Evidence Suggests Oakland PD Violated Law in Violent Confrontation With Occupy Oakland Demonstrators

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG



Video Evidence Suggests Oakland PD Violated CA State Law, Federal Consent Decree in Violent Confrontation With Occupy Oakland Demonstrators
Law enforcement intended to use tear gas from outset, not in response to 'pelting of bottles and rocks', as alleged by Interim Police Chief...

In the wake of a violent, night-time confrontation with Occupy Oakland demonstrators last week by the Oakland Police Department (OPD) and some 15 other law enforcement agencies, questions have arisen about the legality of the tactics used by the agency during mass arrests which led to serious injuries, including the fractured skull of a two-tour Iraq vet.

Oakland's Interim Police Chief Howard Jordan has maintained that the use of chemical agents and other so-called "less than lethal" weapons were required in order to defend law enforcement officials from demonstrators.

However, a forensic analysis by The BRAD BLOG of video taken immediately prior to and during last week's raid and confrontation with Occupy Oakland demonstrators, creates doubt about the legality of the OPD decision to declare the demonstration to be an "unlawful assembly," and, in particular, raises serious questions about the veracity of the Interim Oakland Police Chief's claim that gas was deployed "to stop the crowd and people from pelting us with bottles and rocks".

Moreover, evidence in several of the videos suggests that the multi-agency task force may have violated both CA Penal Code Section 407 and an OPD Training Manual that had been adopted pursuant to a federal consent decree signed by the Oakland PD after another confrontation with protestors some years ago…

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8878

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8878

[lunatica]

1. Yeah. Proactive police work.

Stop them from pelting the police before they start. That's some fantastic police work! Stopping the violence before it breaks out by responding violently is a winner for sure!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

29. Real life case of Minority Report. n/t

[Kingofalldems]

2. Kick and Rec for the 'mock and undermine' crowd

[BradBlog]

3. Thank you, King... n/t

[watajob]

4. Suggests?!

Wow!

[bl968]

5. The Police Officers are guilty of rioting and should be charged

The Sergeant declared a non-violent assembly unlawful.

Under California law, an unlawful assembly occurs when two or more people assemble together (to commit a crime/ to do a lawful act in a violent manner). When two or more people assemble to do a lawful act in a violent manner, the assembly is not unlawful unless violence actually occurs or there is a clear and present danger that violence will occur immediately.

California Penal Code section 407 defines an "unlawful assembly" as two or more people assembled together "to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner." The Supreme Court has held that "the proscriptions of sections 407 and 408 on assemblies to do a lawful act must be limited to assemblies which are violent or which pose a clear and present danger of imminent violence." (In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 612, 623 <108 Cal.Rptr. 465, 510 P.2d 1017>; see Collins v. Jordan (1996) 110 F.3d 1363, 1371.) Because the assembly must in fact be violent or pose an immediate threat of violence, an assembly that is "boisterous or tumultuous" does not establish a violation of the statute.

There was no violence, so it was an unlawful order for the crowd to disperse. Thus the use of the chemical weapons, rubber bullets, and flashbang grenades was assault, and it is the police who were there who were guilty of rioting....

A riot occurs when two or more people, acting together and without legal authority, disturb the public peace by using force or violence or by threatening to use force or violence with the immediate ability to carry out those threats.

And, they should be so charged...

They should also throw in charges for...

Unreasonable force

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."

Failure to keep the public from harm....

The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

References

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2600/2686.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes#section241
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes#section242

[BradBlog]

6. well done, bl!

[fascisthunter]

8. very well done!

[AsahinaKimi]

12. agreed, well done bl968

welcome to DU!! :hi:

[bl968]

17. Recourse is available

I don't live in California, but residents of Alameda County can take the police actions to their local grand jury. Any person can present a case to the Grand Jury in their community and the Grand Jury can issue a report or indictment without the District Attorney pressing charges.

Investigation of Complaints and Accusations

The grand jury also is likely to receive a number of citizen complaints, many of which involve operations of county or city agencies or special districts. Whether the complaint is civil or criminal, rules of secrecy apply, and during the course of its investigation, the grand jury may not divulge the subject or methods of inquiry.

The subject of the investigation and the methods of inquiry are only revealed when the final report is published...

§ 919(c) of the California Penal Code requires the grand jury to inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county. Where misconduct is found, the grand jury may file an accusation leading to a trial. If the official is convicted, the person is thereby removed from office. Very few of these accusations are filed.

Frequently, if there is misconduct in office, it is of a criminal nature, and an indictment rather than an accusation would be issued. It is also possible that an official would resign rather than face an accusation. The grand jury may file an accusatory pleading against a corporation doing business in its county of jurisdiction (Penal Code § 892). In a report published by the California Grand Jurors Association, misconduct in office could include any of the following:

Nonfeasance:

1) The failure to act where duty requires an act; or

2) Neglect or refusal, without sufficient cause or excuse, to do that which is the officer's legal duty to do, whether willfully or through malice; or

3) Willful neglect of duty

Misfeasance:

1) The improper or doing of an act that a person might lawfully do; or

2) The performance of a duty or act that one ought to do or has a right to do, but in manner such as to infringe upon the rights of others.

Malfeasance:

1) The performance of an act that is positively unlawful or wrong; or

2) The performance of a wrongful act that the person has no legal right to do.

I think this situation would qualify and by doing so you can bypass the blue wall that tends to protect police officers from the consequence of their actions...

[No Elephants]

41. Great post. Recourse is available under federal law as well. 42 USC 1983

[DCKit]

23. Well stated. You win the thread.

I worked in the field for seven years, but I don't think I would have ever approached it from that angle. Well done.

[ThomCat]

32. Excellent!

:applause:

[JDPriestly]

7. Seems to me that protestors should carry goggles and masks from

now on. Why not? There is nothing illegal about it.

[fascisthunter]

9. here's another kick (nt)

[KansDem]

10. k&r

This sickens me...:grr:

[baldguy]

11. If you're a private citizen & assault someone, you go to prison for a couple years.

But if you're wearing a badge, you just lose a few days' pay - if anything is done at all.

[BradBlog]

14. Kinda why folks are finally taking the streets, eh? n/t

[haydukelives]

13. suggests?

[tcaudilllg]

15. When you "are" the law, the rules have no meaning.

[mojowork_n]

16. It was domestic "shock and awe"

This is the story as reported by a security guard who was in a building directly across the street. He made a video and gave it to Pacifica News:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/02/what-the-cops-really-did-in-oakland/

.....How would you describe, say a little bit more about who was being arrested?

BL: I tell you downtown Oakland has never been safer because we had a community there. At other times, actually downtown, it’s shady, and it’s actually very dicey, if you take the chance to walk around.

But violence…the thing about the occupiers was that whenever there was an incident, if there was someone who misbehaved themselves, twenty, twenty-five people would surround the person and say “Hey, you know, you can’t do this, this is not acceptable behavior at this camp.” I saw incidents like that.

I live downtown Oakland and I saw this thing from its inception on a rainy Monday evening. Five hundred some people gathered at the plaza and the next thing you know they were putting their tents up.....

[RainbowSuperfund]

38. If you want to be safe, hang with militant pacifists . n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. Quelle Surprise. Thanks for the exposure.

K & R

:kick:

[RoccoR5955]

19. Welcome to the Police State of America

Where police don't have to obey the law, because they ARE the law!

[BradBlog]

20. Certainly the case in Oakland as long as Chief Jordan allowed to stay on job (nt)

[KamaAina]

21. The hell of it is, he's only an interim chief

Chief Anthony Batts bailed just a couple of weeks ago, would you believe, after a Federal judge threatened the OPD with a takeover based on a years-old corruption/brutality case.

Yes, I do find the timing rather :tinfoilhat: ish.

[No Elephants]

42. Threatened? Wonder what that judge is thinking while that Marine is in the hospital.

[KamaAina]

22. Really? What was their first clue?

Oh, right.

[joshguitar]

24. knr

[jonthebru]

25. If Oaklands "Interim Police Chief "...

becomes the "Police Chief" for real I will be very surprised.

[No Elephants]

26. The story police told after trouble began was different from what actually happened?

Nah.

Remember the revisions to the online police report about Professor Gates. And that was only what we got to see.

[Lars77]

27. 15 law enforcement agencies? 15????

How the hell can 15 law enforcement agencies feel that they have business policing Occupy Oakland?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Because they were there to kick ass that night.

It was on their fucking calendar, that's why they pulled in so many officers. I don't know for sure that no bottles and rocks were thrown, but I guarantee, even if every last protestor was a total saint, and there were no agents provocateur, those officers still would have deployed gas and 'managed' the crowd that night. No matter what. They were there to shut it down and disperse. Guaranteed.

[BradBlog]

30. Ass-kicking Accomplished

[Lars77]

39. Would be interesting to have a list of those agencies.

I didnt even think there were 15 law enforcement agencies.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, BradBlog.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LadyHawkAZ]

34. In other news: water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot n/t

[valerief]

35. I thought the PD made up the rules as they went along. Patriot Act and all. nt

[IDemo]

36. I've suggested this before and will again

As many protesters and third party observers as possible need to keep the OWS'ers in constant camera view, particularly when the cops appear to be getting ready to act. This would help eliminate the "police were only defending themselves against bottle-throwing rioters" bs.

[BradBlog]

37. +1 (nt)

[Little Tich]

40. The Police should ask themselves what role they will play in these demonstrations.

If they incite to violence, they are on the wrong side and people will not believe that "they protect and serve" anymore. Respect for the Law is their greatest shield. Lose it, and they are no more than hired thugs.