Over 250 people crowded an intersection in Riverside, for over three hours as three law enforcement agencies dispatched dozens of officers at the scene of what was a boisterous but peaceful demonstration.



At 6 am, demonstrators from several organizations congregated at the intersection of University and Iowa, near UCR with signs, drums and banners. Songs were sung, and chants were sounded to an audience of mainly supportive commuters.



“1,2,34, We don’t want your racist war!” and “Exon Chevron, Unocal, Shell, take your war and go to hell” intermixed with songs, and candles held by the Women in Black who appeared after their nightly vigil at the Mission Inn hotel.



Dozens of CHP vehicles set up a command station across the street behind a Der Weiner Snitzel restaurant, accompanied by the Riverside Police Department’s entire traffic division of motorcycles and squad cars. So for about 20 minutes, police outnumbered protesters. That soon changed as the crowd grew.

As more people arrived to protest, marches began across the intersection and to different corners, and police officers were dispatched from the UCR police force including chief Hank Rosenfield. Captain Pete Curzon, in charge of the RPD field operations division also appeared to command his troops from the comfort of Starbucks.

When darkness fell, a spotlight dropped on the protesters courtesy of a circling CHP helicopter.



People commented that they had not seen such a CHP presense since the 2000 protest which commerated the shutdown of the 91 freeway during a prayer vigil for Tyisha Miller on Nov. 1, 1999. Perhaps in anticipation of some more freeway prayer, the CHP stationed officers and squad cars near the onramp to the 60/215 freeway at University Ave.



Soon, three counter-demonstrators appeared and began protesting on behalf of the soldiers. Even though the points of view conflicted, protesters on both sides maintained open dialogue and protested side by side.



Unfortunately, the police felt the pro-war demonstrators were in grave danger from the peaceful anti-war demonstrators, creating conflict when there was none by moving in a half-dozen traffic officers led by Sgt. Don Tauli to separate the two groups. One officer, Hale, repeatedly said how nervous he felt by seeing how close the two groups were together even as they talked and shook hands.

Two white men, with walkie-talkies and a video camera like they were part of a militia soon began generating false rumors by telling police officers that several anti-war demonstrators were armed. As a result, Sgt. Tauli and Officer Freese pulled a young man and began searching him, even the rips in his jeans, alas for them, all that they found was a knee brace.

Demonstrators plan to congregate tomorrow, March 21 at 5 pm at the intersection of Central and Magnolia.

Exactly how is the fact that the two men spreading rumors were "white" relevant? What was the skin color of the protestor who was searched? What color were the officers? What color are YOU?

There's a reason there are sterotypes: because they are developed through observation. Not all white men are members of far right militias, or pro-Bush and his war no matter what. The flip side of that is that almost all men who are members of far right militias, and almost all men who are pro-Bush and his war, are white.
There's a reason sterotypes are frowned upon: they cause individuals to be unfairly condemned. In this case, does mentioning the participants' race cause them to be unfairly condemned? No.
If the two men in the article had been identified as black or Latino, it would have been relevant, too. Would Jason have complained if they had been identified as black or Latino? Who knows? What if the article had said, "two people," not "two men"? Why is it an issue if the reporter identifies race, but not gender?
The reason that the men's race is relevant, and the reason it was relevant to Jason to complain about the fact their race was mentioned, but not their gender, are probably the same.