Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Two more arrests at Community Sleepout event in front of Santa Cruz city hall
Abbi Samuels and Keith McHenry, prominent local activists with Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs, were arrested tonight at the ongoing Community Sleepout protests against the Santa Cruz camping/sleeping ban.
Tonight was the latest in an ongoing series of protests against the Santa Cruz laws preventing people from sleeping outdoors after dark or in their cars at any time. A group of protesters calling themselves the Freedom Sleepers have been sleeping out weekly in front of Santa Cruz city hall in order to protest the ordinances, which they point out unfairly target and affect un-housed people in the community. The protest group has so far received at least one visit from the SC police department at each event, but this night saw two officers watching for most of the event.
Just before midnight, a group of four police officers arrived and made a beeline for the Food Not Bombs food table, where Keith McHenry (prominent local activist and one of the co-founders of Food Not Bombs itself) had just started a pot of coffee. They immediately grabbed and arrested him under the glare of video-camera lights and the strobing flashes of digital cameras. In the confusion, it was announced that Keith was being arrested for felony vandalism, which set off speculation at the protest site. Nobody here seems to know exactly what vandalism occurred to prompt this sudden arrest.
Keith was not the only arrest made tonight (so far, this article being written a little after midnight on August 26) as Abbi Samuels, another prominent local FNBer was grabbed by another 6 or so police within the hour after Keith. Protesters with cell phones and other cameras again gathered around the police as they cuffed Abbi. This writer did not hear the reason for the arrest.
These are the second and third arrests so far made at Community Sleepout events. The first was of a videographer, Israel Dawson, who has been working on a documentary film about the protests and the local movement to end the sleeping bans. The Community Sleepouts are ongoing and will continue to happen every Tuesday at City Hall, starting at 5pm and continuing until the following morning, with breakfast and coffee served.
Just before midnight, a group of four police officers arrived and made a beeline for the Food Not Bombs food table, where Keith McHenry (prominent local activist and one of the co-founders of Food Not Bombs itself) had just started a pot of coffee. They immediately grabbed and arrested him under the glare of video-camera lights and the strobing flashes of digital cameras. In the confusion, it was announced that Keith was being arrested for felony vandalism, which set off speculation at the protest site. Nobody here seems to know exactly what vandalism occurred to prompt this sudden arrest.
Keith was not the only arrest made tonight (so far, this article being written a little after midnight on August 26) as Abbi Samuels, another prominent local FNBer was grabbed by another 6 or so police within the hour after Keith. Protesters with cell phones and other cameras again gathered around the police as they cuffed Abbi. This writer did not hear the reason for the arrest.
These are the second and third arrests so far made at Community Sleepout events. The first was of a videographer, Israel Dawson, who has been working on a documentary film about the protests and the local movement to end the sleeping bans. The Community Sleepouts are ongoing and will continue to happen every Tuesday at City Hall, starting at 5pm and continuing until the following morning, with breakfast and coffee served.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
anyone have any livestream-ish accounts so this can be recorded or even broadcast live?
It's not a complaint...If an activity rises to anything but nonviolence then my objection may be expected. It's solely my observation and disagreement with "sleep-ins" as a tactic. So far the only tangible results have been arrests. Brief intangible TV and radio coverage is soon forgotten by most comes the next 24 hour news cycle... The media likes arrests because then they are unencumbered from having to shed a lot of light on the issues involved...With as few facts as possible, then the media wraps them in a negative spin suitable for broadcast...My opinions> Sleep ins do not address homelessness. Involuntary camping in the elements or sleeping in cars are not solutions... I could oppose camping bans all I want, but my sense of Santa Cruz in general is the community approves they stay in place.....With the cuts at the Homeless Services Center, the reduction in services and lifting the ban certainly isn't going to be helped by an increase in needy campers...The loud and simple answer is getting more housing... The arrests of Mr. McHenry and Ms. Samuels are disturbing Even though we may have disagreements I have no doubt about the sincerity of their intentions. We do what we can
...it would help not to be arrested at night for survival sleeping.
Not only were these arrests done in the dead of night when there are no livestream viewers and the darkness makes it difficult to photograph -- videographers and photographers were threated with arrest for using camera lights.
This further shows the cruelty of Santa Cruz officials and the way they treat peaceful protesters.
This further shows the cruelty of Santa Cruz officials and the way they treat peaceful protesters.
if so can you please post it?
When the Documentarians were waylaid and the camera operator was arrested a few weeks ago I had the honor of handling (ineffectively at best) the video cam until the audio technician was freed from her citation-related entrapment by a half-dozen officers, and one officer DISTINCTLY moved in my direction threatened me with un-named mayhem unless, as he demanded I turned off the light, at which point I stepped back a few paces and turned the light more downward, but NOT off. At least a dozen witnesses observed that.
On the OTHER hand, the police have no qualms whatsoever blinding US with flashlights, spotlights, threatening OUR personal security.
They think they're special. They aren't, and they need to step the fuck out of the way of our gripe with the city, who are making them enforce ordinances that are NO LONGER LEGAL (if they ever were in the 1st place), which means the SCPD are EXTRALEGAL, and not subject to being obeyed... Because in America (buddy!) you aren't required to abide by BLACKSHIRTS.
On the OTHER hand, the police have no qualms whatsoever blinding US with flashlights, spotlights, threatening OUR personal security.
They think they're special. They aren't, and they need to step the fuck out of the way of our gripe with the city, who are making them enforce ordinances that are NO LONGER LEGAL (if they ever were in the 1st place), which means the SCPD are EXTRALEGAL, and not subject to being obeyed... Because in America (buddy!) you aren't required to abide by BLACKSHIRTS.
Chill dude! The anti-camping ordinances remain legal. So DOJ sent an letter of intent in the Boise case. That does NOT equal a court ruling declaring Boise's ordinance unconstitutional. A ruling with national application won't happen unless the U.S. Supreme Court decides to stick its oar into the stew, which so far hasn't happened. Nor has the court shown any interest in getting involved. Unhappy? Go talk to the legislature.
"So DOJ sent an letter of intent in the Boise case. That does NOT equal a court ruling declaring Boise's ordinance unconstitutional."
No. It's BETTER than a court ruling. It's a statement by a top-level legal agency of the US government that all DAs must abide by with THE US GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, and unless a federal court intercedes, or congress, THAT IS what the eighth amendment means, and every city in the US which 'swept' it's homeless relief issues 'under the rug' is freaking out.
Why DO you think the story got Front Page Above The Fold placement in the SF Chronicle?
No. It's BETTER than a court ruling. It's a statement by a top-level legal agency of the US government that all DAs must abide by with THE US GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, and unless a federal court intercedes, or congress, THAT IS what the eighth amendment means, and every city in the US which 'swept' it's homeless relief issues 'under the rug' is freaking out.
Why DO you think the story got Front Page Above The Fold placement in the SF Chronicle?
Leigh-leaving aside the fact DOJ doesn't have the authority to tell local DAs what to do in enforcing local laws, the reason the story got play in the media was because it was the first time the Feds indicated it (1) might choose to intervene in such a court case and (2) DOJ urged the district court to find the Boise law unconstitutional. Until the court so rules, the law remains in force and enforceable. Let's wait for the court ruling before celebrating.
Really! DAs don't have to listen to the US Attorney General's office about what the eighth amendment means?
Then explain why the DOJ has guidelines for prosecuting police officers for murder that require proof that the officer intended to kill the victim for a murder conviction and ALL DAs are required to obey those guidelines.
"The law that authorizes federal criminal civil rights charges against police officers says that in a homicide case like Eric Garner’s or Milton Hall’s, a police officer can be guilty only if he not only violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, but the officer also “willfully” violated that right. In its explanation of why Milton Hall’s killers were not prosecuted, the Justice Department said: “Law enforcement actions based on fear, panic, misperception or even poor judgment do not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute."
Then explain why the DOJ has guidelines for prosecuting police officers for murder that require proof that the officer intended to kill the victim for a murder conviction and ALL DAs are required to obey those guidelines.
"The law that authorizes federal criminal civil rights charges against police officers says that in a homicide case like Eric Garner’s or Milton Hall’s, a police officer can be guilty only if he not only violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, but the officer also “willfully” violated that right. In its explanation of why Milton Hall’s killers were not prosecuted, the Justice Department said: “Law enforcement actions based on fear, panic, misperception or even poor judgment do not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute."
For more information:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/node/14558
Leigh, go talk to a lawyer who will explain the difference between federal and state laws and who controls the prosecution of those laws. DOJ is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of violations of federal laws, and federal laws only. Elected District Attorneys are responsible for the prosecution of violations of state, county and city laws. The Feds do not have overarching control of local authorities. However you're convinced otherwise. This concludes my attempt to reason with a closeminded individual. In the meantime more California cities are passing anti camping ordinances-Atwater just passed one this week.
"DOJ is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of violations of federal laws, and federal laws only. Elected District Attorneys are responsible for the prosecution of violations of state, county and city laws."
You are distorting the truth again, troll.
The DOJ can come in and replace whole police departments and/or DA/prosecution departments and their staffs at their discretion, and then they can take command of them if they wish. It doesn't matter if people elect corrupt leaders of those departments, they can lose control of them very quickly when they violate the constitution or federal civil rights laws.
This legal eagle troll sounds like the infamous liar from Fresno, Dan Waterhouse, to me but maybe it's a TBSC member. There are a few trolls in that group who pretend to be legal experts in online forums, and they lie a LOT about the law.
You are distorting the truth again, troll.
The DOJ can come in and replace whole police departments and/or DA/prosecution departments and their staffs at their discretion, and then they can take command of them if they wish. It doesn't matter if people elect corrupt leaders of those departments, they can lose control of them very quickly when they violate the constitution or federal civil rights laws.
This legal eagle troll sounds like the infamous liar from Fresno, Dan Waterhouse, to me but maybe it's a TBSC member. There are a few trolls in that group who pretend to be legal experts in online forums, and they lie a LOT about the law.
Somebody had been promising that the Feds would be goosestepping thru Santa Cruz Real Soon Now, but it's yet to happen. The last (and only) case I found was New Orleans. Which was truly rotten to the core. Thinking that the feds would overthrow the governments of the City and County of Santa Cruz over the camping ban is lunacy.
I agree with the other poster. if the AG says it, it's policy. If a court says it, then it's law.
I agree with the other poster. if the AG says it, it's policy. If a court says it, then it's law.
"Thinking that the feds would overthrow the governments of the City and County of Santa Cruz over the camping ban is lunacy."
Personally I don't have an opinion as to whether the feds would be interested in coming to Santa Cruz. I have read a little bit about Boise, but I haven't researched it enough to know why the DOJ is thinking of intervening there, or if Santa Cruz fits the same profile for federal intervention.
To contradict your statement, though, I would bring up the example of the Oakland police, who have a federal monitor in place.
From July 2015:
"The federal monitor overseeing the Oakland Police Department's reform efforts has recommended expanding the scope of the department's internal use-of-force review boards in the wake of the city's first police-involved homicide in two years."
Oakland police federal monitor recommends expanding scope of force review boards
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28467138/oakland-police-federal-monitor-recommends-expanding-scope-force
From March 2015:
"In his quarterly report released Monday, Robert Warshaw, a former U.S. deputy drug czar, kept the department in full compliance with 19 of the remaining 22 reform tasks."
Federal monitor keeps Oakland police in compliance on most reforms
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28045745/federal-monitor-keeps-oakland-police-compliance-most-reforms
From 2012:
"After more than a decade of failing to meet a federal judge's order to reform its police department, Oakland became the first U.S. city Wednesday to willfully surrender authority over its command staff to a court-appointed director."
Oakland Police Department avoids federal takeover, but agrees to unprecedented control over police
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22134081/oakland-police-department-avoids-federal-takeover-agrees-unprecedented
This could easily happen to Santa Cruz if the police continue to expand their targeting of homeless people. I think SCPD spends 1/3 of its energy and funds on criminalizing homelessness?
Maybe it's time for a federal monitor here to oversee the SCPD.
Personally I don't have an opinion as to whether the feds would be interested in coming to Santa Cruz. I have read a little bit about Boise, but I haven't researched it enough to know why the DOJ is thinking of intervening there, or if Santa Cruz fits the same profile for federal intervention.
To contradict your statement, though, I would bring up the example of the Oakland police, who have a federal monitor in place.
From July 2015:
"The federal monitor overseeing the Oakland Police Department's reform efforts has recommended expanding the scope of the department's internal use-of-force review boards in the wake of the city's first police-involved homicide in two years."
Oakland police federal monitor recommends expanding scope of force review boards
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28467138/oakland-police-federal-monitor-recommends-expanding-scope-force
From March 2015:
"In his quarterly report released Monday, Robert Warshaw, a former U.S. deputy drug czar, kept the department in full compliance with 19 of the remaining 22 reform tasks."
Federal monitor keeps Oakland police in compliance on most reforms
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28045745/federal-monitor-keeps-oakland-police-compliance-most-reforms
From 2012:
"After more than a decade of failing to meet a federal judge's order to reform its police department, Oakland became the first U.S. city Wednesday to willfully surrender authority over its command staff to a court-appointed director."
Oakland Police Department avoids federal takeover, but agrees to unprecedented control over police
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22134081/oakland-police-department-avoids-federal-takeover-agrees-unprecedented
This could easily happen to Santa Cruz if the police continue to expand their targeting of homeless people. I think SCPD spends 1/3 of its energy and funds on criminalizing homelessness?
Maybe it's time for a federal monitor here to oversee the SCPD.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Now, the challenge for us as the federal government is is that we don’t run these police forces. I can’t federalize every police force in the country and force them to retrain.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/28/obama_i_cant_federalize_every_police_force_in_the_country_and_force_them_to_retrain.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/28/obama_i_cant_federalize_every_police_force_in_the_country_and_force_them_to_retrain.html
You want a federal monitor overlooking SCPD, Occupy The SCPD, then file a lawsuit in federal district court or get Loretta Lynch to do so. To get it done, you or the AG would have to either convince a judge or convince the City of Santa Cruz to settle. Otherwise it ain't gonna happen.
Here is the SCPD media release for the arrests of Abbi Samuels and Keith McHenry.
http://cityofsantacruz.com/departments/police/press-releases
http://cityofsantacruz.com/departments/police/press-releases
Youtube playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjtnEt5q_6M&list=PLR5EudWzJh8PTYBjELEMbAZXTNaJcbzCM
Livestream:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/71737210
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjtnEt5q_6M&list=PLR5EudWzJh8PTYBjELEMbAZXTNaJcbzCM
Livestream:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/71737210
"...safe, orderly and fair use of the Downtown sidewalk space. "
Observed during a sidewalk sale...
Observed during a sidewalk sale...
"...safe, orderly and fair use of the Downtown sidewalk space. "
These signs are prohibited, yet they still litter downtown sidewalks. The southwest corner of Cathcart was so cluttered with them last year you literally had to walk in the street to get around them, chained to the stop sign. After some handicapped man got squashed by a bus at that intersection, the signs went quietly away. The one pictured here blocks most of the crosswalk egress. Performers certainly are prohibited from using this space according to current ORDAIN-ances, but signs business signs block it.
These signs on the sidewalk downtown are illegal unattended trip hazards that are only allowed in the easement of a store's property, and only if that doesn't create a hazard.
Will the SCPD cite the owners for "Blocking the Sidewalk"? FUCK NO!
At one point, according to police brass I questioned, the planning department had actually ok'd these hazards and the SCPD bizarrely deferred to that civilian non-safety related agency, but I understand that is no longer the case, and the DTA has also told their merchant-victims to remove them... Sure.
Ps. Bring Blue Chalk the the next city council meeting... You know what to do!
These signs are prohibited, yet they still litter downtown sidewalks. The southwest corner of Cathcart was so cluttered with them last year you literally had to walk in the street to get around them, chained to the stop sign. After some handicapped man got squashed by a bus at that intersection, the signs went quietly away. The one pictured here blocks most of the crosswalk egress. Performers certainly are prohibited from using this space according to current ORDAIN-ances, but signs business signs block it.
These signs on the sidewalk downtown are illegal unattended trip hazards that are only allowed in the easement of a store's property, and only if that doesn't create a hazard.
Will the SCPD cite the owners for "Blocking the Sidewalk"? FUCK NO!
At one point, according to police brass I questioned, the planning department had actually ok'd these hazards and the SCPD bizarrely deferred to that civilian non-safety related agency, but I understand that is no longer the case, and the DTA has also told their merchant-victims to remove them... Sure.
Ps. Bring Blue Chalk the the next city council meeting... You know what to do!
The SCPD actually published EVIDENCE before this case even went before a judge?
Bad evidence too! Looks like Keith was wiping cardboard with a sponge, but I'M NOT seeing:
┏ or ┗ or even a ┻ cut in that cardboard.
MAYBE the SCPD's image processing is better than mine, but this looks umn... Circumstantial.
Bad evidence too! Looks like Keith was wiping cardboard with a sponge, but I'M NOT seeing:
┏ or ┗ or even a ┻ cut in that cardboard.
MAYBE the SCPD's image processing is better than mine, but this looks umn... Circumstantial.
Well I'm shrugging at the SCPD's evidence. If THIS is all they have, they have nothing.
This PowerPoint presentation given along with a speech in front of the Santa Cruz city council. The illegal use of sidewalk sandwich board signs by businesses is banned city wide yet the business continue to clutter the downtown sidewalks while the artist are banned. Not only are the signs illegal but the table and chairs along with the signs create violation of the American with Disabilities Act which is a federal law that trumps all city, county and state laws.
For more information:
https://youtu.be/UHPpOLOG0-k
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network