Last Night in Oakland

October 26, 2011 in Uncategorized | by Eric Kirk

The Oakland Police go where the NYPD didn’t.

Recall petitions are being distributed in an effort to remove Mayor Jean Quan.

There were injuries.

More details.

October 2011
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

30 comments

Comments feed for this article

October 26, 2011 at 11:37 am

Joe Blow

When can we expect that kind of action to happen here?

October 26, 2011 at 11:40 am

Mitch

An Iraq war marine vet who is in Vets for Peace is in critical condition. After he was on the ground, a crowd gathered to help and someone working for a law enforcement agency appears to have tossed something like a flash-bang in their direction.

You find this out by going to the Guardian, where it is front page news.

October 26, 2011 at 11:56 am

skippy

Nice video and brief report.

THE economic depression that started in 1929 awakened protest movements such as our current ‘New Depression’ has sparked the occupation of Wall Street, Oakland, and cities throughout the world. It was expected that demonstrators at some point will be cleared out, tear-gassed, and clubbed into relinquishing their liberated territory– as was the case with the Hoovervilles and Bonus Army of veterans occupying Washington in 1932.

THE San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday morning: “… that hundreds of police showed up wearing riot gear around 4:40 a.m. and proceeded to surround the small tent city at the Frank H. Ogawa Plaza. They closed in on the camp within 20 minutes after donning gas masks and firing tear gas into the protest. “Dozens” were arrested.”

BUT this wasn’t the end of it. Far from it. Protesters tried reoccupying the area again last night. The Oakland police and their higher powers really, really don’t like these makeshift Hoovervilles or demonstrators:

““POLICE fired tear gas at least five times Tuesday night into a crowd of several hundred protesters backing the Occupy movement who unsuccessfully tried to retake an encampment outside Oakland City Hall that officers had cleared away more than 12 hours earlier…

“PROTESTERS scattered in both directions on Broadway as the tear gas canisters and several flash-bang grenades went off… One wounded woman, who others said had been hit by one of the canisters, was carried away by two protesters… The crowd at its peak grew to more than 1,000 at about 8:30 p.m., and two officers were wounded from the paint and chemicals thrown at them…”

THE scene gets wilder. The full story is in today’s SF Gate Police Tear Gas Occupy Oakland Protesters (again)

WILL Occupy Oakland continue until the demonstrators are forced to relinquish ground at Ogawa Plaza? Will the conflict become more violent? Will the removal of Hoovervilles and their ilk throughout the nation meet with similar results? This is shaping up like a slow motion train wreck.

Stay safe. Peace to you and yours, folks.

October 26, 2011 at 12:03 pm

Mitch

Very simple solution. As with the Egyptian military, members of US law enforcement refuse orders to attack non-violent protesters.

That’s called heroism, and I hope some members of law enforcement are up to the challenge.

A whiff of police neutrality would have an enormous impact on the behavior of banksters, their pet politicians, and protesters. For the better.

October 26, 2011 at 12:29 pm

Matt

The police brought (and escalated) the violence. All that’s going to do is piss people off and cause more anger. Very stupid on their part, if you ask me.

Atlanta recently had a police action too

October 26, 2011 at 12:50 pm

Eric Kirk

Mitch – it’s also front page on the Oakland Tribune, and the online article has several videos.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_19194741?source=most_viewed

October 26, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Joe Blow

As long as the demonstrators give the police permission they will get beaten, gassed and arrested. It’s as simple as that. It’s the little secret government and the police know.

October 26, 2011 at 6:54 pm

Jim

Give the police permission? WTF are you tweaking on Joe?

I know East Bay cops, well, the suburban ones that Oakland loves to gather for these big raids (they did the same thing for the BART riots). They have very, very little compassion for the protesters, who are perceived to be liberal, jobless hippies by these conservative LEO’s.

Because of this lack of compassion, they are not considered the same as their friends and families, and they will not identify with the movement or individuals the way the army of Egypt did. Suburban cops get all the perks and none of the danger, they are part of the 1%.

October 26, 2011 at 7:44 pm

Anonymous

Joe,

That’s got to be one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever seen on these comment threads. You have taken “blaming the victim” to a new low. Congratulations.

October 26, 2011 at 8:20 pm

Bolithio

What do you mean Joe? How did they “give” permission to the police to be gassed?

October 26, 2011 at 8:43 pm

Ernie's Place

The Oakland police chief sounded pretty apologetic on the TV tonight. He said that the incident would be fully investigated. I hope that the protesters continue. Even if most have it wrong, it is a strong message to our leaders, that something is wrong in America.

October 26, 2011 at 11:24 pm

Marc Delany

I forgot .. and by “divine rights”

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Marc Delany
Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Subject: Recall elected officials allowing or ordering police action against Occupy Wall Street
To: “Lovelace, Mark” , Susan Ornelas

Californians, in 2004, passed, (by 83.4%), an amendment to our state constitution specifically to ensure that people, citizens and political movements like Occupy Wall Street would be protected from government discouragement of free speech, and to ensure that all would enjoy unfettered access to address our government, elected officials, to review all records, and to receive due process when dealing with our government, this is in addition to Federal protection under the law. California should be leading the nation in tolerance for freedom of expression.

83.4 % is pretty much everyone that is not a government official in California…. yet:

Yesterday, Oakland’s Mayor ordered one of the most brutal attacks in recent years on California citizens. She should no longer serve, and should be recalled. In the removal, many, many peacefully assembled people were injured, some critically. One Marine vet was shot in the head and critically injured, for the crime of petitioning his government directly, as allowed by California law. Rubber bullets, tear gas, and concussion grenades are extreme measures far outside of the requirements of our government’s unknowable need to remove peaceful citizens, from public property, legally requesting action from our government and redress of clear and legitimate grievances.

Read state law, write your representative, recall Oakland’s mayor. Be aware of what your elected officials are doing in response to this peaceful assembly of citizens concerned with our government’s operations. Don’t let this happen in your home town. Write your representatives.

Please pass this along to at least 3 people and stand up for your rights locally.

Marc Delany
Arcata, CA

Approval by the people

Proposition 59 was approved by the State Legislature as Senate Constitutional Amendment 1 of the 2003–2004 Regular Session(Resolution Chapter 1, Statutes of 2004). It was adopted by the California State Senate by a vote of 34-0 and the State Assembly by 78-0.[1]It was then put to voters as a ballot proposition on 2 November 2004. It passed with 9,334,852 (83.4%) votes in favor and 1,870,146 (16.6%) against.
[edit]Text

The amendment adds to the state constitution Article I, Section 3 (b). Section 3 (a) is the provision of the Declaration of Rights that guarantees the right to freedom of assembly, the right to petition the government and the right to instruct ones elected representatives. The amendment added to these rights the following provisions[2]:
(1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.

[edit]Official summary

The official summary of Proposition 59 states that the purpose of the amendment is to
Provide right of public access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials.

Provide that statutes and rules furthering public access shall be broadly construed, or narrowly construed if limiting access.

Require future statutes and rules limiting access to contain findings justifying necessity of those limitations.

Preserve constitutional rights including rights of privacy, due process, equal protection; expressly preserves existing constitutional and statutory limitations restricting access to certain meetings and records of government bodies and officials, including law enforcement and prosecution records.

Exempts Legislature’s records and meetings.

The Legislative Analyst’s Estimate predicted only “potential minor annual state and local government costs to make additional information available to the public”.
[edit]Explanation of provisions

According to The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press the effects of the amendment may be summarized roughly as follows:[3]
First, it mandates access to government records and meetings of government bodies, and elevates this right of access to constitutional stature. Thus, all newly enacted state laws and administrative regulations must conform to the Amendment’s provisions. The effect is to leave no doubt as to the importance of access to the people of California, and consequently to render ineffective the assertion, often made by government agencies to defeat access, that access in a particular case serves no public purpose. Similarly, it strengthens the case for access in cases where, under existing statutory exemptions, records can be withheld when the public’s interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.[4] This is so because most interests in non-disclosure are not constitutionally based and thus will be of significantly less importance when weighed against a now-constitutional right of access.
Second, unlike statutory rights of access under California’s Public Records Act and The Ralph M. Brown Act, the Sunshine Amendment applies not just to the executive branch of government but to the judicial and legislative branches as well. While the Amendment expressly reserves existing protections for proceedings and records of the Legislature and rules adopted in furtherance of those protections, and maintains all other preexisting constitutional and statutory exemptions to the right of access to public records and meetings, these branches of government are now within the mantle of the public’s constitutional right of access. In practice, what new rights of access this may bring remains to be determined, but arguably the right would include access to records and meetings of both the Legislature and the Judiciary not currently exempt from disclosure under existing authority.
Third, the Sunshine Amendment requires that court rules, statutes, or other authority be construed broadly when they further the public’s right of access, and narrowly when they limit that right.[5]
Fourth, when public bodies adopt new laws, court rules, or other authority that limit the right of access, they must now make express findings demonstrating the interest purportedly protected and the need for protecting that interest. Thus, the adoption of agency rules and regulations, for example, intended to impede public access will no longer be allowed on the whim of the agency’s governing body but will require actual on-the-record findings demonstrating the need for secrecy and demonstrating how the exemption will achieve that need—findings similar to that required by a court before sealing a court record or closing a court proceeding.
Lastly, the Sunshine Amendment leaves intact the right of privacy guaranteed by the constitution by clarifying that it does not supersede or modify the existing constitutional right of privacy. And, disconcerting for proponents of access, the Amendment expressly does not affect existing statutory protections afforded peace officers over information concerning their official performance or professional qualifications.[6]
[edit]See also

California Public Records Act

Oh, ps… have the guts to use your real name

October 27, 2011 at 7:23 am

Plain Jane

For those who don’t get it or those trying to figure out why some (apparently) savvy people say they don’t get it.

October 27, 2011 at 8:28 am

Anonymous

what do you really expect the city of Oakland and the police to do? Do all you commentors really think a small portion of the population have the right to take over pubic and private property, to disrupt commerce and the lives of citizens for as long as they want?

It needed to be done. Good for OPD for stepping up to the plate.

October 27, 2011 at 8:54 am

Joe Blow

So, you want to know what I mean by “give permission.” That’s exactly what you do when you play the poor “non-violent” victim while asking the big bully to see you as something more. It’s the difference between being non-violent and non-cooperative. The government authorities are going to use the police to continue to deal with you exactly as Rush Limbaugh puts it: “These protestors, who are actually few in number, have contributed nothing. They’re parasites. They’re pure, genuine parasites. Many of them are bored, trust-fund kinds, obsessed with being something, being somebody. Meaningless lives, they want to matter.” The rallying cry in Egypt was: “I count, too.” If you believe you “count,” expect to be treated with respect, walk with honor and dignity and that NO man or woman has the right to put their hands on you, then that is exactly how you act; that is exactly what you project. When you believe the police have the legal right to beat you when they are clearly criminal in their actions, you give them permission. When a hundred protestors stand around watching three or four police brutally beat a young woman senseless and drag her off to detention and do absolutely nothing to stop it, there is certainly no honor, dignity or manhood. So, why should anyone expect the government, the rich elite that own the government or their police enforcers to treat them as of equal value? They don’t and they won’t. A lesson the Oakland demonstrators learned in the last couple of night.

October 27, 2011 at 9:08 am

Bolithio

I understand your words Joe… but I think that sounds easier than in practice. What exactly would you have done if you were there, to assert your dignity?

October 27, 2011 at 9:41 am

Joe Blow

Bolithio, Your darned right it’s hard when you’re staring down a combat-hardened thug twice your size coming at you in a violent rage. What I “would do” is what I’ve always done when confronted with such a situation. I make them understand there are consequences for what they do. That means I would do whatever I had to do to defend myself. I never play their game. The police are violent people, recognize that fact and deal with them accordingly. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, everyone must be equally motivated to stop cooperating with the violence. The Oakland Occupy Movement has decided to step up to the challenge and move to shut down Oakland. That puts everyone in Oakland on notice and record. Who supports the illegitimate criminals and who does not.

October 27, 2011 at 9:56 am

Ernie's Place

Plain Jane, your video is bang on!

Joe Blow, That’s mighty brave talk for somebody that hides behind a fake name.

October 27, 2011 at 9:59 am

Bolithio

I still dont see a solution. Fight back? That’ll get you killed. Fight back with lethal force? Thats terrorism. You cant avoid violence by using violence. Are you saying they(protesters) shouldn’t be non-violent?

Or is what you really mean is to not protest, or leave when the police say you have to. That seems like better approach if you want to truly not cooperate with their violent tendencies. From what your saying, sitting there waiting to be arrested is giving them permission to kick your ass.

October 27, 2011 at 10:01 am

Bolithio

Eric, does that “veteran” in the video have any legal case against the police?

October 27, 2011 at 11:48 am

Eric Kirk

Bolithio – I don’t have enough information to answer your question. Possibly.

October 27, 2011 at 11:53 am

Mitch

I hope OWS is prepared to ask the American people for a one day (or even one morning) general strike.

It’s a problem that there are no specific demands and, I guess, no specific leaders. Given the polling numbers, though, and the Oakland incident, I’d bet they could just ask their supporters to stay home in support.

Wouldn’t that be something!

October 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Plain Jane

I’ve read calls for a general strike in Oakland for 11/2.

October 27, 2011 at 12:24 pm

Plain Jane

For some reason my e-mail add won’t stick and I went to moderation. I’ll repeat

I’ve read calls for a general strike in Oakland for 11/2

October 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Joe Blow

Bolithio, you’ll get it figured out soon enough.

Branscomb, “Hide behind”? Problem for you is, I don’t have anything to prove. Certainly not to someone like you that supports these criminals.

October 28, 2011 at 8:43 am

Anonymous too

November 2 has been suggested for a general strike. I’ve seen it on Facebook but not on the news.

October 28, 2011 at 9:14 am

Mitch

There has been astonishingly deep change in the media in the past few years. The mainstream press, thank heavens, is no longer needed to get news out, though it will eventually tag along, planting its own “objective” flag (which is to say, belittling anything its owners don’t support) and score-keeping (which is to say, trivializing anything BEHIND the numbers in a movement).

Forbes has noticed the call already, 8:43:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/10/27/following-police-violence-occupy-wall-street-tests-general-strike-idea/

October 28, 2011 at 3:43 pm

Joe Blow

How corruption rots the soul: “I understand your words Joe…” Then later after explanation, tries to reinterpret my words: “Fight back with lethal force? Thats terrorism.”

The basis of America’s legitimate existence began with the Declaration of Independence. To be sure, the British considered American Revolutionary’s “terrorist.”

Quote from the Declaration: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The Founding Fathers understood one simple truth, they had no choice because they had no future and so it is today. Everyone that stands for their right to self-determination is a mortal, hated enemy of these Elitist Parasites and their bought political governments and judicial systems. When that reality is an accepted fact within these movements, changes will ensue. It’s only a matter of time.

October 29, 2011 at 9:14 am

Bolithio

If only context and intent could be better understood reading blog posts. Regardless of what reality is accepted by people to foster change, unless that reality includes having respect for others and simply being nice to each other, people will still end up being lonely hermits in the woods.

October 29, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Ernie's Place

Well I’ll be darned, Joe finally said how he feels about something, and I couldn’t agree more!
“The Founding Fathers understood one simple truth, they had no choice because they had no future and so it is today. Everyone that stands for their right to self-determination is a mortal, hated enemy of these Elitist Parasites and their bought political governments and judicial systems. When that reality is an accepted fact within these movements, changes will ensue. It’s only a matter of time.”

	Eric Kirk on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Henchman Of Justice on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Henchman Of Justice on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Henchman Of Justice on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Henchman Of Justice on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Just Trollin on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Eric Kirk on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Just Trollin on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Henchman Of Justice on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Just Trollin on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Eric Kirk on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Just Trollin on Trump’s defense is inter…
	Just Trollin on What will be the outcome of th…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on Dave and I talk about Biden wi…
	Henchman Of Justice on What will be the outcome of th…

Last Night in Oakland

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

30 comments

Leave a comment

Last Night in Oakland

Share this:

Related

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

30 comments

Leave a comment