Report: Aggressive Police Response to Occupy Oakland Was “Flawed”

Riot police prepare to raid the Occupy Oakland encampment in the early morning of October 25.<a href="http://occupyoakland.tumblr.com/post/11957973007/photographs-police-raid-on-occupy-oakland">Rafael Roy</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Oakland Police Department’s aggressive response to an Occupy Oakland protest that made international news last October was “flawed,” according to a newly released 120-page report (PDF). Commissioned by the city in December and conducted by the Frazier Group consulting firm for $100,000, the report criticized the department for its “outdated, dangerous, and ineffective” crowd-control tactics, which critically injured one protester.

The report comes on the heels of news that an OPD officer may have botched the investigation into the police-inflicted injury that left Marine vet Scott Olsen in critical condition during the October 25 protest. (A criminal investigation initiated by the OPD had been closed entirely until the Frazier Group expressed “serious concerns regarding [its] quality and breadth” and got it reopened, the new report revealed.) The allegation was made in a document filed with Thelton Henderson, the federal judge tasked with overseeing OPD independent monitors following a 2003 drug-planting scandal’s settlement. In January, Henderson wrote that the police response to Occupy Oakland protests raised “serious concerns” and that the department remained “woefully behind its peers around the state and nation.” If the department doesn’t make significant improvements, it runs the risk of being placed in federal receivership.

The Frazier report criticized the OPD for inadequately planning the early morning raid of the Occupy Oakland camp that sparked the October protests.  It also blamed the aggressive police response on “a series of cascading events,” including recent command turnover that resulted in failures to learn from mistakes, and “years of diminishing resources” that have reduced the number of officers in the department by 23 percent since 2009.

The report also singled out “other direct action groups” among the Occupiers, including “Black Bloc groups,” which “detest organization and wish to take away tools of empowerment through anarchy” and confront police “with the intent to provoke physical contact and seek notoriety.” Black bloc tactics have been the subject of criticism and controversy throughout the course of the Occupy movement.

More than 1,000 complaints have been filed over the OPD’s handing of various Occupy Oakland protests, according to the East Bay Express. The OPD has repeatedly violated its own crowd-control policy, which was adopted following an aggressive response to a 2003 antiwar protest that resulted in lawsuits that cost the department more than $2 million. OPD Chief Howard Jordan, who was a lieutenant at the time, was involved in policing that protest and was deposed during the ensuing investigation. In both cases, the heavy-handed tactics centered on the use of “less-lethal” projectiles, such as the beanbag round that later injured Scott Olsen. The Frazier report said such weapons should be replaced with “state of the art equipment that will reduce injuries” and “help prevent property damage.”

The OPD has revised its crowd control policy since Occupy Oakland began last fall. The changes were most evident during a May Day protest, when police executed targeted “snatch and grab” arrests and tried a more localized use of tear gas as part of a toned-down response. (However, mutual aid officers from Alameda County did roll in a $323,000 armored personnel carrier purchased in 2010 from the military contractor Academi.)

The Frazier report laid out 68 recommendations for Oakland police to improve their handling of future protests. In a press release, the city claimed (PDF) that nearly three-quarters of those recommendations “are currently completed or underway.” The consultants also credited Chief Howard Jordan, who was the interim police chief last October, for “making departmental improvements his highest strategic priority” since the fall. The new report “confirms that we have the right leadership in Chief Jordan,” beleaguered Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said in the city’s press release, “and we have now begun to implement new policies, procedures, and training to create a new Oakland Police Department.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate