NYPD's strategy behind soft resistance to protesters

NYC officials may have learned a lesson from the D.C. Police Department on handling ANSWER Coalition protestors.

American Thinker readers know the history of ANSWER and how its signs popped up early in Ferguson.  

They also know that, while ANSWER isn’t the only organization driving the protests, it has displayed a litigation capability that has surely attracted the attention of the NYPD.

As noted earlier here, ANSWER is the street protest wing of a three-part alignment that includes a weak political arm, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and a proven litigation services capability, the Partnership for Civil Justice (PCJ). 

The alignment is transparent.  All three share the same headquarters address in D.C.

As noted earlier on AT, PCJF (Partnership for Civil Justice Fund) has won more than twenty-two million dollars in awards for its clients.  According to the PCJ website: “The PCJF won the largest monetary settlements for violations of protestors’ rights in U.S. history in addition to securing extensive changes in both the law and police practices in the handling of demonstrations.”

The husband-wife lawyers who run the PCJ have successfully sued the Washington, D.C. Police Department over issues concerning how the DCPD handled protesters. 

The NYPD surely knows that where ANSWER Coalition signs accompany mass protests, there are experienced attorneys alert to any violation of protestors’ rights that could result in a significant settlement against the City of New York.

Breitbart’s Big Government reported on December 24, 2014, “Breitbart News learned from an NYPD source that officers made no arrests Tuesday night, despite bottles being hurled at police and protesters committing other violations of the law. That’s how Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton wanted it, the source explained.”

The Breitbart article quotes the source saying, “‘The bosses are weak. [They] Let them [s***] all over us. Real cowardly,’ said the NYPD source. ‘This is part of a bigger picture,’ the law enforcement source stated. ‘This was extremely well thought out… I’m thinking that the planning of this goes back to the campaign.’”

That’s one possible explanation.  But it’s not the only one.

The NYPD may have acted out of caution in order to avoid being sued by the ANSWER Coalition’s legal wing.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com