You don’t have to go to school for it. There are no tests I’m aware of. In fact, you don’t have to be paid,as if there was anyone to pay you if you did. The title is Professional Agitator. As my young friends like to say, that’s badass. And the title has been bestowed by no less consequential an entity than the 30th Precinct of the New York City Police Department on Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez.
How does one achieve such high honor? From DNAInfo :
This Harlem couple, angered and disgusted by New York police department’s stop and frisk policy as are so many others (Mayor Bloomberg, excepted), have been taping the cops tossing their targets and putting it on Youtube for all to see. One might suppose a cop would relish the opportunity to have his fine police work captured on video and displayed for all to see. Don’t they love the TV show COPS!? They’re always happy to pose for the camera when they get a new medal pinned to their chest.HARLEM — The NYPD has created a “wanted” poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube — branding them “professional agitators” who portray cops in a bad light and listing their home address, DNAinfo.com New York has learned.
The flyer featured side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye, 35, and his partner Christina Gonzalez, 25, and warned officers to be on guard against them.
“Be aware that above subjects are known professional agitators,” read the flyer, which bears the NYPD shield and a seal of the NYPD‘s Intelligence Division. It also gave the home address of the couple.“Above subjects MO is that they video tape officers performing routine stops and post on YouTube,” the sign said. “Subjects purpose is to portray officers in a negative way and too [sic] deter officers from conducting there [sic] responsibilities.”
The flyer also listed the name and cellphone number of a Sgt. Nicholson in the 30th Precinct, and implored cops to “not feed into above subjects propaganda.”
Yet the “wanted poster” for Swaye and Gonzalez didn’t mention that the police wanted to throw them a party and thank them for their kind attention. Instead, it suggested they might be bank robbers or rapists; or worse still, “professional agitators.”
Ironically, the police claim is that these “subjects’ purpose” (don’t you love police jargon) “is to portray officers in a negative way.” No connection is made to the fact that they can only videotape officers doing what they do. If that turns out to portray the cops in a negative light, don’t blame the camera. Don’t blame the people holding the camera. Or does a cop do no wrong if there’s no pictures?
That the wanted poster was openly displayed at the Dirty 30 for all who came to a public hearing was curious. Was its purpose to intimidate Swaye and Gonzalez? Was if to shame them by making them appear to be criminals? Or was it to warn cops not to engage in unlawful and abusive conduct if the duo was around?
Ken from Popehat and the Agitator, and possibly more by the time you read this post, ponders its meaning:
No doubt his critique is accurate, addressing as it does the motivations of our public servants, New York’s Finest, to do their job without the burden of public scrutiny or accountability. But then, if it serves to make cops think twice about their actions, about whether somebody out there with a ubiquitous video camera is capturing (something they only wish they could do) their sausage-making for the rest of us to see, then the purpose is served.I think Jacob Sullum is right in his post about this incident when he writes that the poster can be taken in two ways: the style and publication of the couples’ home address suggests intimidation, while some of the language suggests a warning to police to leave them alone rather than approach them in a manner that will look bad on video. But whatever the intended message, the unintended message about law enforcement’s entitled attitudes is clear. First, in the face of steadily advancing legal norms protecting citizens’ rights to record cops in the course of their duties, cops continue to do everything they can to portray such recording as dangerous, intrusive, inappropriate, and a signifier of bad citizenship. Second, cops view concern about constitutional rights as a signifier of bad intent and suspect behavior. Only an agitator would want to document, and challenge, the widespread temporary detention of young men of color in New York City.
Whether the police moderate their conduct, adhere to the law and respect the rights of citizens, because they chose to or because they fear public exposure, anything that raised fear of embarrassment and, in the rarest of circumstances, possible discipline is a great thing. Those inclined toward misconduct and abuse aren’t likely to change their view because they’ve watched too many reruns of the Andy Griffith show*, but for their own self-interest. Anything that makes their perspective more enlightened makes people safer and their rights more secure.
It may not be sufficient to end police abuse and misconduct, but every human being who survives a stroll down St. Nicholas Avenue unharmed is a victory. And so, awarding the title of professional agitators to Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez is quite an honor. They deserve it.
* As both an homage to Andy Griffith on his passing, and a reminder of a better times, enjoy this video.
And don’t blame Opie. He was just reading his lines.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ah but Andy was a complete fiction from a story book time that never existed (redundant enough for ya?); right? (says the left)
And he never could have known the dangers we face, blah, blah, blah. (says the right, and lately, the left)
Andy wasn’t even a real sheriff. But the writers who gave the character those lines on a television show so beloved by America and so reflective of our culture at the moment knew what they were doing.
And for those who believe with all their heart that “today is different” forget our fear of the commies. We’ve always had an enemy to fear, and at least for the moment, they were always the greatest threat ever. They were always thrown in our faces as “changing everything,” and they were always wrong. We survived, because we returned to core values and (eventually) recognized that fear is never the basis for a nation’s survival.
But then, this time is different. 9/11 changed everything. Left and right. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Well… If the officers have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t mind.
And if they have plenty to hide and don’t want to get caught, then let there be plenty of professional agitators.
“Well… If the officers have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t mind.”
I see what you did there…
Sir, NYPD has done nothing but shine one big-ass spotlight on their “Retaliation Unit”. Sadly, it goes further by repelling tourist and businesses that learn about it. Those that don’t know about it and resemble the “Dynamic Duo” will learn about it when they break out their cameras.
Please let us know what in the hell is in the water up in your neck of the woods? Asking due to – NYPD having a history of sticking items in folk’s asses or threatening to stick items in their asses and then sticking it in their mouths. When the citizens are made aware that their public servants double as but-bandits and do nothing, the rest of the country expects or looks forward to learning about bloody plungers, stinky glocks and now “Retaliation Units”.
These two humans are real life sized Public Heroes and the NYPD has marked them for retaliation at the taxpayer’s expense. I predict that these same taxpayers will be funding a wrongful death award when they are found shot dead with items in their asses. Allowing uniformed pedophiles & faggots to protect and serve and now condoning a “Retaliation Unit” to represent an entire city is a WTF? moment.
*C’mon New York the world is watching and it’s embarrassing. Thanks.
Some jurisdictions are considering having patrol officers wear body cams, in addition or instead of their standard dash cam in their vehicle. Too many times has a suspect been booked into custody looking a little too roughed up for explanation, but the answer is always that we have no way of knowing what really happened out there. Body cams would provide the easy answer for that – we would see things exactly as the officer saw them. But there has been a tremendous push back from officers and their unions. This “public agitator” warning seems to shed some light on the sentiments of law enforcement.
Two basic ideas for useful comments around here. First, if you’re going to enlighten others, be sure it isn’t something that’s been discussed before, often multiple times, and by people far more knowledgeable. There have been more than 5000 posts here. Most things have been thoroughly covered, and most obvious things (by which I mean to say, things like body cams) many times.
Second, please stay on topic.