Did Occupy Oakland Believe Their Move-In Day Would Succeed?

[MineralMan]

http://occupyoaklandmoveinday.org/

Occupy Oakland publicized their intent to move into a vacant building in advance of their action this weekend. Did they actually believe that the city would allow them to enter and take occupancy in the vacant Convention Center? That seems like a valid question to ask, I think. Clearly, it was an open challenge to the city and the city did respond by sending police to the gathering place in the organization's flyer. I'm sure the city's intent was to prevent any such thing from happening.

It seems to me that Occupy Oakland must have known that they would be prevented from moving into any vacant building, never mind the Convention Center, which was surrounded by construction fences. I don't know what work was going on to that Center, but clearly no city is going to allow people to enter and take possession of such a place.

If Occupy Oakland did understand that the City of Oakland would try to keep them from occupying that building, then the entire goal of the protest action was one of civil disobedience. But, was that conveyed to the people who showed up for the event? Did the attendees know that Occupy Oakland had actually notified the Mayor, Police Chief, and City Council of their intent?

The result was what you'd expect. Police were told that no entry would be allowed, leading to police action that included, as usual, excessive force used. People brought children to the event, so it seems that some, at least, were not expecting a violent confrontation.

I don't believe that Occupy Oakland had any belief that they would actually be able to move into the Convention Center. It just doesn't make sense. I think they had something else planned for that day, and that was exactly what happened. Look at the web site, and scroll down to see the sequence of this. While they have an absolute right to attempt any act of civil disobedience they can conceive of, I think this event may have been promoted in a way that left some people unaware of what might occur during the attempt. If so, that's a serious error on the part of the organizers.

[randome]

1. They expected to hold a weekend 'festival' to celebrate!

What a kerfuffle.

(And did we really need ANOTHER thread on this?)

[MineralMan]

2. I don't know if we needed another thread, but here mine is.

It looks at what happened from a different perspective. I don't think that should be a problem for DU's capabilities.

They had a weekend "festival" scheduled, but was it just naivety that led them to publish that schedule? I cannot imagine any large city in the US allowing a crowd to simply take over and move into a building like that. It just doesn't make any sense to plan for events that would occur after they had successfully occupied it. That was never going to happen.

I ask because I used to be involved in planning major demonstrations in the DC area, back during the anti-war movement. Discussions of what would actually occur went on at length, and everyone knew what to expect. People who came to these protests without knowing what to expect got informed by protest marshals or fliers, and people were advised to stay away from areas where arrests were likely, unless they understood that they might be arrested.

[Yo_Mama]

49. I think you are asking good questions.

Because I agree, what went on seemed confused and either incredibly amateurish or deliberately confusing.

The reason why I think this is important is that I think the OWS movement is important.

I have seen people claiming that the activity was the work of police planted to make OWS look bad, but that is clearly dishonest. The stated intent of the action was to occupy a building. This does not fit at all with the image of the General Assemblies, etc, that OWS movements have built around the country.

[MineralMan]

53. Thanks for that!

[Luminous Animal]

3. From OO Move In Day FAQ...

2. What should we bring?

As publicized, we will march to the building and occupy it together. Naturally there is a significant likelihood that the police will try to prevent us from reclaiming unused property and putting it to better use. Therefore, as goes with all Occupy Oakland direct actions, it's a good idea to come prepared. Please refer to the "Tear Gas and Pepper Spray 101" pamphlet prepared by Occupy Oakland Medics for ways to prepare yourself for the march and occupation. Bring enough of any prescription medication (3 days worth) in case of arrest.

http://occupyoaklandmoveinday.org/content/move-day-frequently-asked-questions

[Rex]

4. I read in another thread that protestors were

throwing firecrackers at the cops. I wonder if someone else can verify that. IF true, then what a horrible idea and what about the 'flag burners'? Whatever happened to them? Surely the cops arrested them for civil disobedience.

[MineralMan]

7. One of the reports on the protest said that

firecrackers and "small projectiles" were thrown at the police, who responded with their own, far more effective stuff. All non-lethal, but dangerous, nevertheless. I imagine there were some who actually wanted to provoke a violent response from the police. There always were when I was involved with large protests. Keeping those people from acting was always a challenge for organizers. I imagine it still is.

A few firecrackers and rocks, and similar items can trigger a violent response from police, just about anytime. For some, that is the desired result. Sometimes, it's infiltrators from the other side. Other times, it's hot-headed folks on your own side, more or less. There is always a fringe of hotheads.

[Rex]

14. I hope they catch the people trying to incite violence.

There are people out there, that hate OWS and are just waiting for it to turn violent so they can run to the M$M and say, "SEE! These people are violent and out of control'. And it will work too, if hotheads prevail over cooler ones.

[randome]

19. Of course it will work.

That's why OWS -if it has any 'true' inner core- should apologize for the damage and offer to help with repairs.

[mike_c]

21. the people "trying to incite violence" are overwhelmingly police officers....

Come on, what little violence and vandalism that has resulted thus far on the Occupy side has been in response to overwhelming state violence perpetrated by the police, who are thugs for the one percent. But as that violence continues, and escalates, the people's response will likely escalate too, out of frustration and anger if nothing else. One thing that strikes me about the Occupy Oakland story in particular is that protesters are beginning to organize self defense against the cops. They're not effective yet, and might never be, but they're beginning to recognize that one tentacle of the one percent as their enemy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. The thugs are the ones who started with the violence from the begining of ows. The protesters

set out to be and remain peaceful.

It's the thugs who brought brutality into the mix.

Those who refuse to acknowledge that fact ....well...I wonder why?

[randome]

34. If you were in charge of the police in Oakland...

...and your goal was to stop a large group of people from entering a building, how would you do that? Ask them nicely?

I am NOT AT ALL saying that police brutality is the correct response but when the numbers of people in a combative encounter are such that property is being destroyed and your job is to protect that property, how would you go about it?

Keeping in mind that you cannot control each and every member on 'your' side and that some people on the 'other' side are throwing firecrackers and bottles at you.

[morningfog]

45. A big difference is that "one side" is made up of govenment employees.

They can be controlled. Trained, fired, sanctioned, sued, etc.

[snooper2]

69. Are you going to answer the question in post 34?

[MineralMan]

31. That may be true in some cases, but there are also plenty of

people who are happy to provoke authorities within the group, too. They are always there whenever actions like this are planned. Self defense against the cops? That's a tough nut, without arming yourself with equivalent tools available to the police. And where does that end, logically. When will the first gunshot be fired, do you think, and what will be the result of that if it comes from the crowd?

[mike_c]

37. summer of 2012....

It's beginning to feel like 1967-68 around here. Maybe we should start a pool?

[brooklynite]

43. "what little violence and vandalism"

Sorry, once you say that, you've lost the argument.

You've made a subjective judgement about the level of violence/vandalism which others are likely not to agree with, AND you've framed an argument that violence is acceptable as long as someone else was worse.

[mike_c]

59. I'm not going to pretend that some Occupiers don't get violent occasionally....

Every movement, however non-violent, ultimately discharges a little steam once the heat is turned up, as it has been on OWS and particularly on Occupy Oakland.

I do not concede that recognizing that is "losing the argument." It's simply the truth of the matter.

It's also true that police in most cities have used violence as a routine tool against OWS, not just occasionally, not as an aberration, but consistently and deliberately. The overwhelming majority of violence during OWS demonstrations is perpetrated by police, incited by police, and-- one can only assume-- enjoyed by police.

[WingDinger]

5. Publicizing it, is protection.

Plenty of media warning. Plenty of time to allow mass overkill by fascist depts. Giving the heads up makes the event eventful. Social outrage is our business plan. Getting slammed, is our modus operandi. I wonder when they will figure that out. It puts us on terms, that force their hand further than raids of support equip, and facilities. Making for better social outrage upon viewing it.

That is why they are arresting lawyer observers.

[MineralMan]

9. So, you feel that provocation that leads to police violence is

a good strategy? Really? Is that the consensus of Occupy leaders, such as they are? Is everyone who shows up aware of that plan?

[WingDinger]

13. It has always been thus.

Ghandi got his ass beat. MLK too. So did all the other muckrakers. It is the witness of violence visited upon the plainly innocent, that sways public opinion. And public opinion change, is the only way to win.

[nobodyspecial]

60. Do NOT dishonor the work of Ghandi and King by comparing

this OWS action to it.

They -- and made sure their followers -- did not provoke law enforcement by getting in their faces and taunt them. They silently held their places, were respectful, courageous and dignified. They did not throw things at police. They did not vandalize. They did not fight back. They did not steal.

I did watch the videos from Oakland and there is no comparison. And as much as people here disagree, this is what will be the downfall of OWS. It's not that people don't want to be on your side. OWS makes it hard for people to be on their side. Believe it or not, most people value safety and security and law and order. Those scenes scare the hell out of them -- and they aren't scared . Argue theories and philosophies all you want, but people make decisions with their gut.

Ghandi and King succeeded because they ensured actions -- at least on their sides' parts -- were peaceful and nonviolent. When cops did move in with clubs and hoses and dogs on peaceful crowds, it was obvious who was being victimized. Those photos and coverage is what solidified support. When you see people dressed in homemade riot gear taunting cops or people with masks burning flags, it is no longer clear who is innocent.

I protested the Iraq invasion numerous times and even went to D.C. I haven't participated in OWS because I don't like the tactics I've seen and I don't feel like fighting for my "right" to live in a park.

[Common Sense Party]

64. +1,000,000

Excellent comment. I agree 100%.

[nobodyspecial]

67. Thank you for the support

I feel in the minority here sometimes. And I'm so sick of other people saying I support police brutality or am a tool of the 1%.

[morningfog]

46. As long as they are continually getting publicity and comments/reactions from official,

yes. It can be considered a good strategy.

When there are no stories on Occupy actions for months, then we can say they are employing a failed strategy. So far, they are staying alive and relevant.

[randome]

11. You mean they are arresting anyone with a big, red 'L' on their forehead?

[WingDinger]

17. Ya know, that aint a half bad idea. All the Occupy protestors wear a shirt plainly labeled, LIBERAL

MINDED. TAxpayer, citizen, mother of four etc.

[pintobean]

6. The Convention Center,

City Hall and the YMCA. Yeah, those are targets aimed at the 1%.

[Capitalocracy]

8. After economic crises leave them without management...

people have successfully taken over similar spaces (factories, in many cases) and gotten them operating, even earning a decent living for all the people involved, in many nations around the world. While resistance was certainly not a surprise, people taking over abandoned spaces and making use of them is also nothing new.

And then come the legal battles as the former owners who abandoned the space, in these international cases, oftentimes after failing to pay wages to their workers for extended periods of time, suddenly want to get their hands on the profit the workers have produced by working together and putting the former management to shame.

Also, a common way of dealing with the occupation of abandoned space is to deal with it in the court system, attempt to get them out peacefully, and removing them by force only as a last resort and with minimal necessary force. These guys are practically Pinkertons.

[randome]

10. I read on another thread that the building was closed for safety reasons.

Admittedly, that's hearsay but anyone have anything on that?

[MineralMan]

12. I did some research. The Convention Center was closed

in 2006. It's been vacant since. Apparently, the cost of renovating it and bringing heating and other systems up to code would cost around $6 Million. Last spring, there was a plan for the city to buy the building with redevelopment funds, but I'm not certain whether that actually happened or not. In any event, the building would not be allowed to be used for anything in its present state. I don't know if it's actually unsafe, or just not suitable for use as a convention center.

It's been replaced by a modern convention center in Oakland, so it really wasn't needed for that purpose. I don't know what the city's plans were for it.

[randome]

16. Thanks for looking that up.

If the building was at all habitable, did OWS even talk to the Oakland authorities about occupying it before trying to declare it theirs?

[Rex]

26. This is starting to look like a test of wills between the populace

and the local govt...and the local govt won.

[MineralMan]

32. Yes, but it's a test of wills between a small segment of the populace

and the local government. It will take a much larger segment of the populace than has so far appeared to win that test of wills. I haven't seen that larger segment respond in solidarity, to be frank.

[Rex]

48. I don't think any size populace can win the test of wills

against law enforcement agents.

[MineralMan]

56. Oh, yes they can.

However, those numbers have not appeared yet. The police are not undefeatable, but at this point the numbers are far too small.

[Rex]

61. I seriously doubt those kind of numbers will

show up to make any difference. Not for OWS.

[XemaSab]

62. I thought there were seismic issues too

[MineralMan]

66. That could certainly be true.

I didn't spend a lot of time looking into it.

[MineralMan]

15. I don't think there was any real possibility that Occupy Oakland

would have ever been allowed to take possession of that building. And I'm equally convinced that the leadership of OO, whatever it may be, knew that well in advance. Their notification of the city, police, and city council in advance seems to indicate that they also knew that they would be turned away from their goal. We are not at the point yet where attempts to take large buildings, as you mention has happened, are going to succeed very often. Cities have enough law enforcement capabilities to prevent an unarmed group from doing so pretty easily.

Society has not broken down to that point at this time.

[Capitalocracy]

18. I'd say they failed to take over the building because our society HAS broken down

to the point where any civil disobedience or alternative political action is met with extreme force right off the bat.

In the places where they've taken over buildings, it's not for a lack of police. If the police want them out and they're willing to use force, they're out.

[MineralMan]

33. The force being used by the police is far from as extreme as the police

are capable of. So far, only moderate force has been used, in comparison to the force available. I hope that doesn't change soon. It could, and very quickly, too.

[Capitalocracy]

36. Yes, they could've used M-16s, but that doesn't make what they've been doing acceptable.

Or justified, or constitutionally legal.

I may be old-fashioned, but I think public safety is on a higher level of significance than stopping civil disobedience. There's no immediate need to stop a peaceful protest that justifies violence. Albeit less-lethal, a physical response to the kind of civil disobedience that if it's deemed necessary to punish, should be punished through the court system, is immediate, lawless corporal punishment with no due process, and on its own represents a breakdown of our society and our democracy.

[MineralMan]

40. When you use terms like "extreme violence,"

you diminish the impact of what you are saying. "Extreme violence" is something completely different than what is being used right now. What will you call the next stage, should that happen? Clarity is important.

[Capitalocracy]

41. What would you call this?

I don't think anyone with a broken skull or tear gas in their throats would disagree with the terminology.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Did the Yippees believe their levitation of the Pentagon would succeed?

Oakland is in hot water for their police department, and last week, a judge told them they are facing a federal takeover. So.....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/25/state/n142121S65.DTL

[MineralMan]

23. Of course they didn't. Oakland's police department

is under Federal evaluation, but that doesn't mean that they're not going to try to prevent an event like taking over a convention center. The OPD is still functioning as a police department, because Oakland requires a police department. Now, it may be that the judge in charge of that evaluation may decide that further intervention is required. If that happens, then that happens, but it hasn't happened yet.

In any case, that's not the subject I'm raising in this thread, which is what the actual expectations of whatever leadership OO has in place were. If they truly believed they'd succeed in occupying that building, they were naive. If they understood that they would not be able to occupy it, then they were deceptive in their promotion of the attempt. That's my question, and it's still a valid one. People were arrested, and some injured during the action. An investigation on all sides seems warranted.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. And they did not get the Pentagon off the ground. It was not the point to do so.

An attempt to occupy. Raise the Pentagon. If your opponent gets called on the carpet as the OPD did last week, it is good to make a point of their ongoing issues, to allow the OPD a platform to show the judge and the federal authorities how they do things. I think they did that.
The OPD is pepper spraying itself into a nasty corner.

[gratuitous]

22. I suppose there's no sense trying to do anything unless there's a 100% chance of unqualified success

And, since the unpredictable reaction of the local constabulary can in no way be guaranteed, nothing should ever be attempted to change the status quo.

Waitasecond . . .

[randome]

24. The odds were much in favor of the attempted takeover as ending the way it did.

Risks are necessary but calculated risks are better. It doesn't appear that anyone did any calculations of the outcome.

[pintobean]

27. Or, maybe they did

and got exactly what they wanted.

[JSnuffy]

52. This is the answer...

OWS was fading fast...

An event was created to gain the attention that was lost. Everything that happened was exactly what the event organizer wanted.

Attention, attention, attention.

[MineralMan]

28. That's how I see it, too.

However, I also think there were plenty of folks involved who did calculate the outcome and pretty much knew what the results would be. The deliberate advance notification of the Mayor, PD, and City Council of their intent to occupy a large vacant building gave the city time to prepare a response. The outcome was very predictable.

[MineralMan]

25. No, I'm not saying that at all. If that were true, few of the large protests I

was involved with would every have taken place. But, a realistic assessment of goals is also very important. In fact, the reaction of the authorities in this case wasn't unpredictable at all. They reacted exactly as any rational person would expect them to react. They were told to prevent the occupation of that building, and they did that. Since the city was aware that an occupation was in the works, there was plenty of time for the police to prepare, and they did.

What happened was eminently predictable -- indeed almost certain.

[WingDinger]

44. Here is everything you need to know.

[Nevernose]

50. Of course it was predictable

Violence is and always will be the 1%'s primary solution to most problems.

[LanternWaste]

29. I imagine if you contacted them for a response

I imagine if we contacted them for a response, we'd receive more than merely the inferences and guesses we are all currently making in many, many different directions.

Or, we may simply continue asking rhetorical questions which better serve to illustrate our own biases rather than the agendas of the objects of our queries.

[MineralMan]

35. I don't even know who you'd contact, and that wasn't my intent.

I'm discussing what happened based on the information available. If more information becomes available, the discussion will change. It's not a rhetorical question at all. It's a perfectly valid one, and is based on my own experience.

[Union Scribe]

38. Damn citizens, forcing the police to be violent.

We get the idea, it's been posted enough. OWS bad. Establishment Dems only way to go.

[renie408]

51. Isn't this EXACTLY what the right does that drives us crazy? Or is it OK to be an apologist as long

as the people you are apologizing for are on your side? Do you really think that every single person involved in the OWS movement all across this country is on the side of the angels?? This was a screw up and pretending that there is no way that ANYONE from OWS could have ANY responsibility at all is just ridiculous.

[T S Justly]

42. Got a lot of people, though, didn't it? (nt)

[WingDinger]

47. Heres more of those naive people, doing it wrong.

&feature=related

&feature=related

&feature=related

&feature=related

I have already been called the American Terrorist by cops. They told they could throw me into Guantanamo. For standing up for the safety of my fellow man. They said that after the patriot act, they can.

Either stand up now, or wait till they mow us down in droves.

[MineralMan]

55. If you're going to call in Gandhi, you're missing a whole

lot of other actions over the years.

[Taverner]

54. It was meant to fail this time

But now it's just a matter of time

[MineralMan]

57. I see. Or I will see, if it actually happens.

November is a better idea.

[Taverner]

58. Right now the news will spread

Several attempts will be made, but word spreads now, and eventually they take the Kaiser Center.

[donheld]

63. What really happened

[joshcryer]

65. It passed their General Assembly, so a majority of them must have thought it would work.

I think it's a mixture of wild eyed optimism and ignorance, imo. I think they thought if they had enough mass numbers they'd achieve victory, I mean, what cops are going to rest 400-500 people? They were wrong.

It was, in my opinion, a strategic failure, but not because they were stupid, they just didn't consider the results of their actions. A better route would've been to do it covertly, over a short period of time, and without a big fuss about it.

The Move-In Day March was pure strategic failing. The building should've been secured long beforehand and its location should've been kept secret. It should've been a dozen or two people at most, at which point the occupiers could've been called to join.

[mulsh]

70. Actual Oakland residence here.

Occupy did not try to take over the Convention Center. that's 2 Blocks from City Hall and connected to the Marriot Hotel. Occupy tried to take over the Henry Kaiser Auditorium. a mostly abandoned venue at Lake Merritt and currently the staging area for major construction of the Lake Merrit dam.

Elvis played there in the 50's, the Dead held a couple of New Years shows there after Winterland closed. There used to be a Gospel Music convention there ever year until it moved up to the Paramount Theater.
Lots of heavy equipment and trailer offices in that area right now. No residential property with in a couple of blocks. certainly not at good old HenryJ.

Taking over this building seems to me counter productive unless you're also going to steal valuable construction materials over the week end. The facility has commercial kitchens but since it has been mostly unused for the past few years its a safe bet the gas and most of the power and water have been turned off. There are plenty of empty condos downtown thanks to Jerry's efforts as mayor and the housing crash, there are also lots of empty floors in the office buildings. Plenty of low hanging fruit to occupy

As a consistent supporter and participant in Occupy Oakland I've got to say that last weekends festivities were a grand waste of effort and damaged wider support for Occupy in Oakland.

[pintobean]

71. Thanks

Good info and perspective.

[MineralMan]

72. Thanks. I knew it was the Kaiser Auditorium, but didn't

know much about that building. It was referred to by some as a convention center.

I appreciate the local information.