park one night earlier this summer and saw a Parks SUV drive right up to a couple drinking some beers and issued an open-container summons. Clearly, the Parks Police had no means to spot their containers from the other end of the park by mere eyesight, and used some sort of camera to find them. I looked around: I couldn’t see any cameras on poles, in trees, etc. I got up and looked a bit more. Still nothing. Then, the friend got up and just asked the police: where are the cameras? Of course, they laughingly refused to answer, but the incident set me to mild paranoia about who is watching where – clearly there are surveillance tools you can’t just casually count on the street like AMNY did.
Similarly, when do we have enough police? One thing I noticed about being in Austin was the lack of a visible police presence. Whenever I go anywhere in New York, I see the NYPD. The APD keeps a lower profile, even at big events – on 6th Street on Saturday (what amounts to an open air street festival), I saw maybe 4 cops, whereas at a similar event in New York, I might see 20. New York has 37,000 Police Officers. That’s a shit ton (and I don’t know if that count includes Corrections or Parks officers). When do we stop? 50,000? 60,000? That’s a terrible drain on resources, for what may be a lost cause in the first place.
My real point is this: what is the real goal of such heavy policing? Do we really want to live in a world where all of our activities are under review by employees of the state (who, ultimately, are just people with flaws and human problems like everyone else)? I think a tightly policed social space necessarily undermines democracy because it creates a one-way ratchet towards fascism: once repressive laws are passed, organizing (in a real sense, not just in a ‘write your congressperson’ bullshit sense) to stop those laws becomes more difficult if not impossible, and we have to rely on the benevolent will of our elected officials to check the Po’.
And don’t give me that ‘If you don’t commit a crime you have nothing to fear’ bullshit. You don’t decide whether you commit a crime, the police, a judge and lawmakers do. If ever you were to disagree with a cop in a court of law, you would lose the argument, simply by their badge and uniform. Also, there are plenty of things that probably shouldn’t be illegal that are – and I think we should preserve some space for active civil disobedience outside the law, as a check on immoral law making and enforcement, lest we be stuck with contesting terrifying bullshit via the arcane, corrupt and biased legal system.
Where does it stop? It should be up to you – not Ray Kelly, not Congress, not the Dept. of Homeland Security – to decide.
Pretty much everyone I know has seen this, but I’m posting it again anyways.
Riding a bike everyday makes you a little defensive. A friend of mine once marveled at the sense of comraderie cyclists feel with each other – I think it comes from the collective defensiveness, the sense of vulnerability of being out on the road surrounded by really big pieces of machinery designed to move excessively fast, often piloted by careless, idiotic or malicious drivers. At this point I get edgy about car doors opened within 20 feet of me.
All in all, New York City is a fairly bike friendly place, and I would never discourage anyone from riding. The rewards vastly outweigh the risks, and you have a lot of fun. Normally I tell uncertain potential cyclists that New York offers three advantages over almost any other biking environment: traffic rarely moves above 30 mph on city streets, we have lots of bike lanes (with more every day), and drivers, for the most part, are used to seeing people on bikes at this point.
Which is not to say everything is smooth sailing. Many bike lanes lack serious enforcement, some roads scare me still, and every now and then you meet someone in a car that just hates your guts. Other times, pedestrians present their own problems – I swear, some people in this city have a bike-focused death wish and at least act like they very much want to get hit.
Raising the question of what to do. Cars parked in bike lanes, or making particular effort to be in the damn way such that they make cyclists’ lives more difficult (or short) are fairly easy: hock some spit on the window (aim for driver side if you can get it), give them a nice love tap, and just keep riding. People in cars like three things: 1. going irrationally fast 2. the outside of their cars, and 3. the illusion of security provided by total isolation from the outside world. A little spit and a fender tap gets at at least 2 of the 3 important car-functions, which I think is a pretty good ‘heads-up, don’t do this again’ type message. Sometimes you can give them the finger too. This response can be adjusted for different circumstances, but I think it provides a good start.
Now, pedestrians present a bigger problem. I don’t mind a little property damage here and there, but I really wouldn’t feel comfortable spitting on someone who walks in front of me. My strategy with pedestrians involves making them realize they’re about to do something stupid – walking in front of a moving vehicle – by making them very aware of the presence of bikes. Typically, this means a yell (try your best punk rock Oi!), and actively claiming the bike-space they were about to inadvertently enter. So, roleplay: You’re riding up Lafayette and reach 8th Street/Astor place, where peds often step into the bike lane to idle or jaywalk. You near the intersection and someone just moseys out in front of you – you yell (Oi!), and then ride right where they are about to step.
Now, the third case is the driver the pursues you in their car, trying to hit or harass you, or that confronts you in some way verbally. I’ve had two experiences with this recently: once at Centre and Canal, after getting nearly hit by someone suddenly pulling across the left lane to park (in front of a fire hydrant), I yelled something like
“What the fuck are you doing?!” and pulled around them.
At which point the driver – behind the wheel of one of those really really big Cadillac SUVs – sped up to pull right in front of me again, rolled down his window and glared:
“What am I doing? Do you really want to see what I can do?”
I paused. He was clearly driving a much scarier vehicle than I, with a level of malice I can’t match. At this point I hadn’t acquired the u-lock of justice (more on this below), and wouldn’t be able to muster any serious self defense (or offense against his too shiny car) with the speed necessary. So, I took the high road/sidewalk and kept riding.
The other incident was today. I was riding home down Lafayette when someone in the back seat of a Jeep swings open a door perilously close to where I was riding. I had a few close calls earlier in the day, so I gave them a wide berth, but I felt they had been reckless, so I gave a casual “Hey, watch out” as I passed by. Coming to the light, I heard the passenger yelling at me – “you watch out, motherfucker… pussy riding a bike, what the fuck?” or some such. I paused at the light. My mind went to what I call ‘The U Lock of Justice,” the standard Kryptonite mini-U lock I carry around in my back pocket – my first line of defense against bike theft, and assholes that threaten me. here’s a pic:
Justice is fluorescent.
I like U-Locks. They’re simple, effective, and Kryptonite makes them with an exposed metal end that turns them into excellent weapons if the need arises. I thought maybe it had. I stopped at the light and decided to turn around. I rode up next to the guy on the sidewalk, and as I pulled along side him, he made the standard hyper-masculine come on: “what, do you want to go?”
With a good look at him, I knew I wasn’t up for it. He looked like something between Yuppie scum and douchebag fratboy, and with nice folks enjoying their dinners on the sidewalk cafe next to us, I figured he wasn’t worth my time -or ruining someone else’s dinner. Sometimes just calming folks down shows the absurdity of their actions, and makes them thankful for a second chance. I tried to keep it simple – “You almost hit me – you opened the door right in front of me. I just asked you to be more careful,” then rode off. He mumbled a few other deep-throated manly-isms as I peddled off. In this case, diffusing a petty argument made more sense than escalating – if the door hit me and I got the same attitude, I might have had a different response.
So my question is this: when should cyclists enforce their own rules of the road, and how. The video above I think demonstrates that the police don’t have sense enough to figure out sensible bike traffic rules for themselves (and I’ve dealt directly with the cops about bikes enough to know they generally have no clue when it comes to non-car transportation). That means in many cases, cyclists need to create their own code of conduct – claiming street space and respect in a way that makes themselves more visible and safe.
Oh shit, I don’t even know how to feel about this right now. Riot porn + Dramatic Film Score + Perspective of Police (?) + muthafuckin’ Andre 3000. I think the fact I find this trailer so damn titillating means it will be marginally successful, bringing attention to what remains a vitally important event in contemporary American history.
The first thing to remember about Seattle is the role of violence. In reality, there was very little (if any) real violence done by protesters. The majority of the damage was directed at property (I suspect that there weren’t just folks chillin in Starbucks with a mass protest filling the streets outside, as in the trailer), and as a tactic it worked, on two levels – one, the meeting stopped. No joke. Two – it made the WTO a household name, when prior to Seattle, the organization intentionally kept a low profile, trying to pass off their ‘reforms’ without public comment. (as a side note, many WTO decisions on trade rules occur by administrative fiat, handed down from what amounts to a globalized Supreme Court, and can’t be overruled unless every country in the WTO disagrees – a process called ‘negative consensus’. It runs on ignorance.)
With the ‘riots,’ the WTO became front page news, for the first time. The movie shows why it worked – the whole conflict was theatrical, imagistic warfare, almost like something out of a movie. The battle invoked property manchean divisions, and a fall from grace narrative that never gets old. A peaceful protest, corrupted by radical forces that bring them into conflict with a faceless, menacing enemy that took damn good pictures.
I still have my concerns. I’m worried the film will over-dramatize what should be seen as a regular occurrence – dissent that extends into active civil disobedience, including breaking laws. Since Seattle (or, more specifically since the February 15th, 2003 protests failed to stop the War in Iraq), the American anti-war and anti-globalizaiton movement has been on a downward slide (at least in terms of mass mobilization, other DA tactics have perhaps been more successful). Part of the reason is fear – of the cops, of arrest, of pepperspray, of anarchists, among other things. I worry that this film might contribute to the melodramatization of protest to the point where people don’t want to do it any more.
I’m curious to see what people take away from the film. I wonder if the message of the disparate groups will come through – the film’s website makes a nominal effort to expose folks to the messages, but the film might just take itself too damn seriously to let the arguments of protesters come through. (perhaps a reason for better organizing – this time for the screen as a stage)
Also: shoutout to Lt. Starbuck, now on the blogroll. He has shit to say on this topic in his latest post. Much love, much love.
Riding through Central Park last Thursday, I happened across a case of overzealous policing that has come to define New York. I witnessed 5 pedicabbers, part of an industry already stressed by city regulation, receive some undue police attention from the NYC parks department. I was riding the big loop through the park near Strawberry Fields when a parks SUV pulled in the wrong direction on to the loop, taking up the center lane.
An officer stepped out into the road, and began yelling.
First, she yelled at a rider who was stopped behind someone dropping off passengers on the right side of the road. She told him to identify himself, and he pulled out both his regular ID and pedicab license. She handed off the rider to her partner in the driver’s seat, who began writing a ticket.
At this point, I was a few feet behind the car, and figured something was up, so I pulled up onto the sidewalk next to the rider. The first thing I heard was the officer in the SUV asking for the rider’s address.
“DON’T LIE!” the first officer yelled. The rider, who I later found out was named Stas, spoke with a heavy Russian accent, trying to defend himself. “I’m not lying, I just moved here!” he replied. The ticket writing went on. At this point, I pulled out my camera phone, as the first officer stepped back into the road to yell down other riders.
