“Protest” Vs. “Riot” in Brooklyn
We’ve all heard of the Crown Heights race riots. So, what does this episode in Brooklyn sound like to you?
Hundreds of Borough Park residents rushed the 66th precinct station house chanting “No justice, no peace” to protest what witnesses say was the rough treatment of a…business-owner by police.
Two garbage fires were set during the melee, which stretched for several blocks and closed numerous streets. Police, however, were able to contain the crowd by 9:30 p.m. and no injuries were reported.
Police sources say the protest was sparked after officers approached 75-year-old…who was talking on his cell phone while double-parked in front of his family-owned bakery on 16th Avenue at around 6:30 p.m.
When police attempted to handcuff Schick, two other…men tried to step in. A crowd then formed, and the scene quickly grew unruly.
Protesters threw garbage and hundreds of residents blocked the street around…Bakery.
Sounds like a riot to me. But I removed words in the above indicating it’s about a Hasidic man who got arrested and Hasidim leading the action; if they’re Jews, it’s a protest and not a riot, seemingly.
Who else calls it a protest? The New York Times, with a lede describing “a protest last night by hundreds of Orthodox Jews, who surrounded a police station house, chanted ‘No justice no peace,’ lighted bonfires and set a police car afire.”
The New York Daily News also called it a protest, though they did call the Hasidim “angry mobs.” They also provide more details:
They set fire to old magazines, fruit boxes and other trash up and down the avenue.
Firefighters raced to put out at least seven blazes and water down the streets.
Demonstrators smashed the windows of one police cruiser and torched another by throwing a gasoline-soaked rag into its backseat.
The NYDN does note that “riot police” were dispatched, but falls short of calling the action a riot.
The New York Post calls it a protest.
So, how did these papers refer to what black residents of Crown Heights did in August 1991?
NYT (8/25/91): “the riot.”
NYP: No archives from before 1997 on Nexis, but repeated subsequent mentions of “Crown Heights riots.”
NYDN: No pre-1995 archives, but similar repeated subsequent mentions of “Crown Heights riots.”
UPDATE: Joshua Micah Marshall writes: “And once you set a police car on fire, isn’t that a riot?” One would think so.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Look at the NYPD boards — full of anti-semitism
...
April 5th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Steve:
There is a big difference between last night and 1991. In 1991, groups of Black people march up and down the streets of Crown Heights yelling, “F the Jews, tonight is the night we get ourselves a Jew!!
In 1991, for three straight days, they overturned cars, threw rocks threw a window, beat up Jews and killed a Jew.
How can you even compare the two?
You make it seems like Jews get special treatment. A comparison of the two incidents will show you the complete opposite.
In 1991, the police just stood there with a “Let them vent” attitude and refused to make arrests. Last night, the police marched up and down the streets with their SWAT cars clearing everyone out of the streets. If they would have done that in 1991, Yankel Rosenbaum would still be alive today.
Call 1991 a “RIOT” is being to nice to the Black population of Crown Heights. Rather, 1991 was a progrom against Jews.
Your questioning should be about the analysis of 1991 not last night.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
2 obvious points to be made:
1) driving in boro park is insane…i once witnessed 2 separate instances of pedestrians being hit by cars in fron of amnon’s pizza…in a 1 hour period (the pizza was decent btw)
2) a little controlled riot is not a bad thing…keeps the often trigger-happy cops in line…as long as its over by night seder…
April 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Interesting, to be sure. I even mentioned this to a colleague this morning over coffee. I wonder if the NYPD response would have been the same had the “protest” taken place in Red Hook, Washington Heights, the South Bronx or Thompkins Square Park?
April 5th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I think this is excellent analysis, Steven. I wonder if there isn’t another angle though. Could this be the media not taking the idea of Jewish violence seriously? If there is violence (and car burning) and still it only gets called a ‘protest,’ maybe it is a perspective that men with sidecurls and black hats couldn’t riot even if they tried. Thoughts?
April 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Of course it’s a riot. What happened in 1991 is compelety irrelevant. Each event stands on its own, unless you’re one of those Republican moral-equivalence types.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Zev
The answer to your question is the both were riots differing only in degree.
A protest turns into a riot when public violence starts to occur. ie (burning cars, smashing windows) A protest can contain public acts of disobedience all fine and well but if they resort to violence it becomes a riot.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
In 1991, for three straight days, they overturned cars, threw rocks threw a window, beat up Jews and killed a Jew.
How can you even compare the two?
The two incidents are not being compared in terms of severity. They’re both riots, yet one has that name and another doesn’t.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I argued a little while ago about how the MSM has an inherent bias against protesters (always focusing on the wildest elements), but you’re right that the term ‘riot’ seems reserved for people that white bourgeois reporters consider alien. So blacks, Mexicans, and Arabs riot, but Hasids protest.
I’m not saying there are no differences between the Crown Heights riots and last night’s riots, but as JMM wrote, once a cop car is set on fire, it’s a riot.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Riot Police?
Excuse me, I think you mean the Protest Police.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
The anchor (Amy Cho?) on Channel 7 (ABC in NY) said, “We want to make it very clear that this is not a riot. There were three arrests, and some strong words, but no violence and no injuries.”
I think they know where their bread is buttered, and in NYC, that means not bashing the hasidics. The hasidics and the politicians are very tight, so the media want to keep feathers as unruffled as possible.
As for the behavior of the ‘protesters’ - lighting garbage fires and torching a cop car - I think it’s reprehensible. Those animals are not Jews. They’re dreck. Throw them out with the chametz.
The same ‘protest tactic’ is used in Israel - when the haredim are upset about something, they light their dumpsters on fire. When the fire department arrives, some troublemaker in the assembled crowd throws rocks at the firefighters. When the firefighters call for police backup, and the police start dispersing the ‘protesters,’ the crowd begins chanting, “Nazis, Nazis.” I saw this with my own eyes, in December of 1995. Nothing’s changed.
April 5th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I don’t know if it was a riot but as the driver himself said it was shameful. He was interviewed on 1010 wins ...
April 5th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
It’s a riot…but let us make a distiction between the Hasidic community and mainstream Jews the same way we do with fanatical Islam vs. Mainstream Islam. As a Jew, I’ve always regarded the Hasidic communitiy as more insular, self absorbed, and bizzaro religious than any other sect of my religion.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Josh- yes, the Hasidim are as batshit crazy as Pentecostals or Al Qaeda. But that doesn’t reflect on mainstream Jews, Christians, or Muslems.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Of course it was a riot. The racism involved in calling it a protest is appalling. Zevi Fisher get a clue. If the police overstepped their authority (that’s a stretch) then deal with the police through appropriate channels. Burning my tax dollars is not an effective coping mechanisim.
BTW, I assume those guilty of arson will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Keep tuned.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
I’m not much of a fan Hasidism or any other type of fundamentalism, but comparing Hasids (or Pentecontalists) to Al Qaeda? That’s just ignorant.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Lee,
I do not need to “get a clue.” The legal definition of a riot is “A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.”
Where was the violence last night ? Was anyone assaulted, battered or killed?
In any event, I never said that last night could not be called a “riot” My point was last night could not compared to 1991 when countless amounts of Jews were beaten, there homes and property were damaged a a Jew was killed.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Small riot / violent protest — whatever. What you missed is that this is far from the first time Hassidic mobs have shown up at the local precinct. Was it more violent than previous occasions? Has there been a trend of increasing violence? Do they tend to occur a week before Pesach?
April 5th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
The police may overeact in many circumstances, especially when the subject dosen’t respond fast enough. But the reaction of the community went far beyond a peaceful demonstration of community support. It showed that the Crown Heights group has become much to militant. And it has reacted with anger and it’s versions of terror. Uncontrollable outburst are not tollerated by anyone over anything in a civil society. While the police may have overeacted to a minor traffic stop, the community committed an act of civil unrest, and should feel the brunt of government for their unlawful actions. After all this is not the west bank, and they are not palestinians.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I don’t think this a black vs. Jewish decision among editors, but has something to do with the perceived intent of the mobs. Compare to coverage of the WTO demonstrations in Seattle, which sure sound like riots to me:
November 30, 1999
SEATTLE (CNN) — Mayor Paul Schell has declared a state of emergency in downtown Seattle as a result of violent anti-WTO street protests and will impose a curfew from 7 p.m. (10 p.m. EST) until sunrise.
At least 19 people had been arrested Tuesday afternoon in the protests, in which anti-WTO demonstrators rallying for an assortment of causes broke downtown store windows, engaged in some looting, blocked major intersections, clogged streets and prevented delegates from leaving their hotels.
AND, apparently you can kill someone and still be called a protestor if it’s clear what you are protesting:
Cartoon protests rage in muslim world
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — International peacekeepers clashed Tuesday with Afghans protesting drawings of the Prophet Muhammad, leaving three demonstrators dead and prompting NATO to send reinforcements to a remote northern city.
NATO, protesters trade shots during Afghanistan protest
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — NATO peacekeepers exchanged fire with protesters who attacked their base Tuesday in the second straight day of violent demonstrations in Afghanistan over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, Afghan officials said. One demonstrator was killed and dozens wounded.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Race and religious affiliation should have nothing to do with what the media calls a large group of angry people. Once burning trash is introduced into the equation, it’s a riot. The burning police cruiser was also a good indicator.
Here’s a fun misnomer for you. In North Carolina, when sports enthusiasts (read: fanatical lunatics) at UNC-Chapel Hill set cars on fire after their team wins, it’s not called a protest or a riot: It’s called celebrating. No kidding.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
OK. I was there right when it started. I was also the “first” website/blog to put the incident onto the internet. I will tell you that these Chassidim were rioting! Not “protesting”, but “rioting”!!
YW Editor.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Here’s where the story really is: Usually the Chassidim just march into the station and free the prisoners. That didn’t happen this time: what stopped them?
April 5th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Arthur Shick himself says it was a riot. It’s in the NY Times ...
Arrested Driver Blames Police and Protesters for Brooklyn Melee
By ANDY NEWMAN and MARIA NEWMAN
The man at the center of a melee on Tuesday night in Borough Park, Brooklyn, today criticized both the New York City police and the hundreds of Orthodox Jews who protested in the streets for hours after his arrest, even setting a police car on fire.
Arthur Schick, a 75-year-old caterer who was stopped by police on Tuesday for talking on his cellphone while driving, said he was not aware of the protest that ensued after police hauled him away until he was released from a holding cell at the 66th Precinct house hours later.
In an interview today in his home on East 17th Street in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, Mr. Schick said both sides were wrong.
“The riots were 100 percent wrong,” he said. “Protest is good, but it has to be done in a legal, proper and civil manner.
“I came to Borough Park in 1938,” he said. “Such behavior is really uncalled for.”
He said he had filed a complaint with the police department’s internal affairs office for the way he was handled by the two officers who pulled him over, saying they had roughed him.
The police arrested two men in addition to Mr. Schick, but no serious injuries were reported.
At police headquarters today, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said he believed the police acted appropriately in the way they handled the matter on Tuesday night, when hundreds of people from the Hassidic Jewish community chanted protests, with some setting bonfires and igniting a police car as word spread that Mr. Schick was being mistreated.
“I believe the response was appropriate to the situation,” Mr. Kelly said during a meeting with reporters and leaders from the Hasidic community at police headquarters in Manhattan. “I’m satisfied with the response.”
He said two officers were assaulted during the confrontation, including Sgt. Angelo Russo, one of the arresting officers, after someone in the crowd attempted to pull him down during the arrest.
Another officer at the scene, who Mr. Kelly did not identify, was kicked by Chaim Appel, 37, Mr. Kelly said.
Mr. Appel, who faces an assault charge, is due to be arraigned today, a law enforcement official said.
Mr. Kelly identified the third man arrested as Chaim Gillig.
Mr. Schick complained of soreness in his hands today but seemed otherwise fine during the interview, and said he would be seeing a doctor about his injuries suffered when police forced him into a van after they arrested him.
He said the incident began around 6:30 p.m. when he was leaving Schick’s Bakery, a neighborhood institution that he owned 40 years ago, after placing an order there for someone he knows.
He said he was driving down 47th Street in Borough Park, about to make a left turn, when “out of nowhere a police car appeared with lights.”
Police later said they saw him talking on his cellphone even before he got into his car.
Mr. Schick said one officer approached him.
“He ran out of his car in a very hostile way,” Mr. Schick said. “He said, ‘Didn’t you see my lights?’ I said, ‘No, I didn’t see your lights.’ ”
The officer told him he had been using his cellphone while driving, which is against New York State law.
He aid the officer asked for his license and registration and insurance papers, which Mr. Schick said he provided. The officer went back to write him a ticket.
Mr. Schick said he then got out of his car to ask the officers for their names. He said one of the officers got out of his police car.
“He said, ‘Get back to your car.’ I said, ‘Officer, can you give me your name and your partner’s name?’ ”
He said the officer grabbed his own lapel and thrust badge towards Mr. Schick.
“He said, ‘I’m officer Russo, can’t you see it?’ But he refused to give me his partner’s name. I just said, ‘Please give me the name of your partner.’ I didn’t scream at him. I didn’t raise my voice,” Mr. Schick said.
“Out of nowhere he started cuffing me,” he said.
He said both officers began “pushing and shoving me.”
Mr. Schick said a police van arrived shortly, and they asked him to get into it.
“It had a high step,” he said. “I asked for help getting in. They wouldn’t help me. Instead they pushed me into the seat of the van face down.”
He said that by this point there were about 100 people watching and loudly commenting on what was happening.
He said that at the police precinct house, he was held in a room for about four hours, cuffed to a bar and with leg shackles. He said was held for about four hours until they finally let him go.
At a news conference in front of the precinct house, Assemblyman Dov Hikind and City Council Member Simcha Felder said they would ask for an investigation into how the police handled the matter.
But Mr. Hikind seemed to blame both sides for the escalating tension that culminated in the protests and fire.
“The behavior of hundreds of young people lighting fires, destroying trash cans, invading police cars, is inexcusable,” he said. “We in the community will address that.”
As for the police, he said that if officers had cooperated more with people in the community, the tensions would not have reached the level they did.
“Last night this police department was ineffective,” he said.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
So they were rioting. And the tragedy of this is that having lived around Hasids for 20 years I’m unable to give them the benefit of the doubt.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Zevi, have you even been reading the coverage of this? Yes, there was violence and people were assaulted. You can stop howling about that now.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Law. A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.Dictionary definition of a riot. I think its a riot has nothing to do with race but sometimes its fun to argue isnt it?
April 5th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I think Menachem Wecker’s point is interesting, that the MSM don’t think of funny little people with beards as being capable of “rioting.” How does it compare to Solomon Grundy’s suggestion that “white bourgeois” reporters don’t consider Hasidim alien? I think most reporters (white and bourgeois or otherwise) DO consider them alien, as indeed they are. But they do not yet fall in the category of “threatening alien” — this could change.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Obviously a riot. The police excercised more restraint than this bunch of douchebags probably deserved. Mob apparently chanted “Nazi Germany” Please, gain some perspective folks. I know it’s terrible - terrible! - that some old fool got arrested for breaking the law, but I think we all know that the SS would have had this situation pacified in about 4 minutes instead of standing by while the mob burned shit in the streets. So really - get a grip on reality. The rest of this society doesn’t really buy whatever fairy tales you may choose to believe in.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Tell you something else: My father-in-law survived the Holocaust as a child. When HE tells me something looks like “Nazi Germany”, then I’ll listen because then man knows all too well that of which he speaks. When a bunch of spoiled babies who are U.S. citizens and bothered by no one (oh, yeah, right, the police dared to arrest a guy) chant “Nazi Germany” in some misguided attempt to elicit sympathy, well, they’ll earn only contempt from me. Speaking for my father-in-law, he was pretty goddamned put off as well.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Just wondering… if the/any/some/one Jew had taken a police officer’s gun, would that have been considered “borrowing”? I ask this cause I remember how during Katrina white thieves were called “finders” and Black survivors were called “looters”.
…Oh, and yes, I am a VIRULENT racist. I hate blue people (cops).
April 5th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
I can’t believe all of you are arguing whether this is a protest or a riot. It is clear as day that this was a riot. I’ve lived in many metropolitian areas and there is no question that setting fires and buring a police car is a riot.
The community needs to make restitution to the taxpayers and the police department. I remember years ago when the Lakers fans were rioting after a playoff game and cop cars got burnt, Shaq O’Neale (and maybe Kobe (?) purchased new cars for the LAPD. It is very clear that the same restitution needs to be made here.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:07 am
RK, concerning the “finders” and “looters” captions that ran in Reuters and AP. I was initially as upset about the captions as well but the two seperate incidents, captured by two different photographers were factually acurate. The white people who “found” the bread, actually grabbed it as it was floating down the street where it had floated out of the store according to the photographer. The black kid who had the food had gone into a store to “loot” it. Personally, I think it was just all foraging for suvival, but we can’t blame the photogs on that one.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:20 am
ASC makes an excellent point. The Hasidic community behaved reprehensibly, and referring to what they did as a “protest” rather than a “riot” is an obvious double standard, but it’s a little encouraging to note that it’s a double-standard that’s been used in other instances as well– taking the air out of some ridiculous allegations (and idiotic stereotypes) I’ve seen on other websites about who controls the media, the politicians, etc., etc.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Laws were broken, property was damaged and people were hurt and all because a Hasid was arrested for wreckless driving. The Hassidim flout traffic laws and undermine public safety on a regular basis and then when they’re called out on it, they raise hell and even then they’re treated with kid gloves. There is such a thing as an insular view of justice within the Jewish community. I shouldn’t have to qualify myself as a Jew to make this statement but I will. I am a kosher-keeping, Shabbat-observing Jew. And Zevi Fischer, if you want to use Talmudic reasoning to circumvent truths just because they’re uncomfortable, then you ain’t praying right. We live in America, where laws keep us safe and when we disrespect those laws, en masse, we are rioting and it is wrong.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:47 am
It’s interesting reading the account of Arthur Schick, the 75-year old man who was arrested and allegedly abused by the police. Whether the abuse happened or not, what is really the point of arresting an elderly man for something as trivial as talking on a cell phone while driving? I ride a motorcycle every day on city streets, and I can tell you that the law against using handheld phones is widely ignored by people of every race and creed. So, these cops saw Mr. Schick and decided to bust him. They wrote him out a ticket, and when he mouthed off to them (allegedly), they arrested him and threw him into a van.
Sorry, but there’s no excuse for that. A smart policeman would stare him in the eyes, hand him the ticket, and say “tell it to the judge.” And then walk away. A macho idiot would decide to forcefully teach him a lesson and anger a entire neighborhood. This is a stupid move in any area - be it Hasidic, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Italian.
That doesn’t let the Hasidics off the hook. What they did was also stupid - and self-destructive. The initial behavior of the police has not been questioned at all - as it’s now overshadowed by the violence that follows. The smart thing, if there truly was abuse, would have been to flood the streets with digital cameras and videocams - and record the entire incident. Show the cops manhandling an old man and nonviolent protesters. Then send the whole package to the media. After that, the cops would never make that mistake again. As it stands, the police now have an excellent excuse to crack down on things even further.
April 9th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Now we know who brought the chaos in Middle East into our back door. I really do not know if burning garbage in the street, setting up roadblocks and surrounding a police station does not called a riot, then what is it?
Somebody say it is not riot, they are actually the victim…
Anti sami is a huge shield for these people for a long time, it should not protect anybody who think they are above the law.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
lets call an ace when its an ace 4/5/06 was a riot, no sugarcoating this incident!
April 19th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
First we need to distingish between people of Jewish faith and Hasidim. Hasidim is a cult and nothing less. They believe they are above the law. And because they vote as a block politicians look the other way. Stand up to them and they scream anti semitism. Rediculous. They are filthy disgusting parasites who squeeze the life blood of a community. They are takers. All of them. In Orange County NY, they receive 25% of the welfare budget. Why? because first all the children are special ed (Inbreeding and incest) they do not marry civilly so every mother is a single parent with 10 kids. While their husbands work and squirel the money away tax free. They have been given grants for specific projects only to use the money for other purposes. No fraud charges are ever filed. They spit in the faces of all hard working people who respect each other. They respect no one, not even their own daughters and wives. If this was 100 years ago there would be range wars going on up here. The people of the towns of Monroe and Woodbury are so fed up..I do not doubt that one day it will come to war.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
I am an Orthodox Jew and I know that Chris is right. The Hasidim are perverts of Halakha and are very sneaky, cruel, and shrewd. They steal from the government, are very wealthy, have a great parnassa, yet they cry poverty when they wear $5000 hats and livein homes like palaces. I live in Midwood, am very frum, and I will tell any body that they are apikoros and not practicing Torah Judaism. They deviated from the faith of our Fathers and chose to reinvent Judaism, which is never Halachic. They are animals.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Chris, your generalizations are completely absurd. Who exactly do you mean when you say “Hasidim”? Satmars? Bobovs? Gers? Belz? If THEY vote as a block, then how do the Satmars and Belz reconcile their opposing political views? There is no THEY; there are individual Hasidic families with their own rebbes and beliefs, not a unified “Hasidic system”. If you have ever been at a Jewish home for dinner, you know that you’ll get as many opinions as Jews at the table. You really think that a family with 10 children that has to support its sons and sons-in-law through 26 years of private school is coming out the other end wealthy?