The following is a first-hand account written by Josh Davis, a master’s student at UNC’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Davis was at 419 W. Franklin on Nov. 13 when demonstrators were arrested for trespassing in an unoccupied building. Davis was quoted in the reesenews story here, and live-Tweeted the night from his personal Twitter account.
Questioning police response to nonviolent protests
Just after 4 p.m. I received a call from a source from the Occupy Durham demonstration urging me to head to downtown Chapel Hill at once. Details were scarce, but I learned that an offshoot of the Occupy Chapel Hill group had moved into a vacant former Chrysler dealership at 419 W. Franklin St. Saturday and that a police raid was imminent.
As a graduate photojournalism student in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, I have been independently covering the Occupy Movement on Twitter and Flickr. So when I got the call I put down my coursework, picked up my press pass and camera, and headed over.
About 20 young people were hanging out around the building when I arrived. Its garage door had been pried open and balanced on a long wooden beam. Inside stood a small shelf full of books, handmade banners and a few ‘Occupiers’—the only details in an otherwise dusty grey and empty space.
A man told me that I “missed a pretty awesome dance party” in the space the night before, when they first occupied the building.
A demonstrator shouted that twelve cops in riot gear were gearing up nearby. Then, at 4:30 p.m., the scene changed.
Without warning or orders to the crowd to disperse, the police stormed the building. From where I stood in public space outside the building, I could see police in riot gear and green army fatigues aiming automatic rifles at anyone in the vicinity.
“On the ground, face the ground,” were the only orders given by police.
I attempted to step into a side alleyway while waving my press pass when a protester pulled me to the ground.
“They have weapons, man. Get down,” he shouted.
Sure enough, I counted at least five automatic rifles ready to aim at anything that moved. I stopped and hit the ground.
The officer who cuffed me was nice enough. Realizing I was a member of the press, he made sure not to damage my camera or escort me straight to the public Chapel Hill Transit bus being used to transport those arrested.
For nearly half an hour, I sat handcuffed with Chapel Hill Herald Reporter Katelyn Ferral, while the Chapel Hill Police aimed their weapons—fingers on the trigger—from the rooftop to the ground.
Josh Davis, a graduate student in journalism at UNC, was handcuffed while reporting on the incident. He Tweeted a picture of his wrists after the handcuffs were removed. Photo courtesy Josh Davis
“Count,” I thought to myself. About 30 officers—some in fatigues, others in riot helmets. What were the guns loaded with? Rubber bullets? Live ammunition?
How many people boarded that bus number 1609? About eight. How many people are shouting “shame” from across the street? Too hard to tell.
I’ve never been handcuffed before, but there I sat on West Franklin Street handcuffed with close to 100 onlookers watching from across the street.
By 5 p.m. I was released, but not before police took my photo and demanded my personal contact information.
As I made my way to the Chapel Hill police station to file a formal complaint, I went back to a running dialog I’ve been having about police response to nonviolent demonstrations.
Yes, a private building was being squatted by a group of activists. But a community affairs officer could easily have walked in, asked some questions, and issued a warning. Perhaps this happened? I do not know.
But the occupiers did not have weapons. That much was painfully clear. I question the wisdom of those in charge to send in a SWAT team with live ammunition into this situation. What if something happened? What if I had broke for the alley. Could my press pass and iPhone be mistaken for a weapon? Then what? Would Chapel Hill police Chief Chris Blue or Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt want the unintended consequence of an error in judgment on their consciences?
Kleinschmidt said in this situation that the “town will respond in accord with the oath every elected official and law enforcement officer takes.”
Mr. Mayor, what part of your oath states that journalists can be detained at gunpoint–effectively censored–from performing his or her First Amendment protected duties?
Thank you for the first hand report.
I also wonder what prompted the show of force and the detention of press folks. I expect some discussion of the events at tonight’s Council meeting.
Comment by CitizenWill on November 13, 2011 at 11:46 pm
If I come home one night to find my empty property criminally infringed upon, I hope the police whose salaries my taxes pay will be there to protect my rights.
Comment by Frightened resident on November 14, 2011 at 12:15 am
Once an ostensibly peaceful and lawful protest crosses the line into criminal trespass, the participants forfeit the right to be treated as mere protesters.
Classifying the unfortunate detention of the holders of press credentials as censorship is rank hyperbole. A story delayed is not the same thing as a story prevented, as it's being published here clearly illustrates.
Comment by chuckatpdo on November 14, 2011 at 12:26 am
The comments above are quite ignorant as to what the article is about and reveals an utter lack of understanding of the concept of democracy, free speech and a free press. Congratulations America for raising such an obedient and ignorant citizenry under the guise of being a leading democracy …
Comment by Stephan on November 14, 2011 at 12:40 am
"Would Chapel Hill police Chief Chris Blue or Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt want the unintended consequence of an error in judgment on their consciences?"
Police and politicians don't have a conscience.
Comment by Reetus on November 14, 2011 at 1:46 am
Test
Comment by Doug Johnson on November 14, 2011 at 1:52 am
I am not by nature an OWS supporter. With that being said, this response was not appropriate to the nature of the crimes regardless of which side of the fence you stand on. Protests can at any time turn tense. The visibility of weapons can, of course, spur responses out of wary protestors that would otherwise remain peaceful. More importantly, police are fallible human beings just like anyone else and are easily capable of making ignorant decisions in the heat of the moment.
It's happened hundreds of times before where police become uncomfortable (and this can be for many reasons that are entirely their fault : too close of kettling, pushing into the crowd, being yelled at, or even just not being appropriately trained in crowd control) and actually fire into a crowd.
The LAST thing you want in a crowd control situation is live rounds. All it takes is a single spark to turn into disaster when they could easily accomplish the same thing using nonlethal force. Just like the reporter said, what if the cops were stressed from dealing with the crowd… already on edge, already angry and frustrayed…what if they hadn't been the best in crowd control (SWAT is a strike-force, not riot police), and what if reaching for a badge was mistaken for a gun and someone lost their life?
Police are there to protect us, but there is something to be said for moderation and good judgement.
Comment by Alice on November 14, 2011 at 2:16 am
I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but this police overreaction is WAY beyond the bounds of reason. Thanks for the firsthand account. Gods save us all.
Comment by @JenRussert on November 14, 2011 at 2:20 am
Brute force.
brute |broōt|
noun
a savagely violent person or animal : he was a cold-blooded brute.
• informal a cruel, unpleasant, or insensitive person : what an unfeeling little brute you are.
• an animal as opposed to a human being.
• something awkward, difficult, or unpleasant : a great brute of a machine.
adjective [ attrib. ]
unreasoning and animallike : a brute struggle for social superiority.
• merely physical : we achieve little by brute force.
• harsh, fundamental, or inescapable : the brute necessities of basic subsistence.
ORIGIN late Middle English (as an adjective): from Old French brut(e), from Latin brutus ‘dull, stupid.’
Comment by Steve on November 14, 2011 at 7:58 am
Remember that we're talking about the South here – where, once upon a time, armed police were used to keep small children from going to school. Doesn't seem as if much has changed,
Comment by Charley James on November 14, 2011 at 8:04 am
Bias in language. This "press member" already knew what he thought about the Occupiers actions before any of the police showed up. They were not squatting. They broke into a privately- owned building for political purposes. Want a headquarters? Rent one. Support your local landlord. I'm sorry the reporter was detained, but the police had to put their lives on the line to stop a crime. There was nothing to stop someone involved in that criminal act from creating a fake press pass and taking pictures. That's the danger of coming to the scene with pre-determined views. I don't hear in this account that the reporter looked at this from the police and legal and public safety perspective. Find some real injustice to cover. They are out there.
Comment by Trytobefair on November 14, 2011 at 8:04 am
this wasn't a home- it was an abandoned property that has been unsafe for years. The protestors weren't stealing anything or endangering anyone. False metaphor.
Comment by Phil on November 14, 2011 at 9:08 am
No one said anything about censorship- the problem is that if press are not allowed to view what's going on, they can't accurately report. Nor should they be submitted to the "chilling effect" of being detained. This is obvious intimidation.
Comment by phil on November 14, 2011 at 9:10 am
Just how many people do you want killed to protect your empty property? And what do you want it protected from–a dance party? And finally, what are you afraid of?
Comment by Albert on November 14, 2011 at 11:45 am
The police put their lives on the line?
Comment by Albert on November 14, 2011 at 11:48 am
Is the appropriate punishment for "criminal trespass" to be judged on the street or in a court of law? Is "criminal trespass" a capital offense?
Comment by Albert on November 14, 2011 at 11:50 am
In reality breaking and entering and vandalism are crimes. Yes, everything was harmless and possibly for the betterment of the vacant building, However, the people occuping were a mob knowingly and boastfully committing crimes. Seems there could of been a smarter legal way to go about this kind of protest. Also, you knew the police were gearing up and you stayed you even went closer. Did you warn anybody they were coming? When has it ever been pleasant when police come to deal with people breaking the law. I think everyone that didn't want to get arrest was not there.
Comment by Wes on November 14, 2011 at 12:01 pm
I agree with the comments on this site that the police overreacted in an extreme manner. The police have been absolutely reprehensible in many instances in their dealings with occupy movement participants – beating unarmed people? Dragging students and college professors by the hair because they hold differing visions for the US? Shooting and seriously harming a war vet and then spreading rumors he wasn't actually a vet? It's disgusting.
Comment by novopovo on November 14, 2011 at 12:19 pm
However, breaking into private property was a very poor judgement call. This post is from someone who has marched with OWS in NYC on several occasions. I urge you to please think in advance about future occupy actions. The media can and will use whatever you do in an attempt to create a smear campaign against us. I don't approve of breaking into property on behalf of all the occupy movements. While there is an arguement to be made for turning abandoned or unused property into housing for the needy, in the future it would be my suggestion that occupiers make that arguement loudly and articulately — rather than acting upon some poorly considered decision to immendiately reappropriate property. I agree with the redistribution of some property, but not all people who support or may come to support OWS do. To have any success this movement needs to appeal to a wide base of people, some of whom we don't agree with on every single point. This is where the OWS strength lies. To alienate some people, not to mention give fuel to the sleazy press, is a bad move.
Comment by novopovo on November 14, 2011 at 12:19 pm
I had submitted a previous comment about the reprehensible behavior of the police — It has not shown up on this site. Please post my other comment also, as it is the first half of my above comment. Thank you.
Comment by novopovo on November 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm
You weren't "judged on the street". Stop being so dramatic. Folks were arrested and will be judged in court.
They didn't shoot anyone so I'm not sure what you mean by asking about a capital offense.
Comment by Johnny Law on November 14, 2011 at 12:42 pm
You read about the San Francisco police officer who got slashed in the face by one of your "peaceful" Occupiers?
Comment by Johnny Law on November 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Regardless, because of the ridiculousness of the police departments actions on these squatters, we have everyone talking don't we? I am getting off my 60 year old ass and supporting this movement – starting with going to the Town Council meeting tonight.
Comment by Casey on November 14, 2011 at 12:44 pm
such a ridiculous statement. once you demonize another, you are as bad as any demon yourself!
we all have a conscience.
Comment by Elin o'Hara Slavick on November 14, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I heard that the police were there for HOURS asking the squatters/occupiers to leave.
Comment by Elin o'Hara Slavick on November 14, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Hi @novopovo. Our apologies about your missing comment. We're having some trouble with our site's comment system. If you re-submit or email the comment to newsroom@reesenews.org, we can ensure that it is posted.
Comment by jarrardcole on November 14, 2011 at 1:01 pm
No police lives were on the line in this situation. Not even close.
Comment by T. Colin Dodd on November 14, 2011 at 1:23 pm
interesting take. This is the problem with "citizen journalists." This is certainly not a fact-based piece of reporting.
"moved into a vacant building" "squatting"
breaking and entering is a crime. they destroyed private property in order to enter the privately held property.
Be there no mistake, I stand with occupiers everywhere.
But this is just biased writing. It's not journalism.
Comment by a reporter on November 14, 2011 at 1:46 pm
You never know how a situation will develop. That's why you go in prepared.
Comment by Johnny Law on November 14, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Yes, my friend, they do. Have a chat with any police officer – they can tell you a lot of stories. And they did in this situation, too. The trespassers covered the windows, so the police had no way of knowing what was going on inside.
Comment by Trytobefair on November 14, 2011 at 4:44 pm
For you SWAT apologists, recognize that from NYC, to Oakland, to any of the 1100 OWS sites across America, no one, NO ONE, has resorted to a SWAT even though may sites are more actively contested by larger protest groups than in Chapel Hill.
Welcome to the SWAT University of North Carolina. It seems some of you would be proud of that moniker. I think you've lost your minds.
Comment by Jay Lacklen on November 15, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Interesting. I'm waiting for a previous post to show up, but must wait while and "administrator" checks it for suitabililty.
Is this the same administrator who found "THIS IS WHAT A TRANNY LOOKS LIKE" suitable?
Comment by Jay Lacklen on November 15, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Hey all, thanks so much for taking the time to post feedback on this story. As a reminder, we do have community guidelines that encourage respectful and constructive discussion on the site. You can read them further here: http://reesenews.org/community/community-guidelin…. Under those guidelines, we will remove comments that are offensive, hateful, or express personal attacks toward other posters or contributors to reesenews. We personally read and approve every comment, so it may take a short while for them to appear on the site — many thanks for your understanding. Please feel free to email newsroom@reesenews.org if you have any questions.
Comment by Eliza Kern on November 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm
This reporter might have asked police and protesters a few more questions had he not be cuffed and incarcerated by the police. The next time you get stopped for speeding, that is,endangering the public with your car illegally, and the police officer points an AR-15 at your chest, I imagine your pompous attitude will be adjusted.
Comment by Jay Lacklen on November 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm
breaking an entering is criminal and not part of your rights to free speech or assembly
Comment by bbb on November 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm
This was a content based response by the SWAT team and has nothing to do with the fact they were breaking the law. The alleged criminal offense was misdemeanor trespass, yet the response was proportional to armed, hostage holding, terrorists. If the police really thought the squatters were armed, and dangerous, why did they bring the bus out front, and leave people on the other side as onlookers. They knew the squatters did not present any danger, and this was all police theater to send a message based upon the content of the protesters. In the end, set fire in the middle of Franklin St. after a victory over Duke and you are left alone. Occupy an abandoned business and face the firing squad. Both are breaking the law, yet the response is different, solely because of the content based activity of the people.
Comment by ScottW on November 16, 2011 at 6:00 pm
thank you for being on the scene and writing/recording the event for those of us who didn't know what was happening!!!! That's what we hope for in journalism, that you'll stick around and give us the news!
Comment by Liz Bryan on January 30, 2012 at 12:46 pm
that is my wrist
Comment by kieran preissler on March 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm