Occupy Oakland protesters face hate-crime trial

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

An Alameda County judge on Tuesday sent three Occupy Oakland demonstrators to trial on robbery and hate crime charges after three days of testimony about an altercation they had with a woman who confronted them at a rally.

The preliminary hearing offered a window into the contentious case. Prosecutors said one of the protesters repeatedly called the woman a "dyke bitch" as another grabbed her wallet, while defense attorneys said the alleged victim had been the aggressor - and had herself used racial slurs.

Judge Paul Delucchi said there was probable cause to hold each of the defendants: Michael Davis, 32, Nneka Crawford, 23, and Randolph Wilkins, 25. The judge ordered them to return April 3 to each be arraigned on a charge of felony robbery, along with a sentencing enhancement for the hate crime.

(...)

(Robbery victim Kelly) Stowers said she felt a tug on her over-the-shoulder satchel, and looked down to see Davis pull his hand from inside it before putting the same hand behind his back. Davis also ripped an Obama campaign pin off the bag, Stowers said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/20/BAJ71NM4G9.DTL

[DocMac]

1. Yeah...ok.

I smell bullshit!

[geek tragedy]

4. You think that one single woman attacked those three?

Something is bullshit.

[DocMac]

9. No, i'm thinking that

these three fools are not part of OWS. Just thieves working the crowd.

[Yo_Mama]

12. They were probably there to loot and wanted a riot

Their motivations hardly seem typically OWS. Any crowd situation you will have a few misfits.

[DocMac]

13. Yep, idiots are everywhere.

As soon as you leave your house you can find em. On your way to work, at work, at the grocery store after work, at the movie theatre that night...everywhere.

[MADem]

2. I don't care for thieves.

This does not sound good for the defense:

The hearing revolved around the testimony of the alleged victim, Kelly Stowers, a 42-year-old emergency medical technician. She said she had come out of a comic book store on Piedmont Avenue on the evening of Feb. 22 to find the three demonstrators screaming, "Let's start a f- riot."

Stowers said she told the defendants that they shouldn't call for a riot and, because of their actions, didn't belong in the neighborhood. She said Crawford shoved her, told her she looked "ridiculous," repeatedly called her a "dyke bitch," and accused her of wanting to perform a sex act on Wilkins.

Sounds like Rush Limbaugh....


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/20/BAJ71NM4G9.DTL#ixzz1pjI33Zfd

[KamaAina]

21. Black Bloc

Piedmont Avenue is a couple of miles away from the main Occupy Oakland site at Oscar Grant (f/k/a Frank Ogawa) Plaza. It is, however, fairly near the Whole Foods which was infamously trashed by Black Bloc types only loosely affiliated with Occupy.

[MADem]

22. I think OWS really needs to repudiate those BB assholes.

Maybe ask everyone to wear pastels, then their stupid little costumes will stand out--they'll look like bloody turds amongst the flowers!

It would help with image--and image is key. Never underestimate the power of good (or bad) PR!

[geek tragedy]

3. Every movement will attract human scum like this.

Not a reflection on OWS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Actually it does

Which is truly unfortunate.

[FedUp_Queer]

5. Perhaps it's true.

However, this sounds staged. Something seems very fishy to me about this. Having been to Zucotti Park in NY and mingled with the OWS folks, it just doesn't fit. "Let's start a f------ riot" also seems to transparently and obviously silly. I don't doubt the woman at all. I doubt whether these people were really OWS people, but perhaps so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. There is no membership roster for Occupy

Most of the sites with a sizable population had some sort of problems. Not all were strong arm robbery, but they were there. Witnessed some myself.

When you have a non-structured movement and events, it is disingenuous to say that "those weren't really Occupy people" for all of them.

[RZM]

18. I've said this many times. But there are drawbacks for inviting everybody along for the ride

Somebody should correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the only qualifications for being considered a part of Occupy are:

1) Showing up
2) Being a part of the 99 percent
3) Believing that something is seriously wrong with wealth distribution in our society

There are a whole lot of folks who fall into numbers 2 and 3. And not all of them are good people.

[sabrina 1]

24. And one more. NO VIOLENCE! That is and has always been stressed by the Occupy Movement.

So if you are there to 'start a riot' you do not belong to that movement.

[FedUp_Queer]

20. I agree.

All I'm saying is that the comment struck me as intended to inflame and overly obvious. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't know. On another note, I know there is no "roster." I saw it firsthand in NY because I work 2 blocks from Liberty Plaza.

[DallasNE]

8. We Know That A Group Of Anarchists

Were mingling at the back of the Oakland protest and they had nothing in common with the OWS group. This sounds like part of the anarchist group, making the headline completely false. Yes, it does show a need, at least in certain locations, for OWS to have security people to weed out those just trying to cause trouble under the umbrella of OWS.

[Enrique]

10. this is fishy

Defense attorneys attacked the integrity of the investigation. A police report taken at the scene quoted Stowers saying she recognized the person who reached into her satchel as an Occupy Oakland demonstrator named Sean Palmer.

But both Stowers and the officer who took the report said they had never heard of Palmer before that day. It's unclear how the name got on the report.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/20/BAJ71NM4G9.DTL#ixzz1pnDYV9Tx

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Fishy, you say?

[lunatica]

14. Occupy General Assemblies can and should vote on a public statement rejecting members

who use them and their non-violent activities to further their criminal behavior. This puts distance between the Occupy mission and those who would use them or those who are plants to destroy the movement.

If you espouse a non-violent methodology as the manner in which you want to further your goals and violent people flock to you then it's wise and ethical to reject such activity because it's contrary to the mission.

It's patently ridiculous to paint all Occupy as anarchists itching to draw blood and break laws. If law enforcement arrests them then they're doing their jobs of protecting and serving. Occupy can support the police in these types of arrests.

[bitchkitty]

15. Agents provocateurs

Expect more "incidents" like this as Occupy regains momentum now that the warmer weather is here.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

16. mostly out of curiosity

but how come that every single time a person claiming to be a part of occupy does something wrong/illegal/criminal then they 'never were a part of occupy' or 'were agent provocateurs' or 'were undercover cops'.

even when a person have been around from near the start of his/her cities occupy movement then does something wrong/illegal/criminal then he suddenly wasn't 'really a part of the movement', its a danged weak excuse considering the lack of lack of requirements on membership and its lack of leaders, Be open to anybody and their dog and you open the movement for people who are not all of a flowers and rainbows mindset.

[geek tragedy]

17. The No True Scotsman logical fallacy. nt

[sabrina 1]

25. No, the 'NO VIOLENCE' requirement in order to be a part of the movement.

Anyone who is there to 'start a riot' is automatically disqualified as a member of Occupy, a fact that is stressed over and over again. The basic thrust of the movement is to BE NON-VIOLENT. So explain please, how anyone who states they are there to 'start a riot' could possibly claim to be a part of a movement that has from the beginning, written, talked and preached 'non-violence'??

[geek tragedy]

26. All cops are supposed to obey the law.

Doesn't always work out that way.

[sabrina 1]

27. And some people who want to be cops, don't qualify.

Anyone who openly advocates violence, does not qualify as a member of a non-violent movement.

[Throd]

28. In this case, anyone qualifies until they disqualify.

Occupy doesn't do background checks.

[sabrina 1]

30. No, not anyone qualifies. People calling for riots definitely do not qualify.

It's simple. If you are a violent person who promotes riots you don't belong and won't be welcome in peaceful movement. And the only reason you might want to pretend you are part of such a movement, assuming you have an IQ even in double digits, is to discredit the movement.

[slackmaster]

19. No true Occupater would ever be a bigot or a criminal

Except for the fact that some are. I've seen them with my own eyes in San Diego.

[unionworks]

23. Every real Occupy supporter

I have talked to is pro gay rights. These peole obviously were not part of the movement. Just being near a demonstation is good enough for the MSM to fling poo.

[joshcryer]

29. I think this is a video of Michael Davis, but I'm not sure:

http://www.wlwt.com/r/29545827/detail.html

http://www.mugshots.com/Current-Events/Michael-Davis.html

It says Occupy Cincinnati, but Occupiers are known to move from group to group.

I think this is a setup more than anything.