Not to drag this issue on longer than it should, but I feel it necessary to more clearly elucidate a few things said in the previous post regarding the series of events which took place during Monday’s protest.
I was present for the for the original protest and immediate aftermath. There was much confusion both inside and outside the Capitol. The issue of protesting vehicles and the Capitol Square traffic obviously didn’t turn out as everyone had expected. What I can say is that everyone I had spoken with – and I mean everyone – assumed that the Mayor was reponsible for the police behavior.
In an email exchange today, Soglin admits that he “recommended” to the police, in conjunction with a discussion with a union/protest leader, that the police should issue a series of warnings to blockading vehicles and then give them ample time to move and once again open up the area to traffic. Though he doesn’t say it in the email, these warnings were supposed to be an hour apart, which effectively would have cleared the square for most of the day, as I stated in the original post.
Originally, I had stated that Soglin must have reneged, and later edited this to way that it was irrelevant if it was the police who took this action unilaterally because the culpability would still be the same. In the email exchange, Soglin states that he had no official contact with the police on that day. I assume he’s telling the truth, and readers can take his claim as they will. But the initial lack of clarity and unsubstantiated assumption is still exclusively my fault.
From the perspective of the protesters, however, what’s obviously important is the fact that things didn’t turn out as they expected them to. The fact remains that Monday’s marchers believed the police would not react to the protest behavior in the way they did, and they held this belief due to the words of Mayor Soglin.
These are just the facts as I understand them and I won’t bother to interpret them any more than I did in the original post (including the edit). There is obviously still some lack of clarity as to what happened and I hope the remaining details will emerge in the near future.
That’s a long walkback. When those in power do it late on a Friday night, it’s derided as a bad-news dump.
Right, I suppose I could have done that, but clarity seems more important. I can acknowledge when I make a mistake.
With that said, I’m not sure how long of a walk this really is, but I guess that’s open to interpretation. Within only an hour or two of the original post, I edited it to say that Soglin’s actions on Monday were unclear and not the relevant point in the discussion. I also maintain that he is culpable for the events that transpired (also discussed in the original post).
Ultimately, if you include that quick edit, there is nothing in this new post that isn’t consistent with the claims made in the original.
If they held those beliefs it shows a serious disconnect regarding the understanding off how the law works. It usually takes a little while in a protest movement for training workshops to start cropping up, but if this is going to continue it should start now.
The Mayor has no power in telling the police what laws should be enforced and not enforced. He really has no power to tell them to issue warnings instead of citations. That, Kyle, would be a dictatorship.
The Mayor can make recommendations. He can recommend the police up their presence or lower their presence, but in the end that’s up to the judgment of law enforcement.
If individuals are going to start taking direct action they need to be ready to deal with ALL of the possible consequences, no matter the assurances they perceive they’ve received. That includes fines and jail time.
So, let me get this straight. Mayor Soglin recommended that the police issue warnings before citations. One of the protest organizers optimistically (and unrealistically) interpreted this to mean that they could block the square all day without being ticketed. This rumor was spread among the protesters until it was “common knowledge” (your words) that Soglin had “promised” police non-interference. No one can cite evidence of any such promise, but it is Soglin’s fault that unrealistic expectations did not match reality? Shouldn’t you be blaming the individuals who spread inaccurate hearsay for the fines incurred, instead of publicly accusing the Mayor of “reneging” or “making a promise he knew he couldn’t keep” when you have no evidence that he ever made such a promise?
As I said, I wasn’t interested in “interpreting” Soglin’s email and would leave the trustworthiness of his words up to readers. The understanding from the protest side was that Soglin’s words comprised a verbal agreement. You have to understand, there was a clear plan of how to control the square, with various vehicles making the trip to the Capitol and individuals assigned to different corners. This wasn’t mere “hearsay.” My feeling is that Soglin is either retrospectively coloring his words or doesn’t understand how they came across during the pre-march discussion. It’s your choice to give the Mayor the infinite benefit of the doubt; I obviously do not in this instance.
Joe Conway of the firefighters believed, after talking with Soglin, that they had a deal. The protest leadership believed that the police would not interfere after having talked with the Mayor. I hold Soglin, as well as the police, responsible for what happened.