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!
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?
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.
It is funny that none of the police statements claim that protesters grabbed a microphone.
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.
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!
I want to see a copy of the permit the protesters applied for and obtained to occupy College Street. Can someone please produce it?
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.
The protestors hands appear linked together. What do you suppose they are pushing with?
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.
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.