# Did the Oakland police use undue force against the war protestors? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202 "2003-04-08T00:58:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/21 "2003-04-08T06:48:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by buttonjockey308 \* > Rubber bullets amuse me. Honestly. Rubber bullets…the concept is just such a dichotomy. Amusing huh? Take a few shots from one then tell me how amusing they are. BTW they used wooden bullets too. > [@](#): > > So I, as a protestor, should be able to block traffic, cause congestion in traffic that leads to individual people actually losing their ability to earn a living for their family, and not to mention forcing my views by proxy, on those who may not even have an opinion on the war? Holding up traffic is worth rubber bullets? So if your car stalls on the highway, the cops should come shooting? Or maybe what you really have an issue with is what they’re protesting, not how they’re doing it. > [@](#): > > This idealism is pure, unadulterated bullshit. If you protest, and the people that contol the streets (yes, the police control the streets, anyone who thinks otherwise is just foolish. It’s what we pay them to do) tell you to get off the street, than you do it, or face the consequences. So are there **any** limits to these consequences, or is whatever the cops decide to do automatically satisfactory to you? > [@](#): > > I realize, of course that this did not occur on the street, that doesn’t change the reality that the greater good is served equally by protecting both the company that employs a given amount of people, and the right to free speech of an individual or group, when one thing overlaps the other illegally, it is then that the police need to step in. Sure, but how they step in is important too. There is such a thing as excessive force ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/22 "2003-04-08T07:07:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hermann \* > Sure wish I could link to it. Sorry, but I think of these people more as “anarchists” than “peace protesters”. Not just because of my views, but because they admit it, BTW. I’m not sure which commentary you’re talking about, but anybody can post to those boards. Incendiary trollish stuff is posted there all the time just to get a reaction. Whether or not any of those people were the protestors is hard to determine. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/23 "2003-04-08T07:32:17Z")
Regardless of how one feels about the protestors, the police laid an egg when they injured innocent bystanders. The longshoremen were simply waiting to get into the port so they could do their jobs. The police have an obligation to avoid doing harm. Or have we extended the concept of collateral damage to cover local police operations? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/24 "2003-04-08T07:50:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > \*\*Amusing huh? Take a few shots from one then tell me how amusing they are. BTW they used wooden bullets too. > > Holding up traffic is worth rubber bullets? So if your car stalls on the highway, the cops should come shooting?.. > \*\* -Wooden pellets, not bullets. Big difference. One give you a bruise, the other, a nasty, festering, and often fatal wound. -A stalled car is an accident. Intentionally blocking public roads is assinine, and hopefully, criminal. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/25 "2003-04-08T08:01:51Z")
Errata, to tell you the truth, I’ve been hit with beanbag rounds, rubber projectiles (round and elongated) wooden slugs, paintballs, and all manner of personal control chemicals in my trainings over the years, and yeah, they hurt like hell. Point is though, no one got killed and the job got done. There are tactical considerations that face officers on the street dealing with this kind of activity, and number one, above all is the safety of the officers. One officer gets hurt, three are taken away from supporting the others to attend to him, or at least to remove him from the conflict, these three officers being removed would then cause a weakness in the front line, opening up officers to further injury, and perhaps allowing the melee to spiral out of control, hurting or killing an untold amount of people. And brutus, you’re right. A stalled car is not an intentional act of civil disobediance, meant to cause harm and difficulty. Therein lies the difference. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/26 "2003-04-08T08:11:21Z")
Errata, to tell you the truth, I’ve been hit with beanbag rounds, rubber projectiles (round and elongated) wooden slugs, paintballs, and all manner of personal control chemicals in my trainings over the years, and yeah, they hurt like hell. Point is though, no one got killed and the job got done. There are tactical considerations that face officers on the street dealing with this kind of activity, and number one, above all is the safety of the officers. One officer gets hurt, three are taken away from supporting the others to attend to him, or at least to remove him from the conflict, these three officers being removed would then cause a weakness in the front line, opening up officers to further injury, and perhaps allowing the melee to spiral out of control, hurting or killing an untold amount of people. Certianly, police can step over the line, no doubt, but in this case, i think they were on the money… Holding up traffic isn’t worth rubber bullets (et tu, brute) however a stalled car is not an intentional act of civil disobediance, meant to cause harm and inflict loss. What’s worthy of the application of such NON-LETHAL force is the failure to follow the direction of a peace officer as perscribed by law. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/27 "2003-04-08T08:12:28Z")
Damn the buttons! Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/28 "2003-04-08T12:46:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > A “reaction” huh? Wow, liberal use of that word. > > I can understand being able to justify the action given enough qualifiers, but the most important ones are in dispute here. > > So what are some other situations you envision cops using rubber bullets? When people jaywalk? \*\* :rolleyes: The police’s job is to protect the public and maintain order. Now you may believe that 500 people deciding to block traffic or disrupt a business falls under “free speech” but I am telling you it does not. “Freedom of assembly” does not mean assemble in the middle of a busy intersection or in front of a place of business with the intent to disrupt traffic or intimidate workers into not going into work. When protesters in NYC launch their big parade down Broadway, they get the city’s permission first. They don’t just show up in a big mob. So…since these people have decided to block the street and scream “hell not we won’t go!” or some variation of that, is it any surprise that the police responded with effective and non-lethal force to dispurse them? As buttonjockey308 pointed out, an angry mob is a dangerous thing and often does not respond to reason. So to answer your question, yes using rubber bullets against a single jaywalker is excessive, using riot control weapons agains 500 jaywalkers is not. If you are unable to see the diference, I can’t help you. Just because someone takes up a cause and decides to exercise their right to free speech does not give them the right to force everyone else to listen. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/29 "2003-04-08T15:05:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Protesters have the right to voice their dissent. But to block the legal activities of a business? Would that also apply to people who block abortion clinics? can we shoot them with rubber bullets too? Please? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/30 "2003-04-08T15:27:48Z")
If they refuse to disperse. Sure. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/31 "2003-04-08T15:57:58Z")
The Police insist the protestors were throwing rocks and also large steel bolts. These sorts of missles are slightly more dangerous than rubber bullets. Force was met with force. It is the very hallmark of hypocrisy to allow the protestors to throw rocks “as rocks don’t kill people” and to condemn the police for their counter-attack. I sure as hell don’t want to get hit by a large steel bolt thrown hard- I’ll take the rubber bullets anyday. I have had welts as bad as those from paintball- and dudes pay good money to have paintballs fired at them. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/32 "2003-04-08T17:06:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by buttonjockey308 \* > Point is though, no one got killed and the job got done. Rodney King didn’t get killed either. Let’s see some clear guidelines on force here so that I can avoid bringing extreme examples like this. > [@](#): > > There are tactical considerations that face officers on the street dealing with this kind of activity, and number one, above all is the safety of the officers. One officer gets hurt, three are taken away from supporting the others to attend to him, or at least to remove him from the conflict, these three officers being removed would then cause a weakness in the front line, opening up officers to further injury, and perhaps allowing the melee to spiral out of control, hurting or killing an untold amount of people. The melee? What melee? People were standing around singing. I’ve seen cops deal with similar demonstrations a lot better than that. Unless some allegations of some prior activist violence turn out to be true, I don’t see how that violence could be justified. Tear gas alone would have been enough to disperse most of this crowd, the rest probably would have been outnumbered by the cops. I saw video of the protestors, they included middle aged ladies protecting their heads with their signs. The cops kept shooting even as they walked away. [/QUOTE] What’s worthy of the application of such NON-LETHAL force is the failure to follow the direction of a peace officer as perscribed by law. [/QUOTE] Once again non-lethal is a very vague term. Your not participating in a debate, your justifying anything short of killing under any circumstance someone decides not to obey a “peace” officer. IOW excessive force so far doesn’t seem to be in your vocabulary.Try to be a little more specific. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/33 "2003-04-08T17:11:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > The police’s job is to protect the public and maintain order. Now you may believe that 500 people deciding to block traffic or disrupt a business falls under “free speech” but I am telling you it does not. “Freedom of assembly” does not mean assemble in the middle of a busy intersection or in front of a place of business with the intent to disrupt traffic or intimidate workers into not going into work. Straw man. It was civil disobedience not free speech. It’s not a form of free speech, but it is important to recognize non-violent protest as non-violent. > [@](#): > > So…since these people have decided to block the street and scream “hell not we won’t go!” or some variation of that, is it any surprise that the police responded with effective and non-lethal force to dispurse them? No, but once again we see no guidelines except that people didn’t get killed. Excessive force is not in your vocabulary. > [@](#): > > As buttonjockey308 pointed out, an angry mob is a dangerous thing and often does not respond to reason. An angry mob? Why would you characterize them as such? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/34 "2003-04-08T17:17:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > \*\*The melee? What melee? People were standing around singing. \*\* And throwing rocks and steel bolts, according to the police report. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/35 "2003-04-08T17:19:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > The Police insist the protestors were throwing rocks and also large steel bolts. These sorts of missles are slightly more dangerous than rubber bullets. Force was met with force. It is the very hallmark of hypocrisy to allow the protestors to throw rocks “as rocks don’t kill people” and to condemn the police for their counter-attack. Should these allegations turn out to be true, you might have a case. The video I have seen looked pretty peaceful before the cops stormed though. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/36 "2003-04-08T17:20:17Z")
> [@](#): > > As buttonjockey308 pointed out, an angry mob is a dangerous thing and often does not respond to reason. So to answer your question, yes using rubber bullets against a single jaywalker is excessive, using riot control weapons agains 500 jaywalkers is not. If you are unable to see the diference, I can’t help you. Ahhh…Kent State, Class of '71? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/37 "2003-04-08T19:19:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CaptMurdock \* > Ahhh…Kent State, Class of '71? \*\* Uh…nooo…those are real bullets. I appreciate that you probably aren’t an expert in law enforcement or metalurgy or anything but if you cannot comprehend the diference between using lethal force and non-lethal force to dispurse a crowd, I am not sure if there is any point in discussing the issue further. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > Straw man. It was civil disobedience not free speech. It’s not a form of free speech, but it is important to recognize non-violent protest as non-violent. Uh oh…you hit me with the “straw man” rebuttle. If you non-violently create a civil disturbance and refuse to move, the civil authorities will forcibly remove you. You don’t have the right to sit there blocking traffic because you have taken up a cause. Since the worst thing to happen to these people was getting stung by a beanbag gun, I’m not quite ready to put this in the same catagory as Kent State. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > An angry mob? Why would you characterize them as such? Well they aren’t there to see a Phish concert or something. They are there protesting something they feel strongly about. And when people feel strongly about something, they sometimes get upset when people ask them to move along. I didn’t characterise them as a “violent” mob, just very emotional (and that emotion is most likely anger at the war). ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/38 "2003-04-08T19:58:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > **I appreciate that you probably aren’t an expert in law enforcement or metalurgy or anything but if you cannot comprehend the diference between using lethal force and non-lethal force to dispurse a crowd, I am not sure if there is any point in discussing the issue further.** Whenever I’ve seen rubber (Or plastic) bullets mentioned outside of this article, they have always been refered to as _less_-lethal, not non-lethal (Especially the plastic bullets. A steel core with a thin plastic shell. It’s like M&Ms gone horribly wrong…). They can cause serious injury or death, unless they’re using much lower-velocity ammo than normal. I’m usually on the side of the riot police whenever they have to disperse a crowd (It’s a tough possition to be in, you’re going to get criticized no matter what happens), but unless there’s something that hasn’t been said in the news, this is sounding way overboard. Police have cleared the streets durring huge demonstrations before without having to resort to such weapons. The fact that they injured bystanders with them makes it even worse. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/39 "2003-04-08T21:06:23Z")
Would it have been appropriate to use rubber bullets against the mob which rioted to stop the Miami-Dade County vote recount in November 2000? ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202/40 "2003-04-08T21:21:20Z")
Obviously, the protesters are going to claim that they were acting peacefully. Equally obviously, the police are going to claim that the protesters were an angry mob that was throwing deadly projectiles at the police. Therefore, the most unbiased observers were clearly the longshoremen who were waiting to go to work. They claimed that the protesters were peaceful and that the cops fired on them without provocation and without first giving the crowd a chance to disburse. Therefore, I am concluding that the police did use excessive force. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-oakland-police-use-undue-force-against-the-war-protestors/167202.md?page=3)