I can’t be the only one outraged over this latest court decision prohibiting Oakland cops from using non-lethal methods, such as rubber bullets, to defend themselves from attack.
The case stems from the June 2020 George Floyd protests, when downtown was turned into chaos. Some rioters were struck by rubber bullets. Fortunately, none were killed, but a couple who were hit sued Oakland and won. The settlement included, not just the ban on rubber bullets, but on other non-lethal munitions, such as flash-bang grenades. It also included awarding $125,000 each to two of the protesters.
I wasn’t at that riot, but I was at a precursor, the October 2011 Occupy Oakland riot, during which that marine vet, Scott Olsen, was struck by a police bean bag at Frank Ogawa Plaza. He too sued, and it cost Oakland $4.5 million.
Let me explain what’s so insidious about these settlements, but first, there’s another aspect of the June 2020 settlement that’s particularly egregious: According to the news reports, the settlement “specifies that a protester’s act of picking up and throwing an object, like a chemical canister fired by police, does not justify firing munitions at the protester.”
Let me ask the people who crafted this settlement, what the hell is wrong with a cop firing a non-lethal munition at a protester who’s throwing something dangerous at him? When is a cop permitted to defend himself? Let’s say you’re a cop, called to protect downtown from rioting protesters who have a sad history of arson, vandalism, looting, assault and window-breaking. Suddenly, you’re struck in the head by a steel canister that might weigh as much as one pound. Thrown by a strong arm, that potentially lethal weapon is capable of taking out an eye or fracturing a jawbone. You saw exactly who threw it at you. And yet there’s not a damned thing you can do, due to this ridiculous settlement. If you fire a rubber bullet to stop your attacker, you’re almost certain to get fired, and sued by John Burris or someone like that. And your career and life are effectively over.
The Chronicle article covering the settlement interviewed a few of the protesters. One complained about feeling “like a target in my own city.” Another said, “Seeing the way the officers treated unarmed, innocent people was deeply painful.” Both were portrayed in the newspaper story as being entirely peaceful and cooperative.
As I said, I wasn’t at the June 2020 protest. Maybe these protesters were peaceful and innocent, maybe not. But their words were similar to things Scott Olsen claimed after he was hit—and I was there, 20 yards away. I know exactly what happened, and Scott was no innocent, peaceful bystander. He and the cadre he was with defied police orders repeatedly. Over and over again, cops begged the protesters to leave. Through a loudspeaker, they warned the crowd every few moments that, if they didn’t leave, they—the cops—would be compelled to use non-lethal means, including tear gas, to dispel them. I remember thinking, “I better get out of here; these cops mean it.” I backed up a ways but Scott and his cadre didn’t. They remained in place, on the front lines, defiantly daring the police to act. After at least 15 minutes of warnings, the police did act—and poor Scott was hit. Why he refused to leave, I’ll never know.
What I don’t get is what these progressive courts think cops are supposed to do to protect themselves and the cities they’re sworn to serve. Between the Negotiated Settlement Agreement, the ambulance-chasing lawyers, the Police Commission, the cop-hating City Council, and these shameful settlements, the cops are practically forbidden to do anything. Why bother having cops in the first place, if we hobble them and tell them they’re not allowed to defend property or themselves? What the hell is going on?
Look, peaceful protest is guaranteed by our Constitution. At the same time, the police have to take many things into consideration when ten thousand people gather downtown and the emotional atmosphere is tense, as it was post-George Floyd. I do not see why any protester would defy the police when they implore the crowd to disperse. If you comply, it doesn’t mean you’re abandoning your cause or compromising on your ideals. It means you realize you’re part of a community and the people hired to protect us feel it’s in everyone’s best interests for you to leave. You’ve made your point. Now, go home. If you don’t, you’ve accepted the risks involved, in a sort of informed consent, and you have no right to complain about the outcome.
I admire cops for many reasons. Among them is the sheer amount of patience they have to possess in order to stay sane and professional. With all the bullshit thrown at them, they remain committed to protecting us. That’s almost super-human. I wouldn’t blame them if they all quit. But they stay, and serve, and every time the City Council reluctantly allows another Police Academy, applicants sign up. What wonderful public servants. And how awful these judges and greedy lawyers are, the ones who rush to the defense of rioters, knowing that the odds heavily favor Oakland giving in to blackmail, instead of defending our men and women in uniform.
Steve Heimoff