Police Being Sued for Violent Crackdown on Occupy Oakland
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
By Joshua Holland
AlterNet
The National Lawyers Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California filed suit on Monday against the Oakland Police Department, and any local agencies assisting them, for its widespread use of excessive force against Occupy Oakland protesters on October 25 and during the night of November 2.
That OPD has shown contempt for the rule of law in its violent crackdowns on dissent, and departed dramatically from what the department itself views as best practices for balancing public safety and free speech, is evident from the nature of the lawsuit: the civil rights attorneys are trying to compel OPD to follow its own crowd-control policy.
“Generally, the issue with excessive force cases is whether the force applied was reasonable under the circumstances,” Linda Lye, an ACLU staff attorney on the case told AlterNet. “And law enforcement will often argue, 'well, we needed to apply the force in a given circumstance because it was necessary to achieve our legitimate law enforcement goals.' Here, when OPD is systematically violating specific provisions in its own crowd control policy, there can be no argument that they need to do this, because the guildelines already represent what OPD thinks is reasonable in these circumstances.” She added: “It's outrageous.”
The guidelines were drawn as part of a settlement of a 2003 suit – also filed by the Lawyers Guild and ACLU NorCal – stemming from a case in which OPD used an abundance of violence against peaceful protesters demonstrating against the invasion of Iraq. “The crowd control policy represents even OPD's view of best practices,” said Lye. She explained that they detail exactly ”when you can declare an assembly unlawful, when you can require a group of people assembled together to disperse, and how you go about doing that.”
Just about everything I witnessed on October 25 and November 2 violated those guidelines. Police repeatedly fired teargas, “less-lethal” projectiles and flash-bang grenades into a sea of protesters, actions they later claimed were justified because their officers were being hit by objects thrown by a few individuals in the crowd.
But the guidelines clearly state that less-lethal munitions “may never be used indiscriminately against a crowd or group of persons, even if some members of the crowd or group are violent or disruptive.”
“Crowds of protesters are heterogenous,” said Lye. “They simply cannot deploy these weapons against a whole group of people because a few of them throw some objects.”
The guidelines forbid deploying teargas or flash-bang grenades directly at a crowd of protesters, regardless of what's happening on the street; these weapons are supposed to be detonated a safe distance away from people's bodies. The suit charges that “officers threw them directly at the crowd, and without any audible warnings of their imminent use,” and notes that “one such volley of projectiles fractured the skull of United States Marine Corps veteran Scott Olsen, causing him to fall to the ground and putting him in the hospital for three weeks.”
OPD may only use less-lethal projectiles against an individual who poses an imminent threat. Even then, the guidelines prohibit their use except when such an “individual can be targeted without endangering other crowd members or bystanders.”
“It's a high threshhold,” said Lye. She added that a plastic water bottle thrown at a heavily armored police officer doesn't meet the standard.
Scott Campbell, one of the plaintiffs in the case, was anything but an "imminent threat" when a police officer decided to shoot him with a beanbag round – a fabric bag full of lead shot fired from a shotgun. He captured the assault in a video that has since gone viral (you can view the brief clip below).
“I was out there that night, but I wasn't interested in a confrontation with the police,” he told AlterNet. “I didn't want to be arrested, I didn't want to engage in violence or property destruction – I was simply out there as a supporter of Occupy Oakland and as a 'citizen-journalist.' I was tweeting and taking photos and providing news from the ground."
Campbell was removed from the heart of the action when the incident happened. “At the location where I was shot, there were no confrontations or provocations or violence going on whatsoever,” he said. “There was really nothing to cause concern on the part of the police officers.”
“There were at least two dozen police officers,” explained Campbell. “I approached the line, and an officer told me to step back.” On the video, you can hear him ask twice, “is this OK?” He got no response, assumed he was at an acceptable distance from the police, and then suddenly found himself writhing in pain. “It was an incredible shock – I didn't actually see the officer lift his weapon as I looked through the viewfinder of my camera. I just saw the flash and then instantly felt a severe pain in my leg.” Campbell said the projectile went through his pants, created an open gash an inch and a half long on his upper thigh, sustained bruising and a “large welt” that impaired his movement for several days.
The shooting was an act of punishment – basically the definition of an illegal use of excessive force. Another protester, shot at random, tried to escape by moving past the police line. According to the suit, “when he asked police why they were shooting at him, he was shot again. He was hit at least 8 times with beanbags, rubber bullets or pepperballs, causing pain, swelling, bruising and bleeding.”
The lawsuit asks for an emergency injunction against the OPD restricting its use of force against protesters and mandating compliance with its own crowd control manual. According to Linda Lye, because the crowd control manual was the result of a civil settlement, it represents “an explicit contract between law enforcement and the citizens of Oakland." She said a breach of contract claim was part of the suit.
The case is currently before United States District Court Judge Richard Seeborg, who ordered the city to respond by 5pm Tuesday. If the injunction is granted, and OPD were to continue to use the same tactics in upcoming actions, the department could be held in contempt of court.
Meanwhile, Scott Campbell is still recovering from his injury and intends to continue documenting the actions of Occupy Oakland. But the violence he experienced has had an effect. “I wish it weren't the case,” he told me, “but it's definitely made me more fearful of going out there, especially when I see riot police. It does concern me about going out there in the future – I'm more anxious, more hesitant, and when the situation gets tense, then I'm more inclined to leave than I typically would be.”
Video: Scott Campbell is shot with a less-lethal projectile.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America. Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.
Totally outrageous.
One police officer rebutted and said, "I was just doing my work and this is what I was told to do." That is so appalling. It totally angered me. If police officer were ordered by the chief to used force and real bullets, in order to disperse a crowd of peaceful protester, would you shoot at a protestor, I asked? Use your head. The Chief may be subjecting you to an illegal act. If the worst happen to occur and you kill a protester, do you think the Chief will defend you?
So now that Mayor Quan was able to evict the occupy oakland resident out of the encampment. The rest of the other mayors are using the same justification for eviction in many encampment throughout this nation. Their reasons are so obviously concerted. It is a public and safety and health hazard. If they are so concern about this issue, they could have provided police security in the encampment to monitor the area. If there is trouble, the police officer can either do its job and protect these citizens. If this officer need assistant he can call for more police. Perhaps the city could provide the encampment of more portable toilets and shower facility to maintain some order of cleanliness. I doubt that this will cost the City of Oakland as much as they have spent trying to disperse and intimidate the protester. The City of Oakland claim to have spent $400,000 to the County of Contra Costa County for assistant in the recent eviction and raid. Various new reported that Santa Clara County sheriffs participated in this raid. Mayor Quan never provided the cost paid to the County of Santa Clara. City of Oakland also spent more resources when they put the OPD and participated in this eviction and raid. I can assume the City of Oakland has spent more than $400,000. The City Administrator indicated that this money came from the City of Oakland reserve fund. Where did that "reserve" come from? It was a total waste of taxpayer resources that could have been used for other needs of City Program.
As I said, if they were so concern about safety and health they could have facilitate and help the protester (That would have shown that City of Oakland do care for the citizens and show support for it citizen that is exercising their civil rights. showing an example that the City does care inclusively for the rights of 'ALL' its citizen. Instead the City of Oakland wage an all out war on its own citizen. The City official should respect the fundamental rights of the people. They are not there to cast judgement.
I learned that the City officials were presured by the surrounding business and residents to act and do something. That would have been a great opportunity for Mayor Quan to show leadership to the general public that her loyalty first is to protect the Constitution and show respect for the Civil Rights of ALL citizens. Mayor Quan could have made an announcement publicly in front of the local reporters and announce why she has decided to allow the protest to continue. She could have said, "my decision is based on respecting the Civil Rights of All Citizens and I can not allow anyone no matter how difficult it is to pressure me to go against our core values." to those businesses and residents that who wish for me to go against that fundamental rights simply because it is harming business should think twice. Do you want your Civil liberty, and Rights preserve or do you want to shove it away so business as usual will not be interupted? If you local business wish to continue a free market, I suggest you consider supporting the Civil Rights movement. NOW THAT WOULD HAVE ECHOED loudly for generations to come and would have traveled like wild fire throughout this nation and all over the Globe. That would have been her LEGACY. That would have been more meaningful if she did that and will gain the respect of ALL citizens and all the people of the world. That is what the Lady of Justice personify.
She is no different. She is the typical politician that we hate. It is clear that she is not a leader but merely a puppet to the 1%.
Worse, yet although the media and local news never mention anymore about the comment regarding "reserve" to pay for the $400,000 price tag for police assistant from the County of Conta Costa County, There are alot of us who were paying attention. Most citizens in Oakland didn't know about such as "reserve". The last I heard they were cutting budget to education; police department and various city programs. That "reserve" was a surprise.
Perhaps the money actually came from a special interest group that has a goal to defeat and end the Occupy WS Movement. Several millions funded by the 1% and the Wall Street "baron" is just small pocket change to them. It would silent and defeat the Occupy Movement throughout this nation. That ulterior motive to silent the Occupier Movement would benefit the billionaires.
The WS Baron may call this a conspiracy theory. But there is a logical reason why I have my suspicions. One, I have already describe it above. Two, the same tactic and justification is being by the Mayors throughout this nation (Public Safety and Health Hazard) some went as far as claiming the encampment is attracting drugs, the homeless people, and the mentally ill. Perhaps it is true. But that is the point of the occupy movement encampment. To demonstrate that this nation has a serious social problem. It demonstrate to the government and the Bankster the social sins they have committed against its citizens. It clearly demonstrate that America in fact is becoming a third world nation and is falling behind the emerging nation.
It provides a daily reminder that times are getting worse and everyone should no longer deny this reality. This group (brave group of people) has the courage to bring reality and fight back against the rampant corruption and fraudulent activities that cause the econmic collapse in this Globe. The Occupier are calling for accountability and a return of the needed taxes stolen from the people by the crooks in our government and officials that gambled the peoples pension in risking Wall Street Investments. The occupier also are demanding that the govenment officials, regulator, and Us Attorney General begin prosecution of the Gangster and Bankster and their enablers; that caused the Great Recession. And as punishment, confiscate all of their assets and return them back to the treasury.
The Occupy movement protester in the encampment are just a small number of protester that each represent a multiple number of people that could not participate in the demonstration. They have family; friends; neighbors; grandparents, co-workers, fellow students that they each represent. They are merely a small population that is at the root of the movement. The occupy movement also represent veterans, the sick, the disabled people, and alot of the Patriotic Millionaires who are willing in their own way supporting the movement by demanding our government to change the tax structure in this nation.
The Occupier Movement represent the fabric of American Democracy in action. To those who resent the sight of the demonstrator clearly are in denial. They should open up to the reality and accept responsibility because if we fail as a society, they fall with the movement. The occupant are a small fraction of population. If the critics don't get what it symbolize, I remind them that there is a possibility they may end up in the same encampment if they refuse to face up to this possibility. You best support the movement and respect what these people are doing. For they are doing this also for YOU. Support the movement and show what Democracy looks like. The sooner the they join and support the movement the quicker change can come. Dont be so critical of these poor people because you may end up in their shoe. As the joblessness and poverty increases, the higher the chances the economy will fall into abyss and the bigger the chances you will lose your job. When there is a social unrest and desparation, crime eminently will increase. If you happen to be one of the few who remain employed, there is a likelihood you will be targeted by these desparate angry and hungry people.
To the critic out there of the occupy movement; be careful and show some compassion. If you have not good to say then say nothing. don't antagonize or provoke a fight with these people in the streets. They have nothing else to lose to hold them back from acting out their anger. You might just give them a reason to vent out their anger. They are hurting inside and one more pain may just tick them off.
XYZZX SJ02