Arrest videos

Before we get to the main body of the email, please see this action led by the Musicians Union in Westminster. The regular email will follow below!

I don’t know about you, but I’m a sucker for a good ‘legal interpretation’ video. Give me an hour of body cam footage with narration by a legal expert, and I’ll watch the whole thing. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:

In this one, a nonprofit called “Washington Park Neighbours” was hosting an event in the park. Children’s entertainer Robert Newhauser was there twisting ‘free’ balloons for the kids, in return for donations. The event organisers called the cops to have Robert removed. Eventually, he’s put in handcuffs and held in the back seat of a cop car.

At various points in that video, the cop says he’s having to act because:

This last point is the only thing he seems to have done wrong, and you don’t need me to tell you that illegal parking shouldn’t get you handcuffed and detained. As the narrator notes, it’s impressive not only how uninformed the cops are, but how well Robert handles himself.

So, how did it get this far?

When the cop turns up, an event organiser introduces himself as a member of the board of the nonprofit. He says (at 01:24), “Everybody on the board wants him out of here, because he was here last year and a lot of people complained about him. He had creepy vibes…. So, we’re just trying to get him out of here.”

That statement should have informed the police officer that he had not been called to deal with a legal issue, but to manage a personal dispute.

The event organiser knows he can’t just get a clown removed. So, he has to establish himself as an authority. He does that essentially by telling the cop that he owns stuff.

A quick detour. This morning I heard Dan Wang, author of BREAKNECK: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future, comparing China’s and the USA’s politicians, the former being made up of engineers (engineering has historically been the most common profession within the Politburo Standing Committee), the latter of lawyers (⅓ of the members of Congress either studied or practiced law, as did ½ of US presidents and currently serving senators). He proposed that perhaps one reason why America is so inequitable is because lawyers, in general, largely exist to protect the rights and property of those with capital. He described lawyers—and US lawmakers by extension—as “handmaidens to the wealthy”.

There’s another professional class that neatly fits that description: cops. They spend much of their time doing the bidding of property owners. I believe that’s why the nonprofit board member lets the cop know (at 2:30) that he’s a local small business owner.

Why does it matter that he’s a local business owner? Why add that to the first few seconds of conversation? Because he’s establishing himself as a private interest, in order to get the cop on his side. Consciously or not, this man is making the case that he deserves to be obeyed (or at least agreed with)…because he owns stuff.

Now, onto the point.

I’ve talked about it many times in this newsletter, but public spaces in major cities all over the world are being privatised. This usually means that associations of local businesses start paying for the right to ‘provide services’ in ‘business improvement districts’: the most popular and profitable shopping districts in town. For cash-strapped councils, the offer is too enticing to refuse, as they get to unload the cost of maintaining public spaces while also raising funds.

Why would businesses pay for the right to clean the streets themselves? Because in return they also get to decide what happens on ‘their’ land, kicking out anyone who doesn’t follow their rules. The result is that local businesses increasingly have the power to direct the attentions of the cops, and the cops are happy to oblige. This is a large part of a cop’s job: being handmaiden to the wealthy.

Back to the video above. When the cop finally meets the street performer (at 3:45), he says, “I’ve been told by the person who’s holding this event that you’re not allowed to be here”, because he doesn’t have a permit. Aside from the troubling tonal shift, at this point the ‘law enforcer’ is not enforcing the law.

Robert correctly responds (at 3:50) that this park event is “an open event”. A little later (at 5:00) he explains that there’s no gate and no tickets being sold—meaning the park is open to the public. As the narrator points out (from then up until 6:45), Robert is correct, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that if there are no barriers to entry the space is still a public space, and therefore the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech) still applies.

The cop’s supervisor turns up around the 8-minute mark. You’d hope he was better-versed in the law. And yet, he tells Robert the same thing as the previous guy: that the busker has to leave because he doesn’t have a permit.

Robert replies, again, that the Supreme Court would disagree. The supervising police officer’s response says it all:

The cops never cared what Robert’s rights were. They only cared what the business owner wanted. And that, unfortunately, is increasingly the case in privatised parts of town all over the world.

If you’re thinking at this point that the story above isn’t very surprising, you’d be right. This is a commonplace interaction between a street performer and the law. Buskers are easy to pick on, and the cops either don’t care or aren’t informed of their rights.

I’d like to put together stories that highlight how and why street performers are targeted, and what the results were.

If you have a story to share, please respond to this email with all the details.

I look forward to hearing them!