Occupy Oakland protesters face hate-crime trial
Source: SF Chronicle
An Alameda County judge on Tuesday sent three Occupy Oakland demonstrators to trial on robbery and hate crime charges after three days of testimony about an altercation they had with a woman who confronted them at a rally.
The preliminary hearing offered a window into the contentious case. Prosecutors said one of the protesters repeatedly called the woman a "dyke bitch" as another grabbed her wallet, while defense attorneys said the alleged victim had been the aggressor - and had herself used racial slurs.
Judge Paul Delucchi said there was probable cause to hold each of the defendants: Michael Davis, 32, Nneka Crawford, 23, and Randolph Wilkins, 25. The judge ordered them to return April 3 to each be arraigned on a charge of felony robbery, along with a sentencing enhancement for the hate crime.
(...)
(Robbery victim Kelly) Stowers said she felt a tug on her over-the-shoulder satchel, and looked down to see Davis pull his hand from inside it before putting the same hand behind his back. Davis also ripped an Obama campaign pin off the bag, Stowers said.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/20/BAJ71NM4G9.DTL
DocMac
(1,628 posts)I smell bullshit!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Something is bullshit.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)these three fools are not part of OWS. Just thieves working the crowd.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Their motivations hardly seem typically OWS. Any crowd situation you will have a few misfits.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)As soon as you leave your house you can find em. On your way to work, at work, at the grocery store after work, at the movie theatre that night...everywhere.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This does not sound good for the defense:
Stowers said she told the defendants that they shouldn't call for a riot and, because of their actions, didn't belong in the neighborhood. She said Crawford shoved her, told her she looked "ridiculous," repeatedly called her a "dyke bitch," and accused her of wanting to perform a sex act on Wilkins.
Sounds like Rush Limbaugh....
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/20/BAJ71NM4G9.DTL#ixzz1pjI33Zfd
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Piedmont Avenue is a couple of miles away from the main Occupy Oakland site at Oscar Grant (f/k/a Frank Ogawa) Plaza. It is, however, fairly near the Whole Foods which was infamously trashed by Black Bloc types only loosely affiliated with Occupy.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Maybe ask everyone to wear pastels, then their stupid little costumes will stand out--they'll look like bloody turds amongst the flowers!
It would help with image--and image is key. Never underestimate the power of good (or bad) PR!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not a reflection on OWS.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Which is truly unfortunate.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)However, this sounds staged. Something seems very fishy to me about this. Having been to Zucotti Park in NY and mingled with the OWS folks, it just doesn't fit. "Let's start a f------ riot" also seems to transparently and obviously silly. I don't doubt the woman at all. I doubt whether these people were really OWS people, but perhaps so.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Most of the sites with a sizable population had some sort of problems. Not all were strong arm robbery, but they were there. Witnessed some myself.
When you have a non-structured movement and events, it is disingenuous to say that "those weren't really Occupy people" for all of them.
RZM
(8,556 posts)Somebody should correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the only qualifications for being considered a part of Occupy are:
1) Showing up
2) Being a part of the 99 percent
3) Believing that something is seriously wrong with wealth distribution in our society
There are a whole lot of folks who fall into numbers 2 and 3. And not all of them are good people.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So if you are there to 'start a riot' you do not belong to that movement.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)All I'm saying is that the comment struck me as intended to inflame and overly obvious. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't know. On another note, I know there is no "roster." I saw it firsthand in NY because I work 2 blocks from Liberty Plaza.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Were mingling at the back of the Oakland protest and they had nothing in common with the OWS group. This sounds like part of the anarchist group, making the headline completely false. Yes, it does show a need, at least in certain locations, for OWS to have security people to weed out those just trying to cause trouble under the umbrella of OWS.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)But both Stowers and the officer who took the report said they had never heard of Palmer before that day. It's unclear how the name got on the report.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/20/BAJ71NM4G9.DTL#ixzz1pnDYV9Tx
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)who use them and their non-violent activities to further their criminal behavior. This puts distance between the Occupy mission and those who would use them or those who are plants to destroy the movement.
If you espouse a non-violent methodology as the manner in which you want to further your goals and violent people flock to you then it's wise and ethical to reject such activity because it's contrary to the mission.
It's patently ridiculous to paint all Occupy as anarchists itching to draw blood and break laws. If law enforcement arrests them then they're doing their jobs of protecting and serving. Occupy can support the police in these types of arrests.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)Expect more "incidents" like this as Occupy regains momentum now that the warmer weather is here.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)but how come that every single time a person claiming to be a part of occupy does something wrong/illegal/criminal then they 'never were a part of occupy' or 'were agent provocateurs' or 'were undercover cops'.
even when a person have been around from near the start of his/her cities occupy movement then does something wrong/illegal/criminal then he suddenly wasn't 'really a part of the movement', its a danged weak excuse considering the lack of lack of requirements on membership and its lack of leaders, Be open to anybody and their dog and you open the movement for people who are not all of a flowers and rainbows mindset.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Anyone who is there to 'start a riot' is automatically disqualified as a member of Occupy, a fact that is stressed over and over again. The basic thrust of the movement is to BE NON-VIOLENT. So explain please, how anyone who states they are there to 'start a riot' could possibly claim to be a part of a movement that has from the beginning, written, talked and preached 'non-violence'??
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Doesn't always work out that way.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Anyone who openly advocates violence, does not qualify as a member of a non-violent movement.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Occupy doesn't do background checks.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It's simple. If you are a violent person who promotes riots you don't belong and won't be welcome in peaceful movement. And the only reason you might want to pretend you are part of such a movement, assuming you have an IQ even in double digits, is to discredit the movement.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Except for the fact that some are. I've seen them with my own eyes in San Diego.
unionworks
(3,574 posts)I have talked to is pro gay rights. These peole obviously were not part of the movement. Just being near a demonstation is good enough for the MSM to fling poo.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)http://www.mugshots.com/Current-Events/Michael-Davis.html
It says Occupy Cincinnati, but Occupiers are known to move from group to group.
I think this is a setup more than anything.