There were two major disturbances which lend themselves to mention. On July 3-4, Cincinnati experienced a continuing rash of fire bombing, looting, malicious destruction of property and stoning of policemen and firemen. 8 adults were arrested for disorderly conduct. Two of these adults in addition were charged with interference with a police officer and assault on a police officer. 14 juveniles were also arrested for riot connected activity. In these two days the Fire Department answered 27 arson alarms and 31 false alarms in addition to their normal calls. The total arson loss during July 3-4 was $1,042,895.

The second sustained outbreak occurred on July 26, 27, 28th during which the police made 26 adult and 11 juvenile arrests. Seven of the adult arrests were for arson. Other arrests were for malicious destruction of property, disorderly conduct, carrying concealed weapons, loitering and possession of firebombs and material. On these three days the Fire Department experienced 22 arson alarms, with loss amounting to $282,125 and 27 false alarms.

PRELUDE TO THE RIOT-SOCIAL CLIMATE

The Cincinnati Police Division has, for many years, attempted to resolve, through its own housekeeping, the problems of policing which relate to community reaction. First, at no other time in the history of America has the police establishment been under a more critical review of its practices and procedures. Members of the police profession have been concerned with the procedural safeguards to offset the somewhat restrictive Supreme Court decisions dealing with search, arrest and interrogation; increased crime rates; increased disrespect for law and order; the apparent trend of the civil rights movement toward violence; types of grievance and protest about police service; and obtaining the basic manpower complement, equipment and tools to do the job.

As must be stated in any discussion of the history of our Cincinnati Police Community Relations activities, many have worked hard and long hours, not only in the period of prelude to the riot, but for years. Public Relations training, supervisory investigation of shots fired and use of force incidents, citizen complaint procedures, disciplinary boards to review the conduct of officers have all become a way of life for the Cincinnati Police Officer.

Among other projects, our police organization has concentrated on:

1. Recruitment programs involving news media outlets, particularly those in the Negro community, along with firm programs to stimulate good community relations.

2. Psychological screening of police recruits to assist in providing the citizen body with police officers indicated by this testing to have emotional stability and undiscriminating personalities.

3. Intensified recruitment and in-service police training relating to minority-group relations, and the human relations and professional tactics in dealing with citizen disorder.

4. The University of Cincinnati Police Science Program to make available a technically oriented police officer.

5. An open door policy to deal with citizen complaints accompanied by a well documented format.

6. Intercourse with the Community Relations Consultant Committee (intergroup agency heads) performing in a liaison and advisory role for the Police Chief on matters of community attention and needs.

7. Creation of police community relation committees in Districts 2, 4, and 7, hosted by the National Conference of Christians and Jews to continue to reach the grass root citizen to make law enforcement meaningful to each person.

8. Dialogue through the Police Liaison Committee with the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission and civil rights leaders.

9. Work with the Committee of 28, which is composed of 14 Negro and 14 White Community Leaders to resolve and discuss the problems of Cincinnati. 10. Programs with agencies in the social community.

11. Proposed hiring of a sociologist from U.C. to assist in Community Relations guidelines and goals.

12. The implementation of professional police policies and practices dealing with its tactical force, the laws of arrest, and the fair and impartial handling of individual persons.

13. Integrated police patrol.

14. Police Liaison with youth organizations and the Juvenile Court for discussion and association with the school system and students.

15. Crime prevention programs by the Community Relations Section, the Juvenile Bureau.

Thus, the police have attemped to meet the challenge of creating better community relations.

However, quite obviously, the police do not have the power to cause the desired change in the total quasi-ghetto community problem. Strict discipline, control over abuse, engaging in programs with the public that the grass root citizen can identify with government and referral by police to other agencies of government if grievances against the service become a point of issue are only surface attempts. The focal point of resolving community unrest and community problems must involve a greater community relations service program touching those people in economy and education, and in politics, who can bring about the desired change or be in a position to negotiate with those who can. Although charged with writing the history of these events, we will not be so prsumptuous as to delve into the realm of housing economics, education, employment and the many other areas in which both public and private organizations have been laboring. The factors which contributed to the outbreak of rioting in Cincinnati the week of June 11th are as varied and complex as the history and social order of our society. The riot did not necessarily begin with the molotov cocktail that was heaved through the drug store window at Rockdale and Reading Road. This was merely the overt and obvious sign that violence was forthcoming.

A certain climate is requisite to a community before violence can occur. Our community, therefore, had such a climate. It did not transcend overnight from dignified and intelligent negotiations to breaking windows and setting fires. Like many other cities we first experienced the sit-in, the stand-in, lie-in and freedom marching. Petitions were circulated, committees become organized and expressions of discontent took as many different forms as there arose new organizaitons with different ideas. Certainly no record could include all the protests which have occurred in the city of Cincinnati in the past decade. Thus, and in pattern, the period of riot from June 12th through June 19th, 1967 has added a rebellious and regrettable chapter to the journal of social protest-a path of violence.

It would be extremely difficult to determine in total the events which lead to, and are directly connected with the outbreak of violence on June 12th. To be sure some forms of protest were merely diversions for more deeply seated anxieties; other undoubtedly were well-founded. One demonstration was a protest to the arrest of Peter Frakes, cousin of the convicted murderer, Posteal Laskey. Some examination of the circumstances attendant to that demonstration may point out a significance to the social climate of the community and its proximity to the racial disorder.

On December 2, 1965 the people of our city were shocked by the vicious strangulation murder of Mrs. Imogene Harrington. Six more violent deaths in the following 12 months had the entire community plagued with fear. Police investigation determined that the person responsible for these crimes was most probably a Negro. While the Negro community rejected the evidence as inconclusive and prejudicial, the white community responded with distrust and fear. Doors were bolted and weapons were purchased for many homes. Then on a rain soaked night August 14, 1966, Price Hill secretary, Barbara Bowman was robbed, strangled, stabbed and fatally run over by a stolen taxi cab on Ring Place near her home. Posteal Laskey, a 30 year old Negro, was arrested on December 9, 1966 for an unrelated assault on 22 year old Sandra Chappas. Following imposition of a 6 month jail sentence resulting from his conviction on this charge, and after a period of intense police investigation, he was indicted by the Grand Jury of Hamilton County, Ohio for the first degree murder of Barbara Bowman. He was convicted on May 5, 1967 and was sentenced to die in the electric chair. An appeal was immediately filed and is currently under review. The Negro community, in some part at least, was not satisfied with the treatment Laskey received. Consequently, complaints were lodged and demonstrations were held. Minority groups contended that no Negro could have received a fair and impartial trial in this community as a result of the vicious strangulation murders.

Moreover, there were accusations of discrimination in the case of a white man, Eugene Fiske, who received a sentence involving only probation for the slaying of his girl friend.

Once again protest took many forms. A fund was organized to support Laskey financially in his appeal. Demonstrators wore signs and paraded around the Court House, City Hall, and the Federal Building. Probably the most staunch supporter of the "Laskey Freedom Fund" was one Peter Allen Frakes, reportedly a cousin of Mr. Laskey. Peter Frakes paraded publicly wherever and whenever large crowds of people were found assembled. Usually he displayed signs, worn on his body, sandwich style, condemning the City of Cincinnati with such statements as, "Cincinnati Guilty-Laskey Innocent".

On the night of June 10, 1967, Peter Frakes was in the vicinity of 3500 Reading Road, in front of the Jiffy Market, wearing his sign in support of his cousin. Approximately 20 other Negroes were loitering at this corner also. (This is the corner of Rockdale and Reading Road). Patrolman Patterson, of District 4, observed this congregation on the corner and directed them to disperse. All persons in the group complied with the exception of Peter Frakes. Frakes began moving his feet up and down but refused to move to another location. He is reported to have toid Patn. Patterson that as long as his body was moving he was not in violation of the loitering ordinance. The officer informed him that he was violating the spirit of the law and directed him to move on. At this time, the officer left the intersection to patrol his beat. About 15 minutes later, Officer Patterson returned to the intersection and found Mr. Frakes still there. The officer called for another policeman to meet him and Patn. Boston of District 4 responded. Mr. Frakes was placed under arrest for violation of the unlawful pedestrian assembly ordinance Section 510-8. The arrest was made at 12.35 A.M. on June 11, 1967, the day before the disturbance began.

Those in the police agency who were most familiar with the area and the social climate were the District Commander, Members of the Community Relations Section and most certainly the officers of the District. Was there a maneuvering of the police into a position of having to enforce the loitering ordinance in the Avondale area resulting from the District Commander's confidence in the people of that neighborhood to support his actions? In addition to his honest attempt to enforce the laws of the city fairly and to insure there was no stigma of a double standard, Captain Thomas Dixon, at the May meeting of District 4 Community Relations Committee, at the Issac Wise Temple in Avondale, obtained this confidence through the general support of those in attendance, and promise action.

Others, who were familiar with the attitudes of people in the neighborhood, would have been the Safety Director and the Police Chief, for the President of the Avondale Community Council, Mr. Bailey Turner, petitioned both these men through letters and meetings in their respective offices. Early on the day of June 12th, a group of Avondale leaders went to the CHRC Office and assisted in the preparation of a hand bill which would be distributed at a June 12th citizens' meeting at Rockdale and Reading Road.

It would not be correct to say that the complete Negro community objected to the arrest of Peter Frakes any more than it would be fair to say that the total Negro community objected to the conviction of Posteal Laskey. Undoubtedly many believed that both arrests were justified. The arrest of Peter Frakes however, did produce outcries from some individuals. Most notedly identified as an objector was Mr. Clyde (Jimmy) Vinegar. At 10:15 a.m. on June 12, 1967, Mr. Vinegar called the Community Relations Section to inform Spec. Bobby Hill that he was enroute to City Hall presumably to protest the apprehension of Mr. Frakes. Mr. Vinegar seemed quite vague about his specific destination and informed Spec. Hill, when he spoke with him, that he had met with Captain Dixon of District 4 on Glenwood Avenue the afternoon of June 11th, when Dr. Martin Luther King was speaking. Vinegar said he had expressed his displeasure over the arrest of Frakes to the Captain and had told the Captain that he personally would be present on Reading Road at 7:00 p.m. on June 12th, Monday night to protest the arrest. He added that he would not be alone and indicated that accompanying him would be certain people who he said, would not allow his (Vinegar's) arrest.

Mr. Vinegar and others did appear at City Hall with members of CHRC and petitioned the City Manager for permission to hold a rally at Rockdale and Read

ing Road that evening. Apparently he contends that this would be a peaceful demonstration. The meeting was allowed.

To truly get the picture and achieve an understanding of the police attitude on June 12th, in not "over-policing" this event, one must refer back to the April 29th visit of Mr. Stokeley Carmichael. Accusations were made that police attire (riot gear and helmets) offended the dignity of the Negro community.

These charges, of course, are refuted by the very nature of the police officers' self restraint and interest in the protection of all citizens and in the maintenance of law and order. The philosophy was that it was better to be over-prepared if something occurred, than under-prepared. The presence of the police in force on the night of the visit of Mr. Carmichael was well justified for the protection of those who had lawfully assembled. Officers were confronted by a number of klansmen in their characteristic attire and removed them from the area. This action dampened the enthusiasm of the klansmen and certainly diluted the emotions of the Negroes present. The appearance of these klansmen and history of rioting after such visits underscored the necessity to have adequate police detail. Supposedly, the demonstration on June 12th was planned as a protest against enforcement of the loitering law in the vicinity of Rockdale and Reading Rd. and an effort was to be made by the demonstration leaders to persuade the loiterers from using obscene language and making remarks to females walking in the area. In addition to the activities of those responsible for the demonstration on June 12th, the seed was planted in an ironical prediction of peace and nonviolence for Cincinnati Negroes as Dr. King spoke on that night June 11th, first in Lockland and then at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church on Glenwood Avenue. It was at this meeting that a note was passed to the Rev. Moss and an announcement was made concerning the June 12th meeting at Rockdale and Reading Rd.

Going back to June 12th, in Mr. Vinegar's attempt for the meeting, at 5:30 P.M., Spec. Hill received another call from Mr. Vinegar indicating again that he would be present on Reading Road distributing literature which had been prepared by the CHRC office supporting their clean up campaign. He also said that members of his group would be wearing black shirts for identification purposes.

The evening of June 12th was hot and sticky and there was little breeze. About 7:00 P.M. people began to group on the sidewalk in the vicinity of the Jiffy Market at 3500 Reading Rd. By 8:00 P.M. a crowd of 150 Negroes and some whites had gathered. Approximately one dozen persons were displaying signs in support of Posteal Laskey. Some of those identified among the crowd were: Clyde Vinegar, Leonard Ball, Charles Collins, Clinton Reynolds, Barbara Price, Chico Harris, Peter Frakes, Herald photographer Mr. Paul, Virgil Paton, Tom Hankerson, Roosevelt McCullom and a Berry Williams who had been arrested in District 1 for throwing molotov cocktails following Stokely Carmichael's visit. Two unidentified females and one male from the Black Arts Society were also present. Only one person however, appeared to be distributing the CHRC literature while most of the crowd walked up and down and across Reading Road. Very few patrol cars, and only three or four unmarked cars, ventured into the area.

About 9:05 P.M. most of the demonstrators crossed to the Southwest corner of Rockdale and Reading Road where a meeting took place. Several Negroes were seen speaking to the group including Clyde Vinegar, Donald Spencer, David Laskey, and Peter Frakes. There was much applause and cheering and loud voices could be heard but the content of the message was inaudible.

Just as Frakes appeared to be finishing his dissertation, about 9:40 P.M., excited activity became apparent in the area of the Lincoln statue in the front schoolyard of Samuel Ach School at Rockdale and Reading Road. Several Negroes started running. Almost immediately Station X broadcasted that a Fire Company was responding to Rockdale and Reading Road. Community Relations Section personnel investigated and found that a molotov cocktail apparently made of kerosene had been thrown through the window of the drugstore at the Northwest corner of Rockdale and Reading, on the Reading Road side. The path of violence had begun.