War protestors Ryan Acuff and Jacob Spezio say that the RPD overreacted to their self-styled street dance of drums, chants, and hula-hooping. PHOTO BY MATT DETURCK
Activists fed up with what they call a war-leaning government and a complacent public, hoped to spark outrage over the eighth anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. But the war issue behind “Funk the War II” got pushed aside when Students for a Democratic Society’s October 7 march turned into an ugly confrontation with police, resulting in 12 arrests.
Exactly how the march, which SDS members say was planned as a peaceful event, escalated is unclear. SDS members blame police, saying the RPD overreacted with heavy-handed brute force.
“An officer on Main and Clinton saw about 100 people coming down the street during five o’clock rush hour,” says police spokesman LaRon Singletary. “He tried talking to them, and called in for support.”
Police and some city officials say that the situation could have been avoided if protesters had obtained the permit required to march in city streets.
The incident raises questions about how police are trained to deal with protests. Questions about the true intent of the marchers also linger.
SDS is a nationwide network of activist groups that uses 1960’s-type strategies to bring about social change. Members tend to rely on direct engagement with figures of authority and power in highly visible situations to draw media attention, rather than lobbying politicians to bring about new policies.
“The term ‘radical’ has different meanings in different hands,” says SDS member Ryan Acuff. “If there is something that you want, then go do it. That would be consistent with the term radical in the sense that we want changes to society, not just to elect a new official.”
SDS wants the US military out of Afghanistan and Iraq, to end military recruitment in public schools, and to redirect war spending to education. The October 7 march was intended to be a peaceful protest, Acuff says.
“There was no violence on our part or property destruction,” he says.
Even though the group’s planners knew that a permit was needed to march in city streets, they chose not to pursue one, Acuff says, because SDS held a similar event last March without a permit.
“Some police showed up, but if anything they escorted us,” he says.
The October 7 march turned violent, says fellow SDS member Jacob Spezio, when 25 to 40 police cars converged on the marchers. The officers failed to explain why the marchers should disperse, Acuff and Spezio say. Video clearly shows officers ordering SDS members repeatedly to “go away.”
Officers are trained to respond to large, disruptive crowds through a “mobile field force,” Singletary says. The force wasn’t activated in this case, he says, showing that the police response has been mischaracterized.
Still, the RPD is conducting an internal investigation on the incident, Singletary says.
Reaction among city officials has been mixed. Many are in agreement with the activists’ message, but not their tactics.
“To protest is fine,” says City Council member Adam McFadden. “But you can’t just walk down the middle of Main Street because people’s lives can be put in danger.”
SDS wants City Council to establish a citizen review board independent of the RPD to look into the police response to the march.
Comments for "ANTIWAR: The aftermath of the Main Street melee " (6)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
ru4real said on Oct. 14, 2009 at 4:07pm
The protesters were disobedient of the law, put commuters at risk of traffic accidents and act as if they've done no wrong. Their actions were reckless and they need to be in compliance of the rules and laws in effect.
bubba said on Oct. 15, 2009 at 7:52am
To maintain purity of intent and for an effective protest, it is crucial to be informed - these "folks" are not by their own admission. This makes them nothing more than another unruly gang hiding behind an anti-war agenda. "Demanding" a taxpayer funded review board should be billed to these protesters - get a job! Vote, and then do it the right way and RESPECT the people around you including the RFD, RPD etc. otherwise you're just noisy rabble banging drums looking for your own media sensation - grow up....
Joe said on Oct. 17, 2009 at 11:28pm
"RESPECT the people around you including the RFD, RPD"
"...they need to be in compliance of the rules and laws..."
Yes, roll over and comply.
Wasn't this great country started by a group of rebel rousers? Boston Tea Party? The Minute Men? I bet you King George felt the same way about these rebels, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc as you feel about these young protesters.
Why did the police need to do a show of force? Whose property or life was in immediate danger?
"Vote, and then do it the right way"
Had our forefathers followed "bubba 's" advice...well, I prefer not to think about.
Middle Relief said on Oct. 18, 2009 at 7:35pm
The idea of needing a permit to protest and exercise one's right to assemble has always struck me as a ridiculous requirement. As long as a group does not infringe on someone elses personal liberties (like walking down a main street would disrupt others for example) than they should move forward with their form of protest.
Odd that the Tea Parties that were vilified and clowned by the media never turned violent.
Robin Reese said on Oct. 20, 2009 at 10:50pm
I read your "Main St Melee" article & found it puzzling that all these police cars just "converged on the marchers" for no apparent reason, except maybe to persecute those who would be protesting against the war. Looking over your article, I get the impression that our city police force just roams around, looking for antiwar protesters to squash. My memory nags at me though. It seems that the original headline I saw in another city publication read: "Rochester police, anti-war protesters clash as firetruck is blocked". So, I gather that the City newspaper staff was completely unaware that a firetruck was blocked? Or did the article just seem to flow better if you left out the reason why the police were concerned about the protesters in the first place? It's either that or City just likes to re-write history in hopes that we might forget the truth. Whatever credibility your paper had just got undermined by the printing of this article.
City editors said on Oct. 21, 2009 at 10:14am
Robin,
Thank you for your comment. The question of the fire truck was discussed during the editing of the Main Street melee piece. However, the truck was not the main reason, from conversations with RPD spokesman, Officer LaRon Singletary, that police were called to the scene. A large number of people unexpectedly walking down the street around 5 p.m. during rush hour drew the police response. The fire truck had already been reported in the media several times, and it had also turned into a "he said-she said." Video that was circulating at the time the piece was written did not show a fire truck, or the protestors getting out of the way for it to pass. A siren could be heard in the background, but that's not unusual for downtown.
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.