Glossary: Decoding the Police Jargon Overheard at Occupy

Frozen zones, kettling, affirmative obligation: What does it all mean?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/yourdon/5311803565/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Ed Yourdon</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Once a novelty to most observers, the hand signals and protest-speak of Occupy Wall Street now seem like old hat to anyone following along at home. But the recent uptick in heavy-handed police tactics at Occupy protests has given rise to a new slew of phrases to decipher. “Kettling” may sound cozy, and “frozen zone” like a delightful summertime treat, but neither is much fun. Here’s a guide to some lesser-known procedural phrases we’ve come across. (You can add your own in the comments.)

Frozen Zone
As MoJo’s Josh Harkinson first reported, this phrase was used by an NYPD officer to describe the November 15 raid on Zuccotti Park:

“Can I help you?” an burly officer asked me, his helpfulness belied by his scowl.
“I’m a reporter,” I told him.
“This is a frozen zone, alright?” he said, using a term I’d never heard before. “Just like them, you have to leave the area. If you do not, you will be subject to arrest.” 

The usage surprised many; “frozen zone” usually describes an area that’s officially off limits due to immediate risk of terrorist attack. Ground Zero was a frozen zone for weeks after 9/11, as Adam Ross wrote in Dispatches from Ground Zero:

Additional checkpoints on Houston, Canal, and Chambers Streets heightened the feel of an occupied, semi-militarized zone. Outsiders with no claim on residency were barred from entry. Even in the age of the three-thousand-dollar rental, downtowners had still imagined themselves in that “other country” which wry nineteenth-century cartographers had depicted as “le pays de boheme.” Suddenly, this was the least urbane of urban quarters, and on our most civil of streets and avenues a freakish assortment of paramilitary vehicles (bearing unfamiliar acronyms) held sway.

Before our story ran, the last reported “frozen zone” was the World Trade Center site during the 10th-anniversary 9/11 ceremonies, due to predictions of a possible al Queda assault that day. All weekend, some streets around Ground Zero were blocked off with metal barricades and large concrete blocks, and patroled by FBI bomb technicians and hazmat crews. Anyone living in the vicinity could be asked to show ID when leaving their homes, and vehicles were subject to inspection. The weekend passed safely, if uncomfortably, and some Lower Manhattan residents and workers said they supported the heightened cautionary measures in the face of a terror threat.

Slate’s Dave Weigel notes that “frozen zone” seemed an odd choice of words for the Zuccotti Park evacuation, given that protesters were unarmed and largely peaceful:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen a “frozen zone” applied to a situation like this—an evacuation of protesters, none of whom (in New York) had been violent.

Kettling
The forceful coralling of demonstrators into an area cordoned off by police. Protesters may be given one choice of exit or totally barred from leaving. Kettling can last for hours, and in some cases protesters have reportedly been denied access to food, water, and toilets for the duration.

Kettling made an early appearance in the Occupy protests. In one of the movement’s first viral videos (below) we saw NYPD supervisor Anthony Bologna pepper-spray some young female protesters who’d been kettled by his subordinantes.

The tactic made international headlines during 2009’s G20 summit in London, when kettling was used by London police to corral up to 5,000 people at once. Several protesters claimed injuries and suffocation, and after a young woman held in a G20 police kettle claimed she experienced a miscarriage, an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission called for London’s Metropolitan Police force to rethink its crowd control methods, with the commission’s chair warning police to remember that they are “the servants not the masters” of the civilian population.

World Wide Words points to the word’s origins:

The most plausible suggestion is that the word is from German, in which Kessel is the everyday word for a kettle or similar vessel, such as a central-heating boiler (it is sometimes translated as the more evocative cauldron). The derived verb einkesseln (“to enkettle”) means to encircle or surround, principally in the military. This may come from an older sense of Kessel for a semi-circular ring of hunters driving game before them. The best-known example of the military sense is the Stalingrad Kessel of 1942, so called at the time by the German forces besieged in the Russian city.

Affirmative Obligation
At 4:35 in the video below, an Occupy protester demands that an officer identify himself and supply his badge number, and gets no response.

 As Josh Holland reported at AlterNet, NYPD’s own rules state that officers must “give name and shield number to anyone requesting them.”

New York City’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (‘OATH’) has issued a number of recent opinions that examine what this patrol guide procedure requires of officers. In essence, these cases have held that the patrol guide procedure imposes an ‘affirmative obligation‘ to ‘give name and shield number to anyone requesting them’; in other words, a demand for a name or badge number demands an ‘affirmative response.’

Affirmative obligation laws vary from state to state. In 2009, when Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was charged with disorderly conduct after breaking into his own home in Cambridge, Mass., he complained that his arresting officer repeatedly refused to state his name and badge number. Massachusetts law requires police officers to carry identification cards, to present them when requested, and to display their names and/or badge numbers on their uniform. Other states are silent on the issue, but many local departments have adopted laws similar the one in Massachusetts.

Confused about other Occupy terms? Send them to Tasneem Raja.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate