Police Violence Caught on Film

by Ed Lee - NUJ/BA2's of Griff Wed May 05, 2004 23:44

Your man didn't seem to have much reaction when the cop hit him on the thighs!

Oh on another note, what's the maximum size to upload a video? Is there any site/server i can upload a bigger video onto, so ppl from indymedia can watch?

by Chekov Wed May 05, 2004 23:56 chekov@indymedia.ie

At the moment, only editors can upload video, due to bandwidth restrictions. On the other hand, if it is less than 10 MB, you can email it to me as an attachment and I'll put it up for you.

by Eoin Thu May 06, 2004 00:11

Does anyone else find it worrying that there is a contrast between the media attention given to the May Day clashes of 2002 and Saturday's events. The printed national newspapers ignored the violence perp'ed by the GS. Are we seeing the normalisation of police violence?

by Chekov Thu May 06, 2004 00:40

This one from ED above...

by steve Thu May 06, 2004 00:40

I couldn't watch the full thing but that guard 1221 was a loose cannon.

..............was in Berlin that day - equally shocked and amazed at the police force over there. Even though they look like heavily armed stormtroopers some are approachable and will chat with you - slightly surreal feeling when a riot is going on. They also have a clever method of crowd control that isn't focussed on pushing entire crowds in one direction (thus creating greater tension and frustration amongst the crowd).

by Ed Lee - NUJ/BA2's of Griff Thu May 06, 2004 00:43

Just a little intro to my video:
I was just messin around with some footage I took over the weekend. I made it to the song 'Mad World,' kinda befitting eh?
Enjoy

by wet work Thu May 06, 2004 12:26

Just for info there were a couple of camera men that got pushed of that big wall by the water cannon.

The sky cameraman (with big professional tv camera) on the opposite wall (much lower house garden wall) was also hit by water cannon and knocked off.

I wonder who was at the controls of the water cannon - was it police from Ireland and if so how much training did they have - or was it police personnel who were seconded with the borrowed water cannon.?

Given the water cannon were borrowed one imagines the rules of engagement were pretty under developed since they were not a normal part of the public order response in Ireland.

Somebody made a comment "use it or lose it" about the water cannon, it will be interesting to watch any developments and assesments to see how the police evaluate the use of them.

by Mr Soya Bean Man Thu May 06, 2004 12:32

The "Mad world protest" video crashed my computer (which is a Mac). All I got on my screen was gobbledygook before that happened.

Chekov's garda with the baton is a bit like Father Dougal getting the sly dig in while the other priest is on the ground, but it's not in the same league as May Day 2002.

by dilseacht Thu May 06, 2004 12:47

by anyones standards how that qualifies as a so-called violent assault is beyong me,

more like a warning clip.

protestor didnt flinch, fall, grimace or exhibit any reactions

besides, you complained bitterly when gardai used batons on noggins in mayday 2002, when they use batons in accordance with garda regulations on thigh/lower body you moan equally as loud.


this was a good example of a professional, proportionate response to a protestor hell bent on facing down the public order lines.

you trivialise real injuries by including this in the category of 'violent assault'

by Canteen Kevin Thu May 06, 2004 13:49

This was a cowardly unprovoked assault behind this guy's back. If you look closely dilseacht, you twat, you will see the man visibly limping.

Imagine if it had been vice versa, one of these thugs hit with a stick by a protestor,no doubt you would be screeching with rage. I can also guarantee that anyone carryng out such an action would be looking at a couple of years inside, if caught.

by mac Thu May 06, 2004 14:59

the gaurd was right to strike that individual,what do you expect when you confront and attack the GS in a protest or whatever you wish to call it.
Protest and movements whether they be anti-globolisation or anti-Eu, only win the minds of people through reasoned dialouge and logical coherent thought, not walking the streets of Dublin on mass.

by Joe Thu May 06, 2004 15:06

There are those who feel any public showing of dissent should be suppressed with the baton.

And there are those who feel that such dissent is essential in the struggle for a free society.

You are on one side of that argument and most of us are on the other but I congratulate your honesty in putting into words what Bertie dare not.

by noggin Thu May 06, 2004 16:53

'WITHOUT ANY APPARENT REASON TO DO SO'

this is quintessential 'indymedia' lies

show the poor peacelovin protestor being savagely beaten and the big bad policeman in the frightening south american type fatigues

but NEVER EVER show the context.

NEVER EVER show what happened beforehand a la SKY sports player-cam

the drunken abuse, the rage,the provocation, never mind just leave that bit out

worked for MAY DAY 2002, why change a losing formula?


'INDY' media, a contradiction in terms.

NO CENSORSHIP

by Joe Thu May 06, 2004 17:32

"the drunken abuse, the rage,the provocation, never mind just leave that bit out"

I saw the whole unedited video after we had marched back into town. The provocation from that guy consisted of dancing/twirling in circles in front of the line of riot cops. These were not the 'young untrained' cops we were told were responsible for RTS (also a lie, I was there and they were directed by an Inspector). These were the 'highly trained riot squad' we had been told about in the weeks before hand.

Also we didn't choose their uniforms and look, they did so any resemblance to a S. American dictatorship is intended. The cops may have got better at handling the media after their little riot on Dame st but their behaviour is the same.

by Chekov Thu May 06, 2004 17:41 chekov at indymedia dot ie

I haven't received your email. Try again at chekov@indymedia.ie or at chekovfeeney@yahoo.com

by Terry Thu May 06, 2004 19:26

the drunken abuse, the rage,the provocation, never mind just leave that bit out"

I was at the march and I didn't see anybody who was drunk, nor did I see anyone in a rage. Angry, yes, there were a few, but who wouldn't after being drenched by water cannon for no apparent reason.

by UCD Lefty Type Thu May 06, 2004 19:35

excellent work on the mad world vid - some quality editing! espesh liked the count out verry amusing.

by what horse sh***! - general public Fri May 07, 2004 11:30

A Garda hitting a rioting mob of thugs dressed up as protestors in the leg in accordance with best international practice. Shocker!!!!!! A water canon on the lowest setting possible: The Intent! To massage people gently away so batons do not have to be used to disperse the crowd. Devistating!!!! A peacefull protest, hours of harassment and abuse of the Gardai, damage and destruction of public and private property, the public being afraid to venture into their own city. And the organisers still refuse to condemn the violence. I wonder........ I am so tempted to write "get a job" oops I just did

by Terry Fri May 07, 2004 12:52

Well maybe that's how they do things in North Korea, but we are supposed to be living in a democracy here.

It's clear you have a problem with democracy.

by reason Fri May 07, 2004 17:11

Terry and others. I wasn't there so have only seen the video, so can only comment from that... but disagree with what you say...
"Angry, yes, there were a few, but who wouldn't after being drenched by water cannon for no apparent reason."

NO APPARENT REASON?
It's bloody obvious!!!! Dramatic photos!!!!
They had been saying for weeks that their was going to be trouble at this, and if the protestors didn't look angry enough for the press photos then the cops would only be too happy to make the situation more aggressive. THAT is the reason.

Think about it.
good riot control tactics aim to control violence and de-escalate the atmosphere.
There was no chance of that crowd pushing past row after row of riot cops.
The cops could have just stood there and contained the protest on that section of road. Of course, the idea was not to keep it calm and contained. That is not what the security forces had drip-fed to the media.
So, push a few folk around, then soak them, then belt a few of them with batons, and, watch them react as most people would.
THEN you have some front page pictures.
Ireland is a sedated society. Unlike Spain or Italy, you're not supposed to be emotionally excited or wave your arms about complaining.
you're supposed to wear your mental conditioning strait jacket and moan about it in the pub while you boost the profits of Diageo and Heineken.

To the strait-jacketed, sedated society, public expression of anger is tantmount to insanity.
If you're angry at the state then you must be mad. Sure, aren't the rest of us just moaning about it and then going back to our pints?


Fair play to yer man ( was it Eamonn Crudden?) for jumping off that wall to check out the fallen cameraman.

by Terry Fri May 07, 2004 17:29

My observation is that the crowd were very constrained considering the build up to May Day and the clear attempts by the State to start trouble so they could justify their actions, by provoking the crowd.

The sentence:
"Angry, yes, there were a few, but who wouldn't after being drenched by water cannon for no apparent reason.

refers to the fact that there was no apparent reason for the cops to drench the protestors in the sense that some people coming onto this site, but who weren't at the protest, might be looking for in terms of a justification of some sort.

The 'reason' they were drenched were as you correctly point out it was part of the ongoing intimidation and violence by the State against those who question the political order.

For those who talk about largely safe things like sport, fashion, food, lifestyle and so forth and that's generally all thats allowed, the facade of living in a democracy still exists and it is these people who find it hard, yet alone to conceive that the reality is very different and thus why then prefer to dismiss events such as last week, by trying to make justifications for it, however slim, so that they can still hold on to their world view that everything is fine. That's why we tend to see denial of the facts on the ground by such people and why they always insist on absolute proof. Basically anything to avoid the trauma of upsetting their core beliefs.

by dunk Sat May 08, 2004 10:57

any footage by anyone yet of cop hits on linked line walking away from them
that was the worst in my opinion and, judging by public outcry post rts02, if we have it
the cops have shot themselves not in the other foot.....
but blown the entire leg off

by Colly Tue Oct 05, 2004 18:22 colly at goldenplec dot com

Hey, I was watching those video and I'm just looking if there is anywhere I can get hi-res copies of the footage/DV quality footage/VHS copies of it...

I'm doing a project for college and i'm looking for footage of the protests as a main part of it... sadly I was looking about the net, and ringing places... nowhere will lend me a copy without paying for it.

Sadly on a student wage, there is no way I can pay for it.

Even if someone could point me in the direction of any video footage of any international protests archived on the web it woudl be greatly appreciated.

Congrats on the editing on "Mad World" too!

Keep up the good work lads and ladies!

by john knuckle - mi5 Wed Dec 15, 2004 14:59 31 hanton close gainsborough lincs 01427617989

the police officer that did that crim will be prossecuted as the officers duty is to protect and serve. As the officer assulted the victum he is no longer protecting he becomes an aggresser. Therefor needed to be arrested at the point witnessed.

by Pat Quirke Wed Dec 15, 2004 16:06

"the police officer that did that crim will be prossecuted as the officers duty is to protect and serve. As the officer assulted the victum he is no longer protecting he becomes an aggresser. Therefor needed to be arrested at the point witnessed."

He is protecting the majority from an idiot.

by jonh knuckle Thu Dec 16, 2004 13:14

yes but as the back of the victum was turn he is no threat to anyone so the officer broke the law falling out of the formation and assulting the victum. this was out of order and should be prossecuted for puttin more lifes at risk, as the formation was broke and a larger riote would broke out hand.

by Pat Quirke Thu Dec 16, 2004 15:28

"yes but as the back of the victum was turn he is no threat to anyone so the officer broke the law falling out of the formation and assulting the victum. this was out of order and should be prossecuted for puttin more lifes at risk, as the formation was broke and a larger riote would broke out hand."

Oh Boy, there is always one....

1. You have no idea of how Police riot drills works (neither do I), so stop talking as if you do.

2. Just because someone has their back to you does not mean they are not a threat! Assumption is the mother of all f*&^ups

by Barry Thu Dec 16, 2004 16:12

Pat Quirke only came on here to insult people. Thats the second person he told to shut up because he didnt like what they said, especially for criticising the forces of law and order.

"just because someone has their back turned doesnt mean they arent a threat to you" ? Do you suspect the guy was a Kung-fu expert aBout to launch into a back flip spinning round house kick before he was hit, from behind, by a blueshirted thug ?

by Pat Quirke Thu Dec 16, 2004 18:44

Pat Quirke only came on here to insult people. Thats the second person he told to shut up because he didnt like what they said, especially for criticising the forces of law and order.

"just because someone has their back turned doesnt mean they arent a threat to you" ? Do you suspect the guy was a Kung-fu expert aBout to launch into a back flip spinning round house kick before he was hit, from behind, by a blueshirted thug ?

I also object to you putting words into my mouth.
1. I told noone to shut up, but to make a valid argument. Don't make statements that have no basis in fact.
2. I note that you added your own words to my "quote". Compare

".....mean they arent a threat to you"
".....mean they are not a threat!"
If you are going to paraphrase, then fine, but don't misquote.

I'm not telling people to shut up, just to know what they are talking about and if they don't, then ask question rather than make grandiose statements that have no basis in fact.