Some Legal Observers Question Prosecutorial Approach
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office announced Thursday that it has filed felony charges against 12 individuals accused of taking over a Stanford University administrative building during a protest last June. The charges include felony vandalism and felony conspiracy to trespass, stemming from what authorities described as a coordinated and destructive occupation of Building 10, the site of the university president’s office.
The individuals, whose ages range from 19 to 32, allegedly barricaded themselves inside the building during the early morning hours of June 5, 2024. According to the District Attorney’s Office, they used tools to force entry, disabled security cameras, splashed fake blood throughout the offices, and damaged property inside. Authorities say the protest caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.
“Dissent is American. Vandalism is criminal,” said District Attorney Jeff Rosen in a statement. “There is a bright line between making a point and committing a crime. These defendants crossed the line into criminality when they broke into those offices, barricaded themselves inside, and started a calculated plan of destruction.”
“Dissent is American. Vandalism is criminal,” said District Attorney Jeff Rosen in a statement.
The protesters, many of whom are current or former Stanford students, were arrested on site after law enforcement broke through barricades. Officers recovered backpacks containing food, tools, and various equipment allegedly used to reinforce the occupation.
According to the DA’s office, seized phones and encrypted messages revealed advance planning, including operational guides and discussions about surveillance, evading identification, and deliberately damaging the space.
One such document cited by prosecutors was a “Do-It-Yourself Occupation Guide,” which stated: “A group may decide it is better to destroy or vandalize a space than to return it to its usual role in good condition.”
While the charges signal a strong response from law enforcement, the decision to prosecute the protesters under felony statutes has drawn questions from civil liberties observers and legal experts who argue that prosecutors have considerable discretion in determining whether political protest actions merit criminal penalties—or a more measured response.
Legal scholars note that many civil disobedience actions throughout U.S. history—particularly during the civil rights and anti-war movements—have included property damage or trespass but were met with misdemeanor charges, if any.
“The question isn’t whether damage occurred, but whether charging these protesters with felonies is a proportionate response,” said one Bay Area legal analyst.
The severity of the charges in this case has prompted debate over whether the DA’s office is taking a punitive stance that could chill political speech and protest on college campuses.
“The question isn’t whether damage occurred, but whether charging these protesters with felonies is a proportionate response,” said one Bay Area legal analyst. “This could set a precedent that escalates the legal consequences of protest—particularly when the protests involve critique of powerful institutions.”
At the time of the incident, the protesters issued a series of demands in videos posted online, though the DA’s office did not specify the content of those demands. According to Stanford University, the protest prompted an immediate law enforcement response from campus security, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, and the Palo Alto Police Department.
The 12 individuals charged are expected to be arraigned later this month at the Hall of Justice in San Jose. A student journalist who was present inside the building but did not participate in the occupation was not charged.
Stanford officials declined to comment on the prosecution but noted that the university supports the right to peaceful protest while condemning the destruction of property and disruption of operations.
Good, it’s about time. This goes far beyond just peaceful protesting. The perps should face felony charges and restitution for their deeds.
They can get restitution on a misdemeanor chage
“Authorities say the protest caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.”
If it’s a felony it’s a felony. They should be charged accordingly.
That’s a pedantic argument (it also ignores the fact that the DA has discretion in charging). If you want to deter people from committing a crime like this, you only need to make them pay for the damage. That makes the university whole and it offers a huge deterrence (Who wants to have to pay back tens if not hundreds of thousands), and it does it without the collateral consequences of felony status.
If you want to deter people from committing crimes like this you charge them with a felony. Most of them probably couldn’t afford to pay back the institution to begin with. Hell, aren’t you often saying that college students can’t afford to pay back their loans, so now they can somehow afford to pay back $100’s of thousands for felonious damage they are responsible for?
I don’t agree. No one got hurt. Stuff can be replaced. Restitution is a deterrence. Felony status eliminates the possibility of housing, jobs, etc. No reason to do that in a situation where no one got hurt. Enter them in deferred entry of judgment, make it contingent on restitution being paid, problem solved.
I agree. This shouldn’t be misdemeanor not felony. I know one of those kids and she’s not a criminal. She made a mistake taking it that far. She’s a good girl.
My response was autocorrected to say something wrong. I meant to say that I agree, this is not a felony! It’s a misdemeanor. I know one of those kids, she’s a good person she made a mistake. Don’t ruin her life.
Actions have consequences.
“The pound of flesh, which I demand of him,
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.
If you deny me, fie upon your law!
There is no force in the decrees of Venice.”
— Shylock, Act 4, Scene 1
No it’s justice. It’s not like someone shoplifted, they committed hundred’s of thousand$ worth the damage.
No one is disputing that they did damage, but the correction for that is to pay to repair the damage. You are going above and beyond that for no reason over than to exact punishment. It is not justice you seek, it is vengeance.
Without accountability, there is no justice.
Again. You are very narrowly defining accountability.
I agree with DA Jeff Rosen:
“There is a bright line between making a point and committing a crime. These defendants crossed the line into criminality when they broke into those offices, barricaded themselves inside, and started a calculated plan of destruction.”
No one is disputing that.
So that’s why DA Rosen filed felony charges.
You can disagree all you want but that’s just your opinion.
And for people who want to sit in judgement and punish beyond what is reasonable, I fully expect for you to learn what that feels like. Be careful, sometimes we have to learn our lessons the hard way. If you have children or ever have them, you better hope they never make a single mistake. Neither you nor your loved ones should be judged so harshly that it ruins your life when the “crime” wasn’t that horrible.
“If you have children or ever have them, you better hope they never make a single mistake.”
I have children, they’ve made mistakes for which they stood up and took responsibility for. But they’ve never taken over a building and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage. Maybe that had something to do with the way they were raised.
This sounds like it was a totally premeditated plan of attack and not just something that got out of control. They planned it now they should face the consequences of their plan.
“used tools to force entry, disabled security cameras, splashed fake blood throughout the offices, and damaged property inside. Authorities say the protest caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.”
“One such document cited by prosecutors was a “Do-It-Yourself Occupation Guide,” which stated: “A group may decide it is better to destroy or vandalize a space than to return it to its usual role in good condition.””
Keith says: Hell, aren’t you often saying that college students can’t afford to pay back their loans, so now they can somehow afford to pay back $100’s of thousands for felonious damage they are responsible for?
It’s pretty simple – they won’t be paying that back, one way or another.
But I do plan to put forth David’s argument, if I ever get another ticket. (That is, there’s no need to charge me with anything, since I haven’t actually caused any damage.) Problem solved.
Cops cite you, they don’t charge you. The argument doesn’t apply to tickets.
No difference. Cops also cite (or arrest) protestors, but they don’t “charge” them anything.
Super rude to say “maybe that had something to do with the way they were raised”. You really are a judgemental person. Good luck with that, nobody likes being around it. I hope you do get the karma you deserve. You’re talking about my cousin and her husband who are very nice people.
“Super rude to say “maybe that had something to do with the way they were raised.”
I was talking about how my wife and I raised our own children.
Do you lack awareness that the inference from that is condescending or at least could be construed that way?
“You really are a judgemental person. Good luck with that, nobody likes being around it. I hope you do get the karma you deserve. You’re talking about my cousin and her husband who are very nice people.”
Yes, he and most of the other right wingers (it doesn’t matter that they call themselves “independents”; they find any excuse to swing against liberals while aligning themselves with the right wing) are judgmental and refuse to acknowledge “systems inequalities” (in favor of blaming everything on the individual), and have a very dark view of most of humanity (usually because of their Calvinist-based religion).
It should be called out. He (and others here) are the reason many people don’t comment here anymore b/c it just devolves into a circle jerk of these men using their logical fallacies and very poor critical reasoning skills and outright meanness (while whining that liberals are “uncivil” to them) and other trolling tactics (I think Keith is the worst at this) “to try to “own the libs.”
It was much better when people could be blocked here. I don’t know why anyone bothers engaging with him (or a few others I could note).
Where have you been Kendra? We’ve missed you.
“It was much better when people could be blocked here. I don’t know why anyone bothers engaging with him (or a few others I could note).”
Kendra says this then engages with me. Here’s a tip Kendra, don’t read my comments or the “few other’s” comments that you are offended by. No one is forcing you to read anything.
BTW, now that we’ve fixed backend problems going to see about ignore feature and comment edits
Good, especially the edits feature.
I never used the ignore feature when you had it. I’m capable of putting up with views that don’t align with mine.
“it just devolves into a circle jerk”
Isn’t it time you you come up with new material? What’s next, shibboleths?
“Yes, he and most of the other right wingers (it doesn’t matter that they call themselves “independents”;”
You need to get out of Davis more if you think the crowd here are right wingers. You appear to be of the ‘accept all progressive ideals or you are a right winger’ bent.
“they find any excuse to swing against liberals while aligning themselves with the right wing)”
I think KO was just giving his opinion.
“are judgmental and refuse to acknowledge “systems inequalities” (in favor of blaming everything on the individual)”
Systems can be improved. Individuals can improve themselves. Individuals can also play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
“and have a very dark view of most of humanity (usually because of their Calvinist-based religion).”
I have a very dark view of politicians, corporations, and criminals. And I have no religion, much less a Calvin-ist based one.
“He (and others here) are the reason many people don’t comment here anymore”
So you are against open discussion because some mythical creatures are supposedly not posting?
“b/c it just devolves into a circle jerk”
The City holds public CJ’s on sporadic Tuesday’s at City hall about 6:30pm. Join us.
“these men using their logical fallacies and very poor critical reasoning skills and outright meanness (while whining that liberals are “uncivil” to them) and other trolling tactics”
Thank you . . . ? :-|
“It was much better when people could be blocked here. I don’t know why anyone bothers engaging with him”
You actually can block people. You simply don’t read their comments. That is in your power. You need a web-page button to keep you from reading comments from people you don’t like? Really? And then you ask why anyone would bother to engage KO, ironically while engaging KO. So do you ever wonder why you publicly expose the fact that you don’t take your own advice?
” (or a few others I could note).”
Do I resemble that remark?
“The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office announced Thursday that it has filed felony charges against 12 individuals accused of taking over a Stanford University administrative building during a protest last June.”
Cool
“This could set a precedent that escalates the legal consequences of protest—”
No, it sets a precedent on what the limits of protest are before the tactic escalates to a crime.
Of great concern to me is the escalation of property violence not being condemned because it isn’t a harming a person. But time and time again, we have seen the property crime escalates to physical crime in a ‘tolerant’ (of crime) atmosphere. The employees harmed in building takeovers on the east coast. The mainsteaming wink-wink of vandalizing of Teslas – and days ago a pregnant woman was badly injured when some moron through a rock through here windshield.
Encourage peaceful protest by criminalizing criminal protest behavior. It ain’t hard folks, if you have values that aren’t nutz.
Also, all these serious crackdowns are the result of a harsh societal swing against the tolerance of violent protest during the last administration, also with the wink-wink of “it’s ok violence because ‘most of it is peaceful’ and ‘it’s for our side'”. Had the ‘tolerance’ (for violence) on one political side not been in place, the extreme intolerance now being seen on protests, and even deportations, I believe would have been much more an ‘adjustment’ than a ‘violent swing’.