You all remember when Oakland police and their invitees created this public relations nightmare. Showing peaceful protesters being treated as if they were an invading force in their own city.
Oakland has been in the hot seat for years due to the fact that Constitutional violations are a feature there and not a bug.
Civil rights attorneys say that the Oakland police department’s actions on Tuesday may violate another agreement the city was forced to sign in 2003, a Crowd Control and Crowd Management Policy that stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed after police used wooden bullets, sting-ball grenades and bean bag shots to break up an anti-Iraq war protest. At least 58 protesters were injured in that incident.
“They’re supposed to use the minimum amount of force and intimidation. They used the maximum,” attorney Rachel Lederman told The Recorder. Lederman is suing the department for violating the crowd-control policy last year, during protests sparked by the two-year prison sentence handed down to former transit officer Johannes Mehserle, who fatally shot an unarmed passenger. One hundred fifty-two people were arrested in those protests. Lederman says that she may fold Occupy Oakland litigation into her current suit.
That barrage of tear gas also resulted in the serious injury of Scott Olsen as shown here.
Jean Quan quickly claimed that Oakland did not use or even have any tear gas because they were legally prevented from doing so due to the consent decree.
I told her that I knew that in November 2004, the City of Oakland had signed an agreement not to use tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. in crowd control, because of several “excessive force” suits after some anti-war demonstrations; so what had been going on Tuesday night (Oct 25), when massive amounts of teargas was used, and USMC veteran Scott Olson was severely injured.
Mayor Quan said that she herself had been involved in drafting that agreement She told me that Oakland and the Oakland Police Dept. did not own any tear gas, because of the consent decree. There had been a federal monitor assigned to Oakland to ensure compliance, and that monitor had been present on Tuesday evening, and had confirmed that the OPD had not discharged any of those rounds, and had not ordered tear gas, rubber bullets, or stun rounds to be used.
Now it comes out that is not true. The police in Oakland were responsible for authorizing weapons they were forbidden to use.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Newly released records show Oakland police approved using tear gas on protesters leading to a violent clash with Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in late October.
The operational plans for the tear-gas fueled raid on the downtown Occupy camp on Oct. 25 show the department authorized using chemical agents, if commanders on the scene said they needed it to disperse crowds.
The documents released in response to a public records act request by The Associated Press also show undercover officers were shooting video during the early morning raid.