Saturday's Protest at the Mequon PD

MKE - IMC , 13.07.2004 00:04

Report, analysis and commentary on the Justice for Sheridan protest on Saturday which drew relatively low numbers but was otherwise supported and covered quite positively by Milwaukee's corporate media.

(If you have pictures of the event, please upload them! Mine were erased...)

Warm weather greeted the 40 or so protesters who gathered to gather support for Matthew Sheridan, the man killed by police on June 19th, 2004. They came prepared with bottled water, whistles, chalk, signs and the determination to prevent the issue of police abuse from being forgotten.

The event, organized by the Justice for Sheridan Collective (a member of which acknowledges he is the author of this article), attempted to bring media attention to a number of issues, including:

1) That Matthew should receive legitimate justice--the officers responsible should receive, if not greater than, the same punishment as any normal citizen.
2) This issue is representative of a larger societal phenomenon of authority abuse. From the COINTELPRO activities by the FBI (see Churchill's "Agents of Repression") to the Chicago torture ring led by John Burge, police authorities rarely receive the same punishments normal citizens would for committing the same crimes.
3) Though Matthew's death took place in Mequon, his is only one of numerous police-related crimes that take place with startling frequency--especially in inner-cities, and to the poor and people of color.

They chanted "No justice, no peace!" and held signs reading "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility," "Matthew's voice was silenced, SCREAM OUT!," and "Justice for Sheridan." Spread out over different street corners, they encouraged passersby to join them in their cause--and a few did.

The low numbers can be attributed to any amount of factors. First of all, it is Mequon--not the typical breeding ground for activists. That isn't to slight the brave Mequonites who came out, but the majority of all social activism is born in poorer communities. Second, there is a very reasonable fear Mequonites have of police retribution. Though many people honked and yelled their support, many Mequonites I've spoken to are not comfortable confronting police after Sheridan's death.

Activist profiling--like race and gender profiling--abounds in our society. Many of the protesters wore masks for various reasons: to avoid profiling and detection; to symbolize the SURVIVAIR 2000 gas mask that killed Matthew; to show solidarity with other protesters.

Aside from this, many did support the demonstration. Matthew Sheridan's sister drove by to show support. Numerous friends--including a few demonstrators with signs reading "we miss you Matthew"--showed up. One random car drove up and dropped off water bottles and apples, and the honking from other passing vehicles was continuous.

Noticeably absent from the area were the police. Aside from people photographing, the only contact made with the police was when an officer asked a protester not to stand in the middle of the road. Aside from that, the police kept their distance. When a few activists armed with cameras went to photograph a small cluster of cop-cars a block away, the cars drove off quickly.

Also fleeing the scene was Mequon's mayor, Christine Nuernberg. Assumedly in response to the protest, she held a small discussion with reporters at the corner of Cedarburg and County Line streets. When MKE-IMC reporters came to ask their own questions ("What would justice mean in this case?" "What is an adequate punishment for murder?") she took off. Are IMC reporters not legitimate? Or did she not want to jeopardize her political position?

If Mequon could be said to have "halls of power," a small number of engaged activists gave them a shake that Saturday.

Numbers fluctuated and though no more than 20 were around at any given time, the media was all over the place. The event simply could not have received better coverage from the corporate media stations (though I haven't found anything about it in the JS). It was the top story for a few stations. All the stations treated the demonstrators with respect, included diverse statements from different activist perspectives and included the numerous different issues the collective hoped to contribute to the public's discourse. Some special attention was given to the collective's attempts to broaden the issue to include the crimes police commit in poorer areas. They even discussed the fear Mequonites have of the police and the need to wear masks.

Only one real criticism can be made. One station (4 I believe, but not positive) said that the protest was "for the most part quiet and nonviolent). I have two concerns with this statement.

1) It was a totally nonviolent protest. Unless drumsticks are weapons and sidewalk chalk is lethal (at leas we didn't use it in that way), there wasn't any direct-action involved. Not that this in itself is a good or bad thing, only that it wasn't "for the most part" nonviolent.
2) "Quiet" protests are the only acceptable protests--just as "loud" would be equated with "violent." This is to be expected, however. When protests become loud they are public nuisances and are therefore to be treated derisively.

I appreciate people's thoughts on why the coverage was quite positive. Given the coverage, I'd say the event was about as successful as it could have been, given the small resources of the organizers and the relatively small number of volunteers involved.

There are, as always, things that can be improved. Better publicity and more attendance from Milwaukee residents would be better. Perhaps a direct dialogue with the cops and some concrete demands would have received some response from Mequon's authorities. Please comment with your thoughts.

Where the collective will proceed has yet to be discussed. Stay tuned...

e-mail:: nciaccio@uwm.edu

And the coverage continues... 19.07.2004 - 11:14 Any of you following the Journal Sentinel coverage of Matthew Sheridan may have seen the article on Saturday written by Michael Nichols. I responded to him via e-mail to tell him how horrendous it was that he put these cruel and heartless responses in print. My response was as follows: What a horrendous article! Do you not realize that Matthew Sheridan was singled out by the Mequon police? They hunted him every time he set foot out of the house. Of course Matt was angry...he could not stop the madness and had no control over how he was to spend that evening or any other evening if the police decided they were going to pursue him. As to the sexual assault charges, Matt was not a violent or aggressive person, it was consensual. Please don't even try and tell me that when you were younger you didn't have relations with a girl under the age of 18. It was not an uncommon practice for any of us, they just randomly began enforcing the laws. I can't believe how insensitive the media has been. Every day Matt's family must wake up and face the fact that Matthew was murdered. If it were your son, how could you face the thoughts of his struggles in the back seat of that squad car and go on? The fact that the officer didn't check on him when this once "unruly prisoner" stopped fighting leads one to question if it was intentional. Reading those e-mails makes me realize what a bitter world this can be; the fact that you printed them makes me question your humanity...To which he responded...Thanks for the e-mail. You, frankly, make a wide variety of false assumptions. Today is the one month anniversary of his death. Please remember Matthew. Laurie> And the coverage continues... 22.07.2004 - 16:51 I certainly agree that Mike Nichols’ article was unnecessary and cruel. It seems all the Journal/Sentinel is interested in is negative rhetoric about Matthew. Maybe in some way by making him out to be a poster boy for bad behavior, it makes it easier for people to justify what happened to him. I did not know Matthew, or his family. However, I have been deeply affected by his death. As the saying goes…. “But for the grace of God, ..” that could have been my son. I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Matt’s family must be going through, and then to have to see him vilified again and again in print has to be unbearable. This is the letter I wrote to the editor a few weeks ago. Of course it never made the paper. "Matthew Sheridan was a pretty 'bad' guy according to everything that's being said about him. He drank before he was old enough; he drove while intoxicated; he was doing drugs; he had sex with an under aged girl; he even drove too fast and changed lanes improperly. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of 'good' kids out there that have done as much, the only difference is it seems Matthew got himself known to the local police and became a target. Yup, Matthew obviously made some bad choices in his life, however his mistakes never killed anybody. Unfortunately Officer Klobukowski's mistake did." And this was another letter I wrote in response to Eugene Kane’s article: "I believe this is a case that started as racial profiling with very intentional harassment and possibly planting of evidence. Sheridan was very well known to the Mequon police. So the twist to this case may be that, Sheridan, who was white and from Mequon, put his black friends at more risk of just being with him than of them being 'black in Mequon'. Sounds like a story for 20/20...." Of course it never made it to print either. One good article I read was written by Joel McNally (7/3/04-Madison.com). He talks about bored, idle suburban cops. A note of interest: Isn’t it ironic that Matt was arrested that day for possession of a pipe, when it’s pretty well known that the people that run the Mequon Citgo have a huka pipe at the station and smoke it in the back room? Lynn> e-mail:: lindatc123@aol.com Response to Mike Nichols 23.07.2004 - 17:10 I e-mailed Mike Nichols after his July 17th article. I should mention that he was kind enough to call me the next day and tell me that my letter made him think twice about what he chooses to publish. I've urged him to write another article highlighting quotes from e-mails sent by people who loved matt and who are outraged. We must encourage the media to fairly look at both sides of the story. Below is my initial response to Mr. Nichols. Lisa-Marie ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Nichols-- Do you have a brother? a good friend? Someone for whom you would give the world to protect? I did, his name was Matt Sheridan. We didn't call him "Spittin' Matty"... or even Matty for that matter. Just Matt. He was 20 years old. Do you remember being 20? It's young, isn't it? You always forget how young it is, because at the time it feels so old. Suddenly, you're grown up by societal standards... but you still don't object to being called a "boy" or a "girl" because you know you still are. Matt was a boy still. But he was getting close to becoming a man. He just had a few things to figure out, as many kids do. Matt was a great listener. As his almost step-sister 4 years ago, I came home many days in need of a sympathetic ear. Matt was always there. And he made me laugh. He had this subtle sense of humor that just cracked you up because it seemed to come from no where at all. Matt was also an amazing musician. He picked up a guitar very young and the music came so naturally. It flowed through him like water. I remember one night he tried to teach me to play the drums. And I had absolutely no rhythm whatsoever. We laughed and laughed because he just couldn't understand how something that came so beautifully and naturally to him could be so far from my reach. Matt had a sister. A sister, I might add, who reads these articles. Can you imagine what that's like? I was only almost related to him and this article made me cry. I wonder what it's like for her. She's a really nice girl. Very poised and mature. She's the kind of girl you'd want as a sister or daughter. You'd like her. Actually, I was thinking that you two should meet. I would like you to read this article to her, just incase she missed it last weekend in the paper-- although I'm sure she didn't. I'm sure, since you don't seem to have any major qualms with publishing it in the local newspaper, you won't mind reading it to Matt's sister, face to face. You can't hide behind being a reporter Mr. Nichols, because this isn't news. You and I both know that. And at the end of the day you are just Mike, who maybe has a family, who probably hangs out with his friends, and who decided to publish an article that hurt a lot of people. Publishing these editorial comments because it makes you look controversial and cutting-edge to your co-workers isn't news. I understand reporting. I understand the importance of bringing news to the masses, and giving the whole story. I actually know a few reporters from your paper and have had this conversation with them since Matt's death. Most of the articles have been very hard to read, but were forgivable... but your's, Mr. Nichols, has gone far beyond anything I ever imagined. And I can see your response to this already: "Thank you for your e-mail. You will understand that I am simply bringing to light the views and opinions of my readers. It is important to explore a story of such proportion from all angles." Anyway, you can spare my your polite response. I hope you understand that I am a one month and two days past polite. I know you do understand, because when you lost your brother/son/bestfriend 60 years too soon, it must've been really difficult for you when some random reporter, who didn't know him, published hateful remarks in a local paper. He claimed they were quotes and therefore was not responsible. But you read his own remarks-- the ones without quotation marks around them. It was something clever like, "I'd go a little further into his legal problems but this is a column, not a book." or something callous like discussing your brother/ son/ bestfriend's rigor mortis like there was something to laugh about in that. And you knew then he was as bad as the rest of them. All those nameless people, too afraid to say these things to your face because they know it's wrong to say. I understand how hard it was for you. It's really hard for me right now too. I don't know you. I don't know whom you lost, but I promise you I will never say or relay a cruel word about them. Sincerely, Lisa-Marie Lisa> e-mail:: lmg6@uwm.edu