Eight arrested in attack at UC Berkeley chancellor's home

[alp227]

Source: Henry K. Lee, San Francisco Chronicle

(12-12) 10:35 PST BERKELEY -- Eight people were in custody early today after they converged on UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau's on-campus residence, breaking windows and throwing incendiary devices in protest of fee hikes and budget cuts, authorities said.

The arrestees were among some 40 to 75 people - some whom were carrying torches - who surrounded the mansion on the north side of campus off Hearst Avenue at about 11:15 p.m. Friday, officials said.

Yelling, "No justice, no peace," the protesters began smashing planters, windows and lights and threw incendiary devices at the building, said campus spokesman Dan Mogulof. Birgeneau was sleeping at the time and was awakened by his wife, Mary Catherine, Mogulof said. They were unharmed, but university officials denounced what they called an unwarranted attack on the chancellor.

In a statement, Birgeneau said today, "These are criminals, not activists. The attack at our home was extraordinarily frightening and violent. My wife and I genuinely feared for our lives. The people involved in this action will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I want to emphasize that they represent an extreme minority of our students."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/12/BASN1B3D59.DTL

---

While I oppose the UC fee hikes, this kind of protest crosses the line to stupidity. I'd prefer the peaceful occupations. Those students should've just kept it to chanting and signs rather than property damage.

[bbinacan]

1. Now they won't have to

worry about tuition. They'll have to worry about who they get as a cell mate. Idiots.

[tekisui]

2. Signs and chants don't get media coverage.

I wouldn't participate in vandalism, myself, but they were effective at creating a story.

[Pamela Troy]

5. They were effective in creating very bad publicity

for their cause.

With "friends" like these...

[WriteDown]

22. They could have been effective in killing someone too. nt

[Syntheto]

29. Towards what end?

Should we consider these people martyrs now? Because if they are prosecuted, they have more to worry about than the rising cost of tuition. How many of them are actually students, anyway? Surely there is a more effective way, say by block traffic for two or three hours during rush hour at strategic points. The action these folks took seems more like a night-riding exercise in trying to intimidate specific individuals, rather than a system. Bad publicity; bad move.

[quakerboy]

38. Thats part of the dilemma of the day

The system is smart enough to not "blow up" nonviolent protests in such a way that they could end up having real effect. The people running things are good at ignoring protests nowdays. As evidenced by the fact that the people here were sleeping.

But when you cross that line, it angers people. So what do you do when you want to have effect? The antiwar movement is in the same dilemma, as are any social justice movements nowdays. Or any other movement not given the broad attention and support of the media(eg, teabaggers).

[snagglepuss]

45. They may get attention but they definitely won't be get public

sympathy or their demands met.

[quakerboy]

49. What would have achieved the second?

public sympathy is nice, but without media attention it tends to get shoved away under a rug and a couple symbolic gestures and token actions. What would have gotten their demands met?

As I see it, not much has changed. I am of divided mind. The pacifist in me would prefer a more self imolating gesture. The fighting spirit applauds this and wishes more people were willing to "make it personal" with the people in power.

[indievoter]

53. I'd continue to listen

to that pacifist side of yours. The only thing that would happen if you had anymore protesters involved in direct action or violent activities is that the general populace of the country WILL take notice but they will be calling for your heads not supporting your cause. You will turn your opponents into victims and your cause will go no where.

[quakerboy]

55. Historically, I dont think you are correct

In the last 30 years maybe, but over the longer course of history, I don't know that it is true.

Then again, since I am not out with those students, its all academic to me. I already took my giant loans, and am working to pay them back.

[snagglepuss]

67. Well there are several points.

1) If you condone violence to achieve ends then you shouldn't have had any problems with bush and his rethugs or any other group who thinks that "kicking ass" is the way to get your goals met and that diplomacy/talking is for suckers and doesn't amount to anything.

2) Violence has been tried through-out history to effect change. However leaders of armed revolts eventually become the ruthless masters, for example the French and Russian revolutions.

3) What has to happen is for a critical mass of students to understand guns vs butter. To understand that all governments have to allocate spending between guns and butter but that the US government continually chooses to increase spending for "guns" (military) and continually reduce spending for "butter" which in this instance is education.

[indievoter]

51. Interesting you would say that...

because I seem to recall reading about and viewing on my T.V. this very story before these geniuses decided to attack someones home. The violence was completely unnecessary and what attention it will get will do nothing to help the issue. I support the students and agree that the constant and excessive tuition hikes that take place all over the country not just there need to be looked at. But these guys are far from getting anything accomplished.

[EFerrari]

3. There's something wrong with this story.

[AngryAmish]

4. It's a mistranslation.

[EFerrari]

7. No, the students have been carefully non-violent so I have to assume

there's more to this than first reports will tell.

But, thanks for your effortless snark.

[AngryAmish]

11. So the chancellor's house attacked them first?

[EFerrari]

12. Could be.

lol

[Pamela Troy]

20. That's funny.

But it doesn't actually address Angryamish's point, does it?

[EFerrari]

21. It does very directly. And to be repetitive, I expect there is more

to this story than we'll get in first reports.

This kind of violence is just not typical. It could be that a group of students went nuts and did this but I'd be very surprised if that turns out to be the case.

[Pamela Troy]

31. You were seriously suggesting that the house

might have attacked the demonstrators by turning into a Thurber cartoon?

Unfortunately, I don't find it all that unbelievable that a couple of hot-headed students were successfully incited into doing something so asinine.

[apocalypsehow]

46. Incited? Do you have any evidence to substantiate this dubious claim?

More likely they simply didn't think they'd get caught while stepping way over that line.













(wait for it...wait for it...)

[quakerboy]

50. How about the fact 6 of the 8 were nonstudents?

Who why is questionable, but that makes it pretty clear it wasnt just angry students. Since the majority were not students.

[apocalypsehow]

52. So, no link to factual evidence to substantiate the dubious claim? Gotcha.

And about what I expected.

[quakerboy]

56. You dont read so good, do you?

Six nonstudents, Julia Litmancleper, 20, of San Francisco; John Friesen, 25, of Fullerton (Orange County); Donnell Allen, 41, of San Francisco; David Morse, 41, of Oakland; Laura Thatcher, 21, of Rolling Hills Estates (Los Angeles County); and James Carwil, 31, of Brooklyn, N.Y., were arrested on the same charges.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/12/BASN1B3D59.DTL#ixzz0ZZ07aNIs


Nonviolent student protest. One act of violence happens. 3/4 of the persons arrested by the police for said violence are not students. You do the math.

[apocalypsehow]

57. That proves zilch - I said a link to factual evidence substantiating the claim about "incitement" -

you have provided ZERO such links so far. "Do the math," indeed.

[quakerboy]

60. lets try this again.

in⋅cite⋅ment
1. the act of inciting.

in·cite
To provoke and urge on: troublemakers who incite riots; inciting workers to strike.

Obviously someone provoked and urged something. Or would you say that these 8 people spontaneously started throwing incendiary devices?

Incitement happened. And given that 3/4 of the people known to be involved are not students, it is clear that some portion of that incitement comes from outside of the student body. If you will read my posts, you will see that I, at the outset, said who and why are questionable. I havnt the slightest clue, myself. But someone instigated this to happen.


As to the "one act of violence", you got me there. I did not speak clearly. I intended to reference the entire episode as one event, as I am assuming that it all happened in a fairly short period of time, ending when the police showed up and removed the offending group. I apologize for my mistake.

[apocalypsehow]

61. "Obviously someone provoked and urged something" - "Obviously"? Still waiting on that link to such

an "obvious" conclusion.

"But someone instigated this to happen" - Of course. According to the story, the "activists" that surrounded the place and went to hurling firebombs clearly instigated themselves to make this act of terrorism happen. The implication that I was asking for linked proof of was the implication that somehow the "activists" - students or not - were "incited" by people who were simply trying to discredit the entire "protest." I use that latter term loosely.

That was the clear implication, and here we are, hours later, still waiting on that link. I have a feeling we're going to be waiting a lot longer.

[quakerboy]

62. Find one place where I implied that

[sudopod]

64. all aboard the trollercoaster

Stop being obtuse

[apocalypsehow]

66. So, no link to factual evidence to substantiate the dubious claim from you either, huh? Nice.

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

68. why would you expect a news article to ID, for example, agents provocateurs?

but they certainly exist.

the poster is speculating. not sure why you ask for links, except to dismiss her speculation as non-worthy.

but anyone with political background knows provocateurs are part of the mix.

some may not wish to admit it, for whatever reason.

[apocalypsehow]

59. And speaking of not reading so good: "breaking windows and throwing incendiary devices"

That sounds like multiple acts of violence to me - maybe you didn't read your own link. Or the OP.

Please try again.

[quakerboy]

65. I adressed this in my other response

But looking back on the thread, I feel a need to appologize for my "dont read so good" comment. That was antagonistic and unhelpful on my part.

[bluestateguy]

6. The way for universities to raise revenue is to cut tuition and fees

That will stimulate so much demand and spending that revenues will actually grow.

[EFerrari]

8. UC had a boom year last year.

They are not hurting but just, as usual, not prioritizing actual education.

[bbinacan]

16. Interesting theory.

Some say the same about taxes.

[katkat]

25. re: interesting theory

We know how well that worked out :-)

[boppers]

37. Demand isn't the problem.

They've been on a building, and administration/middle management expense, spending spree... their budgets got lopsided because they were building facilities and hiring staff faster than students were signing up for classes (even at the rock bottom low rates CA had).

If they cut tuition and fees, they have to immediately start defaulting on their building loans or stop paying their staff, in hopes that they can service the existing students with their existing resources... it's basically a no-win situation. They can cut staff and classes, upsetting students, they can cancel building projects, upsetting students and creditors, they can increase tuition, upsetting students...

[Turbineguy]

9. Probably non-students.

Reminds me of the People's Park days. Students were attending classes. You don't work your ass off to get into UC Berkeley and then blow it.

[EFerrari]

14. Instigators must come pretty cheap these days.

:shrug:

[Mz Pip]

17. It's not unusual

for people who consider themselves professional agitators to come to Berkeley whenever there is a controversy and stir up shit. Some of the "tree sitters" that tied up the building of the new women's sports facility weren't even from around here.

It happened during the last People's Park controversy in the early 90's when the university built a sand volleyball court on the property.

[bluestateguy]

18. I still remember the kerfuffle over volleyball courts in People's Park 15 years ago

My God you would have thought that the school was building a nuclear weapons plant. Some people just had nothing better to do than try to relive 1969 all over again.

[EFerrari]

27. A lot has happened at Cal since 1969 including the kick off

of the South African divestment movement in the 80s.

The flap over those courts was legitimate. The administration didn't consult the student body which pays their wages. There was stupidity but it wasn't student stupidity.

[notadmblnd]

10. it certainly seem like an over reaction.

I wonder why it was so extreme? It's not as if annual tuition hikes are unusual:shrug:

[katkat]

26. tuition hikes

I believe the proposed hikes this time are enormous, although I am too lazy to go look it up.

[notadmblnd]

30. reading the article, six of the eight arrested wern't even students

so yeah, their reaction seems extreme.

[boppers]

40. Enormous is relative.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/california.tuition.protest/

"The first tuition hike, which takes effect in January, will cost undergraduate students an additional $585 a semester, Tierney said.
The second hike kicks in next fall, raising tuition another $1,344, she said."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/20/california.tuition.protests/

"The first tuition hike, which takes effect in January, will raise undergraduate tuition to $8,373. The second hike kicks in next fall, raising tuition to $10,302, said university spokeswoman Leslie Sepuka.
Students who live on campus could pay up to an estimated $17,200 in additional fees that include the annual cost of books and housing, according to the system's July 2008 finance guide.
The January increase of about 15 percent is more than double the average public university tuition hike last year. On average, tuition and fees at four-year public universities nationwide increased 6.5 percent, or to $7,020, since the previous school year, according to data from College Board.
Students eligible for financial aid and whose families make under $70,000 will have their tuition covered, the university said."

[Hannah Bell]

69. nearly $2000 in one year? i think it's pretty big.

[EFerrari]

42. Iirc, 32% n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. The story does sound a bit odd

In any event, violence and property destruction are extremely stupid and counter productive. If true, the perpetrators of such acts should be arrested and prosecuted.

[proteus_lives]

15. Morons.

Way to lose your message in the action.

Enjoy jail.

[madrchsod]

19. dumb asses....

infiltrated and set up...

[EFerrari]

23. Seriously. I'd take bets. n/t

[Mz Pip]

36. Set up?

Care to explain?

[EFerrari]

39. This story reminds me of Brandon Darby, an Austin "activist"

whose main activity seemed to be going from group to group suggesting violence. He was an FBI informant and the whole story is sort of sad.

http://i2.democracynow.org/2009/1/6/prominent_austin_activist_admits_he_infiltrated

[Rapier09]

24. California is going to be seeing a lot of turbulence

Too many promises that can't be paid back and not enough will to actually come up with some sort of constructive tax plan.

[AlphaCentauri]

28. This is what it looks like when the education system get hijacked by extremist

and greed that prevent the poor from being educated.

[mike_c]

32. now THAT'S taking truth to power....

Hats off to UC students! :patriot:

[New Dawn]

33. Agents provocateurs.

[Posteritatis]

47. Yep! Protesters never ever ever do anything stupid ever. It's always government spies! (nt)

[bluesmail]

34. Agents provocateurs? Doing a disservice. This is not going to end well.

Then again, :shrug:

[Crzyrussell]

35. Ah, the quickest

way to loose credibility, violence.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. Kudos for the torches!

[HughMoran]

43. ...& Wall St. people sit comfortably at home getting $10M bonuses?

:shrug:

[girl gone mad]

44. The youth are getting restless. n/t

[readmoreoften]

48. As opposed to forcing 1000s of people out of school while giving admin pay raises.

When people get tired of peacefully protesting these crooks and cronies, mobs begin to form. That's the risk they take by robbing thousands of Californians for personal gain. They should take his house over and sell it for scholarship money.

To turn a phrase: these administrations are criminals, not educators, and their deeds are coming to haunt them.

[BzaDem]

54. OK then. You say the administrators are criminals. What law did they violate? Statute number?

Section and subsection?

The idiocy of some people here knows no bounds.

[Oak2004]

58. It's not a crime,yes,

to drive a poor kid out of college so he or she is on a track which ends with the kid dying at 30 of some treatable illness while living in a cardboard box between the periodic beatings they received from the local cops intended to discourage them from being homeless.

That, you see, is perfectly legal. It is not murder, no: the culprits escape that charge on a technicality.

[Hannah Bell]

70. criminals make the laws. no, it's not "illegal" to give yourself a raise while putting

other people out of work.

but it's criminal, nonetheless.

no idiocy in the poster's comment.

[-..__...]

63. Sounds like something the Black Bloc maggots would be involved with.

or, at least their tactics.

I wonder if the ATF would be interested in pursing charges?

[Hannah Bell]

71. you mean the fbi provocateur squad, don't you?