Declaration of Occupy Wall Street

Status
Not open for further replies.
sallylou said:
OPD settled a class action suit for using these tactics a few years back. At that time, the dept agreed not to use these tactics on protesters. Apparently, they are slow learners.
Click to expand...


Ok Here's the thing. The settlement Sallylou was referring to was a 2004 lawsuit by Longshoremen (note she said a few years ago)


Burris, another plaintiffs' attorney in Oakland, agreed, saying the crowd-control measures are "a positive step toward evenhandedness."

Oakland police spokeswoman Danielle Ashford said Friday that the department's new policy was the result of an "ongoing learning process" that seeks to "ensure the safety of our officers as well as the community that we serve."

Haddad said police are "supposed to respect protesters' First Amendment activity" under the new policy. If laws are broken, police will try to negotiate with leaders and give audible orders to the crowd to disperse before making arrests.If demonstrators still refuse to comply, police are allowed to deploy tear gas "on the edge of the crowd," form a skirmish line and push back protesters with batons but not strike them, Haddad said.
Click to expand...

OAKLAND / Agreement reached on crowd-control tactics - SFGate

You decided to jump on the bandwagon and picked the wrong case. The case you brought up is still pending (Although an injunction was ordered, no settlement yet)

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

jillio said:
What is your point? The settlement included an agreement not to use these tactics on groups of citizens. They did. They violated the settlement. No wonder the mayor is trying to distance herself from the PD's actions.

Here are details of what the protest was about re: the class action lawsuit.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Oakland Police Department and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Monday alleging that they violated the rights of 150 people who were arrested after former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle was sentenced last Nov. 5.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court only hours after Mesherle, 29, was released from the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail at about 12:30 a.m.

Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old Hayward man who was unarmed, after Mehserle and other officers responded to reports that there was a fight on a train.

Mehserle admitted in a highly publicized trial last year that he shot and killed Grant but claimed he had meant to use his Taser stun gun on Grant and fired his service gun by mistake.

Alameda County prosecutors sought to have Mehserle convicted of murder, but in a verdict on July 8 jurors only convicted him of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter.

On Nov. 5, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Perry sentenced Mehserle to two years. Mehserle was released from custody because he was given credit for time he served in jail before and after his conviction.

At a news conference at 14th Street and Broadway in downtown Oakland Monday, Michael Flynn of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild alleged that Oakland police violated their crowd control policy by engaging in the mass arrest of 150 demonstrators at a protest the night of Nov. 5, after Mehserle was sentenced.

Flynn said officers surrounded the protesters, who were upset at the short sentence that Mehserle received, and refused to give them an opportunity to leave.

Rachel Lederman, another attorney with the guild, said Oakland police and Alameda County sheriff's deputies detained the protesters for up to 28 hours and refused to let them use the bathroom or eat during much of that time.
None of the people arrested were charged with committing a crime, she said.

Lederman said the lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages for the protesters who were arrested, as well as an injunction that would force the Oakland Police Department to comply with its crowd control policies.

Oakland City Attorney spokesman Alex Katz said he can't comment on the lawsuit because his office hasn't seen it yet.

Alameda County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. J.D. Nelson couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Oscar Grant Protesters File Suit Against OPD | NBC Bay Area

Once again, a case of people pissed over the cops being given free reign. Go figure.
Click to expand...

So not only are the police still allowed to use tear gas in crowd control situations once a certain criteria is met, you didn't even cite the correct case

Here is a letter from Tuesday from the National Lawyers Guild regarding the case you posted

http://www.nlgsf.org/docs/EmailReOakland.pdf

As you can see the letter mentions an injunction requiring OPD to comply with it's crowd control policies. Again no order to stop using tear gas. As seen above the policies allow for tear gas as long as they attempt negotiations and give verbal warning first.

Oakland's tear gas policy


4. Non Hand–Held Crowd Control Chemical Agents

a. Crowd control chemical agents are those chemical agents designed and intended to move or stop large numbers of individuals in a crowd situation and administered in the form of a delivery system which emits the chemical agent diffusely without targeting a specific individual or individuals.

b. Chemical agents can produce serious injuries or even death. The elderly person or infant in the crowd or the individual with asthma or other breathing disorder may have a fatal reaction to chemical agents even when those chemical agents are used in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and the Department’s training. Thus, crowd control chemical agents shall be used only if other techniques, such as encirclement and multiple simultaneous arrest or police formations, have failed or will not accomplish the policing goal as determined by the Incident Commander
c. Members shall use the minimum amount of chemical agent necessary to obtain compliance.

d. Indirect delivery or crowd dispersal spray and/or discharge of a chemical agent shall not be used in demonstrations or other crowd events without the approval of a supervisor or command officer.

e. Chemical agents shall not be used for crowd control or dispersal without first giving audible warning of their imminent use and giving reasonable time to the crowd, media, and observers to disperse.

f. If chemical agents are contemplated in crowd situations, OPD shall have medical personnel on site prior to their use and shall make provision for decontamination and medical screening to those persons affected by the chemical agent(s).

5. Hand-thrown chemical agents or pyrotechnic gas dispersal devices

a. Hand-thrown chemical agents or pyrotechnic gas dispersal devices shall not be used for crowd control or crowd dispersal without the approval of a supervisor or command officer.

b. The use of hand-thrown chemical agents or pyrotechnic gas dispersal devices may present a risk of permanent loss of hearing or serious bodily injury from shrapnel. Said devices shall be deployed to explode at a safe distance from the crowd to minimize the risk of personal injury and to move the crowd in the direction that will accomplish the policing objective.

c. Hand-thrown chemical agents or pyrotechnic gas dispersal devices shall not be used for crowd control without first giving audible warnings to the crowd and additional reasonable time to disperse.

d. Hand-thrown chemical agents or pyrotechnic gas dispersal devices shall be used only if other techniques such as encirclement and mass arrest or police formations have failed or will not accomplish the policing goal as determined by the Incident Commander.
Click to expand...

Oakland Police Department Crowd Management/Crowd Control Policy | Public Intelligence

In Summary, the OPD was ordered to create and follow a crowd management policy in the Longshoremen suit. They did not agree to "not use these tactics". They agreed to try other alternatives first. And even that didn't come from the case you posted.
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
I made my statements. The statements I have already made are what started you on this quest to prove me wrong. You certainly don't need anything more from me. You already thought you had enough to prove me wrong. I said exactly what I intended to say,

Do you really think that your attempts at entrapment and manipulation are obvious to all? Did you really expect for me to fall for that, "Let me manipulate you into saying what I wanted you to say so I can use it against you" game?:laugh2:

I made my statements regarding the settlement. You said I was wrong. So post the settlement findings. If you even have them.:lol:
Click to expand...

No quest to prove you wrong....I knew you were wrong from the get go. The Grant case is big news in NorCal.

I was giving you the opportunity to clarify what you meant. That's all. Basically they have to let people under arrest go potty now and they must follow their crowd management policy. Did they? Well we know they attempted to negotiate and gave warning. As for the rest I guess we will know after the investigation. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
TXgolfer said:
Ok Here's the thing. The settlement Sallylou was referring to was a 2004 lawsuit by Longshoremen (note she said a few years ago)




OAKLAND / Agreement reached on crowd-control tactics - SFGate

You decided to jump on the bandwagon and picked the wrong case. The case you brought up is still pending (Although an injunction was ordered, no settlement yet)

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV



So not only are the police still allowed to use tear gas in crowd control situations once a certain criteria is met, you didn't even cite the correct case

Here is a letter from Tuesday from the National Lawyers Guild regarding the case you posted

http://www.nlgsf.org/docs/EmailReOakland.pdf

As you can see the letter mentions an injunction requiring OPD to comply with it's crowd control policies. Again no order to stop using tear gas. As seen above the policies allow for tear gas as long as they attempt negotiations and give verbal warning first.

Oakland's tear gas policy




Oakland Police Department Crowd Management/Crowd Control Policy | Public Intelligence

In Summary, the OPD was ordered to create and follow a crowd management policy in the Longshoremen suit. They did not agree to "not use these tactics". They agreed to try other alternatives first. And even that didn't come from the case you posted.
Click to expand...

NOPE. Better keep looking. Your assumptions regarding the case she was referring to are incorrect. But thanks for bringing it up. Evidence that the OPD has a history of over reaction and excessive force.
 
jillio said:
NOPE. Better keep looking. Your assumptions regarding the case she was referring to are incorrect. But thanks for bringing it up. Evidence that the OPD has a history of over reaction and excessive force.
Click to expand...

You cited and posted and argued it was the Oscar Grant case. You were wrong. It's possible she is referring to another case but the Longshoremen case seems to be the closest match. But it is 100% clear it is not the case you are citing. (see post 1244)
 
TXgolfer said:
You cited and posted and argued it was the Oscar Grant case. You were wrong. It's possible she is referring to another case but the Longshoremen case seems to be the closest match. But it is 100% clear it is not the case you are citing.
Click to expand...

Keep trying.
 
Why is so much energy focused on the negative aspects of protesting? Why not focus on the issues and work to make things right?

I wasted way too much time reading this thread... :(
 
Cheetah said:
Why is so much energy focused on the negative aspects of protesting? Why not focus on the issues and work to make things right?

I wasted way too much time reading this thread... :(
Click to expand...

You have a very good point there.
 
jillio said:
Nope. You still haven't managed to get there.
Click to expand...

Denying it doesn't make it less true. You claimed a case had beem settled that has not been settled. Time to move on now.
 
Cheetah said:
Why is so much energy focused on the negative aspects of protesting? Why not focus on the issues and work to make things right?

I wasted way too much time reading this thread... :(
Click to expand...

Kind of like fighting grass fires on a windy day; a bunch of small fires scattered about takes away enough of the firefighters attention that the larger fire can burn unchecked.
 
saywhatkid said:
Kind of like fighting grass fires on a windy day; a bunch of small fires scattered about takes away enough of the firefighters attention that the larger fire can burn unchecked.
Click to expand...

Look at the right hand, look at the right hand.:lol:
 
:hmm: I guess no one wants to discuss the positives of the protest, or discuss ways in which the protesters have valid reasons.

Dang it, someone needs to drop a bottle or something to get things going again!:lol:
 
jillio said:
:hmm: I guess no one wants to discuss the positives of the protest, or discuss ways in which the protesters have valid reasons.

Dang it, someone needs to drop a bottle or something to get things going again!:lol:
Click to expand...

For me, the OWS is a sign that people are willing to talk about the problems out in the open and that they're ready to question the status quo. While I have a number of issues that I think needs to be addressed, both corruption of Wall Street and how Corporate personhood is affecting our elections and how we govern needs to addressed first.

These two issues can not be separated from each other. I don't think Obama is going to do much to address the issues considering who gave the money for his campaign for 2012. The Republicans are even less likely to address the issues from what I see here.

However, I think the issues will finally be addressed as a result of OWS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top