"Ground Rules" for Oakland Public Safety Committee Hearing on Police Brutality

... there will be no real investigation or trial.

They don't actually wan't to find out what happened. It's kind of obvious when they start writing letters like this one.

On the contrary, the city attorney is expecting there to be a trial (or at least a suit) brought by some of the injured folks. His office may very well be defending the officers and the city of Oakland in that suit.

I live in Oakland and am an attorney. John Russo does not appear to me to be a right-winger or machine politician interested in sweeping this under the rug. That said, he's a lawyer doing what any lawyer would do in this instance - limit the city's exposure.

If folks attending this hearing are interested in engaging the committee in dialogue, I would suggest discussing general "use of force" policy and political rights in the City of Oakland, instead of asking the councilmembers to draw conclusions about the events of April 7th. I think the victims should be there and should speak about their experiences, but the committee will have to be pretty silent about what happened on that day.

Of course, we can also argue for an independent investigation (already explicitly supported by a number of officials.) Might be good to get really clear about independence, what that means, and how it addresses some of the underlying issues in Oakland police-community relations.

Don't be discouraged from attending!!!

John Russo's a smart lawyer. Say nothing. Suck up all the evidence submitted by the other side Then make your defense plan accordingly. There will be a lot of transcripts of the April 29 hearing on the defense side. I hope we get one.

So let's make the other side commit to their story ASAP!

Some (or a lot - or even just a couple) of people who only suffered emotional distress and constitutional deprivation should file suit as soon as possible in small claims court.

Then, while memories are fresh, have a run at the City of Oakland and at least a couple of the cops in small claims court. No lawyers are allowed to participate in the hearing! The law is that the case must be heard in 45 days!

Then we get the other side to commit to their version of the facts while memories are fresh.

This will also help those of us who are filing major
cases for more severe injuries.

If we filed small claims court cases against these cops on a regular basis - where recovery of $7500 is possible - then we'd see some institutional change.

Cops pay attention when they get dragged into court, a judgment against them (which affects their personal credit rating), and a order to pay cash which the city may not necessarily pay without a long explanation and a vote. If you want a policy change, this is the best way to do it.

Nonviolence is powerful. Direct democracy rocks. Our movement is not about suing cops, but it is about protecting one another and creating social space for all of us to organize freely. We're not compromising any of our ideals in having a hoedown with the worst of the bad apples.

In a true democracy, we would have an open discussion about the issues. The public should be informed and kept involved. What we now have is not a democracy...but legal proceedings where as much information is kept from the public as possible.

Where are the public's lawyers in this or may I say, the people's lawyers? Obviously, the city...our city...represents the police.

It seems ok to be able to fire potentially leathal and harmful things at the public, but impossible to stand face to face and address the issues in a public forum.

The place for that is the courts. Lets use this as a focal point to collectively look at the problem so that we can bring it appropriately to trial?

If not, it sure could use one. With teeth. Last I heard to file a complaint of police misconduct, you had to file it directly with the police department, which often refuses to hear or take such complaints.

Further reading of Russo's recommendations would make it appear that this will be a totally one sided meeting. Those injured will be allowed to make statements and speak. The city and police will say nothing. It may be a good opportunity for the city and police to get a better strategic look at what evidence there is against them without presenting anything from their side.

On the other side of this, those injured parties will have an opportunity to let the public know what happened to them without being refuted.

WHO'S WATCHING THE COPS?

Friday, April 25, 2003


-- WHAT WE SAID: Mayor Willie Brown wants to shrug off police misconduct as shown in a street scuffle outside a Union Street bar last November. Don't expect acting Police Chief Alex Fagan to do much because his son is one of the culprits. District Attorney Terence Hallinan whiffed on a grand jury indictment that fell apart in his hands.

One way to get the truth would be the Office of Citizen Complaints, an independent city watchdog agency. But officers ignore its inquiries and refuse to take it seriously.

- Editorial, April 8, 2003

-- WHAT HAPPENED: Fed up with no cooperation from the cops, the OCC issued a report on Thursday detailing the brush-off it routinely receives. Delays of up to a year for routine documents and no-shows by officers at interviews were noted.

The oversight agency, set up 20 years ago by public vote, is cut out of an active role, the report indicated. It has the power to collect evidence of police misconduct and make recommendations to the Police Commission, which has the final say on disciplining wayward officers.

-- WHAT'S NEXT: The Police Commission, appointed by Mayor Willie Brown, should acknowledge the problem and demand the police force cooperate fully with the review agency.

-- WHAT YOU CAN DO: E-mail Mayor Brown at damayor [at] sfgov.org or call his office at (415) 554-6141.

This is indeed not a court trial, but a hearing at which we can request one. It is true that the words of anyone who speaks about their experience will be recorded and probably heard again in court. So I (not a lawyer!) would also suggest only bringing in summaries of what you did and did not see.

The purpose of this hearing is to decide how this event will be investigated and pursued, not to start the judging and punishing process. As I understand it, the standard way to pursue police-brutality issues in Oakland is to take them to the Citizen Police Review Board, which then investigates them (or, more often, doesn't), hears testimony from both sides, and recommends action to the police department. This recommendation is nonbinding and it is never made public whether it was acted upon or ignored.

This, folks, is the problem. This is the exact same procedure that you would follow if your mother or your brother or your best friend were *killed* by the police. We need police accountability with better funding so they can investigate more cases, and more public information about how officers are disciplined. As it is, going by my observations at the Public Safety Committee hearing, the council doesn't have a whole lot of input in police department policy; the city manager considers it an "administrative" issue which belongs to the mayor's office.

As for small-claims court, it's my understanding that public officials are protected by law from a good deal of liability as it relates to pursuit of their jobs. I don't know if it would even be possible to bring a civil case against a police officer who was on duty and following orders. Any lawyers here want to chime in?

Oakland does have a Citizens Police Review Board, but by the admissions of its own members (at both the April 10th and April 24th meetings) it does not have much power, and is routinely ignored by the mayor (Jerry Brown). In fact for much of last year it didn't even have sufficient members to function effectively (members are appointed by the mayor), and it also has the budget for only one investigator, when several more are needed to handle the complaint load.

I was at both these meetings, and people testified about the dock atrocities committed by OPD at the meeting on the 10th (I'm not sure about the 24th, as I was late). The CPRB decided to send several representatives to the city council's Public Safety Committee meeting on Tuesday April 29th (3-6pm). Hopefully lots of us will be there (I will). According to the website, it meets in the city hall building in Frank Ogawa Plaza, hearing room 1.

"I don't know if it would even be possible to bring a civil case against a police officer who was on duty and following orders. Any lawyers here want to chime in?"

I do know that judges have an absolute shield. There may be a hole in it for cops. But it's worth looking into.

Ghetto Town Mentality

Oakland pigs have the attitude that once they brutalize
you, at best all you can do is stand in line with the rest of the suckers when filing complaints or lawsuits against them....

It's been this way for years in this town. It's totally been corrupted. This town is run with a Ghetto Town Mentality
as though everyone is poor & from the hood, ergo, anything goes... Run the poor down with their motorcycles if they congragate on the sidewalks, set them up with a little stash such as the riders et,al have done, and throw away the key for the 3 strikes scam making all the pigs rich in the whole system of scumbags running this circus...

Council President Ignacio de la Fuente was sued for election fraud when it was exposed that Lupe Valdez signed his original Declaration of Candidacy when running for a council seat. Not a peep out of any of the other council members except to say it was racist to go after Iggy just because he cheated his way into office.

About 3 years ago there was the scandal over the Parks & Recreation Department; ghost employee's, sacks of money turning up in safes throughout the park system, and checks of over $100,000 dollar federal checks being found unclaimed... Nothing ever came out of the so-called hearings or so-called investigations for that mess....

The recent $50 million public school scandal...

Then 2 years back there was the looted "Kids Program" with all the hundreds of basball tickets meant for Oakland kids that ended up in the hands of City Workers, City officials, Council Members, pigs, etc...
Nothing came out of those so-called investigations except the tears of the little children wondering how adults could be mean enough to steal their baseball tickets from them...

Mayor Brown et,al needs to be flushed down the toilet for the violence, looting, and lawless nature of unaccountability which has given Oakland such a monstrous reputation of being a third world country run by a Corporate Dictatorship...

John Russo would not be there if he was not a player among the pigs running this oppressive apparatus. They trust him to make sure that the scams continue to run in this town unabated....

Before anything is done in this town or county, they run a check first with the City Attorney John Russo & County Council Richard E. Winnie to see if it's legal or what the liability is after the dirty deed has been done...

Russo was probably the man to give the nod before the people got brutalized by the pigs at the Port... All city departments have to check to see if it's "legal" before they make a move, including the pigs, and the same goes for the County.

Nothing gets the nod until it's decided whethor it's legal or not...Thats how this shit is run...

That's why Russo & Winnie have a job...

Someone gave the nod to the pigs to kick ass, & odds are that Russo was the man...

You couldn't pay me enough to be a police officer. It takes a person with a strong stomach to get up everyone morning and do a job that provides little support from supervisors, no public support, and civil and criminal scrutiny with every decision made, good or bad. OPD took rocks and bottles and attempted to quell rioters looting stores and burning cars as best they could with so few officers on Superbowl Sunday and what was the verdict?: OPD didn't act aggressively enough. OPD took rocks and bottles and attempted to keep public roads open for business on 4/7, using less-than lethal force to suppress the unlawful assembly, and the consensus now?: OPD's a bunch of thugs? The only difference I see is one of race. Apparently it would have been OK for OPD to thump black folks on Super Bowl Sunday, but it's not okay for white folks to bruise.

It must be a thrill to be so righteous, yet so hypocritical.

Were you present for either the post-Superbowl melee or the protest at the docks? Do you feel that you can make blanket statements about the nature of the crowd or their actions at either event, if you weren't? Or are you relying on the OPD's statements about the events, after they have been convicted by a jury of a departmental pattern of lies (including lies under oath and planting evidence)?

Just curious.

OPD doesn't always lie, but they do sometimes, and their statements need to be examined as carefully as anyone else's. Being a police officer is tough, but nobody drafted them.

As for your comments about racism and hypocrisy, sure, it would be hypocritical to think that way, but I don't think anybody here would say the OPD should have come down harder after the Superbowl (unless you count the saintly individuals who suggest OPD should have used real bullets on the protesters). Look around a little bit.