With only a small contingent of protesters and their star, Cindy Sheehan, home with a migraine, the small but enduring Occupy Woodland group made a noticeable impact as they protested in front of Chase Bank on Main Street on the day of the bank’s opening.
Bobby Clark, one of the protesters, said he was out braving the cold to protest the bank’s foreclosing on the poor.
“I hope to bring awareness to the public about what Chase bank is doing to us,” he said. “California’s projected home foreclosures [are] 1,888,716 from 2009 to 2012, that’s up 415%.”
“I don’t believe Chase will move out of here, but I want to bring awareness to the community so maybe in the long term they will have to move out of here,” he said.
Francisco, a union worker and college student, told the Vanguard it was his “responsibility to be out here.”
“I’m out here for better wages and a fair share,” he said. “There is enough money for everyone to have.”
“We’re currently working on a union contract, for a year now, and it’s been extended,” he said. “So the unions need to get more involved. My union is not currently involved, so it would be nice to see it get involved [in the Occupy Movement].”
Steve Payan, one of the event’s organizers, told the Vanguard, “What brings us out here today is to be in solidarity with the Wall Street movement. Our position here today is to bring awareness for people about accountability.”
“We’re here demanding that big corporations be removed from the stranglehold of our government,” he added.
He wants to give the 99% a voice. “It’s supposed to be government of, for and by the people and it seems that it’s for, of and by the corporations who don’t pay their taxes, who pass out these home foreclosures,” he said.
“Currently in California, with the eighth largest economy in the world, for some reason we want to close our homes, close our schools,” Mr. Payan added. “These people need to learn how to do their damn jobs and stop taking advantage of people who don’t have money and are losing their jobs.”
While small in number, its impact was clearly noticed. One observer noted with surprise the positive reception the demonstrators were receiving from the street. Indeed, we counted over 40 car honks in the limited amount of time we were out there.
There were only a few naysayers driving by. One of them simply told the demonstrators to go home, another told them to get jobs, and one decided to be a bit more colorful and flip them off.
“We need justice here today,” Mr. Payan told the Vanguard. “This is Woodland’s [opportunity] to act locally and think globally. We need to hold these big businesses accountable and we’re sending a message to this little building to the big corporation to stop taking from people’s wallets.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“There were only a few naysayers driving by.”
of course there were. The rest are working.
91 Octane
“There were only a few naysayers driving by.”
“of course there were. The rest are working.”
LOL, you’ve got that right.
rusty49 and 91 Octane
Then by your logic we are not in a recession with a high unemployment rate and since foreclosures and joblessness are not a societal, but only an individual problem, I guess this should in your eyes be a testament to the good job currently being done by President Obama and Governor Brown ?
Medwoman, don’t put words in my mouth, I know you don’t like when someone does that to you. What I’m saying instead of camping in a park and sitting around all day or standing in front of a bank wasting their day protesting they should get off their arses and go out and look for work and find a job.
medwoman
You seem to be arguing that our economic problems are due to the policy failures of Obama and Brown.
I would partly agree with you there, but add that they both inherited poor economic conditions created by both Democrats and Republicans. Rather then move to correct these problems, both Brown and Obama continued and accelerated policies that are harming the California and US economy.
JR
Absolutely not !
My comment was intended purely satirically since by their previous posts, both rusty49 and 91 Octane appear to have little sympathy for the Occupy movement, and equally little interest in exploring whether or not there could be even a grain of truth behind the complaints, even if they do not like the method of expression. I was essentially just teasing them.
What I actually feel is that Presidents, and to some degree Governors have a very limited ability to impact the economy, but they are easy scapegoats when things are not going well economically. When seeking culprits, I have a tendency to look in the mirror at the voters. We are the ones who choose who will be in these positions. We are the ones who choose their opposition and who continually throw up roadblocks to any idea or proposal that does not meet our ideological standard. Or ironically enough, even those ideas that do meet our previously held standard if proposed by the opposition. I don’t blame our leaders. I put the responsibility squarely on ” we, the people”.
Rusty wrote,
“Medwoman, don’t put words in my mouth, I know you don’t like when someone does that to you.”
Yet you are comfortable with the denigration of a group of protestors whose occupational, personal, educational, etc lives you are presumably completely unfamiliar with.
“What I’m saying instead of camping in a park and sitting around all day or standing in front of a bank wasting their day protesting they should get off their arses and go out and look for work and find a job.”
Just because you don’t find purpose or meaning in the words and efforts of these folks, doesn’t mean that they are of no value.
Rusty, how do you know that the protestors are not: college students, part-time workers who requested/had that day/time off, full time workers who have taken the time off to protest, full time workers who happen to work alternate schedules (ie they had that day/time off…not everyone works M-F 8-5), stay at home mothers/fathers, etc, etc, etc? You don’t, do you?
Also, if all of the protestors are unemployed (not including students), what makes you think that they cannot look for and apply to jobs before and after the protest? How long was the protest?
rusty49
Medwoman, don’t put words in my mouth, I know you don’t like when someone does that to you. What I’m saying instead of camping in a park and sitting around all day or standing in front of a bank wasting their day protesting they should get off their arses and go out and look for work and find a job.
You are right, I don’t. And as I posted above, my intent was satirical, not serious. I am sorry that i apparently was not clear in my post since you and others clearly took me seriously.
But I would make a serious comment with regard to this.
It is in the issue of assumptions. How do you know whether or not these particular protesters are employed or not? Perhaps they work the night shift and are using their time off to protest for something they strongly believe in.
That was my position as a protester during the Vietnam Nam war. I was a full time student, held a part time job and managed to find some time to protest. I suspect that may be true for ay least some of these folks too. I know that I was the target of a few raised middle fingers and shouted derogatory comments ( as were the returning soldiers ) from people who knew nothing at all about me.
The people I talked to out there either were students or otherwise had jobs. The problem with the economy and I presume that even a conservative would have to agree, is not that people aren’t looking for jobs but rather than jobs have disappeared either temporarily as an effect of the recession or permanently as the result of structural changes to the economy. Do you not believe that Rusty?
[quote]While small in number, its impact was clearly noticed. One observer noted with surprise the positive reception the demonstrators were receiving from the street. Indeed, we counted over 40 car honks in the limited amount of time we were out there.[/quote]
The impact may be to close this bank branch and move elsewhere to another city, thereby removing jobs from Woodland. How is that going to help the city of Woodland? Secondly, the better approach is to withdraw money from this bank and put it in a credit union that does not engage in the practices the big banks have. That sends a more compelling message loud and clear to the big banks.
The OWS movement has lost its credibility now, as it has moved in to shut down ports in Washington State, Oregon and CA. Even union workers are starting to get fed up with the OWS movement as it has gotten more and more out of control. And certainly the full UCD footage of the pepper spraying has not put the student protesters in a very good light…
ERM,
“Secondly, the better approach is to withdraw money from this bank and put it in a credit union that does not engage in the practices the big banks have. That sends a more compelling message loud and clear to the big banks.”
I agree. Perhaps such visibility, by these protestors, will help facilitate this? However, if successful, wouldn’t this lead to the same end, which you criticized first…no Chase…fewer jobs?
Or, would we see business increase at local credit unions, which may lead to increased job opportunities?
“The impact may be to close this bank branch and move elsewhere to another city, thereby removing jobs from Woodland. “
I think that’s unlikely.
“The OWS movement has lost its credibility now, as it has moved in to shut down ports in Washington State, Oregon and CA. “
Who have they lost credibility with and what evidence do you site to substantiate that claim. Thanks.
ERM,
“And certainly the full UCD footage of the pepper spraying has not put the student protesters in a very good light…”
What does this footage show?
We shouldn’t even be paying any attention to them, they are just a fringe element of society. How many were out there, a dozen? Cindy Sheehan even backed out. Tangible impact? Sorry, most could care less.
[quote]I agree. Perhaps such visibility, by these protestors, will help facilitate this? However, if successful, wouldn’t this lead to the same end, which you criticized first…no Chase…fewer jobs? [/quote]
Or a change in policies of the bank?
[quote]ERM: “The OWS movement has lost its credibility now, as it has moved in to shut down ports in Washington State, Oregon and CA. ”
DMG: Who have they lost credibility with and what evidence do you site to substantiate that claim. Thanks.[/quote]
One example:
[url]http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/ows-left-coast-port-shut-down-sticking-it-to-the-unions/[/url]
The longshoreman unions do not want ports shut down by OWS movement, and are beginning to lose patience w the OWS movement…
You never know. One thing guaranteed not to change their policies is inaction.
Rusty,
“We shouldn’t even be paying any attention to them, they are just a fringe element of society.”
Similar remarks have been made about the Tea Party/related protests, right? If something/one is believed to be on the fringe of society by the media, opposition (be it a movement, political party or sects of a political party, tv pundits or radio hosts), the “mainstream,” random bloggers, should we disregard their message in every case? Or just when we disagree, personally, philosophically, politically, etc with the message and/or group?
“How many were out there, a dozen?”
Do numbers alone determine the value, impact and importance of the message…always? Again, have you felt similarly about Tea Party/related protests that were relatively small in numbers…they should be ignored due to their size and turnout?
So, how were you able to determine the occupational situations of the protestors in this case? Was that irrelevant? Was your intent simply to attack their character?
[quote]ERM: “And certainly the full UCD footage of the pepper spraying has not put the student protesters in a very good light…”
Superfluous Man: What does this footage show?[/quote]
Go to the Bulletin Board on the Vanguard and watch the full footage of the student protest. It seems pretty clear to me the student protests were well orchestrated to surround the police and threaten law enforcement. The students do not have the moral high ground that everyone thinks they did have…
If you are trying to use Cindy Sheehan to add credence to your cause you have bigger problems.
ERM,
“Or a change in policies of the bank?”
Right, but you suggested, as a possible impact, jobs lost in your original post and you didn’t seem to take into consideration that removing one’s money from Chase to credit unions could have a similar impact.
ERM,
“It seems pretty clear to me the student protests were well orchestrated to surround the police and threaten law enforcement. The students do not have the moral high ground that everyone thinks they did have…”
It was difficult for me to tell exactly what was going on in that video and to what degree the officers were encircled and when. The video appeared to be edited quite a bit and contained messages that were slanted in favor of UCDPD. That doesn’t mean that it’s not useful to help one get a better understanding of the incident, but should be considered just as is the case with the other footage out there.
It sounded like they announced their intentions as being peaceful numerous times, but I suppose that is not to be taken into consideration when considering the level of threat to law enforcement? Certainly, yelling “F*ck the police…” was not helpful to their cause and the situation.
Superfluous Man,
How about when the students were yelling “you can’t go” and “let them go then you can leave” to the officers? That sounds threatening to me.
ERM
That clip on the Vanguard is not “the complete footage”. There are literally hours of clips taken from numerous different vantage points each of which tells a slightly different story. Just because one happens to call itself “the real story” or “what really happened” does not make that so.
What the on screen comments do not high light are that all the action oriented chants included the word ” peacefully”. What is undeniable on all the clips is that 1)Lt.Pike did not act in a hurried or urgent manner, his action was shown to be calm, deliberate and taken after discussion
2) His way was not impeded by these particular students. He stepped through the line with no difficulty
3) His chosen targets were the seated, linked students, not those standing and presumably threatening
[quote]Right, but you suggested, as a possible impact, jobs lost in your original post and you didn’t seem to take into consideration that removing one’s money from Chase to credit unions could have a similar impact. [/quote]
But the start of removing money could very well cause Chase to change its policies. This worked recently when BoA floated the idea out there it was going to charge a fee for using its debit cards. The backlash was so fierce they changed their minds. A massive and orchestrated pull out of money from Chase to local credit unions with the message of what policy changes are being asked for could really turn things around in my mind. The OWS movement doesn’t seem to realize that there are better ways to effect change than just making noise/wreaking havoc.
[quote]That clip on the Vanguard is not “the complete footage”. There are literally hours of clips taken from numerous different vantage points each of which tells a slightly different story. Just because one happens to call itself “the real story” or “what really happened” does not make that so. [/quote]
Are you honestly trying to argue the students didn’t do anything wrong? I don’t think you are, based on some of your comments on other posts. I suspect we both can agree that the administration/law enforcement did not handle the situation like they should have (e.g. waited until dark, turned on the sprinklers), and instead precipitated a confrontation that had ugly consequences in more ways than one. However, the students were hardly innocents in this…
“However, the students were hardly innocents in this…”
You can say that any time a law is broken. But what does it really mean? Did they level of culpability directly lead to the pepper spray? At one level the answer is yes, since if they had not been out there, if they had not be breaking the law through civil disobedience, then this incident never happens. But at that level, can you justify any reaction by the police because the students were hardly innocents? I doubt even you would argue they would be justified opening fire.
So we have to get back to the use of force protocols and also the fact that we hold the police and authorities to higher standards than we do protesters.
Elaine
“Are you honestly trying to argue the students didn’t do anything wrong? I don’t think you are, based on some of your comments on other posts. I suspect we both can agree that the administration/law enforcement did not handle the situation like they should have (e.g. waited until dark, turned on the sprinklers), and instead precipitated a confrontation that had ugly consequences in more ways than one. However, the students were hardly innocents in this…
No, and as you point out later in the paragraph, I believe that arrests were warranted based on the students clearly breaking the law.
Whether or not they “did anything wrong” is a moral not a legal question. I do not believe that the two are synonymous. I can think of many instances in history where breaking the law was the right thing to do. From previous posts, I am sure that you and I would probably draw our line in the sand as to when civil disobedience becomes the ” right thing to do” at different points. To me, this is one of the true strengths of America.
We have the right to disagree, to state our ideas openly and publicly even if it is often messy and unattractive to some.
Where we also may differ somewhat in our opinion is that I hold the police to a much higher standard than I do the protesters. As a society we have entrusted our police with special priviledges and rights with regard to their power over other members of the community. We allow them the use of weapons that others are not allowed to use. We provide special training in the proper means of handling situations of varying degrees of risk that other citizens do not have. And this is the job that we pay them to do. In return, I would expect that first and foremost, they would choose to use restraint, de escalate situations wherever possible, and to borrow a line from my profession, ” first, do no harm”. As you and many others have pointed out, there were many alternatives available. A regrettable one was chosen.
You may or may not have noted that I am not amongst those calling for resignation or firing. I also do not believe that the lack of firings will “vindicate the action”. I do not believe in punishment for its own sake. I believe that people do have the ability to acknowledge error and grow from their mistakes. What I would find optimal would be to create a climate in which:
1) the protesters could say ” we get it that sitting one one side of a path silently ( as when Katehi exited her office and walked to her car) makes a much more dramatic and non threatening statement than shouting expletives
2) Chancellor Katehi could say ” I really should have been more attentive to the genuine concern and grievances of the students, and maybe given the cold weather and upcoming holidays, maybe a strategy of benign neglect might have been wiser. Something to consider”.
3) Lt. Pike could say ” maybe I should have been a little more patient, or chosen another route off campus, or whatever other strategies I have learned to de escalate a situation rather than deliberately choosing a chemical weapon”.
Unfortunately, as a society we tend to favor finding someone to blame and an adversarial mode to analyzing the entire situation and determining at which points alternative strategies might have resulted in a better outcome.
[quote]Where we also may differ somewhat in our opinion is that I hold the police to a much higher standard than I do the protesters. [/quote]
So do I. And I don’t think law enforcement/administration necessarily handled the situation well. However neither did the students. There was, IMO, fault on both sides. In consequence, that is why I too would not necessarily call for resignations in this particular situation. What I would hope, however, is that the entire UC system comes up with some sort of reasonable protocols on how to handle a potentially explosive situation like this, without using force unless absolutely necessary for the safety of everyone.
[quote]But at that level, can you justify any reaction by the police because the students were hardly innocents? I doubt even you would argue they would be justified opening fire. [/quote]
What a leap! OMG…
med – [quote]Whether or not they “did anything wrong” is a moral not a legal question. I do not believe that the two are synonymous. [/quote]
Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon:
“Crimes are ‘mala in se,’ or bad in themselves, and these include all offences against the moral law; or they are ‘mala prohibita,’ bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent.”
Dictionary.com:
“an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.”
Every day, law enforcement officers face danger while carrying out their responsibilities. When dealing with a dangerous—or [b]unpredictable[/b]—situation, police officers usually have very little time to assess it and determine the proper response. Thus, good training can enable the officer to react properly to the threat or possible threat and respond with the appropriate tactics to address the situation, possibly including some level of force, if necessary, given the circumstances.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that “…in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force.”
In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single, accepted definition among the researchers, analysts, or the police.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in its study, Police Use of Force in America 2001, defined use of force as:
“The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject.”
AdRemmer
“these include all offences against the moral law”
There are some of us who believe that using a chemical weapon against a seated protester is more morally repugnant than failure to disperse.
“police officers usually have very little time to assess it and determine the proper response” That may be the “usual”circumstance, but is clearly not the case here as Lt. Pike can be seen taking his time, conferring, issuing his warning deliberately and calmly, stepping through the allegedly
obstructing students, and in a very slow and controlled manor spraying the students.
” the amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject”
The fact that a number of arrests had been made of visibly “unwilling subjects ” prior to the spraying , the lack of credibility that a single line of protesters blocking a single path in an area with multiple routes of egress could prevent the police from leaving, and the disparity of apparent force, police in riot gear vs students with back packs and cellphones would argue against this amount of “effort” being “required”.