Thank you for saying what this Oakland resident has felt since the first tent went up. Now about your take on Jerry's 10K program. Who exactly did Jerry overshadow and how? What is wrong with inviting new residents to Downtown? Who should be re-populating Downtown?

While there is certainly room for outside perspectives on O/O, Kheven's assertion that O/O somehow has a different definition of police brutality than Oakland's is an entirely unsubstantiated--and deceptive--claim.

While it is true that a small group of protestors confronted police verbally and threw things at them, the allegations of misconduct were serious enough to warrant calls for investigation by the Deputy Mayor, as well as the filing of a lawsuit by the ACLU.

Speculating that since the majority of those arrested were from out of town, claims of endangerment to Oakland citizens aren't credible, is dubious at best.

Oakland resident Scott Campbell, for one, was maliciously struck with a projectile while filming OPD from a reasonable distance away, an action which was not justified by confrontational out-of-town protestors--since there were none around at the time he was shot.

While i see where Kheven is trying to go with this, the omission of key details and facts can be a slippery slope toward historical revisionism.

Finally, a breath of fresh, unbiased air on this site. 

Oh, Eric K. again, the pot calling the kettle black. Yawn.

Glad you like this essay. I always enjoy what Kheven has to say.

I love my country. I move regularly. Maybe a different city every few years. And I am totally aware that I miss out on having a lifetime attachment to one place.

That said. I am absolutely behind any movement that will empower Americans. Maybe you aren't for this movement. But sure enough each and evey person is behind some idea or another.

I currently live in Oakland. But this author makes me feel unwelcomed. To me it takes a closed mind to consider only the voices of people of the "town" as legitimate.

I suspose if the Occupy movement was, for instance, completely about how Christmas Decorations should be allocated across Oakland for the coming season. Then I can see how people who live far away might not deserve a voice.

But clearly the author knows nothing about the point of this movement, because it is absolutely about America. Not specfically Oakland.

So please watch "INSIDE JOB" an award winning Documentary voiced by Matt Damon. Which specifies in detail the financial crisis of 2008. The very last sentence in that film was an image of the statue of Liberty with Matt Damon saying, "Somethings are worth fighting for."

I agree. America is worth fighting for.

Apparently this author likes his Police State just fine.,,

But that's my opinion.

@Stephen, Why do you and so many others miss the point? OO has nothing to do with "Inside Job" or "Margin Call" or "The Big Short" or any of the other film and literature documenting the ripping off of the middle class by the money guys. Believe me, I've seen all of those and I wanted to strangle everybody on Wall St. by the end of them. But I'm not going to give legitimacy to a bunch of rioters who (as OO spokespeople have now admitted on the record they are attempting to do) try to bankrupt a small, struggling city that's already on its knees. These people are juveniles on a rampage, spitting in the community's face. They need to be taken down.

Yes, Susan. More from this very good, very objective writer, please, and less from the amateurs. :)

i dont always agree with him, but i think Kheven writes some interesting things. but why does mentioning that city officials and the ACLU took allegations of excessive force seriously elicit a yawn?

Made me rethink some things. Good piece.  -len

Thanks, Sandra. Great to get your feedback. Len, Eric Ditto.  Matt, as someone who moved to Oakland, I appreciate your feelings about being welcome vs outsider, but there are people here who feel burned by people who arrive and then leave after a couple years. This is a city of deep roots, deep feelings.

@Eric, Here's why ACLU's claim of excessive force makes me yawn:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19357944

(p.s. And don't cite me the penultimate paragraph in that Trib story about how OPD used excessive force and chilled future protests. That was not a statement of fact but a continuation of the quote by the ACLU lawyer, and should have been explicitly attributed. Even the Trib screws up sometimes. :)

Mr. Weber, I found your post to be a remarkable example of the kind of arrogant and false rhetoric that has turned many Oakland OWS supporters (myself included) away from the 'local version.'   I don't believe for a moment that you really think that those of us who do not support OO just need to watch "Inside Job" in order to see the light.  I don't believe for a moment that you really think we don't support the principles of OWS.  

To me, your comments sound suspiciously like those of someone who --  through the manufacture of  baseless claims and nonexistent distinctions about residents' understandings or motivations -- is intentionally creating a false dichotomy in order to provide yourself with a moral high ground over those who are tired of being victimized --  first by Wall Street and a second time by OO demonstrators.

Believe me, Oakland residents are well aware of the damage Wall Street and the financial elite have inflicted in our community.  If you want to tell us something new, tell us how Occupying Oakland and robbing this city of more of our scarce resources is supposed to improve the lives of anyone here or effect any meaninful change on Wall Street? 

sandra, you may find this interesting: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/investigation-reveals-east-bay-city-paying-out-ext/nFdWy/

Not really. They always pay out. They'd rather not fight. Riders were not even found guilty. 

What I do find interesting, though, is your constant and extreme bias. But then, there's this:

"Journalism is hard work, and finding good sources, quoting them accurately, and putting a readable story together without letting one’s biases influence the telling takes skill and a grounding in journalism standards."

And I understand that this site is subect to the same constraints as the local described in the article from which that quote was taken:

http://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/what_i_saw_at_the_hyperlocal_revolution.php

That's not a link that tells most of us anything we don't already know, Erik.  I don't think anyone has disputed that the excessive use of force by law enforcement is a serious problem and costs us greatly on a number of levels.   Demonstrators who provoke police by throwing rocks, bottles, cans and paint at law enforcement in situations that are already volatile also share in the responsibility for the chaos that ensues in these situations.  I'm not making excuses for the excessive use of force.  We have a right to expect a higher standard of conduct from law enforcement.  But, I'm not willing to give a free pass to demonstrators who instigate violence either.

LMcNeil, Right on. And neither am I willing to give a free pass to an opinion writer pretending, or perhaps trying, to be a news writer.

sandra, there is a difference between news and opinion, obviously, but to characterize me as an "opinion writer" is a value judgment, since my reportage on O/O has been fact-based and frequently excludes opinion. This has actually been a conscious choice on my part, since there have been plenty of Op/Eds written on O/O, both favorable and unfavorable, many of which aren't grounded in objective facts. I reserve my right to write an opinion piece on O/O at a later date, but thusfar, most of what I've written has just been reporting what i've seen with my own eyes--what's known as an "on the ground" perspective.

Furthermore, every single outlet who has reported on this has published pieces which have mixed news and opinion, including the Trib, the Chron, the Express and the Bay Citizen, as well as national outlets from the Washington Post to Counterpunch. Thus, holding me to a different standard than anyone else who's writen on this topic shows extreme bias on your part.

That said, i'm not surprised at your claims of bias; in my experience, that typically happens when the facts reported differ with what certain people would like them to be. However, to call Kheven's essay "unbiased" shows an inability to understand the term, since it is certainly slanted toward an unfavorable view of O/O, to the extent of omitting key details, which borders on historical revisionism.

There's an implication that somehow, residents of Oakland have not been engaged in O/O, which is simply not the case. Kheven gives credence to Desley Brooks' claims of being held "hostage" by O/O without mentioning that the councilwoman participated in the march to the Port during the General Strike, attended GAs, and camped out in the encampment.Is it fair, then, to assume she did not do this against her will?

Also, one needs to consider the sources of information, and whether those sources have contained inherent bias or slant. In Kheven's essay, there doesn't seem to be any first-hand reportage, meaning that all his sources of information are second or third-hand. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but since it's a pure opinion piece, he's also not being held to any standard of objectivity or even factual accuracy.

Getting back to the excessive force issue, it was and continues to be a relevant topic even before O/O. Simply put, $57m would keep a lot of schools open. Whether those payouts were warranted or not is not something which can be answered objectively. That the Riders were found not guilty speaks to the shortcoming of the legal system in cases of police accountability, since the offenses were egregious enough and substantiated enough to warrant the independent evaluation of OPD which led to the Negotiated Settlement Agreement.

In the case of excessive force in O/O, i dont think anyone is arguing that the small group of protestors who threw things at police should be given a free pass. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether those incidents justify use of force against a larger group of peaceful protestors, and whether that force has been excessive and represents misconduct.

The legal standard here is OPD's own use of force policy, initiated after the 2003 incident at the Port of Oakland in which more than 40 protestors were injured by rubber bullets. Since rubber bullets were found at 14th and Broadway on October 26--i have pictures, btw--it appears that that policy was in fact violated. In addition to the ACLU lawsuit and the deputy mayor's calls for additional investigation, there's already an Internal Affairs investigation into these claims.

With respect to the ACLU lawsuit, the judge's decision to not issue a temporary restaining order doesn't mean that the force used against Scott Campbell or Scott Olsen wasn't excessive, it just means that the plaintiffs failed to show a demonstrable pattern which would have justified that action in the eyes of the court. So, that's a legal technicality, which probably shows hesitance on the judge's part to set a precedent which could be referred to in future excessive force cases. Basically the judge is saying OPD's use of force has been sporadic and that most of the incidents have been isolated.

That's somewhat disputable, but probably fair, although it may reflect a judicial bias in favor of law enforcement, which sets the bar pretty high in misconduct cases. The judge's argument was that in order to issue a TRO--which is an almost-unprecedented action--a higher standard of proof was required than what the ACLU showed. So, no big surprise there. Notice that the lawsuit itself wan't thrown out of court

You also mention this sentence: "Oakland police have acted in ways that not only injured protesters but also has made others afraid to protest, thus chilling their exercise of First Amendment rights." It actually was explicitly attributed by the Trib as coming from the ACLU lawyer, so no screw-up by the Trib. Perhaps you misread the sentence?

Wow, so you're not an opinion writer because your pieces "frequently exclude opinion"? That's a good one. I'm not a monkey'suncle because I frequently don't act like one. LOL

I actually don't hold you to *any* journalistic standard. But actually, the Trib and the Chron don't mix fact and opinion. Those pieces are separate in those outlets. The Express, as everyone knows, is another story altogether...

"It actually was explicitly attributed by the Trib "

No, it wasn't. Read it again. It required another, separate quote. It was paraphrased without attribution.

Learn something about journalism, would ya? :)

"I'm not a monkey'suncle because I frequently don't act like one."

sandra, you're welcome to express your opinion, but let's keep it civil, ok?

"Learn something about journalism, would ya?"

i'd like to think,however, that after 15+ years as a working journalist, that i've learned something about the craft. i'm also a photojournalist, so often i will refer to details depicted in photos, such as this one, which shows tear gas being deployed against a group of protestors, in clear violation of OPD's use of force policy.

"It was paraphrased without attribution."

actually, that's paraphrasing with attribution. it's a continuation of the lawyer's quote, indicated grammtically by the reference to the source, i.e., "Lye said." Maybe its awkward syntax, but not an error in reporting.

i think a lot of what you may be referring to as "bias" comes from the fact that OL's mission is to do community reporting from a community perspective. if we reported the exact same thing as mainstream outlets, we wouldn't be filling an unmet need, would we?

again, you're welcome to reread any of my O/O pieces, the overwhelming majority of which were straight reportage without the injection of editorializing. pieces which do contain analysis are labeled as such, for the better edification of you and other readers.time and time again, this reportage has shown the engagement of Oakland residents in O/O, like this photo from Nov. 1.

Eric, The statement was given by the Trib as fact. It was far outside the quote logically and needed a second attribution. This was a glaring, GLARING error by the Trib. If you can't see that, you really do have a lot to learn about journalism and I don't apologize for saying so.

Re bias: What I'm seeing in your writing is bias independent of the outlet. Online, print, community, big metro, whatever. I don't care. I'm looking at each piece. I'm not going to go back and find examples. That would be too much work. I suggest you take this as a heads up and consider what I'm saying. 

I'm outta here for now. Too bad. So much fun arguing with you.:)

i thought we were dialoguing, not arguing. but in any event, the ACLU is primarily concerned with First Amendment issues, so their linking that to what they believe is excessive use of force by OPD would be entirely in line with something one of their attorneys would say. But if you really have that much of a problem with this, maybe you should notify the Trib, since the line which caused you so much consternation was in one of their articles.

Yeah, ironic ain't it. I was so sure you'd take the sentence for what the Trib ran it as (a statement of fact rather than a quote) that I argued with you about it preemptively. But turns out you never even noticed the error. :)

On another note, the video now going around of the cop beating the occupier until he got a damaged spleen IS pretty bad. Seen that one yet? Not sure which agency the cop was from, OPD or Ala Cty.

no, sandra, i recognized it was a quote right away. not really sure why you thought it was a statement of fact by the reporter, but obviously, you were mistaken.

are you talking about the second war veteran? haven't see the video, but there are quite a few out there of similar instances. but not enough, apparently, to convince a judge a pattern of excessive force exists.

Ha ha ha! No, obviously, YOU were, and still are, mistaken. Obviously, the lawyer said it. But the reporter made a serious error by omitting the second, and necessary, attribution. The phrase reads as a statement by the newspaper. Copy editor was out to lunch.

I'm talking about the video on all the news stations tonight. Real bad. Guy just stands there, doing nothing, and cop starts beating him on the knees with his nightstick. Eight times. Someone was taking a video. Cop gave the poor guy a damaged spleen, was taken to the hospital. At some point he stands there yelling, "Kill me, go ahead. I'm taping you" or something. Bad, bad, bad.