For Oakland - Part II

I understand that by this point much has been written about the police raid in Oakland on October 25th, including subsequent battles with protesters later that day.  Many people have seen video and images, and heard testimony about the day's events.  And the reaction continues to unfold.  Even as I write, Oakland gears up for a General Strike on Nov. 2nd - the likes of which our country hasn't seen since 1946!

With respect to all that's been said, I still feel the need to return to events as they unfolded on October 25.  With the barrage of media that has engulfed me this week - thanks, in no small part - to the revolution in social media, I have struggled to put words to those concerns taking shape deep within.  Sometimes the root feelings need time to bubble up to the surface.

This is not meant to be an uplifting post.  I believe strongly in optimism, maintaining positivity, and looking forward.  But there is also a place for protest.  While it doesn't bring solutions on its own, protest calls out and defines that which is unhealthy, that which festers.  It allows the community to take stock of its injuries, call out wrongdoing, and define the goals that can inform collective action.  So here we go.

October 25, 2011 - Oakland, CA

The police looked like soldiers.  Their helmets and armor and dark weapons gleaned against the drab cityscape behind. In the decade since 9/11, how many new tools of violence have been acquired in our "war on terror?"

The uniforms used to be blue.  In a decade, they've come closer to black.  Black is the color of SWAT.  Black is the trademark of Special Forces.  Black means dark business is at hand.
 
I do not deny, in this time, that there is a place for special units within police departments.  Highly trained, highly professional officers intended for very specific purposes:  High-stakes hostage situations.  Truly dangerous criminals possessing superior weaponry.  The point here being that professionals know when to use force, and, more importantly, when not to use force. 

October 25th was not the time nor place for force.  As many as 500 officers from 15 municipalities in Northern California descended into Oakland.  Many were sheriff's deputies, not highly trained professionals.  Chances are good that Olsen, a Marine, had more training than the officer who shot him.

The point I'm making here is that military forces are not meant to be used against civilian populations (unless by act of Congress).  The Posse Comitatus Act and a Defense Department directive make this clear.  But since 9/11, our police forces have become much more militarized.  Federal and State spending through Homeland Security to arm local police has exploded in the last decade, with $75 Billion a year spent on "domestic security"...  To fight the terrorists, of course.

But Occupy Oakland is NOT a terrorist organization.  And the Oakland PD is NOT a military force.

Occupy is made up of concerned US citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Assembly, explained in detail below.  The OPD is a domestic police force, not trained nor intended for use in the manner we all witnessed on October 25. 

Which brings us to the issue of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law ... 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". full text

Quote all the city ordinances you like, but no one can reasonably argue that the camp at Occupy Oakland was anything but a peaceful assembly, exercising it's right to free speech, in petition of the government for a redress of grievances.  City curfews, cleanliness issues, and other such ordinances - I do believe they take a back seat to The United States Constitution.

The issue for We The People, then, is really about a series of choices.  What do we want, what will we tolerate, and what will we change?

First, are we going to allow our police forces, our officers of the peace, to continue their path towards ever-increasing militarization?  What kind of role do we wish our officers to play in this society? 

Second, is it possible that we might imagine new solutions to social problems that do not include state violence?  Professional mediators, State counselors, a re-imagining of the term "Peace Officer", perhaps?  Rapid-response dispute resolution, emergency people's assemblies, democratic participation - I know these ideas sound far-fetched, but look at the present reality! 

Thus far our State only seems to speak in the language of riot shields, rubber bullets, tear gas, and terror.  These are methods of social control, not conduits of democracy or community.

Maybe it's time we arm the State with tools we actually want it to use.  Let's have a conversation.

Pictures from Oakland Tribune:

Oscar Grant Plaza, post-raid

Police, or military?

 Following images courtesy of the NYTimes

"Non-lethal" bean-bag round

Impact on back of demonstrator  from "non-lethal" projectile

Video of OPD using flash-grendade on occupiers attempting to assist Olsen:


Video of Marine Veteran Scott Olson wounded.  BE ADVISED: video contains graphic content, strong imagery and strong language:


Good video montage of events over the two days

An informative continuation of ideas presented in this post: click here

An essay on the role of police, and of the "police" in our minds here
 
A short history by The Guardian documenting police violence in Oakland  here

More on Marine Veteran Scott Olsen, in an article by John Nichols, here 

Stephen Colbert on Scott Olsen here


Following image courtesy of Occupy Oakland

The People reclaim Oscar Grant Plaza on Wednesday night, October 26, 2011