A group of supporters of Gov. Scott Walker is claiming harassment by at least one Milwaukee police officer and preferential treatment for backers of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett after an incident Friday evening on an interstate highway footbridge.
During the incident, they said, a 16-year-old boy was singled out and handcuffed in front of his father, and held there until all the adults left the bridge.
A member of the group took a video showing that the police could not immediately come up with any reason for evicting them before eventually locating an ordinance against loitering.
But another video taken the next night by Barrett supporters on another Milwaukee bridge shows members of that group reading their legal grounds to Milwaukee officers and being allowed to stay.
The grassroots group of about 30 Walker supporters gathered at about 4 p.m. at the footbridge across Interstate 94 near North 72nd Street. Members planned to stand on the bridge with large pro-Walker signs until about 7 p.m.
Such events have been commonplace in recent elections. Mary Goodman, one woman who was present, said she had been at many such bridge rallies dating back to Walker's election as governor in November 2010.
What's more, she said, Barrett backers have been doing the same thing night after night leading up to Tuesday's recall election with no response from police.
Goodman and others present said that around 5 p.m., two Milwaukee County sheriff's deputies arrived and told them they had to take down some large signs that had been propped against the bridge fences. Signs could only be hand-held, they said, and could not lean against or be attached to the fence.
Members of the group took those signs down and removed them, they said, and the deputies told them it was OK to continue their rally.
Milwaukee police had problem with the signs
But at about 6 p.m., they said, a Milwaukee police sergeant arrived and told them they had to get off the bridge.
"His attitude was belligerent from the moment he arrived," said David Arnot, who was there with his son. "Without trying to speak with the organizer first he almost immediately called for back-up.
"Many in the group were trying to ask what reason they had for removing us, considering a Democratic group does the same thing every night, but he had no answers and only became louder and more belligerent," Arnot said.
Within two minutes, Arnot and members of the group said, more officers began to arrive, until 10 more were present.
Goodman said some of the adults on the bridge were complying with the order and leaving, some were picking up their things, and some were arguing with the sergeant about why they should leave.
She and Arnot said that all the adults on the bridge were spoken to in general terms, as a group, and while they were all warned, none of them was confronted individually with orders or threatened with arrest.
Why was teenager handcuffed?
Goodman said she turned around just in time to see the boy being handcuffed.
Arnot said his son was at his side assisting another Walker supporter with a large sign.
"After the arrival of the other officers," Arnot said, "the sergeant took a few steps towards my 16-year-old son, who had been helping hold a sign. He singled him out, the only minor on the bridge, pointed at him and barked, 'Are you leaving this bridge?'"
Arnot acknowledged that his son said "No" to the officer before immediately being handcuffed, but he said all his son was trying to say was that he wanted to stay with him while they collected their signs and belongings.
"He (the police sergeant) clearly said, 'You're under arrest,'" Arnot said, "but he wouldn't say for what, even though we kept asking him."
Melissa LeClaire was standing a few feet away, she said, and she corroborated Arnot's account. She believed the boy was singled out because he was a minor.
The sergeant "took him to the side of the bridge and told us he would be released when we all left the bridge," she said. "It was a hostage-taking."
Calls and emails to the Milwaukee Police Department were not returned before 5 p.m. Monday.
Arnot said he tried to videotape the detention of his son, but he failed to capture it.
Another Walker supporter at the rally did tape more than nine minutes of video taken at the end of the bridge once everyone had moved off it, and it appears to corroborate that even by then none of the officers present could cite any statute or ordinance barring the citizens' presence on the bridge.
Eventually, an officer called in to headquarters and asked for a citation supporting the eviction, and came back with an ordinance barring loitering on a bridge.
Walker backers question fairness
The Walker supporters said they were disturbed that they would be ordered to leave a bridge when a pro-Barrett group called "The Light Brigade" regularly holds bridge rallies in the twilight holding brightly lighted LED signs spelling out "Recall Walker," "Vote for Barrett" and other messages without harassment.
That group has even produced a professional-quality video touting its efforts.
The Walker people said that they were told repeatedly that their presence constituted a danger to traffic safety — a distraction to drivers — but they were given no reason why Barrett backers or, for that matter, Harley-Davidson lovers who do the same every five years, should be treated differently.
After most of the rally-goers had dispersed, Goodman said, she needed to go back across the bridge to her car and the sergeant told her she would be arrested. But other officers told her to go ahead, just not to come back that way.
Another Walker supporter wanted to cross on his bicycle because he lives on the other side of the freeway, LeClaire said, and when he started out with his Walker sign, the sergeant stopped him.
"He said, 'Not with that sign, you can't,'" LeClaire said. "It was at that point that I realized this really was about who we were and what we believe, that it was bias."
LeClaire said that after the video and various accounts were posted on web and social media sites, she had seen some responses from Barrett supporters also condemning the police action.
"I appreciate that," she said. "Even though we don't agree, we're all Americans first and foremost."
It was specifically the "well behaved" group that was left alone. The confrontational group got a predictably confrontational response from police. They could have avoided it by better behavior. BTW, some of their supporters' comments here are really good examples of things <b>not</b> to say to police in face-to-face encounters: "jackbooted cops locked in goosestep," etc.
Do you have a JD? Are you a bar licensed attorney? In fact, Hoffa holds a JD, an LLM, and is a bar licensed attorney. And guess what, lawyers are humans with emotions, just like ordinary citizens. Now, most lawyers would remain calm in such a situation, but not all. In reality, most lawyers would also not engage in dictating to the police how to do their job, as they have no legal authority to do so. And if the police are violating someone's rights, the lawyer would definitely allow it to occur, as opposed to trying to stop them, as they'd be more interested in the subsequent civil suit against the police department and the media attention that such a lawsuit would generate. So please, keep it real!
Actually, this entire Chapter applies solely to bridges over waterways, and even then, only bridges in certain areas throughout the city, as is distinguished in the first few sections. Hence, the cited ordinance did not even factually apply to the situation of a bridge over a roadway. Is MPD serious??? Their officers can't even distinguish the difference between water and a roadway??? This is a classic case of failure to properly train! I hope they sue!!! Barrett and Flynn have some explaining to do and apologies to make
Gov Walker all the way!!! Finally a politician with NADS
The other group, with an established peaceful, non-aggressive behavioral record, was just less of a worry. They didn't confront police so angrily. There were no warning signs of potential violence. Simply put, they didn't act like thugs.
That would be Kathy Nickolaus.
It boils down to double standards, plain and simple. If it were the Barrett camp kicked off the bridge there would be a riot, and Jessy Jackoff would show up- THAT is the reason for the double standard.
Please removed your head from the sand you will suffocate
_______________________ "Another Walker supporter at the rally did tape more than nine minutes of video taken at the end of the bridge once everyone had moved off it, and it appears to corroborate that even by then none of the officers present could cite any statute or ordinance barring the citizens' presence on the bridge. Eventually, an officer called in to headquarters and asked for a citation supporting the eviction, and came back with an ordinance barring loitering on a bridge."
We may not appreciate police presence when it is inconvenient to us, but it is never prudent to display belligerence or confrontational behavior as the woman on this video has done. The police would have been completely justified in escalating this confrontation to obstruction of justice, loitering, disturbing the peace, etc. As I said, commonsense "gutcheck." Ask the officers where you may stand, better still, call in before you march/occupy to determine what's possible.
I believe in free speech and the right of assembly. But as I wrote above, the rights of others must also be respected. It's interesting how some people are outraged about this incident while expressing none at the new state law requiring parties of four or more to acquire a permit before entering our own State Capitol (unless you are a family or a coven of lobbyists).
I understand your point, and it is a valid one. But the FACT that pro-Barrett people were engaging in exactly the same activity without the police shutting them down is prima facie evidence that something more is going on here. As far as I'm aware, last year's bridge protest in Milwaukee was not permit approved, nor were any of the recallers so-called light brigades over the last year and a half. And again, they were allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights freely on public bridges within the jurisdiction of the MPD. But the moment a pro-Walker group mirrors that activity, the police show up and shut it down - come on - even you have to admit that this smells! From watching Occupy, you must realize that people have emotions and can get heated, especially when they perceive that their rights are being violated. While the woman in the video does get loud, at no time does she come off as being anything other than upset and certainly does not display any signs of becoming physically violent. So please, drop that crap. They just wanted to know what law it was that they were supposedly violating and how their activity differed from that of the pro-Barrett people. This info would be usefully in determining where they could legally engage in such activity, would it not? And the MPD cited them an ordinance that pertains only to bridges over waterways. How would you feel and react under such circumstances?
You're a day late and a dollar short on that one - Kathy is sitting out this election. Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a new boogeyman to cry about tomorrow after Walker demolishes Barrett!
Are you telling us that the police couldn't clearly see that the bridge in the factual situation presented was over a roadway, and not a waterway? I guess all of those officers should be fired for stupidity then, right? After all, if they can't even tell the difference between a roadway and waterway, well… that just scares the hell out of me allowing them to keep a badge!
*************************** They do, however, have an obligation to enforce the law even handedly, regardless of whether or not they view those they come in contact with as supporting them politically. If you're suggesting otherwise, you don't get it. If you're suggesting otherwise and you're a public employee, you're part of the problem.
James: I wrote that the lawyer would "do the talking with police" (but "know not to make it a dominance face-off"); and "know how to negotiate with police". In echoing this back, you rendered it as "dictat[ing] police procedure, protocol, and judgments" and "dictating to the police how to do their job". Did getting your JD and LLM not result in your learning the difference between negotiating and dictating?
Here's the most ironic, hypocritical, and damning evidence against Barrett and his MPD yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UE249ah5K4 This is one of Barrett's own ads!!! Not only did he have knowledge that this was going on, but he actually appears to be endorsing such activity within the context of the ad. Apparently though, such activity constitutes a violation of city ordinance 118-62 when Walker supporters engage in the same. BTW, 118-62 applies solely to bridges over waterways, and while the Walker supporters were on a bridge over a highway, one can clearly see a bridge over the waterways being utilized by the Barrett supporters - and yet, Barrett didn't send in the MPD to stop them from breaking the law! Not only is Barrett's MPD so incompetent that they can't distinguish the difference between a waterway and a highway, but he himself is corrupt in allowing such a double standard to occur - especially when he had full knowledge of it!!! WE DEMAND JUSTICE AND A PUBLIC APOLOGY FROM MAYOR TOM BARRETT!!!