Bank window broken, Occupy Oakland apologizes

|
(51)

Steven T. Jones reports from the streets of Oakland:

I'm at the intersection of 20th and Webster and a large march is going by, headed toward City Hall. The protesters are passing the Chase Bank branch that was such down earlier, and the windows of the bank are shattered. This happened sometime after the protesters who had blocked the bank entrance walked away.

There are signs on the broken window -- one says "We are better than this." The other says "This is not the 99 percent, sorry -- the 99 percent."

The broken bank windows are the only expression of violence or anger I've seen. (UPDATE: Windows have now been broken at Band of America, Whole Foods, Clorox and Wells Fargo. It's a small group of black bloc protesters who are doing the vandalism.)

The entire day, there have been no police around. The Occupy Oakland people are doing traffic control on their own, diverting cars around the streets.

In the absence of police, a few people have been able to shut down the banks. It's been a real demonstration of people power.

Follow our live coverage at www.twitter.com/sfbg

Comments

broke all it's windows, that would be equally cool with you?

Cooler than, say, an election to achieve change?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:50 pm

And just how can elections achieve change when huge corporations run the elections and have bought all of the branches of government? They can't, and that the largest problem facing the US.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:39 am

your trust in a mob on the streets?

Wasn't that how Hitler came to power?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 5:33 am

Hitler came to power through elections.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 7:57 am

Hitler had never won any elections and was part of a minority party.

He was taken in as part of a coalition government with Hindenburg, in various steps laws were enacted giving more power to the state and party and then Hitler. Rioting between the right and left, the reichstag fire, and then the death of Hindenburg lead to Hitler assuming dictatorial powers through single party votes. Think of BOS meetings where the legislation at hand is already decided on no matter the public input.

Hitler's coming to power did not involve any sort of democratic process.

I don't quite get the far left and rights dogged insistence that Hitler came to power through democratic means.

Posted by guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 8:23 am

I think it's time to invoke Godwin's Law.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

attempting to effect change outside of the electoral process.

If you sanction mob rule, then what if the mob is right-wing? What then?

Would you be happy for the KKK to camp out in public space? Break windows? Throw rocks at the cops?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 1:40 pm
wow

For a guy with such intellectual pretensions you certainly can't follow things very well.

As I posted, you were wrong about Hitler.

Whatever crazy assed inferences you get out of anything else there is on you.

Posted by Matlock on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

He actually won one election
"die Reichstagsneuwahlen vom 5. März 1933 änderten die Lage: NSDAP und DNVP verfügten nunmehr über eine Mehrheit" - German Wikipedia "Kabinett Hitler" for further information.
But all that Hitler stuff is off topic anyway!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

He actually won one election
"die Reichstagsneuwahlen vom 5. März 1933 änderten die Lage: NSDAP und DNVP verfügten nunmehr über eine Mehrheit" - German Wikipedia "Kabinett Hitler" for further information.
But all that Hitler stuff is off topic anyway!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

he used mobs and terror to achieve power, which is what rampaging mobs throwing rocks and bottleds are also trying to do.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

He won one election:
"die Reichstagsneuwahlen vom 5. März 1933 änderten die Lage: NSDAP und DNVP verfügten nunmehr über eine Mehrheit": German Wikipedia - "Kabinett Hitler" for further information
Don't tell wrong cutting short of German history.
But that Hitler stuff is off topic!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal"
- Emma Goldman

"Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth."
- Lucy Parsons

Posted by vagabond on Feb. 07, 2012 @ 10:22 pm

of a bank which has thousands of them.

They didn't "shut down the banks" by any means. And stopping people from getting money from ATMs is unlawful.

Posted by guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

They were called the Tea Party and a bunch of hypocritical politicians and pundits co-opted the movement to death. Almost all of the Occupiers condemn the vandalism that occurred today and many agree that Occupy Oakland should fix damages caused by the Black Bloc protestors.

Even OPD admitted that the acts of vandalism were caused by a very small group of protestors who appeared to be separate from the Occupiers.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

I rode by the SF occupy thing the other day and it had a fluttering flag of murderer Che and a fair amount of trustifarians in PLO scarves.

Todays event had Angela Davis speak.

Perhaps the occupy movement is being taken over by the most militant and organized leftists buffoons?

I would guess that the tea party and occupy crowd agree on a lot of things, but once you bust out the admiration for killers, and the catch all leftist jabberings. no.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

A conservative troll that will say anything to score a cheap imaginary argument point, or upset the "progressobots".

You still don't get it do you?
It's not a football game, douchebag.

How did you ascertain that they were "trustifarians" as you rode by?
Can you tell if someone has a trust fund just by looking?

I can tell from your incessant heated whining that you've got no balls, which is why you hide behind your computer, calling people names if they try to change things.
You are also exceedingly stupid, as evidenced by your hatred.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 8:44 pm
wow

someone seems to be a little hateful and it isn't the person who made the trustifarian comment...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 9:44 pm
wow

someone seems to be a little over-hateful, and it isn't the person who made the trustifarian comment...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 9:46 pm

You are an opportunistic amoral douche.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

thanks for the thought but your making us all look weak and unable to defend ourselves.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:04 pm

thanks for the thought but your making us all look weak and unable to defend ourselves.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

eyes of a dreamer

can't get my link of waving che flag past the captche

Posted by matlock on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 12:06 am

nothing wrong with smashing some banks, people. trash them and burn them down too...

most of the people who make fun of anarchists today will be the first ones breaking down the banks' doors the day it's announced that their money is no longer available (see: argentina) and they realize the foolish choices they made were.. wrong.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:07 pm

one employed to associate with suspected persons and by pretending sympathy with their aims to incite them to some incriminating action

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:19 pm

has his tin foil hat on too tight this evening.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:56 pm

Why are you trying to put lipstick on this pig? It is what it is...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

Are the bankers and Wall Street exec taking people's homes and destroying the country.

And the only pigs out there are... well... the pigs.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 7:44 am

Thugs and anarchists- the movement did have some potential but lacked a coherent message and controlling forces.

Don't recall anyone having to tear gas the tea party. We do have elections which tend to bring about change more than setting a dumpster on fire...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 9:02 am

The Tea Party was agitating for the 1% to screw them even more. Why tear gas that? The 1% probably thought it was very entertaining.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

The causation correlation thing must escape you at every level.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

to use tear gas? That's a stretch even by your own ridiculous standards.

The Tea Party, despite being 100 times bigger than Occupy, has never broken a window, throw a rock, started a fire or broken into a building.

Which is all part of why they've been far more effective, literally helping the GOP take over the House a year ago, while even in SF, the progressive Supe picks were all defeated.

Why can't you learn the simple elssons of how to develop a popular and powerful grassroots movement? Why always resort to violence and crime?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

Go Republicans!
YEAH!!
WOOHOO! We RULE!

It's not about Republicans versus Democrats, and the only people left who think so are either on the payroll, or hopelessly deluded assholes.
You might be both.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

then Tea Party are angry about the bailouts too.

But the Tea Party don't break into buildings, start fires, break windows and throw rocks at the cops.

Which is why they've been so effective.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

They really stopped those bailouts, didn't they?

Posted by Greg on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

What are Republicans, besides just an alternative way to get screwed by the same corporations and mega-rich who give the orders to both parties?

Posted by Charlie on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:39 pm

I'm sure you can still find it.

Of course, you'll say they're all part of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

In fact, I think they were right to do so, having been given little chocie once the protesters broke into buildings and started lighting fires.

However, no Wall St. banker told them to do that. A left-wing Mayor did.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

No one, except you, said Wall St. bankers told cops to tear gas.

If you are entertained by having stupid little arguments with yourself, go right ahead.
It's amusing in a pathetic sort of way.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 5:21 pm

Thugs destroying property should be SHOT by the police!

Property owners have the 2nd Amendment to SHOOT anyone damaging their property and should have done so.

I wonder, if this had happened during a TEA Party rally and they TEA Party said it wasn't them would the liberal medial even report that part of the story?? NO, THEY WOULD NOT! They would paint all TEA Party people as being part of the attack.

THIS IS WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS FOR..TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND OUR PROPERTY.

Posted by Guest in Tennessee on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 1:15 am

We don't give people the death penalty without a trial for property damage.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 9:18 am

After all, if corporations are people, then we should be able to execute them.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

We're a bit more civilized than that here in Cali, Mr. Scary Gun Nut. Remind me to avoid Tennessee.

Posted by steven on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 12:11 pm

As much as you wish that wasn't so.

And seeing the property damage and violence in Oakland, people will feel more like needing firearms to protect them from marauding hordes and mobs.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 12:17 pm

An open letter to the "Black Bloc" brigades posted on Occupy Oakland's website captures the sentiments of the Occupy Movement:
http://www.occupyoakland.org/2011/11/an-open-letter-to-the-black-bloc-br...

The only disagreement seems to be how to deal with these unwanted infiltrators. Most call for "outing" the anarchists through such means as removing their masks and chanting against them when they are breaking windows. Only a very few go so far as to suggest the occupiers should try to turn the Black Bloc vandals over to the police.

Posted by Thomas Brown on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:03 pm

supposedly peaceful Occupiers from the alleged Infiltrators is that the line is very faint and thin. The Occupiers themselevs have broken the law by squatting on public property and by closing down legitimate businesses.

It's not much of a stretch to see how many of them might want to go further as they see the Banks are not responding to such tactics.

The only way the Occupiers can regain credibility and sympathy here is to totally renounce ALL law-breaking, and to obey the authorities when they issues imperatives.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

"The only way the Occupiers can regain credibility and sympathy here is to totally renounce ALL law-breaking, and to obey the authorities when they issues imperatives."

Just stay home, shut up, and vote every four years -that's the extent of citizen participation in your conception of democracy. Why don't you just come out and say what you really think?

Be honest, they never had your sympathies to begin with, so there's nothing to "regain."

Posted by Greg on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

You are way off on this one. There is video of the Black Box vandals breaking windows in Oakland last night. About 5 of them, all dressed in Black, totally covering their faces and some carrying black flags. Some of the Occupiers tried to stop them. They are, in fact, very easy to differentiate.

Posted by Thomas Brown on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

you can't just claim that as soon as an indivdual protestor does something illegal then they are suddenly, ipso facto, not a "true" protestor but rather an "infiltrator".

As you say, the occupation is itself illegal, and that gives permission to those particpating to commit other crimes. The first crime is always the hardest to do, and after that it gets easier and mroe frequent.

So the movement has to declare a zero tolerance approach to breaking the law and express 100% support for the cops arresting those who do break the law. Once you abandon the rule of law yourself, you lose all credibility in seeking to apply it to others.

So what's it to be Thomas? 100% legal with no exceptions? Or an "anything goes" mentality that will attract miscreants, vandals and petty criminals?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

and that gives permission to those particpating to commit other crimes.
The first crime is always the hardest to do, and after that it gets easier and more frequent.

Once you abandon the rule of law yourself, you lose all credibility in seeking to apply it to others.

So what's it to be Guest? 100% legal with no exceptions? Or an "anything goes" mentality that will attract miscreants, vandals and petty criminals?

Posted by Charlie on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:44 pm