By now we've all seen a number of videos of BP's goons turning journalists away from beaches. However, I think that there is a simple way to break the information blockade: A technique called sousveillance combined with surveillance.
It won't necessarily work with military controlled beaches, but should work anywhere that BP is the main or only group operating. I am also a fan of using the NRA-pushed castle law for a progressive cause.
(opening with an update)
First, an explanation of the "castle law" as quoted in the title:
From Alabama public law:
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(emphasis mine). Further information on the castle law can be found here and here.
In Alabama specifically, there is no restriction on being in a public place. On a public beach, anyone in Alabama is legally considered justified in using deadly force to prevent another person from assaulting them. Roughly removing someone such as a photographer from a beach would fall under this category.
The situation is very simple: provide the BP supervisor or goon with a bad choice.
Doing this process correctly would have a few steps:
- If possible, obtain written permission to be on the beach from a public official who has the power to grant that right (small town mayor, for example).
- Assemble a team of 3 people. Two to walk the beach, and a third to observe from some distance. The equipment required will be two transmitting microphones (preferably concealable) with a recording device, and two video cameras, one with decent zoom, along with a digital still camera.
- Two individuals wearing microphones and carrying cameras walk onto the beach. If approached by a BP goon, present the goon copies of the letter from step 1) if available, copies of the castle law, and concealed weapons permits. The scripted exchange is along the lines of:
"This is a public beach, and you are not a law enforcement officer. Any attempt to remove me from this beach or interfere with me exercising my right to be here constitutes assault. The Alabama castle law gives me the right to stand my ground and meet force with force, including lethal force if necessary."
The morton's fork is simple: If the BP goon physically tries to have you removed from the beach, then the goon is committing battery. Respond with standard nonviolent protest techniques and press charges if touched. (while technically justified, I will never advocate the use of force unless attacked). The other tine of the fork is backing down from the implicit threat of counterforce.
Here is how the sousveillance works. The cameras carried by the two beachgoers, while fully functional, are largely decoys. The video camera's main function is threefold. In the practical sense, it provides one view for documenting the encounter (the other being the camera of the remote observer). Secondly, having it in the open clearly establishes, in the legal sense, that the scene is being recorded (eliminating legal concerns about hidden cameras). Finally, it acts as a diversion; if the BP goon snatches that camera, they are not likely to suspect further recording devices.
The transmitting microphone recordings and the view from a distance can be used as evidence in court for pressing charges or for obtaining a restraining order against BP employees from interfering with documenting the spill effects. In every single case, this should lead to photographers getting access to the beaches to collect information.
What do you think?