Protesters force City Council into virtual meeting with chants to release name of officer in shooting
Protesters occupy the stairwell in Cambridge’s City Hall on Monday after disrupting a City Council meeting. (Photo: Sue Reinert)
Demonstrators protesting the police shooting of Arif Sayed Faisal hijacked Monday’s regular meeting of Cambridge’s City Council with loud chants that forced the council to recess and resume the meeting virtually.
The approximately 50 protesters continued to shout demands outside the second-floor council chamber in City Hall, at one point chasing Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui down the stairs to the first floor entrance and confronting police commissioner Christine Elow in the first-floor lobby.
Neither Siddiqui nor Elow said a word to the demonstrators. Siddiqui left council chambers to direct the meeting remotely. Elow walked out of the front door and appeared inside again shortly afterward, unnoticed by most of the protesters. Asked to comment, she said: “It’s a peaceful protest. People need to be heard.”
While the demonstrators chanted “release his name,” referring to the officer who shot Faisal, about a dozen police officers waited on the ground floor of the building. They left after protesters dispersed in front of City Hall at about 7:30 p.m. The meeting was recessed at about 6:30 p.m., after an hour of public comment had ended. At least one speaker tried to discuss Faisal’s death before Siddiqui cut her off, saying the issue was not on the agenda.
Police Commission Christine Elow walks away from demonstrators Monday in Cambridge’s City Hall. (Photo: Sue Reinert)
The demonstrators remained at City Hall for about an hour and said they will return for subsequent meetings. Because of the protest, the council is likely to hold future meetings remotely, including the Wednesday special meeting to discuss policies and training of police, councillor Quinton Zondervan indicated as he observed the demonstrators outside the council chamber. The protesters used similar tactics at City Hall as they did during a raucous meeting Jan. 12, where they heckled and interrupted Elow, City Manager Yi-An Huang and Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan.
A neighbor called 911 on Jan. 4 after seeing Faisal jump through a first-floor window with a large knife, later identified as a kukri, and cut his wrists with the knife and broken glass. He fled when police arrived and ran through the Cambridgeport neighborhood, continuing to harm himself with the knife, police said. When police cornered him in the backyard of a house on Chestnut Street, he refused to drop the knife and a shot from a “less than lethal” sponge-tipped canister had no effect, police said. An officer shot him when he moved toward police carrying the knife, police said. He died later at a hospital.
Faisal came to the United States from Bangladesh in 2015 with his family; he was his parents’ only child, according to the Bangladesh Association of New England, which is leading the protests. He graduated from Somerville High School and studied computer engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, for two years, until the spring semester of 2022. The family lived in Cambridgeport in an affordable-housing project at 625 Putnam Ave.
The demonstrators’ main demand was that the city disclose the name of the officer who shot Faisal on Jan. 4. The seven-year veteran is now on paid leave until an investigation of the shooting is complete, which could take more than a year. City officials said it was policy to withhold names, then clarified that it was not a written policy – with Elow saying his name would be withheld because he isn’t facing charges or discipline and police haven’t found “any glaring policy violations” in his conduct.
Asked during the demonstration Monday the chances that the officer’s name will be released, Elow said she is still “working with the city manager” on the issue but disclosing the name is “unlikely.”
After councillors switched to an online session, they went through the agenda, ending shortly after 10 pm.
They voted not to tow people for street cleaning, but they are gung-ho on charging people as much as they legally can, although they want to know if they can legally reimburse people for whom paying the various fines is too great a burden.
Actually the vote was to accept the recommendation. There is a policy order for next meeting to continue our current tow policy and look into whether we can reimburse people if the fee is an economic hardship
Mr. Toner,
I voted for you because you promised to be a voice of reason on the Council. What happened?
Why aren’t you speaking out about those who disrupt and do not allow the Council meetings to be held in person? Why aren’t you speaking out against what can only be called “guilty until proven innocent” with regard to the Faisal death?
My wife and I want clean streets. If the city stops towing, the streets will be a mess. And, why are you possibly proposing to reimburse the fee if it is perhaps an economic hardship. What rational basis do you have in proposing this discriminatory method of reimbursement?
A lot of us are fed up with the city agreeing to assuage those who feel they are victimized. A fair city is one that should treat all its citizens equally. We’re trying to get away from what some would call past unequal treatment. Don’t commit a further sin by once again having the city favor certain people more than others.
We should not have a city where people are favored because they believe they should be favored.
Fix the potholes. Clean the streets. Have a strong fire and police force. Have municipal employees who want to work and help the people who pay their wages.
Stop spending money on vanity projects so that we have money to build affordable housing for those who desperately need it and are currently living in Cambridge.
Live up to your promises Mr. Toner.
I stand corrected. I could have sworn the story had a report on the street cleaning discussion when I read it last night, and that’s what I was reacting to. My memory is that the story said the Council had voted to get rid of fines, and that was incorrect.
I am posting a comment here to rebut a description of last night’s events by Mr. Robert Winters of the Cambridge Civic Journal Forum. I have submitted these comments on his website to his readers directly, but these comments have not been accepted and are not visible there. I separately appreciate the balanced coverage by Cambridge Day, which respects the trauma and outrage that brought about the protests last night. I have copied the comments that I submitted to Cambridge Civic Journal Forum nearly verbatim below:
This description of events by Mr. Winters is inaccurate and extremely misleading. I hope readers do not take any of what is written here as fact. I came home last night from this meeting surprised by the protest that took place – I had attended the city council meeting intending to do a little work on emails, and think about and listen to commentary and Peter Valentine and his legacy. I spent a lot of time in the moments during and after the protest thinking about how to situate myself, whether I thought these tactics effective, and whether asking that latter question was even the right thing to be doing in the moment. However, none of Mr. Winters’s description is accurate. The protesters last night were peaceful, and did not demand vigilantism. Mr. Winters should clarify what he is referring to if he wishes to make an incendiary claim such as this. They were forceful in their demands and criticisms, and their two clear demands were releasing of the names, and releasing of the unredacted police report, and more broadly *faster* transparency, accountability, and action by the city. They also critiqued the broader police system. You may disagree with their asks or their tactics – I know I initially was frustrated by this choice of disruption – but direct action and protest are a part of democracy. I think we should all agree that Mr. Faisal’s death was an absolute tragedy, that has significantly affected and traumatized the Bengali and broad South Asian Community in Cambridge. I know I myself feel less safe in this city, and want the city I live in to be acting much, much more quickly. I think about a case such as the recent murder in Memphis, in which the police brutality took place on January 7th, after the events in Cambridge, and we know *much, much more* than we know in this case. Finally, I want to state that Mr. Winters engaged in complete guesswork about protesters’ motives and place of origin. I myself knew some of the protesters, and all of the ones I knew either live in Cambridge or had grown up here, many of them South Asian or Bengali members of the community. And regardless of where they were from, they deserve to have their voices heard and not ridiculed and called outsiders.
Finally, I am taken aback by the vitriol from Mr. Winters towards Councilor Zondervan and his aide. I can understand strong disagreement, but they do not deserve such vitriol for simply standing with peaceful protesters. Moreover, as I was sitting nearby, I witnessed Mr. Winters verbally assault Councilor Zondervan and his aide in an expletive-laden tirade during the protest last night. I hope Mr. Winters issues an apology for this behavior. He was the only one out of control last night.
And do you believe that it is fine that a City Council meeting can effectively be shut down?
You said “They were forceful in their demands and criticisms.”
They have every right to be forceful in their demands. I hope that by forceful you mean expressing their concerns verbally and not by
disruption.
They have no right to cause a City Council meeting to effectively end.
In a democracy, this is not acceptable behavior.
If you and others believe it is acceptable, then this city is in for a rude awakening, because it will essentially be at the mercy of those who do not believe in respecting the rights of others.
Well said Concerned43.
I don’t understand what good will come from releasing the officer’s name. Will it provide more details on what happened? Will it allow us to go back in time?
I believe that direct action in a democracy is acceptable, which includes verbal disruption, which is what this was.
I certainly don’t think that direct action disrupting a city council meeting is the answer in every situation or most situations. I agree that it should most likely only be used in the most urgent scenarios. However, this is one of the worst tragedies in our city in recent memory, and little to no information has been released, and I respect the right of these protesters to use these tactics to demand the transparency that I too am asking for. As they chanted, “if we don’t get [answers], shut it down.” I think it is completely unacceptable that the public does not know more about the situation at this point, especially the unredacted police report. And specifically for the name, we all hope that the investigation is fair and holds anyone accountable who should be. Among many other reasons to release the name, it would allow other Cambridge residents who might have had experience with this officer to report those experiences to the relevant investigating authorities. As currently stands, we have no ability to do that. There is a very reasonable lack of trust that justice will be served, given the history of how police violence is covered up and not indicted, and those demanding transparency are very acutely aware of that history
Kavish,
When you demand the officer’s name, it seems obvious that the most likely use of that name would be for the the protesters to harass the officer in the same way that they have harassed the Council, or worse. This would be the vigilantism you reference in your first post.
I support the city withholding the officer’s name until, there is some evidence of misbehavior. So far, all we have is a deeply disturbed person advancing on officers with a large knife, undeterred by nonlethal force
I have given one explanation as to how the name is extremely important. Separately, I do not see why we can delve into the history of a victim, as is often done in these cases, but not the officer in question. That is incredibly important to the investigative process. No protester called for the form of vigilantism you describe, nor do I. That’s a strawman of danger you invoke to paint the demands as unreasonable.
With regard to your second point, little public information has been released, especially about the use of nonlethal force (of which only one round was fired). The little information we do have does not support the use of lethal force, given the myriad other options that could have been deployed and the number of police officers on the scene. But this lack of information is of course why I, and the protesters, are demanding the unredacted police report, and full transparency, as soon as possible. The lack of information, to me, is what is unacceptable. In another case in Memphis, where the killing occurred on January 7th, we have far more public information, though still not enough We also have a pledge of when more information will become public. Neither of these are true in this case.
Sir, you are writing this long responses and are probably very proud of how reasonable you sound, but honestly you are attacking strawman arguments just as much as you claim others are. Claiming we have no reason to believe this won’t be covered up is preposterous. Cambridge does not have a long history of covering up police violence because… it does not have a long history of violence.
This is a tragedy but over dramatizing is not going to solve anything. It’ll come out in due time and in the meantime I suggest everyone finds more productive ways to channel their understandable emotions.
cport88: thanks for your comment. I do wish people would engage with the real points I made in my ‘long responses.’ With regard to the point you made about it being preposterous: there is more than a relevant history of police misconduct, violence, and corruption in the Boston area. I am happy to provide citations if you are not aware of this history. I certainly take the point that Cambridge does not have a particular history of police killings; however, I wish you would listen to Cambridge residents who have spoken at recent hearings about their mistreatment at the hands of Cambridge police and particular officers. I myself volunteer frequently with the unhoused community here in Cambridge, and know their very mixed relationship with the police here. We have a reason for our lack of trust
I do want to add: my comment “given the history of how police violence is covered up and not indicted” was a broad comment about police violence in this country, which I’d be happy to provide citations for. My point about Cambridge in particular is that there is a reasonable lack of trust in CPD and the appropriate transparency.
Finally, I am trying to sound reasonable because I am aiming, in your words, “not to overdramatize” and interpret people’s motives by what they’ve written and what they’ve done. As a result, it feels strange that it is implied that that is what I’m doing. I could speak much more about how less safe I feel as a South Asian resident of Cambridge, relatively close in age to Mr. Faisal, as a result of what happened, but I honestly fear I won’t be taken seriously if that is the path I take, which is why I try to engage “reasonably.” But suffice to say that I and others feel real fear and have a real basis for our lack of trust in CPD as a result of our own experiences living in this city and with police during the course of our lives
cport88…..unlikely voice of reason :-D
One more thing: you keep comparing what happened here with the death of Tyree Nichols in Memphis. This is another red herring. The facts are meaningfully different between the two cases, which, to me, explains the difference in transparency.
Commissioner Elow I thought explained well that there was no obvious violation of policy or egregious conduct in the shooting of Faisal. There is an investigation to make sure that this is true. But I think it is completely reasonable in a case like that to err a bit more on the side of caution with releasing details without context of investigation (unredacted police report, name of officer).
The situation in Memphis very clear is egregious. It sounds like murder to me. The officers in question have already been fired. I completely understand why in this case you err on the side of more transparency to make clear what you are doing to right a clear wrong.
@Kavish Gandhi
You said, “I believe that direct action in a democracy is acceptable, which includes verbal disruption, which is what this was.”
Why do people (you for example) believe that they have the right to disrupt a meeting that was called to discuss affairs of the city? Why do your
thoughts about direct action take precedence over what is generally thought of as civic decorum? What gives you that right? Why are you and others so intolerant about what is generally accepted as normal behavior i.e. letting a meeting proceed without undoe interruption?
If people want to protest the Council meeting, they can protest peacefully outside of City Hall. That is a right that all of us have. To do otherwise leads to people thinking that their rights are more important than others, and that leads unintended consequences, none of which are good.
@concerned43: I’ve already explained that I think direct action is only appropriate in the most urgent and tragic scenarios, so will defer to my initial response.
@cport88: see my previous two responses above. I don’t think the comparison is a red herring, but I do appreciate that there are differences. I don’t think we actually know enough to prove that this case is significantly different; only that the response of the city and the police department in how they chose to release information is different. I personally do not see very many clear justifications of the shooting of Mr. Faisal. I think, broadly, we have a very, very different base level of trust in CPD and the police in general, given the lack of information we have. I will defer to my other responses for further explanation.
Mr. Gandhi,
You said, “I personally do not see very many clear justifications of the shooting of Mr. Faisal. I think, broadly, we have a very, very different base level of trust in CPD…”
You have no idea of exactly what transpired. That is what DA Ryan’s office is going to investigate.
As far as trust in the CPD, what if you, a friend, or a family member finds themself in trouble. Let’s say they are confronted by a person with a large knife, up close and personal. Are you going to hope that a police officer, someone you might not trust, helps you out? Or are you going to hope that Cambridge HEART is going to help you (hint: Heart won’t get involved in an incident involving violence).
And what if Mr. Faisal, as he ran, had stabbed someone with the knife . How would you feel then?
Commissioner Elow said the officer had no prior problems in the years he’s been on the force.
Because that is so, why would you need you have his name before the City gets the report from the DA?
Why don’t we wait until the facts are presented before we make an uniformed decision. Isn’t that the right thing to do? Perhaps you don’t, but I, and many others, do.
@concerned43:
I’ve already answered most of what you ask above. I am not calling for an uninformed decision; that is a complete straw man. Please quote where I said so above. I have already explained why his name, and the unredacted police report, would be incredibly helpful, as well as giving much needed transparency for all of us who have been traumatized by this event.
It is telling to me that you give basically no credence to the very real lack of trust that I and many of your fellow Cambridge residents have in the police in general and the CPD in particular, based on our own experiences. Of course I am not arguing that I don’t want any option in cases of a threat of physical violence. However, you also have no idea what transpired, and what I am demanding is transparency. From the very limited information we do have, I do not see any clear justification of lethal force towards someone suffering a mental health crisis and had only been self-harming from all reports, which is what leads me to demand even further transparency.
I also, along the lines of the City Council’s discussion last night, would like to see our police department fully explore expanding their non-lethal options in all situations, and decreasing to only the rarest of scenarios the allowance of the use of lethal force. As part of this, more and more responsibility should be given to alternative emergency responses, particular HEART. I agree that a situation such as this presents a question of who would respond, and how, but what I can unequivocally say is that other significant deescalation and perhaps nonlethal force should be a much more significant part of our policy.
Needing a year to investigate and report on the event seems unreasonable. If the situation, as reported by the police, is as cut and dried then it should take one would think no more than 3 months for the incident itself to be examined. Placing an officer in a 1 year limbo on paid leave seems an excessive expense as well as damaging to the officer’s life, especially in an incident with other witnesses supposedly present.
Is there a problem on the state level that needs to be addressed, since the city officials are claiming a lack of oversight or authority over the police in the city? Should there be instead of complaints being presented to the city a state level interaction with the AG’s office or that of the MA Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission? Or with the Governor’s office?
Who really is in charge?
Well I’m sorry that you (or anyone) feel less safe now. Objectively I don’t think you should have to, but I understand it’s not always going to be 100% rational.
Though I think we should just wait for the result of the investigation, I agree wholeheartedly that it is ridiculous if this is going to take a whole year.
Anyway, good discussion.