A Protest On Video

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/27/2005

A Protest On Video

Editorial
NY Times
April 16, 2005

The New York police have, on the whole, done a good job of dealing with crowds recently - even huge crowds like the 500,000 or so protesters during the Republican convention in Manhattan last summer. But that doesn't mean Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg should delay a tough examination of the amateur videos showing those marches. As Jim Dwyer
wrote in The Times this week, there are at least two cases of disturbing discrepancies between videos provided by protesters and testimony by the police.

In one case, a police officer testified that he had to help haul Dennis Kyne, a protester, down the steps of the New York Public Library on Fifth Avenue because Mr. Kyne was "kicking and refusing to walk on his own." A bystander's video shows that Mr. Kyne clearly walked on his own down the steps. Alexander Dunlop, who said he had been arrested on his way to pick up sushi, found that the police video used against him in court had been edited in two places, removing footage supporting his account. Charges against both men have been dropped.

Video evidence is clearly an important addition to the search for truth in today's courtroom. For the 1,800 people arrested last summer, most of the charges were dropped. About 400 have provided independent videos in their defense. The videos provide protection - for the police against false brutality complaints and for the defendants against false disorderly conduct charges.

In this case, the elaborate testimony against Mr. Kyne shows that police officers don't always get it right. Maybe the officer was confused.* Maybe, as police conjecture, the event described by the policeman happened at a different time. Or maybe this is a throwback to the not-so-distant days when police officers fashioned their testimony to fit the crime. As for the edited video, the police say they passed it along, unedited, to the district attorney's office. A spokesman for the office, Barbara Thompson, said it had been cut by a technician by mistake.*

The Bloomberg administration says the police handled the protesters with model restraint; there have been no charges of brutality, no videos of a nightstick raised in anger. And that model behavior came when Republicans were gathering in a Democratic city still nervous about terrorism. New York protesters also got close to the event - unlike those in Boston, who were penned inside barbed wire.

Commissioner Raymond Kelly says that having a thousand eyes on the police is a good thing - with videos of any event now routinely coming from the police, the press and ordinary citizens. Even the army of people with cellphone cameras aimed at the police has a "salutary effect," he says. Those are comforting answers. But the police successes do not overshadow the need to take a careful look at complaints about unnecessary arrests and extraordinarily long waits for hearings, or at how things went awry during protests last summer. Thankfully, we have videotapes to help determine how to perform better next time.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

_____________________________________________________________________

* Right. Give me a break. A friend who was at the demonstrations is currently on trial because she refuses to take the easy route and cop a plea - which would get her a slap on the wrist and a minor fine - which is what the state expects. When she entered a not-guilty plea - because she is not guilty - the assistant district attorney was totally unprepared and stammered something about the evidence being missing. This did not sit well with the judge but nonetheless he granted a continuance so the state could try to find the missing evidence. I wonder if it will be doctored like that against Mr. Kyne.
KJG