SAN JOSE – The Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office announced 12 demonstrators opposed to Israeli’s actions in the Gaza War would be charged with felony vandalism and conspiracy after allegedly causing between $360,000 and $1 million in property damage, according to The Mercury News.
According to the Mercury News, the incident occurred last year when a group of protesters barricaded themselves in the Stanford University President’s office, demanding the divestment from companies supporting Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
The protesters, explained Mercury News, were mainly students and alumni and occupied the space during broader campus demonstrations against the university’s Israeli-linked investments.
“Dissent is American. Vandalism is criminal. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Vandalism is prosecuted under the penal code.” – District Attorney Jeff Rosen
Mercury News reports District Attorney Jeff Rosen stated, “Dissent is American. Vandalism is criminal. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Vandalism is prosecuted under the penal code.”
Of the 12 demonstrators being charged, at least four of those charged in the Stanford protest have surrendered themselves, Rosen told the Mercury News, adding that Rosen said, rather than seeking incarceration, his office is proposing restitution payments and alternative sentencing, such as weekend cleanup, for those who plead guilty.
Mercury News cites Rosen stating, “I don’t think this is a prison case. The way I see it, they damaged and destroyed all of this property and caused all this vandalism, and I think that their punishment should be cleaning things up.”
An arraignment remains pending as authorities continue booking the accused, reports Mercury News.
However, The Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called for Rosen to drop the charges, adding: “Prosecuting these young people with felony charges is a blatant attack on free speech,” reports the Mercury News.
“We reject the notion that alleged financial damage should be used to justify silencing political dissent. If the threshold for criminalizing protest becomes monetary loss, then universities are prioritizing property over people and profit over principle, said CAIR-San Francisco Bay Area Executive Director Zahra Billoo, according to the Mercury News.
Security footage from last June 5 shows protesters breaking and entering building 10 by breaking a window with a ladder, barricading entrances, and broadcasting their political demands on social media, explains Mercury News, adding the demonstration only lasted 90 minutes before the Stanford Department of Public Safety and the sheriff’s office made arrests.
Inside, the authorities found extensive damage, including broken door frames, damaged furniture, and fake blood, reports the Mercury News.
The protesters possessed various tools, including an electric grinder, hammers, crowbars, and chisels, claims Mercury News, noting investigators also discovered detailed planning on the Signal messaging platform, including the monitoring of security patrol patterns, entry strategies, and a “Do-It-Yourself Occupation Guide.”
Mercury News said Rosen maintained, “We would not be here today if these (accused) stopped at the threshold of Building 10 and simply stated their views, we would not be here today if the (accused) had done what Stanford and universities all across our country try to instill in their students, to convince through the power of ideas, not the mayhem of a mob.”
According to Mercury News, the DA’s office recently announced it would not be charging a Stanford Daily journalist who was arrested among the group of protesters, stating that the student was only present to chronicle the action and was not an active participant.
This decision, however, explained Mercury News, came only after being constantly pressured for months by free-speech organizations.
“If the threshold for criminalizing protest becomes monetary loss, then universities are prioritizing property over people and profit over principle”
Oh please, protesters don’t have the right to destroy property and should suffer the consequences of their actions.
“Rosen said, rather than seeking incarceration, his office is proposing restitution payments and alternative sentencing, such as weekend cleanup, for those who plead guilty.”
I can agree with this as long as the damages are paid back in full.