This week, a report released on the police handling of the October 2011 occupation of an encampment in front of Oakland City Hall in Frank Ogawa Plaza Park became the third major report from last fall’s police handling occupations in Northern California.
In late March, a report largely cleared police in Berkeley of their use of force. In April a similar report from UC Davis slammed police and administration officials for the handling of an occupation that resulted in the pepper spraying and arrests of numerous students on November 18, 2011.
Now a report assails police handling of the clearing of an encampment in front of Oakland’s city hall in October.
The report prepared by the Frazier Group, overseen by former Baltimore Police Commissioner Thomas Frazier, found that “the crowd control tactics used by OPD are outdated, dangerous, and ineffective.” Mr. Frazier noted that “many assigned investigators and supervisors lack the technical proficiency and, in many cases, the experience to conduct comprehensive, aggressive and unbiased investigations.”
When the Occupy Oakland group originally set up their tents near city hall, “the City of Oakland sought to accommodate the group in the exercise of their First Amendment rights of expression. However, as time progressed, there were legitimate concerns – mostly supported by evidence – on behalf of city officials for the health, safety and welfare of people in the FOP Park, city employees, and community members.”
On October 25, 2011, an operation began to execute an Oakland Police Department plan to evict the Occupy movement from two parks.
They write, “In the early evening, Occupy Oakland clashed with the Oakland Police Department resulting in controversial uses of force, including an incident involving a protestor who was critically injured by a police officer after he was allegedly struck in the head by a specialty impact munition and/or a tear gas canister.”
Since then, numerous Occupy groups “have confronted police with the intent to provoke physical contact and seek notoriety. Additionally, prompted by these ‘direct actions’ groups, participating protesters have engaged in significant property destruction and vandalism.”
These tactics have become increasingly unpopular amongst the citizens in the Bay Area.
At the same time, “In the wake of these events, serious concerns were raised by both City Officials and by the community at large concerning use of unreasonable force, overall police performance, and OPD’s ability to manage future events in an acceptable manner.”
They add, “The ability of OPD to effectively and impartially investigate the widely reported allegations of police use of force and other misconduct was also questioned.”
What Commissioner Frazier and his team found was astonishing.
With regard to crowd control, their review “revealed that OPD did not satisfactorily exercise preferred practices.”
“Once the protestor crowd reached the barricades where the officers were located, the order to deploy chemical munitions was given,” Commissioner Frazier wrote. “This was not followed by dynamic tactical action to move the protestors away from FOP Park. This allowed time for the protestors to regroup once the gas cleared, and continue the conflict.”
The report continues, “During crowd control and crowd management efforts on Oct. 25, 2011, there were a number of incidents where less-lethal force was used by OPD.”
He writes, “However, it appeared that little effort was made to take the suspects into custody when it would have been reasonable to do so. The decision to use force against individuals who violate the law needs to be done in concert with a strategy of deploying Quick Response Teams and/or simultaneous dynamic movement of squad-sized crowd control elements. Under the law, ‘reasonable’ force may be used to effect an arrest, overcome resistance, and/or prevent escape.”
Most critical was Mr. Frazier’s assessment that there was reasonable suspicion that officer-involved criminal acts may have occurred and that the department failed to review these cases appropriately.
Mr. Frazier concluded that Oakland’s arsenal of less-than-lethal weapons was outdated and dangerous. The report did not weigh in as to whether their use of force against the protesters was justified, though it is clear in some situations he believed them not to be.
One of the more infamous involved the use of force against Scott Olsen. Mr. Olsen, a 24-year-old Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, suffered a fractured skull and brain swelling after he was hit in the head by a bean bag. As other demonstrators tried to care for him, another officer fired a tear-gas canister at them.
Mark Martel, Mr. Olsen’s attorney, has been questioning this incident for some time.
It has not been clear exactly what hit Mr. Olsen in the head. Back in March, Sgt. Chris Bolton, the Oakland Police Department’s chief of staff, said he could not confirm what type of munition struck Mr. Olsen because the department’s investigation into the incident is still open.
“Obviously, in an investigation into Scott Olsen, one of the core questions to be asked is, ‘What hit him in the head, and who caused an object to hit him in the head?’ ” Sgt. Bolton said.
Mr. Olsen believes he was hit with a tear gas canister.
“The difference is significant, because a tear gas canister, you don’t shoot at a person,” said Mr. Martel, who called the development “troubling” and said he planned to file a lawsuit against the city and the police department.
“It looks like one officer intentionally shot him,” he said.
The Frazier report questioned whether officers gave an honest account of what happened. He writes, “The fact that no law enforcement officer, supervisor or commander observed the person falling down or prostrate in the street during the confrontation was both unsettling and not believable.”
“Immediately following xxxx’s injury, and while he was lying on the ground, at least one chemical agent canister was deployed by an identified OPD officer into a crowd that had surrounded xxxx to render aid,” Mr. Frazier wrote.
He added, “We should note that the review team has serious concerns regarding the quality and breadth of the OPD criminal investigation involving this situation. The review team has received information that the criminal investigation has been closed.”
“However, it is our belief that OPD should consider a re-examination of the quality of this investigation,” he wrote.
“We’re really not afraid of the truth,” Mayor Jean Quan said during a press conference. “We know it’s hard. We know the city has been struggling with reforming some parts of the police department for decades. But I believe that this chief has the courage to make those changes, and we’ll stand behind him to make those changes.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I wonder how much of Oakland PD’s training budget has been taken away over the years. Training takes money and if you don’t have any you can’t train your cops. The cops did not ask the occupy folks to come demolish the town. The cops did what they could in a riot.
I still haven’t heard anything conclusive that says the guy was undoubtedly shot with a teargas canister. Even if he was I would have to be intentional to be an issue. I was at a gathering one time that got way out of hand. When the riot cops and cops on horses showed up I decided that my fun was over. The next day on the news I saw that some of the participants had been injured after failing to leave when told to do so. Dumb.
That’s one of the things that they cited in their report the loss of personnel and training budget.
“I still haven’t heard anything conclusive that says the guy was undoubtedly shot with a teargas canister.”
They didn’t make any conclusions either.
Mr.Obvious
“The cops did what they could in a riot. “
It seems that you are willing to exonerate the police without definitive evidence but not so the protesters. Do you, for example, know that Mr. Ohlsen himself was engaged in any violent or destructive activity or could he conceivably have just been an innocent bystander as was one of the students shot at Kent State who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time while walking across campus. I personally believe that being “dumb” is not sufficient cause for being critically attacked. Police, given their priviledged position in being authorized to use force against others, should hold themselves and be held by the community to a higher standard or behavior.
“The cops did what they could in a riot. “
That’s not what the report concluded. In fact, the report concluded that they made things worse and put people into danger.
I’m not exonerating the officers. It is possible that an officer maliciously shot someone in the head with a teargas canister. I doubt it but it is possible.
As far as innocent people walking through the Occupy riot, really?. Well at least it wasn’t the case with the guy who was struck in the head by something in Oakland.
The people were told to leave and they refused. Would you have preferred the military prevented the protesters from destroying that portion of town? A
David, when dealing with this group the simple presence of the police would have made the situation worse. You complain about the police not doing anything with protesters at the bank and then complain when they do. You should offer to lend your expertise to the police and resolve these problems.
“In late March, a report largely cleared police in Berkeley of their use of force. In April a similar report from UC Davis slammed police and administration officials for the handling of an occupation that resulted in the pepper spraying and arrests of numerous students on November 18, 2011…Now a report assails police handling of….”
And, the relationship between these three report is? Were all three commissioned by those who oversee the police agencies involved in the two incidents?
“Police, given their priviledged position in being authorized to use force against others, should hold themselves and be held by the community to a higher standard or behavior.”
Agree, 100%. They do, and they are.
[quote]As far as innocent people walking through the Occupy riot, really?[/quote]
I’ll stand my ground on this one. On one of the days of the Occupy Movement in Oakland, I was at a meeting
in an adjacent building from the square that was about to be cleared. Towards the end of our meeting, one of the buildings security group came to our conference room and advised us that it would be prudent to conclude our meeting early and leave the area. My group had chosen to park in the adjacent parking structure, we were able to get in our car and head home. As we were leaving, we were clearly able to see as we passed the square, the beginnings of a minor ( at that time) confrontation between police and the “Occupiers”. Had we chosen to park on the street, or had security not decided to send us home early, we would likely have had the potential for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because you would prefer not to believe something does not mean it is not possible.
Just Saying 12:52 PM
[quote]They do, and they are.[/quote]
Well, at least that is the case when they do not manage to cover up their errors or malfeasance. Granted this is much harder to do now with everyone possessing and using their cell phones to capture what is happening in the moment, but I still think the police will attempt to block knowledge of their activities when possible, and I think there are ample examples of this on YouTube clips showing police using excessive force and breeching protocols in terms of acceptable surge procedures. I believe that you and I had an exchange about this issue in the past.
I could make up any number of situations that would put the average person in the middle of a riot. How about a blind person walking a dog. Just because I CAN make up a situation doesn’t make it true or logical. The situation you described makes you about a likely to be accosted by the police as being accosted by a panhandler.
I guess I picture a riot differently. I picture the folks throwing bricks and smashing store fronts. If you are present in that as a bypassed you have used poor judgement and sometimes those lessons are learned the hard way. It’s unfortunate but that is the situation.
As for the unfortunate gentleman that suffered a serious head injury, he was an active participant in the activities.
Mr Obvious
[quote]I could make up any number of situations that would put the average person in the middle of a riot. How about a blind person walking a dog. Just because I CAN make up a situation doesn’t make it true or logical. The situation you described makes you about a likely to be accosted by the police as being accosted by a panhandler.
I guess I picture a riot differently. I picture the folks throwing bricks and smashing store fronts. [/quote]
One very important difference. I didn’t make up an exceptional situation. I was there.
And, picturing a riot of the type you are describing is a far cry from the circumstances in which police in confronting “Occupiers” have chosen to use excessive force. That was my initial opinion, but now it has been supported by a number of investigations. I don’t see any point in continuing to defend police whose actions are not supported by the formal independent investigators. No one is saying they do not have a difficult job and are not placed in difficult situations. I have a great deal of empathy for this since my job has also placed me in life and death situations ( although not, with two exceptions when I was personally threatened), my own.
What I am saying is that there is no more justification for the police choosing a violent course of action when they do not have the appropriate equipment, plan, and authorization to do so than there would be for a surgeon to just decide to do an elective surgery for which they are not trained, do not have appropriate equipment and appropriate privileges. We don’t tolerate this kind of behavior from surgeons, and we certainly should not tolerate it from our police.
Bottom line, when people gather in crowds, things happen and confusion usually prevails. It is often very difficult to sort out details after the fact, as to who did what to whom. Imagine trying to control things at the time the crowd gathers and becomes hostile – it is almost impossible. Something bad on either side is bound to happen. I always advise citizens to stay away from crowds like this, bc you can become a victim as an innocent bystander, get swept up in mob mentality and do things you ordinarily wouldn’t do, or may be subjected to brutality or inadvertent mayhem from any number of sources. You have to ask if what you are doing is really worth the risk…
Elaine
I couldn’t agree more about the volatility of these kinds of situations and your sage advice to avoid when possible. Unfortunately, there are sometimes conflicting values. In this case, had I witnessed such an injury
during a police action, I would personally feel the obligation to come to the assistance of anyone, police or protester who was injured because of what I have chosen as my career. I would hope not to be tear gassed for that choice.
[quote]”In this case, had I witnessed such an injury during a police action, I would personally feel the obligation to come to the assistance of anyone, police or protester who was injured because of what I have chosen as my career. I would hope not to be tear gassed for that choice.”[/quote]Indeed, this is a difficult situation. If you hadn’t taken Elaine’s advice to leave the hostile crowd as it and police confront each other–then felt obligated when someone is injured in the fracas, you are making the decision to stay knowing that you’re endangering yourself.
Depending on how violent things get, you could be hit by a rock thrown by the crowd or whatever police projectile gets fired at rioters next to you. You could get crushed when participants charge one way or the other. We can hope that both sides recognize the red cross or red crescent on your hat, but sometimes even that won’t keep you from harm if you choose to join the mayhem.
Like Elaine said, why are you making the choice to watch such a sight, knowing that your conscience will draw you into danger? If my head is bleeding, I’m glad you’re there, though. Just don’t leave until I do, thank you.
[quote]I’m glad you’re there, though. Just don’t leave until I do, thank you.[/quote]
Don’t worry JS, I’ve got your head….or back as the case may be, even if I don’t share your degree of confidence
in the police to do the right thing ; )
I’m only saying this half in jest, half in earnest, but the New Orleans Police seem to have crowd control down to a science w horse patrols. Does anyone know anything about how well that works for crowd control in terms of injuries to members of the crowd/police brutality? I’ve only witnessed it on television, and it seems to work quite well…
To medwoman: I take your point, but you really should not be around the crowd in the first place if you want to keep safe. Yet I think of the Rodney King riots in LA (I think it was there) where a truck driver rushed from his house into a dangerous crowd to rescue a fellow truck driver he had seen being beaten on television news coverage. I guess the medical profession can be a dangerous one at times…
ERM
I also remember the story you are referencing from the King riots. And when I think of putting oneself in harms way to help someone else, I always think of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake scene of the man climbing barehanded up to reach a woman trapped in the wreckage of her car. No medical license required, just basic human decency to face risk to help someone in trouble.
[quote]I also remember the story you are referencing from the King riots. And when I think of putting oneself in harms way to help someone else, I always think of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake scene of the man climbing barehanded up to reach a woman trapped in the wreckage of her car. No medical license required, just basic human decency to face risk to help someone in trouble.[/quote]
Yes, oftentimes the desire to help another human being is so strong, it overrides every other consideration, including one’s own life. I find that heartening and an example of the best in the human spirit. We don’t see this often enough on the media, but it goes on quietly under the radar screen every day. I remember a friend told me about an incident on her way home from work. She had taken the public transit (bus), as she always did. Midway on route, the engine on the bus caught fire. The bus driver pulled over, several men stayed on the bus and passed people through the doors and out the windows, so the bus was evacuated in just minutes (less than 5 minutes). My friend said she couldn’t believe how well coordinated the effort was and how smoothly getting everyone off the bus safely was managed. Those men who stayed on the bus to help everyone off risked their lives without thought…
Elaine
[quote]We don’t see this often enough on the media, but it goes on quietly under the radar screen every day. [/quote]
I cannot help but wonder, if we did see more of these positive stories, and discussed them with all the fervor and passion that we use to dissect situations that we find abhorrent, if we would not see many more such positive actions, and an overall improvement in the tone of our social interactions.
[quote]I cannot help but wonder, if we did see more of these positive stories, and discussed them with all the fervor and passion that we use to dissect situations that we find abhorrent, if we would not see many more such positive actions, and an overall improvement in the tone of our social interactions.[/quote]
Amen! But unfortunately the news media seems to think otherwise…
PS Wonder if that is why video footage of cute babies and puppies does so well on the internet – a welcome relief from all the bad news…
ERM
Well, I know that I take a reddit cute puppie/kitty break periodically just to maintain some semblance of sanity.