|
Amid reports touted by individuals
and activist groups that police used excessive force during last
November’s FTAA demonstrations in downtown Miami, the Civilian
Investigative Panel (CIP) convened last Thursday night at Miami City
Hall to ascertain whether or not allegations of police brutality warrant
further investigation.
The meeting was held in the wake of
last month’s public hearing when citizen complaints were heard regarding
alleged police misbehavior during the FTAA demonstrations.
A lengthy video presented by Miami
Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez and Chief John Timoney showed police
defending themselves against violent demonstrators which, according to
police officials, was the reason why such a massive police presence was
necessary at the trade talks.
“We took the appropriate measures,” said Fernandez.
“Liar, Liar!” shouted activists as they jumped to their feet. “We don’t need to take this!”
Nikki Hartman, who attended the demonstrations as a Universal Spiritualist and who claims to have been brutalized by police, was not impressed with the presentation.
“I found it very difficult to listen to Timoney and watch the department’s very well-produced propaganda video,” said Hartman.
Hartman came down from Tallahassee to
pray, and to practice a vow of silence representing those who were not
being heard at the FTAA.
“I was shot point blank in the butt
with a rubber bullet and then in the shoulder. Then, when I started to
run from the police I was shot in the head,” said Hartman.
Hartman said she hasn’t been able to meditate since being assaulted by police.
“I have suffered extensive physical and emotional damage,” said Hartman.
Hartman describes the incident as one in which the police pursued her even when she was down.
“When others saw that I fell to the pavement and came to help, the police continued to fire on us,” Hartman said.
The after-action internal review
presented by Timoney deemed the police handling of the demonstrations an
overall success, and primarily blames some protestors for provoking
police action. He and other officers, who were present at the protests,
defended their use of force saying they felt physically threatened.
Timoney said innocent protesters got hurt primarily because violent
demonstrators used them as shields.
Hartman said that wasn’t true in her case.
“When I was fired upon, I was completely alone on a grassy area praying,” said Hartman.
A CIP member asked Timoney if any
officers who didn’t follow proper police procedure were going to be
disciplined. Timoney said all disciplinary action had already been
taken, and reports from the media alleging police brutality, as well as
complaints filed by demonstrators have all been investigated by internal
affairs.
Carol Abie, a support staffer with
the CIP, said the board will review the testimony and evidence presented
by those who filed complaints, those who have an “interest” arising
from the FTAA demonstrations and the police in future meetings.
“There is quite a lot of material they have to go through,” she said.
The next CIP meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 17 at 5 p.m. at the CIP’s offices at 155 S. Miami Avenue, PH 1 B, Miami.
Activists get MAD
Despite the appearance of a thorough
internal police investigation into matters of brutality, and a CIP
assembled to oversee the legitimacy of that investigation, many
activists questioned the authoritative reach of the CIP and remain
unsatisfied.
A January statement issued by the
Miami Activist Defense (MAD) cites the CIP’s limited investigative
powers and its inability “to compel changes within the police forces in
Miami-Dade.” The statement emphasizes the point that the panel can only
make recommendations to politicians, who in turn need the “willpower to
suggest change.”
“The CIP does, however, have the
investigative power to subpoena law enforcement documents in a
fact-finding mission,” said Kris Hermes, MAD spokesman.
Last month, CIP panel member Peter
Roulhac, chairman of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, was
criticized heavily by MAD for a statement he made congratulating Timoney
and the police department for a job well done at the FTAA talks. MAD
claimed that such conduct by one of their members, “shows an incredible
lack of impartiality,” and “undercuts any trust the activist community
would otherwise have in them [CIP].” Bowing to such criticism,
Roulhac resigned from the panel.
“None of us are really sure the panel
is impartial, and if they do find that the police were unjust in their
actions, what can they do about it?” said Hartman.
MAD is encouraging people with
pending criminal charges, or those contemplating civil rights litigation
not to file with the CIP. Although MAD applauds the role of independent
panels in assisting local activists in collecting the hundreds of
“horror stories” resulting from the FTAA demonstrations, they say
serious legal considerations offset panel intentions, and the limited
powers of the federal courts to enforce civil rights in instances of
police misconduct “show the purported worth of these bodies to be sorely
lacking,” according to statement released by MAD.
“There are 40 federal, state and
local agencies involved in the police action last November. It is going
to take a lot of legal discovery to find out the extent of police
liability and on what level,” said Marc Steier, an attorney with MAD.
There are approximately 121
activists, represented by MAD, still facing criminal charges. Because of
this, said Steier, they are in no position to file with the CIP, nor
can they file a civil suit against the Miami Police Department or other
agency until their criminal disposition is resolved. According to
Steier, MAD is actively working with some of the country’s top civil
rights litigators to file suit against the police agencies involved.
The Rocky Road to Protest
Hermes says the lawsuit filed
Thursday afternoon by activists seeking an injunction against Miami’s
protest permit and insurance requirements is the first step in getting
charges dropped against protesters, but that the lawsuit relates to
arrest warrants and not police brutality.
“This lawsuit outlines the
unconstitutional set of ordinances implemented by the city. The permit
scheme is too vague, leaving too much discretion to the city and police
as to whether they want to grant a permit,” said Hermes.
According to the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham gave the city 30 days to respond to the lawsuit.
Hermes said that even though police
did not specifically cite new protest ordinances in arrest reports, most
charges filed against protesters mirrored ordinance rules requiring
protest permits and insurance, as well as the banning of more than seven
people from assembling in any one spot for longer than 30 minutes.
“The vast majority of arrests made
were for unlawful assembly, failure to disperse, and failure to obey a
police officer,” said Hermes.
The Miami ordinance requires
demonstrators to purchase $50,000 in liability insurance and to
indemnify the city from any damages caused or incurred by anyone covered
under the permit during a protest. Hermes said, under the new
ordinance, the entire burden of liability rests on the permitee.
“If this lawsuit is won,
complainants might see a lot of dismissals and that will put them in a
better position to win civil cases for unlawful arrest,” said Hermes.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted
material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material
non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this
constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper
which first published the article online and which is indicated at the
top of the article unless otherwise specified. | 
