Updated below: Chief Schirling retracts statement, apologizes for mistake.
Does this photograph show a protester from Sunday’s clash with Burlington police grabbing a cop’s baton?
Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling said on Vermont Public Radio’s “Vermont Edition” today that the photo — snapped by Dylan Kelley and posted online at Seven Days — “clearly” shows the demonstrator in the black bandana grabbing the baton of police Lt. Art Cyr.
“What I see in the photograph, they have a hold of it,” Schirling told VPR host Steve Zind. “They are clearly resisting and you can clearly see in the left of the photo, a man in a black bandana grabbed hold of Lt. Cyr’s baton, and that is what precipated the first event.”
Activists and cops have traded accusations about who’s to blame for the incident in which police fired “stingball pellets” into a crowd of demonstrators blocking a bus of dignitaries from leaving a conference of New England governors and eastern Canadian premiers. The tension gave way to a moment of cooperation yesterday when demonstrators and their lawyer called for a dialogue with police about the events that led to the clash.
After hearing Schirling’s remarks on VPR, the photographer who took the picture said he was “livid,” calling Schirling’s claim “an absolute lie.”
“If you look at the picture, it clearly illustrates that that person’s hand is not wrapped around the baton,” said Dylan Kelley, who has photographed occupy protests around the country. “It is wrapped around a flag or banner or something else. If you zoom in on that lower left hand corner of the frame, and you look at that person’s hand, it is not wrapped around the baton.”
Kelley, who said he was at most four feet away from Cyr, sent Seven Days higher-resolution version of the photograph, which we zoomed in on and cropped to publish here. From the photograph, it’s difficult to say what the bandana-clad protester is clutching, and Schirling was not immediately available Thursday afternoon to respond to Kelley’s comments.
Update – 4 p.m.
Upon viewing the close-up of the photograph, Chief Schirling has retracted his earlier statement made on Vermont Public Radio. In a statement emailed to Seven Days and VPR Thursday afternoon, Schirling said:
“On the show earlier today I described a photograph from the 7 Days website that was given to us this morning as showing a man grabbing an officer’s baton. A few moments ago 7 Days emailed us a much higher resolution enhanced version of the photograph. Upon examination of this new photograph we realize it is not the baton. We will work during our investigation and ‘after action’ review to try to determine what it is. Our assessment of this portion of the event was based solely on the photograph available earlier in the day. I want to be sure we set the record straight as quickly as possible as new information comes to light. I apologize for the error. We continue to ask that anyone with information about this incident, video, photographic, or otherwise, contact us so we may be as thorough as possible.”
This article appears in Aug 1-7, 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Actually, no. To me, the protester is clearly attempting to grab the officer’s baton, and thankfully missed. The protester’s hand is wrapped around the officer’s handheld receiver. There is no apparent “flag or banner” present.
PoPoBetterCorrect¦tself
From what I see, there seems to be a hand grasped around a flag of some sort, the fabric is hanging to the side. He is clearly, however NOT gripping the baton.
It doesn’t appear to be the Motorola radio that I’ve seen used by BPD. Not really sure what it is, but it’s not the baton. I would certainly understand if the protester is grabbing at an item on a duty belt, and the officer thought “Left side, weapon, it’s my baton” versus “right side, it’s my gun” – heated moments like that, it’s not always easy to have a precise record of what transpired without some actual record like these photographs.
in a still photograph, it’s impossible to determine what the protester was or was not attempting to grab. what IS clear, however, is that the protester IS NOT in contact with the officer’s baton, as it has been alleged.
Inconclusive what he is grabbing. Definitely not grabbing the baton. Is that a Diniosaur JR t-shirt he is wearing? That is a crime to the ears. Loudest band in Rock n Roll. But the bass player’s band Sebadoh has a new ep out. It’s worth a listen 🙂
Reaching for a an officer while the officer is performing his job function , grabbing on to something connected to the officer is enough for me. This individual needs to be prosecuted to the hardest extent of the law for attempting to interfere with an officer.. Donovan, Sorrell, and McMullen better be paying attention because they will be asked such questions in their quest for Attorney General.
Good work, Dylan Kelly.
And maybe the protestor isn’t the story at all —
Lt Cyr is grabbing one protestor at the rib cage
with his fist at another protestor’s throat.
Who’s initiating violence?
Where does this picture fit in the sequence of events?
Two things we’ll not stand for in our comments section: attacking other commenters personally, and comparing people who haven’t engaged in systematically murdering millions to Nazis. Just FYI.
Not sure what the protester is grabbing/holding but I can clearly see that the officer is grabbing a man’s throat. It is very important to consider why the officer is physically interfering with these protesters at all. Just because someone decided it was time for the protest to be curtailed does not, in itself, justify this intrusion on their persons. If the intrusion is not lawful, people have a right, a responsibility even, to resist it. Adding: Shame on VPR for not taking calls during Schirlings remarks. If they are going to openly serve as a megaphone for incumbent power propaganda they can kiss my support goodbye.
Even if the officer is intruding on your constitutional right to speech by doing so? I’m not saying this is clear, I am just wondering if that matters.
I will add the person has a covering around his face. Many retailers now have signs to the effect no hoodies allowed etc.
um no he’s not look at the pic again, in relation to where his hand is, if he had the cop’s radio the wire connecting the mic (which is located on top) would located much higher up in the photo. I don’t know what is in the protester’s hand but it’s not baton, or radio. try again. I’m a ham enthusiast, and a radio hobbyist, no hand held cb or ham frequency radio I’ve ever seen has the mic attached to anywhere other than the top. at that angle his hand would have been gripping the wire which is clearly not what he’s gripping. Edit sorry this was meant in reponse to Keilani Lime
It puzzles me how, in an instance where there is clearly a use of harmful physical force – violence – by an armed individual towards several unarmed individuals, with no clear evidence of those individuals resisting or interfering with the armed individual’s performing of a job function. The armed individual happens to be a police officer – that is, a bureaucrat with a gun, bestowed by the state with a sanctioning to harm individuals when they are deemed non-compliant with dominant social order. In other words, law.
I fail to understand why in so many people’s eyes police violence is rendered invisible simply because it is exerted upon persons who are deemed to be in violation of the law. I equally fail to understand why so many people choose to identify with the perpetrators of violence in these sorts of situations, whom by and large are the police, but also, the political and economic elite whom they are “protecting” (making inaccessible to the general public).
Police are not immune from ethical and moral scrutiny. There is no moral justification for physical violence and brutality simply because people will not move; the situation could have been handled far more peacefully, professionally, and responsibly. The BDP’s attempt a getting a story out there that is patently false will come back to haunt them, as it only further shatters the illusion that their authority is a legitimate one even when they are clearly no longer acting in the interest of the public they ostensibly protect and serve.
The BDP is acting like an abusive spouse trying to make up excuses for their reprehensible behavior towards their traumatized partner, all the while cheerfully telling the neighbors that the screams they heard last night were coming from the television. As a community, I feel it is time for an intervention – a serious dialogue where we discuss, outside of the flash and pizzaz of scripted talking points and press conferences, what the role of the BDP in Burlington is right now, and what it ought to be.
Not the baton, man. Have to drop that charge.
I would agree but the question is is the object in question attached to the officer in some way? We don’t even know what that is and the officer could be simply leaning in to the protester against what ever the object is.
And if the protester is grabbing onto something attached to the officer, let me ask this question, if any of you were being pushed, by anybody, wouldn’t you grab something to keep from falling? I would. falling on pavement can hurt like hell.
I’m not fure free speech means “grabbing a police officer”. Go limp, lay on the ground, resist peacefully, etc. I’d buy. Physically responding to an officer, not very smart.
Freeze, Get back, stop. All commands issued by police that should be followed. Dark alley middle of night nobody knows whos who ok lets get out in the light and solve issue. This issue broad daylight no question whos whos Keep it up protestors and you will meet shoot to kill face first.
Not only that but the story then became Marni grabbed a baton in typical police truth drift. I had this experience years a go when George Bush senior came to town watching the police make hash out of truth. There are good cops and bad cops like in everything but the police always close ranks around their bad ones when exposed to the public.
Oh for Pete’s sale. Schirlings number 1 mistake was explaining himself to the protestors. Two was the baton deal, which from the first photo you can see how he might have made a mistake.
Thirdly, the photographer is wrong, he is grabbing the cops radio.
IV.) its all a moot point, the guy reached for something on the officers person and the officer responded, in an appropriate manner I might add.
E.) It appears the protestors are pushing and the cop is pushing back. Why? Why would protestors engage in a physical confrontation with a police officer. That’s just plain stupid and hopefully a few rubber bullets to the head knocked some sense into them.
6.) Why is everyone so surprised? It was only a matter of time, every time a protest occurs the boundaries are pushed a little further. Eventually you find the limits. Now you know. Take heed and be aware next time or expect the same.
Who showed up with weapons? Who used weapons on unarmed people? There is one answer to both questions, and that says it all.
VPR, like NPR, is gov’t propaganda radio. It has been for decades. To expect anything else is a mistake.
” with no clear evidence of those individuals resisting or interfering with the armed individual’s performing of a job function.” You don’t call creating a blockade at the exit route and not moving when asked continually to do so, not resisting and not interfering!
pepper spray bottle?
VPR (Vermont Paramilitary Reporters), and NPR (National Pentagon Radio) lost my support over a decade ago.
The bottom line is: you don’t initiate violence against people who are standing, unarmed, unthreateningly, in the street. Not in my town. Not in my state.
Absent a functioning democracy, we are obligated to seek non-violent means of effectively expressing dissent. These actions may sometimes be messy, inconvenient, and disruptive. With the popular media (including “public radio,” etc.) under total corporate control, we are left with the streets. Everyone in the 99% owes their diminishing freedoms to those who risk personal injury and detention to protect and preserve democracy. We deserve respect, not scorn or derision. This is a call to rise.
Who showed up wearing masks to conceal their identities? Who illegally blocked traffic? Who refused a police request to move?
Professional protesters, that’s who. People who absolutely wanted a confrontation with the police, that’s who.
They got less than they deserved.
You’re confusing a constitutional right to speech with no constitutional right to block traffic and refuse a policeman’s order to move. What is it about illegal conduct that you just don’t get?
They did get less than they deserved, less justice, less democracy, less integrity from the police. You think wearing a mask deserves rubber bullets? Do you believe in democracy? Apparently not.
No, the protester had a black flag (traditional anarchist symbol) in his hand, and was not reaching for the baton at all. Proof that the media will spin anything.
I wasn’t there, but I watched the videos and it appears that this particular officer was really enjoying confrontation with the protesters prior to the escalation, telling them that he knows who they are and taking pictures with his cell phone. I really couldn’t see anything in the videos that showed physical aggression on the part of the protesters. If they were in violation of the law, then arrest is in order, not assault.
It’s a flag.
Looks like an umbrella to me.
So VPR ran an EDITED picture, which the police gave them, obviously with the intention of misleading the public, and VPR never checked to see if the photo was altered, never checked with Dylan, the source of the photo? This is at best case an example of SHAMEFUL lack of journalistic ethics. But it looks like this is more likely evidence that VRP is being controlled and edited by the military/police. If these protesters broke a law, they should have been arrested. Beating and shooting people who are exercising their right to freedom of assembly, that is called ASSAULT. Where are the criminal assault charges?
To be honest it looks like his trying to stand up right grabbing what he can to stay standing but I would to take a logical guess what he is got in his hands is the radio. I only see self defense on both parts.
Unfortunately, Juliet, you are wrong. If you look a bit more closely, the hand on the throat is part of the interlocking chain of protesters. Unfortunately, it appears you haven’t spent enough time watching the videos of what happened. The police did not react in an inappropriate manner, and anyone with a basic understanding of law, and eyes, can see that.
I think breaking the law deserves something, yes.
Exactly. A bunch of spoiled brats that want to act out but squeal like stuck pigs when they’re challenged.
Why do people trust someone like Michael Shirlling anyway?
Global Justice Ecology Project ran this following article
http://climate-connections.org…
on our blog Climate Connections (to find this photo and commentary below you have to scroll to the end of the url listed above):
Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling in the shut down Occupy Burlington encampment. Photo: Langelle/GJEPAdditional GJEP Note: The Occupy Burlington (VT-US) encampment was shut down last month by the Burlington Police Department. The excuse they used was the November 10th suicide at the camp of a homeless young man named Josh Pfenning who once served in the military.Later that same day, the police and mayor invited Occupy Burlington participants into City Hall to discuss next steps. While the protesters were in the meeting, police cordoned off the entire camp as a crime scene and would not let participants return to their tents.A statement from Burlington city officials and Police Chief Michael Schirling to Occupy Burlington explains, “In the wake of the tragic death of Josh Pfenning, Burlington Police have an active criminal investigation that involves serious and complicated work to ensure that all aspects of this investigation are conducted thoroughly and professionally. Among the issues this raises is the need to maintain control of the “crime” scene while investigation continues. Until we are fully confident that all possible investigative avenues have been expended we must maintain control of that area of the park and it remains closed until further notice.”This photograph shows Burlington Police Chief Michael Schirling’s idea of “serious and complicated work” at the crime scene on Saturday, November 12th, two days after the suicide. His “thorough and professional” effort involved dismantling parts of the camp prior to the official investigation. A Burlington police officer explained that the detective charged with investigating the crime scene had Saturday day off and would not complete his investigation and release the “crime scene” until Sunday the 13th.The Burlington Free-Press reported that: “Police Chief Michael Schirling… said the shooting [Pfenning killed himself with a gunshot to the head] … had convinced him that the public’s safety cannot be assured unless the encampment is disbanded.”Did the shooting convince him or did Homeland Security? Photo: Langelle/GJEP
Looking at the vids it seems like an unfortunate escalation. The image of “riot gear” and the weapons is also unfortunate, but all in the name of avoiding injury from a potential mob while doing what we expect police to do. Regardless of who was on the bus – or lined up behind them just wanting to head to work…or school…or church…or the Shelburne Museum – They had a right to not be held against their will. Which seemed to be the objective of the protestors?
The fine line between civil disobedience and putting your own rights in front of others. I am glad nobody got hurt.
I would argue that the demonstrators were not resisting, but were interfering. Not complying with police orders subjects one to arrest not to the use of force.
Nabil, I would take another look at the photo. To me it certainly looks like the officers fist is on the other man’s neck. Follow the officers shoulder to the end of his shirtsleeve. His elbow is exposed and in the sun, and the lower arm then extends into other man’s neck.
The police absolutely did act in an inappropriate manner. Proper police protocol would have been to issue a final warning to those not complying with police orders that they are subject to arrest and then move forward with that process. The use of force, especially firing weapons at fellow citizens at extremely close range, was entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, police chose to escalate the conflict by marching riot police holding shields into the demonstrators.
The demonstrators were subject to arrest when they chose to not comply with police orders. The use of force was indeed woefully inappropriate.
The protestors hands appear linked together. What do you suppose they are pushing with?
It’s painfully obvious that this particular subgroup of protesters wanted the police to use force against them. They got what they wanted and what they deserved.
I want to see a copy of the permit the protesters applied for and obtained to occupy College Street. Can someone please produce it?
Actually, it looks like the officer has a closed fist, so I think the proper term would be punching, not grabbing. The officer appears to be punching the protester wearing a hat in the throat while delivering a brutal ‘texas titty twister’ to the protester that the police were caught in this lie trying to scapegoat as the instigator of the situation. Why do I get the feeling that the chief is more contrite for the mistake of getting caught in a lie than the mistake of lying in the first place? As BPD struggles to cover this up and put the lid on it, they are just illustrating more and more why we need an independent investigation of this event, and a moratorium on the types of weapons the police assaulted the protesters with. We need to put an end to police violence, and restore accountability to the police force. This level of unaccountable police behavior leads invariably to either a police state, or a situation like in Newport. Police coverups aren’t good for anybody!
If the police were trying to clear the driveway, and the protesters were breaking the law, they should have been arrested, not assaulted. But, arresting a citizen requires lots of paperwork, and requires the citizen to actually be breaking a law, not just causing an inconvenience. It would also require the police to answer for their actions in court.
Also, the people in the buses were not ‘held against their will,’ they could have found alternate routes to where they were going or alternate ways to get there, just like when the police block off roads for parades. Many people cannot access the street where they want to, but nobody says people are being held against their will.
You are right, there is a fine line, and it is fortunate that nobody got seriously hurt, however, the available evidence shows that this was escalated by the police, and the police statements were not accurate which really indicates that this should be investigated by an independent party.
It is funny that none of the police statements claim that protesters grabbed a microphone.
Eastwood, your contributions demonstrate that you re uninformed.
First, it is common knowledge that the protesters were hoping for a physical confrontation, not just to be arrested. So, a group of people specifically look for a fight and then complain that the police “used force”? It’s a totally childish position — intentionally childish, to be sure, but childish nonetheless.
Second, there was no alternative route for the buses. If you’d read all the stories on this event, you’d know that the protesters had originally blocked the buses from parking in front of the hotel on Battery Street. So the buses went to the back entrance on College Street, which was the only other entrance. Once the buses went into the back entrance off College Street, that was the only way they could come back out. So, no, there was no other route. Furthermore, the issue of whether there was another route is meaningless when the intent of the protesters is to prevent the people on the buses, at all costs, from getting to their destination, isn’t it? Are you saying that it was the bus driver’s duty to play a game of cat and mouse with the protesters?
Please inform yourself.
Sutton, you are confusing a right of free travel with no right to prevent a person from their right to free speech. The police cannot legally order somebody to stop exercising their rights. If the protesters were breaking the law, the only lawful action for the police to take was to arrest the wrong doers, however, it appears they chose to violate the law themselves and attack the protesters instead. It appears that the chief of police has decided to resort to misstatements to attempt to justify police misconduct. Surely, if the police have nothing to hide, there should be no problem with an independent impartial investigation?
Hoo, I don’t think the protesters have the sort of criminal genius that you are giving them credit for, or that the cops are so incompetent that they could be tricked into breaking the law like that. When faced with nonviolent protesters that are breaking the law, the police have two options, follow the law and arrest the protesters that are breaking the law, or join the lawlessness and attack the protesters. In Burlington, the police purposefully chose the latter, they chose Violence, and in doing so, they are as accountable for their actions as any other citizen. The police do not have the right to chose violence against non violent citizens. They do not have the right to fire weapons at unarmed non-violent people.
All the commanding officer had to do was stop playing peekaboo with the protesters and arrest one. Do you really think the protesters would have stuck around once they realized that the cops 1) mean business, and 2) cannot be tricked into breaking the law themselves? Gimme a break, on the one hand you pro-police state folks say the protesters are just a bunch of unwashed criminal hippy crybabies, then on the other hand you say they outsmarted the police…
Instead, after playing games, he and the other officers seem to have decided to shirk their duty to uphold the law, and ‘give them what they deserved’. This is not acceptable police behavior. This is why there NEEDS to be an independent investigation. IF it clears the cops, great, but if there are cops that acted improperly, they need to be publicly held accountable. The BPD has proven through their statements that they are not interested in the facts, and that is why there needs to be an outside probe into this matter.
Uninformed again.
They tried to arrest one. He resisted, and another protester then grabbed the cop in an attempt to get the first guy release. The two protesters ended up dragging the cop down the street. You call that non-violent resistance? You call that allowing themselves to be arrested? Not hardly.
“but if there are cops that acted improperly, they need to be publicly held accountable.”
The first and only people who broke the law were hooligans who blocked a public street without ever getting a permit. I don’t hear you howling for them to be “held accountable.”
That is simply untrue. Where did you come by the incorrect idea that the ONLY legal thing police can do with a lawbreaker is arrest him or her? Did you study criminal law in law school? Police CAN use force to stop lawbreaking behavior. Moreover, what happens when the person resists arrest? Are you saying the police can’t use physical force in carrtying out their duties? Uninformed nonsense. Moreover, arrests do not have to be immediate. Police absolutely have the right to resort to physical force to stop lawbreaking behavior and make arrests later.
And I hope they do. I hope they arrest everyone who they can identify as having blocked the street and not complied with the order to move. But they won’t, because they know that’s exactly what the hooligans want — more publicity.
Nobody was being ordered to stop exercising their right to free speech. They were simply being ordered to not impede traffic while doing so. The cops should have just stepped out of the way and told the bus driver to proceed.
Violence is a tricky word. Violating an individual’s ability to go
about their business would be included in that. That bus driver had a
right to pass. Freedom of speech gives them the right to yell at them
as the bus passes, but the law was broken when they blocked the drive.
I think that “join the lawlessness and attack the protesters” is an
unfortunate characterization of what happened.
I don’t think that
arresting one of the protesters would make any of them go away. Mob
mentality is a difficult part of free democracy. It looks like they dealt with it
best as they could. Like I said, the images are not comfortable, but
those were the tools they were given. It is pretty clear from the vids,
that the helmet-free, bare-handed cop did ask them to move. Then he
offered the group a shove. Perhaps he was a little optimistic that that
would do the trick, but it seemed like the next step. The cops did not just show up and start “assaulting” protesters.
To expect the bus driver to proceed and nudge them out of the way is not reasonable. That is what law enforcement is for….like it or not. Otherwise is vigilantism. Law enforcement gets a microscope when things don’t go smoothly, but otherwise taken for granted.