A FORMAL HEARING AT THE CITY COUNCIL
The public hearing of the City Council took place the next afternoon, on April 29th. The April 7 Response Coalition had issued a two-page statement which was given to the council and distributed among the audience. It began, "We are Oakland residents, community organizations, and labor unions speaking out in response to the unprovoked and unnecessary violence inflicted by police on peaceful protesters, and on workers standing by, at the Port of Oakland on April 7, 2003. In addition, we are speaking out more broadly about the behavior of the Oakland Police Department, because we see the events at the port as part of a pattern."
Our statement called for an independent investigation to determine, among other things, the names of all responsible parties who ordered the police actions. We wanted to know specifically the roles of the shipping companies, of Mayor Jerry Brown, City Manager Robert Bobb, Police Chief Richard Word and port officials. And, were the Department of Homeland Security or any other federal agencies involved?
(Click here for the full text of our statement.)
Ninety eight people had signed up to speak, and most of them sat in the floor area below. I took a seat in the balcony where I could get a good view of the proceedings.
The council members sat in the semicircular panel at the front of the chamber. I'd been reading their statements in the press for the last three weeks, so I knew the positions of most of them. Jane Brunner and Nancy Nadel were the principal persons who'd called for this hearing, and they'd already stated their intention to ask for an investigation. In this they were supported by members Jean Quan and Desely Brooks. Danny Wan had also indicated that he'd support them. Missing from this meeting was Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, who backed the police.
Today's meeting was being chaired by Larry Reid, one of two council members who hadn't taken a public stand. He opened the hearing with this:
"Let me just read this from the city attorney's office: 'Due to the liability and personnel issues related to the April the 7th 2003 event, the city attorney recommends the following ground rules for the conduct for this meeting on April the 29th: That there will be no testimony from our offices, no admissions against interests, no fact finding - '"
The chair was briefly interrupted by derisive laughter from the audience.
"' - no legal conclusions, and no cross examination of our police officers,'" he finished. (Click here for the full text of the city attorney's "ground rules.")
This was a disappointment rather than a surprise. From the very beginning, Council President Ignacio de la Fuente had tried to silence the matter, and one of his devices had been to warn council members that there would be lawsuits - which was true, two lawsuits had already been filed, and more seemed likely to follow. However, the facts of the attack itself were well documented. What was not known was the involvement of the mayor and the city manager, and others who may have been behind the attack. Under the guise of protecting the city budget from lawsuits, the city attorney's "no fact finding" ground rule was a transparent device to protect those suspected of having authorized the police actions. It was a city-level version of hiding behind "national security."
Exactly how the City Council had been maneuvered into accepting such ground rules wasn't clear. Some of the council members had apparently opposed them, but their objections obviously hadn't carried the day.
Those limitations applied only to the police. Our people could say whatever necessary, and as the proceedings began, our testimony was prefaced by a showing of Shots on the Docks, the documentary which had been presented the evening before at the community forum.
Testimony began with Scott Fleming, an Oakland resident and attorney. He'd been shot five times with wooden bullets on April 7th, and he began by reporting the situation at the docks and the peaceful nature of the demonstration, then went on to describe the reaction of the police.
". . . When the police arrived on the scene, all of them were wearing gas masks, and a number of them were armed with what we later learned were wooden bullets, beanbag-firing shotguns and grenades.
". . . I can only surmise that the Oakland Police Department would not have arrived at the demonstration with this type of weaponry unless they had a pre-planned intent to use it.
". . . for no obvious or apparent reason, the morning quiet was pierced by explosions as the Oakland Police Department opened fire on the crowd. Neither I nor anyone else I have spoken to is aware of any act on the part of any demonstrator that could have provoked this violence.
"Chief Word also told the Contra Costa Times that his decision to shoot at us was influenced by one of the shipping lines. According to the Times, Chief Word said that, quote, 'APL told us that you have to clear the property.' This sounds frighteningly like Chief Word allowed American President Lines to assist him in deciding when to use force against the citizens of Oakland."
Scott concluded by mentioning the recent Rider scandal and last year's Judy Barry verdict, to remind everyone that this police problem wasn't an isolated incident. (Here is the full text of Scott Fleming's comments which were later published in Counterpunch.)
"I'd like to thank my God that what hit my hand did not hit my head," said the next speaker, Billy Kepoo. His right forearm was bandaged.
"I'm 37 years old, been on the waterfront fourteen years. I'm a member of Local 10 of the ILWU. I drive a crane, as they say. In fact, I'm a steady crane operator for them. I have a family of four kids, a wife. I say this because we are more than just protesters and workers. We're people. People who have families and hopes and causes.
"My cause that April seventh morning was to go to work to fulfill the hopes of my family.
". . . I heard the gunshot without warning that broke my thumb. An open-bone fracture that sent me into surgery that night. I've been out of work since then. The company that I drive a crane for, SSA, has denied my worker's comp claim."
The audience responded to this with shouts and boos for the company, SSA.
"I saw a peaceful protest. I saw people complying. Yet, [the police] fired without warning. And then on top of that, they didn't even have any medical, no ambulances, no fire department. My hand was bleeding. I was in pain. And there was no one to, like, assist me of a medical profession.
"They just rolled right on through. I question why that decision was made. I question why there was no warning. And if there was any collaboration with the company, then I question why we were left, the longshoremen, the workers were left to be out there. To get hit."
Eric Shaw identified himself as an ex Marine and veteran of the First Gulf War. Now he'd been through this experience, where he was shot in the leg while exercising a constitutional right.
"In 1990 when I joined the Marines I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
He didn't name those domestic enemies, but we all knew who they were, and we cheered and applauded him.
"I take that oath serious."
Eric laid it on pretty thick, with the kind of stuff you'd sort of expect a gung-ho Marine to say, except that he was gung-ho antiwar instead of gung-ho pro-war.
"We need to become a better America," he said. "And until we do, real patriots will take to the streets of New York and of Chicago and of San Francisco and of Oakland.
"And on May 12th, between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. real patriots will meet at West Oakland BART station and we will take to the streets and we will wage peace. Thank you."
May 12th? This was the first I'd heard of an event set for May 12th, and I wondered if that might be the day of our return. Had Direct Action finally set the date? During the course of the meeting, there were several more who mentioned the 12th.
Sri Louise stepped up to the microphone.
"I would also like to thank my God because I was hit in the face and I wasn't killed," she said. "There has never been a more poignant time for the city council to assert its political conscience. There is too much documentation for the city council to remain immobile."
As an example, she told of some video footage. "In it you can see that I and the woman that I was with are following dispersal orders, and as we're running, you also get, Oakland city police following me, I'm out of view, and you hear the shot, and I think you've all seen this - " she held up the photo of herself.
The next speaker limped up to the stand with a cane. "My hand and my shoulder were broken by the Oakland Police," he said.
He was followed by Stan Woods, a member of the ILWU Local 6 who'd also spoken at the open forum on the eighth. In addition to investigating the roles of the shippers, Stan wanted to know if Tom Ridge of Homeland Security might've had any part in the decision making.
"We know about Tom Ridge's notorious phone call to our international [ILWU] president during the longshore lockout, threatening unspecified actions on grounds of national security if the lockout became an actual strike, which it never did of course. But there was a strong and implicit threat. Did they have some role in this?"
Stan finished and the next speaker stepped forward.
"Good afternoon, my name is Jack Heyman. I'm a business agent with ILWU Local 10, and I was on duty that morning when police opened fire. The facts are these: that the Oakland police department met with the port of Oakland and the shippers in a private, secret meeting on April 4th. We know that for a fact. They've admitted that. The union was excluded and we want to know why.
"The Port of Oakland is the economic engine for the whole Bay Area. It's critical for all of us. At the same time the Bay Area is one of the most progressive areas in the United States, where civil liberties has been cherished for a long, long time. It's a part of our culture here in the Bay Area. In 1937, Chinese students demonstrated on the docks in San Francisco against the shipment of scrap steel to Japan, in protest - "
Jack was interrupted by applause, but he turned to us and said, "I'd appreciate no applause, I just want to speak.
" - in protest against the Japanese government's imperialist policies against China. Longshoremen honored that picket line.
"There've been many times since that incident, since that protest that there've been demonstrations on the docks in the Bay Area, most notably in San Francisco and more recently in Oakland."
Jack then mentioned one of Mayor Brown's rationales for the attack, the traffic tie-up. "Jerry Brown himself participated in such pickets at the port of Oakland, for instance, in 1997 when there was a solidarity picket line in support of the Liverpool dockworkers who had been sacked. In that case the trucks were blocked. Mr. Brown was part of the blockade. The trucks were backed up for some time. But of course at that point he was running for mayor; he wanted to show his labor credentials.
"I want to make my remarks brief because I know there are a lot of other speakers. This kind of police brutality is unprecedented in recent times. It's not unprecedented because in 1934 our union was founded because the San Francisco police shot two strikers during the maritime strike. That provoked a general strike, and a strike up and down the West Coast.
"In 1946 police provoked a situation here in Oakland that led to a general strike, and, if police in Oakland continue to conduct themselves the way they've been doing, you're going to see more strikes against the governments in these cities for people demanding their civil liberties, their rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. That's what it's going to come around to again.
"We're in convention now," he said, referring to the ILWU convention that was being held in San Francisco. "And we intend to deal with this situation, which we take very seriously. We are not going to let our civil liberties and our civil rights go unchallenged.
"In conclusion I just want to say that the charges against all the demonstrators, and including myself who was arrested at the time, arrested for trying to do my job as a union official, to warn my members to get out of the area because the police were out of control. They were shooting our members and they were shooting demonstrators. And for that I was pulled out of my car, thrown on the ground, stomped on by four police officers - and this is on tape, it can be verified - handcuffed and thrown into a paddy wagon and taken with the other protesters to Santa Rita. We were in police custody for 18 hours. The charges should be dropped."
By now we'd forgotten that Jack had requested no applause, and were applauding enthusiastically.
"Two last points. Number one, the person in charge for this atrocity, police Chief Word, should be fired."
There was more applause, and, followed by even more when Jack finished by saying, "And Jerry Brown stands before us as the biggest hypocrite in the Bay Area and he should resign."
"Hi, my name is June Brashears," began the next speaker, and once again told the story that Ignacio had tried to squelch at the open forum some three weeks before.
This hearing was divided into three hour-long segments, and the last to speak during the first hour was Margaret Gordon, an elderly African American lady. She, with four of her grandchildren, lived at the intersection of 7th and Willow, where some of the shooting took place. There was also a daycare center in the building, she said. "It could have been easy one of those kids who got hurt that day!"
She reminded the council that the police were supposed to protect the citizens of Oakland. "The demonstrators? They weren't protected! And what about us?"
The second hour began without a recess. Chairperson Larry Reid introduced it by saying, "I know this is a very emotionally charged hearing, but I hope we'll still be respectful of each other. So now I'd like to call Chief Word."
At first there was silence as a well-built man in civilian clothes entered the chamber and walked up to the mike, but that silence was soon broken by a brief chorus of boos. One might consider it the negative equivalent of the enthusiastic applause given to the other speakers. It was the first time I'd seen Chief Word in person.
"Good afternoon, chairperson, members of the committee. For the record, Chief Richard Word. The Oakland police department supports and will vigorously defend the right to free speech - "
Jeering briefly erupted in response to that. Most of us remained silent, wanting to hear what the chief had to say.
" - and the right to express views in a lawful and peaceful manner," the chief said.
"Our plan going into the direct action at the port on April seventh was to facilitate a peaceful protest. Our plan was also to enforce the law. To achieve this goal we met with many organizations during our planning for the event. We were not sure what we could expect from some who participated in the action at the port of April seventh. We had reason to believe that some would engage in acts of civil disobedience. With this in mind, we planned to allow the protesters to block one gate at the American President Lines site along Middle Harbor Road. We would then facilitate truck and vehicle access into another.
"Our plan was to take use-of-force decisions out of the hands of individual officers. Instead, field commanders, those trained in our mobile field force concept were responsible for ordering use of less-lethal force - if force was threatened or actually used against officers. Our plan was to avoid individual confrontations and to disperse the crowd."
The chief continued for some time, not revealing anything terribly important, but not saying anything very offensive either. Until -
"Our goal in this instance was to find the correct balance between the rights of those protesting and the rights of those trying to get to work and those trying to conduct lawful business. This is not a perfect science. But there were a lot of nice people who participated in the protest. There were some who were aggressive. I read some of the police reports. Some officers reported seeing nothing thrown. Some reported seeing objects thrown that fell in front of them. Others reported being kicked and hit by projectiles."
"Liar!" The chamber was suddenly alive with boos and jeers.
"Excuse me!" chairperson Reid shouted into his mike.
"Richard Word!" called out a woman seated near me. "You should resign!"
"Excuse me! Excuse me!" shouted the chair. "Can the chief finish?"
The booing eventually began to subside, and people in both balconies began to call out, "Let's hear what he has to say!"
Others were still booing.
"Shhhhh!" many were saying. "Shhhhh!"
And finally there was silence.
"Look! Can we have some peace and order in here?" pleaded the chair, now that the tumult had subsided. "Thank you very much."
"If I could," the chief said. "I'd like to read a few excerpts of a few reports. These are written by officers of different ranks, lieutenant, sergeant, and those of the rank of police officer, just a few excerpts if I could.
"‘Protesters continued to confront officers after verbal warnings and eventual pushes,'" the chief read from the report. "‘Individual members of the group grabbed officers, and kicked the police officers assigned to move them back.' - please!"
One officer had reported an encounter with a woman who'd hit him "across the body and the arms with a sign that was attached to a one-foot by a two-foot board."
"Where's your evidence?" shouted someone. People seated in the floor below and the balcony around me were shouting questions and demands. Some were again chanting "Liar!" - "Liar!" - "Liar!"
"Please!" said Council Member Reid. As chair of this hearing, Larry Reid was in the difficult situation of presiding over a roomful of angry people who wanted straightforward answers. We felt cheated out of an important part of the hearing - at the very least, we'd expected to hear actual testimony from police officers who had been at the scene. These anonymous "reports" could've been written by anyone. And the chief wasn't presenting any evidence to back his accusations. No photos. No videos. Nothing. (Click here for the entire text of Chief Word's statement.)
Mayor Jerry Brown and City Manager Robert Bobb, as well as port officials and representatives of the shipping companies, should also have been here to give their stories, but of course they hadn't come.
We'd had to wait all these weeks for this hearing just to give Chief Word the time to prepare his testimony. It was both a matter of fairness to hear what he had to say, and also an obligation on his part to tell us his version of things. Instead, he'd done no preparation and was simply repeating the old rock-throwing stories which from the beginning had been fairly well discredited.
Why had he even bothered to waste our time with such? It was said by people who knew Richard Word, that he was an extremely likeable person, but not really qualified to be chief. He had no real standing of his own, and owed his position entirely to Mayor Brown. Presumably, if Chief Word wanted to keep his job, he had little choice but to come forth, stand tall in front of us and lie for the mayor.
The chief concluded his presentation, and, as he withdrew, we at this point hardly even bothered to boo him any more.
"Thank you Chief Word," said the chair. "Now we're going to start the third hour. Certainly this public hearing is a way for those of us on the council to be informed by hearing both sides of the issue."
Did Council Member Larry Reid honestly think he'd heard anything of value from the chief? Probably not, and he'd even as much as told us that from the very beginning when he'd read us the ground rules from the city attorney which clearly said no fact finding.
The third hour of testimony began with Judy Goff of the Central Labor Council of Alameda County. She'd spoken at all of the forums and rallies relating to the April 7th event.
"Oakland has distinguished itself as the only city in the United States that has used these sorts of weapons, these non-lethal weapons, against picketers from the community and dockworkers," she said, and went on to ask, "Why did the police meet with shippers and port representatives and not with representatives of the workers at the port the week prior to the demonstration? Why did police arrive in full riot gear, with gas masks and with their weapons ready?
"What precipitated the general strike in 1946 which lasted three days was that the police escorted scabs across a retail clerks' picket line at Khan's and Hastings, right here in Oakland. And when that happened, the entire city went on strike with support from the surrounding East Bay community and San Francisco. What came out of that was the historical agreement by the police that they would be impartial when there are picket lines. Now that related specifically to labor disputes, but it ought to relate to First Amendment rights.
"What the Labor Council looks at is that if this erosion of impartiality has come to this point now, what will it be when there is a labor dispute and a strike someplace?"
She concluded by asking for "an open and free investigation and that all sides are listened to. And that you come to some conclusions, and that the recommendations are not simply sent to the city manager or covered up in any way. This cannot be an internal review. The results need to be public and reforms need to be made."
At each of the forums and gatherings and meetings, the various labor leaders had repeatedly, one after another, referred to the strikes of 1934 and 1946. Listeners, myself included, were getting an introduction to Bay Area labor history.
The next speaker was also a person who'd spoken at several forums and rallies, including the huge antiwar rallies of January and February in San Francisco. Clarence Thomas was a member of the executive boards of both ILWU Local 10 and the Central Labor Council of Alameda County. He was also chair of the ILWU Antiwar Action Committee.
Clarence Thomas suggested a connection between the events of April 7th and the waterfront lockout of the previous year, when Homeland Security had backed the shippers.
"Stevedoring Services of America was one of the most obstinate during our contract negotiations and they played a very key role in this, and, as everyone here knows, that company has been awarded a contract at Umm Qasr, Iraq. So we see a definite relationship between foreign policy and the war on workers and the attacks on our civil liberties here at home. There is a direct relationship."
"We are concerned about Homeland Security having a role in this, and there has to be some reason as to why the ILWU was not invited to that meeting that took place on April the fourth. It's very strange because normally in such occasions, our union is notified. Now we were contacted, but we were not invited to the meeting. So this investigation most certainly has to delve into that meeting. Who was there? And what was the agenda?"
Bobbie Stein of the National Lawyers Guild briefly reviewed the situation and said,
"The shocking testimony of those who were shot and indeed terrorized by the police that day along with the news footage and still photos of the day leave little doubt that the decision to use weapons was made long in advance of the actual demonstration. This was not a situation where police were forced to resort to an aggressive means in response to an angry or unruly crowd - not withstanding Chief Word's excerpts from police reports that we heard a few minutes ago.
"By all accounts this was a peaceful demonstration that was met with excessive force in an obvious attempt to quell dissent and put an end to political action. This was a premeditated, preemptive plan to violate people's First Amendment rights, to deter people from people from expressing their views on April seventh at the port, and to chill political protest in Oakland in the future."
She was followed by Mark Schlosberg of the ACLU who spoke on the need to recommit to the Citizens Police Review Board (CPRB). "The board is woefully understaffed, underfunded, and disempowered," Schlosberg told the Council. "It needs to be invigorated so that when incidents like this come up there is not a question about how the independent investigation is going to happen."
There were also two commissioners of the CPRB who spoke to the Council. One of these was Susan Raffanti.
"If there is an investigation, we are the body to do it," she said. "We are the board that is appointed for the specific purpose of reviewing police action in the community."
However, the board was trying to deal with a crisis of its own. The commissioner explained the problem.
"We have one investigator. The city ordinance provides that we should have between seven and eight. I think the problem is the mayor, because he's the only one who can who can appoint people to sit on this board.
"I think that's one of the reasons we're here. I think that's known to everyone, that there has been no effective citizen review [of the police].
"This incident at the port got a lot publicity, a lot of visibility, but unless it's treated seriously on a long term basis -"
Another board member, Roland Walker, also spoke. They both told the council that the CPRB needed funding and personnel, and should have a role in the investigation of the April 7th event. These board members got enthusiastic applause. They impressed me as dedicated but frustrated officials whose mission had been sabotaged by Mayor Jerry Brown - the same Mayor Jerry Brown whom we'd specifically named as one of those suspected of giving orders for the April 7th shootings. (Click here for the minutes of CPRB meetings of 4-24 & 5-8.)
"Are you listening?" said Gwen Hardy. Gwen was a grandmother who'd spoken at the community forum the evening before and she was wearing a shirt with "PUEBLO" printed on it. She spoke about the police brutality, both that which had been going on year after year in her community, and also that of April 7th. "We're here today to support the protesters and the workers in their demand for an independent investigation," she said. Her group, PUEBLO, had been campaigning for years to have an effective, fully staffed police review board that would be permanently in place to deal with these problems.
"Nobody's been listening! You've been hearing," Gwen admonished the Council. "When I was growing up, my grandparents told me there is a difference between hearing and listening. See when you listen, you hear and understand what is being said to you."
Another member of PUEBLO, an African American teenager took the stand.
"Hi, my name is Samantha and I go to Oakland high school and I'm 17 years old. And I want to ask the people in this room, the people who sit on this panel, and Police Chief Richard Word. How many people have to be victimized and ruined and, you know, killed, before something gets done about it?
Samantha told about the death of a friend, apparently a classmate. "When Jamam Owacko was beat black and blue, nothing happened, no justice was done for him. His brutal death. Those pictures of his face and his body, black and blue, are stuck in my head," as Samantha said this, she broke down into tears.
"We support the demands, the ones you've already heard here, and we demand justice for Jamam Owacko and the protesters and for all victims of Oakland police violence. An injury to one is an injury to all and we will not tolerate it."
Jim Chanin is a trial lawyer whose name was often in the Tribune, most recently during civil litigation over the "Riders" - four rogue cops whose lawlessness had exceeded the bounds considered acceptable by the Oakland Police Department. Their criminal trial was still going on at this time. Chanin had had successfully represented victims of the Riders in a civil suit and it had cost the city $10 million. Now it now seemed very likely that he'd soon be representing some of the people here today. This is what he told the City Council:
"You talked about not having the officers testify because of city liability. Well, the time to think about city liability is before you commit - "
His words were briefly drowned out by enthusiastic applause.
"I have been a citizen of Oakland for twenty three years," he said, and briefly mentioned some projects the city was closing due to lack of funds. "… And one of the reasons is because this city spends more money on police payouts in liability cases proportionately than any other city with which I am familiar.
"And you are the only people who can stop it. You can talk about having your city attorney defend you. … You can have closed meetings with the police chief who will assure you that everything is right. But when you see what's being paid out, you know it's not right.
"One time, please, have the political will to do something about it. Because you may make fun of lawyers and other people who collect money, and think that these people are in it for the money or whatever. But I can assure you as an attorney for twenty five years, the African American women that I represented who lost their husbands to police gunfire did not want your money. These demonstrators do not want your money. They want the right to exercise their legitimate First Amendment rights!
"And it's up to you to protect them."
By now, time was running short, since the hearing was scheduled to end at 6 p.m. Ninety eight people had signed up to speak, and most of them still hadn't spoken. The chair now instituted a time limit, allowing each of the remaining speakers only a minute or so.
Among those who followed was Lee Copenhagen, a person from the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, who spoke on reconciliation. His message was one of doing the hard work required to sort things out - he conceded that it wouldn't be easy and probably wouldn't happen, but he wanted to express his hope.
Several different groups and organizations were represented among the next speakers. There were both officials and rank-and-file members of several unions, including the Building Construction Trades Union and also the University Workers Local 3, fifteen of whose members had been in the port. There was a Native American member of AIM who'd been shot in the leg that day. A member of the Green Party also spoke.
One of the very last to speak was the woman who'd introduced the speakers at the community forum the evening before. "I guess it's now good evening," she began. "My name is Rebecca Kaplan.
"You know I heard the police chief and the mayor saying, 'We can't answer any questions because we might be sued.' Well, I think there's a lot more to fear if the City Council doesn't say anything. The chief of police has already admitted in the media that force was used intentionally, premeditatedly for the purpose of preventing political speech. No lawyer could dream of a better case than being handed that quote!
"In order to insure that the city of Oakland does not get bankrupted financially - which is a goal I share as an Oakland resident - you, the City Council, must condemn that action. You must say it is not city policy to use force to chill speech.
"You must say it is not city policy to use potentially lethal force. That means there actually have to be consequences for the people who did, so that you make it clear.
"There must be a genuinely independent investigation in the spirit of genuine discovery and mutual interest because the people who were injured and the members City Council share a goal of wanting a city that works, of wanting a police department that is respectful."
Every one of these people had something to say, something worth hearing. But eighty speakers had not yet gotten their turn by the time the hearing ended at 6 p.m. It had been going on for nearly three hours, nonstop. Many wanted to continue the hearing so that more testimony could be presented. The Council said it this forum would have to end at six, but considered continuing the testimony on another day.
As the hearing came to a close, Council Member Jane Brunner said,
"I want to just go on record as saying that I'm really disappointed that the police chief was told by the city attorney's office to not give us a through explanation of what the thinking was behind the police department.
"I'm also an attorney and so I understand the concern about litigation and I know there's some people in the audience that are going to sue the city and I know we need to protect the funding. But being an attorney and being on the council, I think it's more important at this moment that we deal with policy.
"Unless we understand what happened, we cannot fix it. So I think I really want to encourage our city attorney's office to release the police chief to be able to talk, and tell us what really happened. I think it would've helped all of you.
"I think the approach we're going to have to take now is an independent investigation."
Towards the end of the hearing, leaflets were distributed, bearing an announcement from Direct Action:
Nonviolent community picket for peace & justice at the Oakland docks - May 12th at 5 p.m.
So now at last we knew the day and the hour. But would a substantial number show up for our return to the port? There'd be good reason not to show up - the police might attack again.