CBS 13 in Sacramento reported that the deal also includes one year of probation.
We have no reason to doubt that Mr. Cabral will make this offer, but find it odd that he would tell the newspaper of the offer
Mr. Cabral told the Enterprise, “That 11 years (jail time) that’s been floating around out there is not a realistic maximum.” He told the Enterprise that he would not seek to stack the penalties.
At the same time, it has been reported by the Vanguard and others that the students could face up to $1 million in restitution fees.
A letter from Chancellor Linda Katehi and Provost Ralph Hexter suggests that the university will not be asking for restitution. However, the bank still could and probably has the stronger claim.
They write, “UC Davis is an institution of higher learning where students have a variety of educational experiences as they prepare for life after college. Many of our students are passionate about social issues and their education.”
“This is not only admirable, but also welcomed as part of the learning process. We have every expectation that the students involved in this case will learn from this experience and as they do, will apply their energy and passion in positive and productive ways,” they add.
The chancellor and provost conclude: “We have therefore made it clear that UC Davis has no desire for restitution or retribution, but only wishes to see the rights of everyone on campus preserved.”
They began their letter with an eye toward making sure that everyone understood the university’s position on the matter of the bank protests.
The wrote, “Central to that mission is the conviction that UC Davis, at its core, is an institution founded on the principle of free communication of ideas, with all members of the campus encouraged to express their thoughts in a manner that is peaceful and non-coercive, consistent with our Principles of Community and the law.”
The question is how to deal with cases in which the rights of one conflict with the rights of others.
These, the chancellor and provost are argue, require “an obligation to ensure that the rights of one person or group do not interfere with the rights of others,” they note: “When there are conflicts between these rights that cannot be resolved amicably on our campus, as will occur from time to time anywhere there is spirited civic discourse, we look to the laws of our state and nation for guidance.”
The chancellor and provost go on to justify the prosecution of the students for expressing their views because, in so doing, they argue the rights of the bank employees and customers were violated.
“In this instance, because the rights of bank employees and customers were interfered with on multiple occasions by protesters who blocked the bank’s doors for nearly two months, the matter was reviewed thoroughly by the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office. That review led to the district attorney filing misdemeanor charges against the protesters.”
They further note, “We have confidence in the judicial system and in the district attorney. We fully expect the district attorney and his staff to balance the rights of all the parties involved and to pursue remedies that are appropriate, fair-minded and just, in the full context of what occurred on this campus.”
According to both Ms. Briggs and other attorneys, the defense has not had the opportunity to review any discovery. There has been some indication that the District Attorney’s office did some primary surveillance during the bank protests. The DA’s office claims to have more than 30 video records of the defendants blocking access to the US Bank building in the memorial union.
The DA’s office has not spoken with the Vanguard regarding this matter and has failed to return numerous emails. Ms. Briggs indicated that when she spoke with Assistant Supervising DA Michael Cabral, he had no answer with respect to charges against Lt. Pike or any of the other UC Davis police officers involved in the pepper spraying of protesters on November 18, 2011.
Ms. Briggs questioned the decision to prosecute non-violent protesters while the DA is undecided as to whether to file charges against Lt. Pike for his violent acts on protesters in November.
UC Davis Professors Alan Brownstein and Vikram Amar, in the Sacramento Bee this morning, offered what appears to be their legal analysis of the bank actions.
They argue, “A blockade is not constitutionally protected speech. It is conduct that government has always had the legitimate authority to proscribe because it so obviously obstructs the liberty and lawful pursuits of others.”
They add, “One critical reason blockades can be prohibited is that they are employed to coerce behavior, not change minds. They are thus antithetical to the values on which freedom of speech and academic freedom are grounded – a commitment to the power of ideas rather than the use of force to change the way that people act.”
“Indeed, if obstruction or disruption were protected expressive activity, it could be used to silence other speakers,” they argue.
Alexis Briggs argued that the two professors appeared to be making legal conclusions about the conduct of the protesters.
She said, “I’m curious as to whether those legal conclusions are based on their observations – were they present? Were they privy to some information regarding the conduct? Or are they speculating?”
“As professors at a school named after Martin Luther King, Jr.,” she said, “I am disappointed to hear that the only statements coming out of the professors at King Hall appear to be conclusory, speculative and premature.”
It will be interesting to see what comes of these offers, when they are finally officially extended to the protesters. The defense attorneys understandably did not want to comment on an offer that they had not received.
If the offer does include probation, it would effectively preclude the protesters from future activity, or they run the risk not only of new charges but having the previous charges back on the table in the form of a violation of probation. That might be enough for them not to take the plea offer, but this is merely our own speculation and not based on anything either the attorneys or the protesters told the Vanguard.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”A blockade is not constitutionally protected speech. It is conduct that government has always had the legitimate authority to proscribe because it so obviously obstructs the liberty and lawful pursuits of others.”
They add, “One critical reason blockades can be prohibited is that they are employed to coerce behavior, not change minds. They are thus antithetical to the values on which freedom of speech and academic freedom are grounded – a commitment to the power of ideas rather than the use of force to change the way that people act.”
“Indeed, if obstruction or disruption were protected expressive activity, it could be used to silence other speakers,” they argue.[/quote]
That says it all.
[quote]UC Davis Professors Alan Brownstein and Vikram Amar, in the Sacramento Bee this morning, offered what appears to be their legal analysis of the bank actions.
They argue, “A blockade is not constitutionally protected speech. It is conduct that government has always had the legitimate authority to proscribe because it so obviously obstructs the liberty and lawful pursuits of others.”
They add, “One critical reason blockades can be prohibited is that they are employed to coerce behavior, not change minds. They are thus antithetical to the values on which freedom of speech and academic freedom are grounded – a commitment to the power of ideas rather than the use of force to change the way that people act.”
“Indeed, if obstruction or disruption were protected expressive activity, it could be used to silence other speakers,” they argue.
Alexis Briggs argued that the two professors appeared to be making legal conclusions about the conduct of the protesters.
She said, “I’m curious as to whether those legal conclusions are based on their observations – were they present? Were they privy to some information regarding the conduct? Or are they speculating?”[/quote]
I agree w Dr. Wu’s sentiments. Furthermore, what is wrong with the two law professors expressing their opinions? Seems as if Alexis Briggs only want opinions expressed she agrees with. How does Alexis Smith know what the two law professors know/don’t know/saw/didn’t see in reaching their opinion? Alexis Briggs is free to express her opinions, but so is everyone else…
“How does Alexis [Briggs] know what the two law professors know/don’t know/saw/didn’t see in reaching their opinion? “
That was her whole point, she wanted to know the basis for their opinion.
My understanding is the professors are giving their views on the state of the law with regards to speech versus action in the form of a blockade. Ms. Briggs is more concerned with the facts of this specific case and whether the students were in fact doing more than participating in speech activities.
Chancellor Katehi has an interesting way of interfering where she’s not needed. She messed up the ability go the police to deal with the first demonstration by trying to tell the police when and how to operate. With this letter, she’s mixing law-breaking with demonstrating and complicating the job of the DA. Instead of trying to have things both ways, she should keep quiet and let folks do their jobs.
And, no need to encourage those charged to refuse plea bargain offers. Those behind this behavior benefit more by whining about how those who broke the law while demonstrating “face” the maximum penalties for their crimes when everyone knows no one has to worry about maximums. These people will end up with minimums because being misguided always is considerated a mitigating favor, especially for students who are emulating their radical professors.
Probation is the perfect way deal with these kids. One would hope they’ll think twice before they purposefully, publicly and repeatedly break the law instead of protesting in legal ways.
In spite of Ms. Briggs silly statements about “you had to be there (to evaluate the behavior)”, the difference between lawful demonstrating and violating the law is clear. Maybe the judge should require them to read the law professors’ “The Jurist” thoughts about the differences, as part of chancellor Katehi’s desire to give them a well rounded education.
“Ms. Briggs is more concerned with the facts of this specific case and whether the students were in fact doing more than participating in speech activities.”
Ms. Briggs needs to read the charges against her clients instead of wondering about why people already are evaluating the applicability of the laws they broke. It’s obvious that she’s trying to get ahead the public opinion here, but she’s way too late to try to confuse the issues.
Better to get the best deals she can as quickly as she can for those who obviously and intentionally broke the law. She’s behind the curve in trying to pressure the DA by generating some wave of public support for some contention that no laws were broken. If she reads the professors’ article, she’ll realize that.
[quote]These people will end up with minimums because being misguided always is considerated a mitigating favor, especially for students who are emulating their radical professors. [/quote]
And unfortunately those who did the misguiding (professors egging on protestors) will probably get away with no responsibility for getting these students into trouble…
[quote] And unfortunately those who did the misguiding (professors egging on protestors) will probably get away with no responsibility for getting these students into trouble… [/quote]
Exactly right.
At least they had to take their “walk of shame”, as the pictures show. Hopefully they will have to do a few more of those.
For these protestors, having to get to court at 8:30 while wearing clean clothes is already significant punishment.
Eighty hours of community service seems right for Katehi too. After all, she has already pleaded guilty in the court of public opinion. Maybe 80 hours of community service will become the standard.
I very much like the idea of 80 hours for all.
80 hours of administrative / organizational training for Katehi and the members of the Leadership team, who obviously needs some help in setting up and maintaining an leadership group and documenting their activities.
80 hours of training in crowd management with emphasis on nonviolent techniques and proper use of all available equipment for all of the officers involved.
80 hours of community service for the protesters be they students or professors.
If the goal is to prevent episodes like this in the future, not just vindictiveness on either side, then surely some form of retraining and/or service would serve all concerned
Very good, Mr.Toad. No one should get off free in this blockade episode.
You know, I’m finding it real odd that the student protestors are accused of repeatedly “blockading” the bank entrance and,in spite of U.C.Davis being under a microscope, nobody has come up with the photographic evidence. If they really were making it impossible for folks to do business, and not just holding signs, where are the images and why were they allowed to continue with zero interference from authorities?
It would not surprise me to see the protestors tell the D.A. where to shove his plea deal and demand a jury trial. I am still unconvinced that, given the severity of the charges, protestors were allowed to continue for two months. I think I can smell massive overcharging that will never pass muster with any reasonable jury.
Mr. Bockrath,
you do not know what goods the DA has on the protestors. the DA is not going to tip his hand. So before the protestors tell the DA to shove it, as you suggest, they might want to find out just what he’s got and what he’s prepared to do with it.
Because if the DA has the goods and the protestors don’t play ball, the DA will tell the protestors where they can shove the possibility of a plea bargain.
the DA is not answering vanguard calls – smart move. I wouldn’ either if I were him.
[quote]I very much like the idea of 80 hours for all.
80 hours of administrative / organizational training for Katehi and the members of the Leadership team, who obviously needs some help in setting up and maintaining an leadership group and documenting their activities.
80 hours of training in crowd management with emphasis on nonviolent techniques and proper use of all available equipment for all of the officers involved.
80 hours of community service for the protesters be they students or professors.
If the goal is to prevent episodes like this in the future, not just vindictiveness on either side, then surely some form of retraining and/or service would serve all concerned[/quote]
Love your suggestion! Perfect!
[quote]you do not know what goods the DA has on the protestors. the DA is not going to tip his hand. So before the protestors tell the DA to shove it, as you suggest, they might want to find out just what he’s got and what he’s prepared to do with it. [/quote]
Very wide advice…
Correction: Very WISE advice…
Octane,
If, in fact, the D.A. has extended a plea deal that reduces the punishment from 11 years behind bars and a million dollars in restitution down to 80 hours of public service it’s a pretty good guess that he has no case and is just trying not to be made a fool of.
I wouldn’t bet on it, roger, if I were the defendants. Take the deal, kids. Be happy with closing down the bank, and do your time for breaking the law while you did it.
JS: I’d warn you about dispensing legal advice without a law license.