Occupy Oakland last night. All about a dumpster and porto potties?

[Bennyboy]

WTF is this? seriously.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of cops took action against Occupy oakland last night. And probably today and probably all week.

Some of the things that were cited in why they police took action were public urination, and trash at the Occupy site.

Cops from as far away as Vacaville (about 60 miles) were in on it. Every city, county, state etc type of cop within 50 miles was there. SWAT TEAMS, tactical teams, this and that. every possible type of cop device was used from the prehistoric (heads were bashed) to the sweet smell of the sixties (tear gas), all the way up to today's high tech crowd dispersal/rights violation methods. (sound cannons and flash bombs).

I am guessing that this probably cost the City of Oakland about 20 million dollars when all is said and done. The arrested go to court, hire public defenders, the DA, the court reporters, the jailers, the laundry at the jail, the kitchen at the jails, probation, housing etc all are going to run this bill sky hig hin an already impoverished city. The City will have to pay back all the other municipalities that police and equipment were used the cost. Then there will be ENDLESS lawsuits. Some of these will make it to the Supreme Court. (Right violations) Some, (the bashing cases especially) will be settled out of court for huge sums of money.

Then there is lost revenue from tourism etc. There are a lot of people in SF who aren't going to be going to Oakland anymore due to this. I certainly won't be spending any money there. (and I have a girl that lives about two blocks away from the park and have been to many Raider games, the FOX theater). And, again, the City puts a big black mark on itself. Yet again.

I think that maybe the city of Oakland, when they saw they were going to be having an event like this, might have, and should have, provided a dumpster and some port-o-potties.

A place to put trash and some port o potties. Seems simple.

The simple truth is, this will go against the budget for police next year and ton of the cops that were there last night will get laid off. 20 million or more, GONE. LONG GONE.

Over some port o potties and dumpster. Probably would have cost the city grand or so.
Guess what???,

Without any dram, Occupy Oakland, like it would have in most cities across America, (Probaly not NYC< Chicago and DC though) the Occupy movement would have faded out and people would have gone home thinking they made their point and moved on.

But now, the fires are burning.

Over five port o potties and a dumpster.

[Imajika]

1. I saw video of a local news crew barred from access to the park...

There was some masked guy standing out in front talking about a revolution, and a couple people that wouldn't let her and the news crew in.

I also read news that authorities were being denied access (though I saw no video of that so don't know if it is true).

Bottom line, it's a public park. The protesters should not have been denying access in a threatening manner (in ANY manner) to local television. It looks to me like once that video went out that the city took a harder line. Perhaps that moment was the beginning of the end.

If OWS wants to set up long stay park protests, there should be no efforts to block anyone else from using them - even if it is a camera crew intent on making the protesters look bad. Once park access is blocked during normal operating hours, the authorities basically are forced to respond in some manner.

[MADem]

4. Salient points. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Several OWS encampments have really screwed up on media relations

[Bennyboy]

6. Please provide the video..

Where was this?

[Imajika]

11. It was all over the news a couple days ago...

I am at the office, so just search for it. It was Channel 2 KTVU News. Reporter's last name was Wong I think. There are probably several videos showing the incident I am talking about.

Masked guy talking about a revolution and barring the reporter from entering the camp.

The point is, the protestors should not have been barring ANYONE from entering the camp. It is a public park and they simply don't have the right to do that. And it is just dumb to try to prevent the media from coming in because they will never let something like that go. Tell a reporter she can't come in and most will try even harder to gain entry and it ends up causing the reporting to be even more negative.

It sounds like occupy Oakland got a bit out of control, which gave the city government and police the excuse they wanted to bust up the protest camp.

[Bennyboy]

30. Yes you are right, BUT

that was one guy right? Was he speaking for everyone? Cuz I know in NYC, reporters are allowed (possibly shoutted down of course) as they are all over the world. So this sounds like one individual being made out to be a leader of a leaderless organization? Could the reporters have gone around and entered the park on the other side??

Lets think about TV news for a second okay. That made the news to discredit the movement. It is like (now to my world) how they always interview the dreadiest, highest, most wookieish person at a Grateful Dead or Phish concert instead of the banker sitting next to him...

[Imajika]

48. And of course your quite right...

"It is like (now to my world) how they always interview the dreadiest, highest, most wookieish person at a Grateful Dead or Phish concert instead of the banker sitting next to him..."

That they do. Not only that, most people are not used to being on camera and will tend to fumble their words and often look ignorant even if they are very sharp.

Still, this is a good lesson for making sure no media are ever blocked from occupy camps. Even if they are troublemakers, these are public places and occupy protesters simply can't try to deny media, authorities or really anyone else from walking into the parks. Doing that is just asking for the police to get involved and give them a reason to crack down.

Not so sure it was just that one guy in Oakland. There were a couple other people that had their backs turned but looked to be involved in that. This is one of the problems Occupy is going to face, these camps are initially filled with patriotic, caring protesters that are offering food and a place to stay. It would not surprise me if bad elements and those looking for a fight start turning up, stealing from the protesters and otherwise causing trouble and giving authorities an excuse to destroy the entire protest camp. Heck, wouldn't surprise me one bit of the cops are encouraging people like this to over run the occupy camps.

[ThoughtCriminal]

54. Guy with mask, talking revolution, keeping out media

Cop.

[Bennyboy]

56. And we know that how?

[Laluchacontinua]

59. How does one guy "bar access" to a team of reporters in a city park?

I don't think most city parks are fenced & gated.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. I saw it as well

[MADem]

53. It's at the bottom of this link.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-activists-need-to-brush-up-on-first-amendment-law

[grasswire]

10. that sounds very suspicious to me

I don't think I believe it. I CAN believe that a provocateur or two have been seeded in the crowd by TPTB.

[MADem]

15. They could have been asshole anarchists, or the Paul people.

They are the troublemakers in Boston--all the spray painting was down to them.

The Boston people toss the troublemakers to the police, though.

[0rganism]

2. "public urination, and trash" were just part of the cover story

There's something deeper happening: the 1%ers are reaching the "Then they fight you" stage and they know it.

They have to stop a growing movement and that takes some doing. Above all, they must convince those who aren't yet engaged in occupations that the occupiers are "other". The cover story helps to convince middle Americans that the occupations are filthy public nuisances, and the brutality of the police response tells middle America that there was something horribly reprehensible about those protesters being where they were.

This assists in preserving an unmotivated, uncaring majority of Americans who willingly let themselves be exploited rather than engage in something unsanitary and potentially risky.

[MADem]

3. Twenty million? I think that's a bit high.

The problem is, to be devil's advocate, that the people are breaking city ordinances by camping in the park. The city is unlikely to provide port a potties and a dumpster to facilitate lawbreaking.

The Occupy people should have just ordered 'em and had 'em delivered, if that's all it would have taken. They have a ton of money from donations to the cause. That might have put off the problem. Of course, then you'd probably see an influx of homeless people--not all of them downtrodden saints--coming into the encampment for the food and toilets.

[Bennyboy]

7. Probably really really really low

By the time these cases make the supreme court and the settlements paid out. And the Lawyers Guild is right there. Think of all the civil suits that are going to be filed just over rights violations.......

[MADem]

8. I have to disagree with your assertions.

I don't think a single case will make it to the Supreme Court. I think people who were arrested will pay their fines, or do the "go and sin no more" where the fine is suspended if they stay out of trouble.

I don't think you'll see many civil suits, either. They don't have a leg to stand on. The people trying to retake the park were breaking existing laws, and the courts don't go on "Awww, their hearts were in the right place," they go on existing law.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Congress shall make no law...right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Governme

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of "no law" does Oakland not understand?

[MADem]

14. What part of "local ordinances" don't YOU understand? Good grief.

The federal government is not "the boss" of the states. They have a right to organize as they see fit, and they place restrictions (permits, for example) on certain activities to THEIR (not your) benefit. These restrictions are the result of laws passed by representatives who speak for the VOTERS of the community and are created to preserve order and harmony within the municipality--not to deny anyone their right to speak.

The "First Amendment" does not say you can live in a tent in a public park. The "First Amendment" does not say you can enter a park or other recreation area that is closed at night. The "First Amendment" does not say you can prance down the street, blocking traffic and creating a disturbance.

Don't be proud of your misunderstanding--it doesn't work to your benefit.

[Laelth]

18. The First Amendment has been "incorporated."

i.e. it applies to the states and to their municipal corporations.

That said, the courts, on occasion, will allow the government to violate our constitutional rights if the government meets a specific test (and the scrutiny level varies by the right at issue).

Nevertheless, I agree with you that, in this case, the courts would find that the police acted properly in denying these people their right to assemble, but let's not pretend that loitering laws and "trespassing on public property" laws aren't violations of the Constitution. They are. Clearly. They're just violations that the courts permit.

-Laelth

[MADem]

32. No it hasn't. This shit is not new. These laws have been on the books for

eons, most of them. No one woke up and suddenly decided to do this all over the land. And these laws are not coming out of corporations, they are coming out of We, The People, in small towns and cities across the country. Our legislators, who we send to legislative bodies, be they state or local, craft these laws and vote on them. They represent US when they cast their votes and pass these laws. If "we" don't like them, "we" need to stop complaining and elect people to change them.

There are plenty of things that can be blamed on corporations, justly, but local ordinances? No. That's a community regulating itself. Often, the laws are designed with a principal goal of keeping that crazy homeless guy who is seen running around naked and peeing on himself from setting up housekeeping in the Public Gardens next to the Swan Boats.

I do get irritated when people think they have a "right" to block traffic, or foul a public park and not allow access to the public, and call it their "First Amendment" rights. You have something to say? Stand on the sidewalk, don't block it so others cannot pass, and speak your peace.

The Oakland group got in trouble for these very reasons--they had poor hygiene, they didn't self-police, and they denied the public access to what they regarded as "their" space (but which belonged to the citizens of the community). They didn't play it smart.

It is SO EASY to protest in America--even without a permit. It just takes organization and a bit of stick-to-it-iveness. Line up in orderly fashion on a sidewalk, stretching for miles if you'd like, hold up signs and yell to your heart's content. I used to live in a neighborhood where people would do this regularly; from groups as diverse as Abortion/Bad to War/Bad. They liked the spot because it got a lot of "church traffic," and they'd do their thing on Sundays. And permits aren't hard to get, either, if someone would get off their butt and speak for the organization. If the police try to refuse, that's when you ask for help from Legal Aid. It can be done. It's not impossible. It's simply good manners to adhere to the requirements the community has established for itself. It also wins you more friends if you approach your protest as a member of the community speaking out, as opposed to some sort of "other" who is opposed to the public safety element within the community.

[Laelth]

38. Thanks for the long response, but I get the sense you didn't read what I wrote.

Trust me on this one. The 1st Amendment does apply to the states and to municipal corporations.

And those states and municipal corporations sometimes write laws that violate constitutional rights. In the case of the laws we are discussing, the Courts have, generally, allowed those laws to stand even though they violate the Constitutional rights of citizens.

-Laelth

[MADem]

41. Well, I think we aren't disagreeing. Entirely, anyway.

You CAN exercise your First Amendment rights...just not on my front lawn at three in the morning.

The law doesn't ever say you cannot do it, it just says you cannot do it over HERE, or in the public street blocking traffic....or at this time in that place.

Otherwise, no business would ever be allowed to close, for fear of abrogating someone's "First Amendment Rights."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. The states and/or munipalities cannot pass laws that supersede the 1st amendment.

To disingenuously portray the OWS movement as something other than the people practicing their right to assemble and petition the government for redress is.. well..disingenuous or dishonest.

[MADem]

26. You are free to exercise your First Amendment rights--just not in a CLOSED PARK.

You are free to exercise your First Amendment rights--just not in the middle of the street blocking traffic.

Camping in a park without a permit is not a "First Amendment right." Back to school with you.

[Bennyboy]

28. If it goes one way against medical cannabis

then it has to goo the other way too right?

[Laelth]

16. And the government does just that all the time.

And the courts often allow those laws to stand. There's a test that the government has to meet to have an unconstitutional law stand, but, in many cases, the government can meet the test.

It came as a bit of a shock to me, as a first year law student, to discover that the courts will allow the government to violate the Constitution, on occasion, if the government has very good reasons for doing so. Like most Americans, I believed that our Constitutional rights were absolute. They're not.

-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Which reduces them to "alleged" rights. Or, false advertising.

[Laelth]

33. Somewhat, yes.

But, honestly, our courts are a lot better at resisting the government than the courts in other countries. Don't know if you've ever seen the old constitution of the U.S.S.R., but it's a gorgeous document, far more liberal and enlightened than our own constitution, insuring tremendous rights to the Soviet people. Problem was, the courts never enforced it. As such, the soviet people had none of those rights ... none. The Soviet Constitution was a worthless piece of paper.

Our Constitution, while not always enforced, is, at least, sometimes enforced. It could be worse.

-Laelth

[Nye Bevan]

37. I have a feeling that if people were protesting and drumming at 3 AM outside your house

that you would not be quite so outraged if their "constitutional right" to assemble freely and protest was not deemed to be "absolute" in this circumstance.

[Laelth]

40. I expressed no outrage above, as far as I can tell.

Shock, yes. Outrage, no.

But after practicing law for as long as I have, I am over the shock at this point. :)

-Laelth

[Nye Bevan]

43. I was debating this with another DUer a few days ago,

who also was saying that the First Amendment right to protest should never be abridged. When I brought up the case of protestors near his house at 3 AM, his reaction was, laws against disturbing the peace would come into effect to shut down the protestors. I pointed out that whether you have a permit system, or rely on laws against disturbing the peace, it's not reasonable to expect that the right to protest is completely absolute.

[Laelth]

47. I agree with you. Our Constitutional rights should not be absolute.

I was merely shocked to find out that they're not, and I think most Americans still believe that they are absolute.

btw, I don't recall ever having said that the right to assemble should be absolute.

-Laelth

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Some limitations on rights is considered acceptable by the courts

be it freedom of religion, assembly, voting, weapon ownership

[MADem]

34. And the limitations are generally built around ordinances which say

that while people are free to do it, they just aren't free to do it here...or there...or at this or that time. And when the limitations are crafted by the community, it's the community who wants the limitations to preserve good order and harmony within their ranks.

[Bennyboy]

27. Well talk tot he American Attorney's guild then..

They seem to think differently. So does ACLU etc..

[MADem]

35. Well, good for them. If I'm wrong I'm sure you will let me know! nt

[CrackersMcGee]

9. OWS should change their name to 'The 99%'. nt

OWS should change their name to The 99%.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Wow. There is a concerted campaign to have the 99% organization take over OWS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. They are often used interchangably

[Luminous Animal]

23. We'll see.

[a simple pattern]

21. Weird.

Who is Michael S. Parsons?

[Luminous Animal]

29. It would be nice to know but, as far as I can tell, he's not telling.

[MADem]

36. Google suggested to me that he is a Working Group Facilitator at OWS. nt

[Taverner]

24. California Cops love a good skull bashing

Trust me, I know

EVERY single protest in California over the past 30 years has been met with police brutality

[Obamanaut]

31. Who normally provides dumpsters, potties, clean-up, etc, for a large gathering -

concerts, political rallies, etc.? Is it the organizers and/or sponsors of that event? Do they reimburse the city/county for security, or the use of facilities? Do the organizers/sponsors pay for dumpsters/porto potties?

Or do they set up a stage, advertise, draw a crowd and then expect the local municipality to clean up when they are done?

[MADem]

39. The people holding the party--not the city--pay for it.

They usually reimburse the city for police overtime (not regular salary, just the difference in pay) and any additional help they may need (Public Works, jersey barriers, that kind of thing)...they often pay a private ambulance firm to provide standby EMTs. There's usually a fire inspection that you have to cough up for as well in many municipalities, particularly if you are setting up a stage--there may be a building inspector in on it as well.

Things like porta-potties and dumpsters? The event-holders usually contract for those themselves, after working with parks and recreation re: where to site them (you do not want to ruin grass, and if you do, you need to pay to repair it). Also, after your event is over, you want to either contract with a private firm to pick up all your trash, or pay the city to do it--the former is usually cheaper.

I have organized a few things on publicly-owned property, not recently, but that's what comes to mind at the top of my head. Oh, sometimes they charge a use fee which is designed to cover the trash pick up, but they still want you do the bulk of it or get a surcharge in some cases.

[Obamanaut]

42. Well then. With no potties/dumpsters, looks like the OWS event planners didn't plan completely. nt

[Nye Bevan]

44. Haven't hundreds of thousands of dollars been donated to OWS?

Surely this would pay for porta-potties at all of the large protest points?

[MADem]

46. They need leaders who will work with the cops and not against them.

The biggest mistake they can make is painting the police as the enemy for enforcing local law.

It feeds into the right wing "buncha dirty hippie anarchists" themes if they don't behave as part of the community. They may not like the idea of being organized, but they do need coordinators and facilitators, if not "leaders," because someone needs to work with the police, get the permits, and stop these confrontations. They are not "galvanizing the movement." They're taking away from the focus. IMO.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

50. Both Opccupy SF and Oakland HAVE been working with City leaders -

And repeatedly. The PD or DPW bring up an issue about the Occupy folks, the Occupy folks have talked with officials and then fix the problem addressed, and then the PD/Public Health folks have bought up another "problem". The OWS people have been responding accordingly for the past month. It's the cities' PTB that keep changing the goalposts.

[MADem]

52. Well, Oakland didn't do a good job--they refused to let reporters in.

They swore at one woman who was just asking reasonable questions. That was probably the tipping point.

Video at the bottom of this link: http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-activists-need-to-brush-up-on-first-amendment-law

[MADem]

45. I also forgot about the food thing....

When you're preparing/serving food and doing semi-public feedings, there's a whole 'nother layer of inspections that go along with that. Many municipalities want to give you a license for food/beverage. If you're serving alcohol as well, then you need to deal with the ABC or its equivalent to make that work.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. OWS was not planned nor structured. That is some of its appeal

but at some point logistics need to be handled, food, water, shelter, and toilets, are all important matters. Some sites have done it better than others.

[wildeyed]

51. Yeah, I'm with you.

Some toities and trashcans. Be civil to the protesters. Wait until they get too bored, cold, wet or maybe they actually decide to regulate the banking industry and everyone goes home. The local municipalities should treat the Occupiers like an inconvenience. Beating them up just give the city and the police a bad name and solidifies support for the protesters. Stupid.

I was born in Oakland. We had a huge party for my dad's 70th right by Lake Meritt this time last year. I regret spending my money and time there now.

[Tsiyu]

55. "Oakland" is now branded "Violent and Unsafe"

because of this LE Circle Jerk.

The cops chose violence over peaceful accommodation.

I'm sure the police will have many stories to tell one another over beers and cocktail weinies. They merely sacrificed Oakland to act like barbarians - their true natures, it appears.

[Bennyboy]

60. AGAIN!

No chance I ever set foot there again (and I do quite often) unless it is a straight line to someones house. Sure won't be spending any money that much is sure.

[Matariki]

57. Not only that but OccupyOakland probably could have come up with donations toward those things

[TBF]

58. If it wasn't a dumster and porto potties it would have been something else -

these precincts are coordinating (and you know who's FBI is behind the scenes on this). They will throw out a million excuses but their goal is to shut us down.