MAYOR BROWN SPEAKS TO THE PRESS
The TV news that evening showed policemen blasting away with their pellet guns. "Less-lethal" weapons, they were
called. 1 ½-inch-thick wooden bullets, called "dowels," were displayed. They were the kind that people had already shown me. Police had also fired small beanbags which were loaded into shotgun shells. Several of the victims, including angry, injured longshoremen as well as protesters, were interviewed on TV. Oakland Police Chief Richard Word was also on the screen, trying to explain it all. He claimed that rocks had been thrown at the police.
When asked by Channel 2 reporters about the wounds that had been inflicted, Chief Word downplayed the injuries, saying, "The intention is certainly not to harm, but to disperse. That means by stinging the skin, that is the intention." Reports that came in during the days and weeks to follow showed that those weapons did far more than just sting the skin.
Bay Area newspapers the next
morning carried front-page photos of Sri Louise, an attractive woman
with a huge lump and bruise on her left jaw. Other injured persons
whom I'd seen interviewed by reporters that day were also on TV and in
newspapers.
Oakland Police officials also expressed their views. The first thing all of them said was that police fired when protesters threw rocks and other projectiles at them. That story didn't hold up well under scrutiny, but it fit handily into a ten-second sound byte, and it's a story the police have continued to repeat.
However, some far more revealing explanations were given by Mayor Jerry Brown and police spokespersons. According to their statements, which were printed in several newspapers, the riot police were sent to the docks for the purpose of driving protesters out of the port. This was done at the request of the shipping companies, who regarded the public streets of the port as their private property. Little thought was given to either the physical safety or 1st Amendment rights of the demonstrators, dockworkers, or newsmen - all of whom had legal rights and legitimate reasons to be there.
Statements made by several officials to at least six different newspapers indicate that this was the policy and pervasive thinking of the Oakland mayor and the police department, not some off-the-cuff remark made by an individual.
Police spokeswoman Danielle Ashford told the San Francisco Chronicle (4/8/03) that police "moved in at the request of shipping company officials who wanted the protesters removed from private property. When the protesters refused verbal orders by police to disperse, Oakland police Capt. Rod Yee authorized the use of less-than-lethal force."
"They were clearly taking over the intersection and in some cases took other kinds of actions," Lt. Paul Figueroa, another Oakland police spokesperson, told the Tribune (4/9/03). "We had to take action."
Police Chief Richard Word told the Tribune (4/8/03) that his police department was determined not to allow antiwar protesters to take over the fourth-largest port in the nation. And in the Chronicle (4/8/03) he explained that if officers "had simply waited it out and facilitated protesters, there could have been thousands, not hundreds, out there, and we would have been overwhelmed."
"That's what happens when you don't get out of the way," Mayor Jerry Brown told the Montclarion (4/18/03) when asked what he thought of the injuries suffered by the protesters. The mayor told the Chronicle (4/8/03) that protesters wanted to "occupy and take over the port and shut it down. The city is not going to let that happen."
"If people try to take over the port for the sake of stating their opposition then we have a protocol we have to follow. It's unfortunate that people were hurt," Mayor Brown told the Mercury News, (4/8/03). And to the Tribune (4/10/03) he said the actions of the protesters might be considered sabotage. "They wanted to stop the shipments to the men and women at the front."
In the New York Times (4/8/03), Mayor Brown said, "It's a matter of acting prudently under all of the circumstances. What we can tell at this point, the police responded in accordance with their protocol." And he told the San Francisco Bay Guardian (4/16/03), "[Police] took the actions that they believed were appropriate, the only actions they could have, given that the number of protesters was growing."
Although today Jerry Brown was talking like someone to the right of John Ashcroft, in the past he presented himself as a progressive Democrat. Leaflets which were later distributed among us displayed photos of Jerry back in 1997, carrying a picket sign together with protesters at the docks - that was when he was running for mayor. We looked at those six-year-old photos and shook our heads, feeling a sense of betrayal; for whatever reason, Jerry Brown must've had a change of political stance. Some said that he was an adroit opportunist, out to take advantage of any promising situation, and that on this occasion he probably expected his statements to be echoed and lauded by officials at the state and federal level.
As it turned out, there was no public response from any federal official - except for Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who denounced the attack and asked the mayor for an explanation of why it had occurred.
Nevertheless, on the subject of First Amendment rights, Mayor Brown had this to say, "Oakland is second-to-none in its support of peaceful assembly and protest." Chronicle (4/8/03)
While the mayor stood behind the police, the city council took its own view of things. To begin with, Nancy Nadel, who's both a councilwoman and also the vice mayor, had sent her aide, Joel Tena, to the port that morning as an observer. That in itself was a statement of how seriously Nadel had considered the matter even before anything had happened.
When the police attempted to justify their actions by claiming rocks had been thrown at them, Joel Tena gave his account which was quoted in several newspapers. "I was there from 5 a.m. on, and the only violence that I saw was from the police," Tena told the San Jose Mercury News (4/8/03). The Oakland Tribune (4/9/03) quoted him as saying, "At no time did I see protesters act in a provocative way or throw any projectile."
Speaking to the Tribune (4/8/03) herself, Nancy Nadel described the police reaction as "entirely inappropriate." And Jane Brunner said, "We will get to the bottom of why the police acted as they did."
Council Members Jane Brunner, Nancy Nadel and Jean Quan called for an investigation. The three were joined the next day by a fourth council member, Desley Brooks. A fifth, Danny Wan, later added his voice to their number. There are eight seats on the council; two members took no public stand on the matter, and the council president, Ignacio de la Fuente, openly backed the police use of force.