Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:36 am
Time: 12:36 am
Results for civil disorders
2 results foundAuthor: U.S. Department of Justice Title: Law Enforcement Guidelines for First Amendment-Protected Events Summary: As articulated in the United States Constitution, one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment is the right of persons and groups to assemble peacefully. Whether demonstrating, counterprotesting, or showing support for a cause, individuals and groups have the right to peacefully gather. Law enforcement, in turn, has the responsibility to ensure public safety while protecting the privacy and associated rights of individuals. To support agencies as they fulfill their public safety responsibilities, the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) developed this paper to provide guidance and recommendations to law enforcement officers in understanding their role in First Amendment-protected events. This paper is divided into three areas, designed to provide in-depth guidance for law enforcement. Pre-Event Stage—Discusses how law enforcement will plan for an event or demonstration where First Amendment protections are involved, focusing on the activity that begins when law enforcement leadership learns of an event and must determine the level, if any, of involvement at the event, from both public safety and investigative standpoints. Operational Stage—Focuses on how law enforcement will respond to the event, based on the findings from the Pre-Event Stage, including the development and execution of the Operations Plan. Post-Event Stage—Addresses how and whether information obtained as a result of the event (both during the Pre-Event Stage and Operational Stage) will be evaluated, disseminated, retained, or discarded, as per agency policy. As agencies respond to First Amendment-protected events, law enforcement leadership should be aware of certain “red flag” issues that may arise as they assess whether the agency and personnel should be involved in these events and, if so, what form that involvement should take. As agencies review and understand the concepts and recommendations within this paper, special consideration should be given to these “red flag” issues to ensure that law enforcement agencies and personnel do not infringe on the rights of persons and groups. The purpose of this paper is to provide greater awareness and understanding of the appropriate role of law enforcement in events and demonstrations where First Amendment rights are involved. This paper provides guidance and recommendations to law enforcement officers as they prepare for, respond to, and follow up with events, activities, and assemblies that are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. As officers address these types of events, the three-stage process identified in this paper should be incorporated into agency policies, manuals, and/or directives. This process, while focusing on law enforcement’s response to First Amendment events and activities, is not designed to limit the ability of officers to engage in normal criminal investigations or public safety missions. A law enforcement agency may have special rules and procedures governing the levels of review and approval required to engage in preliminary or full investigations or other activities discussed herein; as such, officers should be aware of and understand these rules and procedures. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2011 at: http://publicintelligence.net/doj-dhs-law-enforcement-guidelines-for-first-amendment-protected-events/ Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://publicintelligence.net/doj-dhs-law-enforcement-guidelines-for-first-amendment-protected-events/ Shelf Number: 123451 Keywords: Civil DisordersCrowd ControlProtest Demonstrations (U.S.) |
Author: Hallsworth, Simon Title: Urban Disorder and Gangs: A Critique and a Warning Summary: We’ve already learnt a great deal from this summer’s catastrophic riots. We’ve mostly learnt what we do not know; we do not know why so many people thought that they would be justified in using the opportunity to indulge in burning and looting; we do not know what role inequality in general and racial inequality in particular played in rioters motivations; and we do not know what needs to be done to ensure that riots of this kind do not happen again. For social policy researchers, the riots should have been humbling and led to revisiting some of the assumptions we had been making about our society. Instead, we’ve also had confirmed for us the challenge in our current political climate of making policy decisions based on evidence. Instead of an approach which sought to gather and understand the evidence, we had a near immediate rush to off-the-shelf theorizing. The riots, it seems, have been all things to all people and have only served to confirm existing views rather than being an opportunity for reflection. This rush has led to a number of myths about the events of the summer; rioters were all ‘criminal, pure and simple’, these riots were nothing to do with racial injustice, criminal gangs were key players, young people are out of control, family structures in our cities are not providing the necessary moral framework, black culture is pathological, etc. The lack of evidence has created a vacuum into which these competing theories have been thrown, and the government’s initial rejection of a public inquiry in favour of a more poorly resourced select committee review and a public engagement ‘victims panel’, may not provide us with the understanding that will cut through the miasma of opinion to discern what really happened and how we make sure it does not happen again. The policy responses to the summer’s riots are coming thick and fast, with reformers emboldened to dust off their pet projects. It is crucial in this period that we make decisions based on evidence rather than speculation, and consider carefully the implications of the decisions made. Instead of trying to understand the riots in order to ensure that social breakdown of this kind does not happen again, we are at risk of allowing the myths to drive the policy agenda. The chances of lasting solutions are in danger of eluding our grasp. Here Simon Hallsworth and David Brotherton highlight the dangers of rushing to ‘gang talk’ to explain the riots or to suggest solutions. The implications of poor policy making in this area are likely to have serious implications for those already marginalised groups within our society. In shaping the responses to the riots it is crucial that we do not merely add fuel to the fire but seek to find lasting solutions to ensure that destructive riots do not scar our neighbourhoods again. Details: London: Runnymeade, 2011. 28p. Source: Runnymeade Perspectives: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2012 at http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/UrbanDisorderandGangs-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/UrbanDisorderandGangs-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123983 Keywords: Civil DisordersNuisance Behaviors and Disorder (U.K.)Riots (U.K.) |