Occupy Oakland Erupts; Over 100 Arrested

 Occupy Oakland Erupts; Over 100 ArrestedOccupy protests in Oakland escalated into violence on Saturday, with activists throwing random objects and flares and police kettling and tear-gassing protesters in addition to making multiple arrests. Tension began growing Saturday afternoon and over the course of 3 hours ratcheted up until the Oakland Police tweeted that “unlawful assembly” had been declared.

Shortly after that tweet at 3 p.m. PT, Occupy Oakland posted that police were using “munitions and violence.” The police said they used only tear gas and smoke bombs and they gave the protesters warnings.

By 8:15 Pacific Time the AP was reporting upwards of 100 arrests with Twitter accounts that frequently focus on Occupy-related news such as @YourAnonNews stating:

A video uploaded to Youtube by user larrytaitai gives some sense of the chaotic moments before and after police first launched the tear gas.

Occupy Oakland 1/28/2012 Tear gas – YouTube.

[CNN.com]

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    It is time to grow a spine and resist the police fascism………………………..

     “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the
    point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State,
    136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States
    in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may
    where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an
    offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he
    may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    Concerned citizens are making sure the public is aware of these legal
    precedents

    1. Anonymous says:

      Violence outside the context of self defense is not a moral practice.
      Violence begets violence, and what can be taken by force can be lost by
      force.

      I believe the only way to really put an end to our
      greatest problems is to raise each successive generation of our kids to
      strive to be smarter than the last. We need smarter citizens.
       
      If
      we reduce ourselves to barbarism and internal conflict between the
      citizens and their government, we will destroy our entire society and
      way of life, leaving any survivors to rebuild everything from scratch.

      Instead
      of a civil war type conflict over political differences or problems,
      any potential conflict inside the US would undoubtedly be over
      resources, and would not be a united or organized front. If the US is
      plunged into a state of “national emergency,” then the US government
      will claim the right to void or suspend the constitution in the name of
      national security. If these nightmare scenarios become reality, then
      nearly 300 million people will be freaking out, searching for scarce
      resources like potable water, food, medicines, and fuel. And that is if
      FEMA has not attempted to remove everyone from the larger cities that
      may be the focus point of the “emergency.”

      I think their tactics to divide the nation, and therefore fracture the entire union into splinters, has actually worked.

      1. Anonymous says:

        I can respect your position on violence,but since it is a ingrained part of human nature it is inevitable. Granted , a smarter population may be the ultimate cure but that will take generations. We do not have generations before we will be completely enslaved.
        The one thing people seem to forget is the fact “THE GOVERNMENT” for all its evil still depends on our brothers,sisters,sons and daughters to enforce their evil……………..Revolt will not necessarily be all that bloody………….

        Life experience has made me not only a cynic but generally a curmudgeon of the highest order. I would lean towards the belief that a from scratch rebuild IS not just the best solution , but the only solution at this point………..Humanity 2.0 may not be such a bad idea……………..but lets give some other options a shot first ;)

      2. stingray68 says:

        The Revolution isn’t here yet.  Local governments have so far handily dealt with the Occupy movement and at most, the Feds have simply acted as coordinators and supplied intelligence (texting intercepts, identifying networks, profiling etc.).  Occupy never solidified their role as a vanguard, never got majority support from workers and doesn’t have a focus point or coherent ideology.

        As for a true peoples revolution in the U.S., civil war would be a more accurate description and would be bloody beyond description.  This is the homeland of corporate power and the bastion of the one percent; they would use genocide if necessary tto maintain their power grip.  The Czar, the Shah and Bashar Assad would be lightweight pikers in comparison.  The only path to change in this country is incrementally through peaceful means. 

      3. redbedhead says:

        Egypt is a good example of nonviolence being completely ineffective.

        The Cuban Revolution? If Che and Fidel and their forces  had used nonviolence, where would Cuba be today?

        There is a reason the ruling class elevates nonviolence – they know they can always beat it down and it works in their interests.

        Gandhi and MLK are used as useful lackeys of the capitalists   while Fidel, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Sandino, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and other revoluionaries are vilified. 

        Ultimately, nonviolence is conciliation to the ruling class. And it won’t work.

        The ruling elites weren’t afraid of MLK – they were afraid of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. It wasn’t Gandhi starving himself that brought Indian independence – it was armed rioters.

        Until Occupy figures that out with a mobilizing figure or force that threatens the ruling elites with violence, their movement will go nowhere.

      4. Anonymous says:

        Amen !

      5. stingray68 says:

        Any Western political movement that turns to violence will lose the support of the people and be easily targeted and eliminated by the state. The SLA in the U.S., the Red Army Faction in Germany and the Red Brigades in Italy are just three modern examples. As for the Black Panthers, the FBI’s COINTELPRO decimated them but MLK and his non-violent path succeeded, independently of the Panthers’ guerilla posturing. Violence is no guarantee of success if real change is the goal; non-violence is the only logical path.

      6. Anonymous says:

        Like Gandhi, my non-violent underpinnings have a limit; and I will defend myself and my family from any potential harm, even if it costs me my life.

        I have said it before, and I say it again; I would rather be dead than life in a world without the bill of rights or the rest of the constitution.

        The tipping point, when the consequences of doing nothing become greater than the consequences of acting, is a very real possibility for the near (one or two decades) future. But, sadly, I fear that in that situation, most citizens will be in a struggle to simply survive, and will not be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical threat.

        Just from what I understand about environmental science, sociology, and psychology, I don’t have much hope for US citizens who face an increasingly authoritarian government.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Violence outside the context of self defense is not a moral practice. Violence begets violence, and what can be taken by force can be lost by force.

    I believe the only way to really put an end to our greatest problems is to raise each successive generation of our kids to strive to be smarter than the last. We need smarter citizens.
     
    If we reduce ourselves to barbarism and internal conflict between the citizens and their government, we will destroy our entire society and way of life, leaving any survivors to rebuild everything from scratch.

    Instead of a civil war type conflict over political differences or problems, any potential conflict inside the US would undoubtedly be over resources, and would not be a united or organized front. If the US is plunged into a state of “national emergency,” then the US government will claim the right to void or suspend the constitution in the name of national security. If these nightmare scenarios become reality, then nearly 300 million people will be freaking out, searching for scarce resources like potable water, food, medicines, and fuel. And that is if FEMA has not attempted to remove everyone from the larger cities that may be the focus point of the “emergency.”

    I think their tactics to divide the nation, and therefore fracture the entire union into splinters, has actually worked.

  3. Angelo R. Mozilo says:

    It’s always happy hour somewhere

  4. Jb3 says:

    What is this …..Animal Farm? Read the book……..mainly it is about the PIGS!

  5. Juliomiyares says:

    The problem as I see it is that these occupy protesters want bigger and stronger government to accomplish the cradle to grave nanny state they articulate for.