In no place is that escalation and use of heavy force more apparent
than Seattle. The Seattle Police Department has a long history of excessive
force in its actions, perhaps most notable by the slaying of John T. Williams,
an indigenous woodcarver who was shot by Officer Ian Birk simply because he
could not hear Birk’s order to stop.
Occupy Seattle has seen its share of extreme action, most
famously in the case of Dorli Rainey, an 84-year old woman
who waspepper-sprayed on November 15th, 2011 after complying with a police
order to stand on a sidewalk. In other cases, police have used horses,
flash-bang grenades, and physical assault in order to subdue peaceful
protesters.
The Department of Justice has, since these incidents, issued
a strongly worded letter to the Seattle Police Department for their abuses,
specifically citing Occupy Seattle as a matter of interest in their investigation. The Department, under the auspices of Chief of Police John Diaz,
has been recalcitrant in the wake of this admonishment and continues to refute the
Federal Government’s attempts to rein in what appears to many to be a
department which has gone out of control.
In 1999, a
notorious riot exacerbated by police action took
place in what has now been called the “Battle of Seattle.” The Chief of Police at
that time was one Norm Stamper, who after his retirement has publicly stated he
regretted his decisions during that action and now works tirelessly against
police brutality. Thanks to the Occupy Seattle Media Team, I was able to
schedule an interview with Stamper, in which we addressed the WTO riots of
1999, current uses of force in the SPD, and what he feels Chiefs like Diaz should
keep in mind.
Ian Awesome: You were chief of police during one of the most
notorious stateside clashes between police and protester in recent decades.
What are you doing now and how has your tenure as chief of police in Seattle
affected your current affairs?
Norm Stamper: It was during that event that I made the worst decision
of my career, which was to permit the use of chemical agents on a non-violent,
non-threatening crowd on 6th. We made that decision because we felt
it was a necessity, but there was NO necessity for that decision, and I will
regret that forever. That week is unfortunately considered my legacy.
I’m a writer, I do some public speaking, and I am mostly
involved in drug policy reform and work for the abolition of the death penalty.
So what’s happened of course is that every time there is an anniversary for the
Battle of Seattle, I’ll get a call asking me for my reflections on what
happened in ‘99 and what I would have done differently. Of course, Occupy has
really taken hold in this country and captured the imagination of so many
people so I’ve been doing a lot of interviews on that as well.
IA: Occupy Seattle has frequently been the victim of
heavy-handed tactics even though the recipients of those attacks were peaceably
demonstrating or, in many cases, just sleeping. Do you think the current level
of force (such as indiscriminate pepper-spray use, riding horses into crowds, punching, flashbang grenades, and use of SWAT teams) is appropriate to the
actions of these demonstrators?
The remnants of a flashbang grenade used at our Port Action. Photo by Joseph H.
NS: There are times and circumstances when use of force is
justified but, generally, there appears to be no justification of the use of
chemical weapons and other methods of force. The iconic UC Davis video is a
perfect example. These non-violent demonstrators were causing no harm to
anyone, to include the police, and were sprayed in a manner that was almost
cavalier. It was as if that officer was watering his roses!
In short, I think
that there has been a massive overreaction across the country. My overarching
opinion is that it is too much too soon and that it is exacerbating tensions
between Occupy and police departments.
IA: You recently said on The Nation that the paramilitary bureaucracy today is worse than it was in the 1990s. Would you view incidents
such as the use of SWAT teams to evict unarmed and peaceful Occupiers from
buildings as a symptom of that increased sense of “protesters are the enemy?”
NS: You know, I do believe that in general there has been a
major increase in the militarization of American law enforcement. We are seeing
SWAT teams used for things that were not part of the designed purpose of SWAT teams. They
were established to deal with hostages, bank robberies, heavily armed individuals,
and often times domestic violence situations where someone is holding their
partner at gunpoint. SWAT is a smart response to these problems. What’s
happened is SWAT is now being employed for very low level drug offenses, on
political protests and other situations.
SWAT operations can get people killed when used improperly,
even though the purpose is to protect lives, to include the lives of alleged
perpetrators. There is a problem in law enforcement today and that is scared
cops! They have been erroneously conditioned to believe that the next person
who answers a door they knock on is going to kill them. If that’s your mindset
and orientation and your tools are SWAT, tragic outcomes are all but
inevitable.
IA: Recently the Department of Justice soundly chastised the
Seattle Police Department with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez
characterizing SPD’s practices to ensure trust with the community as “broken,”
which Police Chief Diaz hotly denies. What would your response be were you in
his position? Do you have a word of advice you would give to Chief of Police
Diaz?
NS: Well, without being presumptuous, I would offer this view
to any chief including Diaz. If you do not conceive of your police department
as belonging to the community, then you have the wrong conception of policing a
free and democratic society. I think it’s very important the police take the
view that they are the junior partners of the communities they serve. If
there’s a senior partner in that relationship it is the community by at least a
ratio of 51/49, and that isn’t just the business community or blind supporters of
the police department, but also critics and those who have been on the
receiving end of oppressive police action.
Norm Stamper is just one voice among many calling for the
demilitarization of our police forces. The question is, of course, will current
federal leadership and individual police departments listen?
