PEACEFUL STREETS PROJECT: We Promote Peace

 

Last weekend, Antonio Buehler was targeted and arrested a second time while filming police activity. This set in motion a storm that put APD on notice for their attempted curbing of a constitutionally-protected activity. The APD and APA retaliated by mischaracterizing what Peaceful Streets Project does.

 

"Antonio Buehler asserts that filming cops protects people from false arrest. For this, he was falsely arrested. We know he was falsely arrested because someone filmed it.”  ~Sam Frank, filmmaker

 

The Peaceful Streets Project (PSP) is an all-volunteer, grassroots effort uniting Austinites in ending the institutional violence taking place on our streets. Through community organizing and direct action tactics, the Peaceful Streets Project seeks to support Austin communities in understanding, exercising, and standing up for our rights.

 

PSP works towards its mission through regular “cop-watching” (video-witnessing police activity to assist those who may have been the victim of police misconduct), training, education, coalition-building, solidarity with similar groups nationwide and through its ongoing “Police Complaint Department” (collecting stories of police abuse at events and set locations throughout the city – see example stories).

 

While many APD officers tolerate and even welcome PSP’s presence, APA’s Wayne Vincent’s allegations against PSP are baseless. There is no evidence of PSP negatively affecting the public safety, and his scurrilous charges against a group dedicated to peace of “inciting violence against police” smacks of the very problem PSP was formed to address.

 

"It's called PEACEFUL Streets Project for a reason...we don't engage in, or encourage, violence, disruption or intimidation. We keep a respectable distance and are not responsible for any officer’s engagement of us just because they don't like our witnessing their actions." – Monica Savant, PSP

 

In fact, while PSP’s sole tactic is passively observing via videotaping, some APD officers have engaged in: intimidation, yelling in close proximity to a PSP member, shining flashlights in member’s eyes, giving contradictory orders to create confusion, physically pushing members and on two occasions, using horses against members (a long-time tactic of APD, dating back to at least April, 2001, in which a lawsuit was won to curb this activity).

 

"Because recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties is protected by the First Amendment, policies should prohibit interference with recording of police activities except in narrowly circumscribed situations. ...Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices." - Department of Justice (DOJ)

 

PSP has never “interfered” in police activities and we know this because the law is clear.

 

"...speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it amounts to actual obstruction of a police officer’s investigation – for example, by tampering with a witness or persistently engaging an officer who is in the midst of his or her duties." – DOJ

 

There has been no “actual obstruction” of anything…no tampering or “persistently engaging an officer” by PSP. The only time a PSP member speaks to an officer engaged in a stop is when the officer has spoken to her/him first. There is no evidence of PSP obstructing police activity or threatening the safety of others.

 

APD will not, and can not, pass any law or policy that is both unconstitutional and unenforceable. Any rumored 50-60’ rule is just that, a rumor. It’s clear that some officers, certainly not all, need training and/or clarification; so if there is policy to be implemented, PSP’s coalition partners have an example policy they will bring before APD (attached).

 

PSP will move forward from these case-in-point injustices brought against them and engage in a mass cop-watching action tonight. Activists will meet at 10:00pm near 6^th St., train/review as to our peaceful, observatory tactics, form affinity groups and venture out to protect the liberties of Austinites.

APD's ANTONIO BUEHLER 50 FOOT POLICY

A message to the media, following coverage of the second arrest of Antonio Buehler for videotaping police officers...Buehler is already facing charges for the same several months ago, prompting a national outcry.

---  "Because recording police officers in the public discharge of their duties is protected by the First Amendment, policies should prohibit interference with recording of police activities except in narrowly circumscribed situations....Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices." - Department of Justice ---

Media...ask yourselves:

--Does this new APD policy of having to stand 50-60' away to record any police activity AFFECT YOU? 

...Police across the nation are increasingly confiscating news media cameras -and trying to delete video- in an effort to hide their just-caught actions. (I witnessed APD throw an Occupier's -our livestreamer- computer to the ground to break it during the OA eviction -- I was standing directly next to it - about to get cuffed myself). THIS HAPPENS-all over the country, arrests for videotaping, and destruction of video evidence, despite the complete legality of videotaping. APD's been moving in this direction for some time now, despite their platitudes of "we welcome it!"

--Does media get an "exemption" from this new rule? Who is "media"? Do you have to get permits to distinguish yourselves from us lowly bloggers and livestreamers? If so, would that be in the spirit of the 1st? Is that a slippery slope you support? Besides, we kinda have some case law around here (I was a plaintiff-remember the 8 Klansfolk at City Hall?) that they won't be able to do that--not that they won't try.

--How will APD enforce its distance rule? Tape measures? If random bystanders are 10' from a detainment, as they often are without ANY concern by LEOs, are they going to be arrested if officers are also planning to arrest a videographer 30' away? If not, why? How is someone holding a camera further away MORE of a danger than someone closer, without a camera (with their hands free)? What kind of lawsuits would come from that (there's plenty across the nation to draw from, almost all in favor of the videographer/photographer)? How much pubic safety & legal energy/resources will be spent on "dealing with peaceful videographers"?

WHAT IS 50-60' & IS IT "REASONABLE"?

Videotaping police is completely legal, according to SCOTUS (covering 1st, 4th & 14th amendment rights).ACLU even has an app for that! At question, supposedly, is keeping a "reasonable distance."

Having some experience with the measurements of 6th St. (a side job is working a certain festival twice a year...and I know the 10x10 tents, back to back, take up half the road, leaving 10' on either side, meaning the road, curb to curb is about 40')...essentially, you'd have to stand against the wall of one building to videotape a police detainment directly across 6th St. on the other sidewalk, and THEY'D have to press up against that building to get 50' between you. You'd have to walk 10 feet down on your side to get 60'. And can you even get any video through all those heads?

Is that reasonable? At all? Picture ALL the other people gaily strolling on the sidewalk, right next to officers detaining someone. They aren't a threat...but THOSE GUYS, WAY over THERE, in the red t-shirts with the peace signs, and the videocams - yeah...THEY are a threat.  :-p

WHAT'S BEING MISSED RE: "INTERFERENCE" & BURNING QUESTIONS:

"A person may record public police activity unless the person engages in actions that jeopardize the safety of the officer, the suspect, or others in the vicinity, violate the law, or incite others to violate the law." -Dept. of Justice

--Buehler was quiet -except for coordinating comments amongst PSPers - up to the moment he was standing on the spot the 1st officer engaged him (read: "OFFICER engaged BUEHLER"), that officer concluding the spot was fine. The officer who arrested him just happened upon the scene and decided to change that previous agreement (not exactly in line with policy--officers already on a scene are supposed to be deferred to).

"...speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it amounts to actual obstruction of a police officer’s investigation – for example, by tampering with a witness or persistently engaging an officer who is in the midst of his or her duties." - See video/see any of that?  For Buehler to be guilty of "interference," it would have to be proven that he intended to "obstruct the activity or threaten the safety of others."  See any of that? Buehler didn't even comment on the activity...which wouldn't matter, either. "Nor does an individual’s conduct amount to interference if he or she expresses criticism of the police or the police activity being observed."

--Since when does a suspect get to decide whether another person, exercising their 1st amendment right (upheld by SCOTUS), gets arrested? Is that even legal - or within policy? It's at least completely irresponsible of the officer to delegate HIS authority to a SUSPECT. 

--Did you know that the suspect apologized to Buehler in jail that night? 

--Did you note the warning the officer gave Buehler --was a whole 1/2 second to comply?

--One outlet reported: ..."That's when things got out of control." REALLY?? Who was out of control? Buehler was the calmest one there. He only spoke to the 1st officer about where to stand, and complied completely when the 2nd jumped him with his 1/2 second of warning.  I wish police officers were as IN control as Buehler was in that video.

--APA says WE are an endangerment. With our cameras. Getting in the way. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE EVER CAUSED ANY ISSUES (ask next time, please); caused a cop to trip or a perp to get away?  Isn't paying attention to those paying attention to you doing your job what's endangering your job? Being distracted? Doesn't THAT harm the public safety? It's not the guy witnessing you being distracted from your job....

--Also ask APA why they insist on engendering violence against PSP and Buehler - the death threats didn't start until the news cycle this evening...due precisely to APA's 'outrage' against us peaceful videographers.

--They can get away with homicide of unarmed youth of color by saying they "felt" threatened. NOW they think they can get away with not being recorded by pushing us 50+ feet back, because that's where they "feel" safe. Notice a pattern? A whole lot of "feelings" involved in the rules and practices of police work...a lot of discretion...very little quantifiable accountability.

IN SAD CONCLUSION:

So, you see, all this talk of "distance" is a distraction. It has nothing to do with the number of feet, and everything to do with your ACTIONS - and whether you are physically, intentionally interfering, according to the courts and the DOJ. Standing aside quietly, at a "reasonable distance" proscribed by one of the officers until another one suddenly decided that was not "reasonable," does NOT "interference" make.

Remind me again how Chief Acevedo was our change agent; intent on bringing us a better department - ?  Seems like such a long time ago...all that hope we once had.  And where has Mr. Everywhere been lately...anyone? ...Buehler?