Republican Convention

While doing a little bit of catch-up reading, I notice that there was an article out discussing some of the insurance behind the Republican convention.  Quoting Insurance Journal:

The deal required the Republican Party’s host committee to buy insurance covering up to $10 million in damages and unlimited legal costs for law enforcement officials accused of brutality, violating civil rights and other misconduct.[…]

The deal could save taxpayers millions. Police have arrested nearly 300 people, and many protesters are threatening lawsuits. New York City still faces more than 400 lawsuits from some of the 1,800 people arrested at the 2004 GOP convention, said Laura Postiglione, a spokeswoman in the city’s law department.

In St. Paul, some critics say the agreement has only encouraged police to use aggressive tactics knowing they won’t have to pay damages.

"It’s an extraordinary agreement. Now the police have nothing to hold them back from egregious behavior,” said Michelle Gross, who leads Communities United Against Police Brutality. She is considering filing suit after being handcuffed and searched last week during a raid of the St. Paul hub of an anarchist group.

That last comment is probably unfair.   Law enforcement liability cover is (I believe) a standard coverage purchased by government entities which have their own police staffs.  Even with the best-behaved, squeakiest clean police operations, allegations of mistreatment will arise…and why should the taxpayer be subject to the entropy associated with such claims?

And, given the nature of law enforcement, it’s probably not surprising that on occasion tempers will flare, and…. well, shouldn’t taxpayers be protected from such nastiness too?

I think it’s very likely that the City of Denver, and/or the State of Colorado had to address the Democrats’ convention in the negotiations for their own liability policies.   St. Paul deserves a hat-tip for pushing the extra cost on the folks who were going to be drawing so much law-enforcement support.

You know, folks, protesting is arguably a healthy thing to see in a republic.   You vent some steam, you get alternative views out there for others to think about (although they should be welcome to disagree), and it’s a sign that every citizen is a stakeholder.

However, the right to protest does not, and should not, extend to interfering with lawful gatherings…and assault is right out.

A RedState diary links to a post at the (as of this writing) Everyday Republican blog, which reports:

When Chairman Healy’s mother Lila was spat upon by a protester, former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons stepped between the elder Healy and the crowd. He was doused with a liquid substance that was later determined to be a mix of clorox and water. At least 10 other delegates also were hit with liquid.

Folks, such disgusting behavior really casts a negative light on those whose views you might support, and that tends to add credibility to those whom you disagree with.

You may think that the Bush administration and its supporters are guilty (directly or indirectly) of some pretty heinous acts.  However, the correct response to that does not involve physically or verbally assaulting them.

Getting your message out, and supporting attempts to replace incumbent officeholders don’t require you to forget politeness and civility.