Police invade S.F. fundraiser

[Hannah Bell]

February 5, 2010

Due to the number of student occupations erupting in California, many students have risked arrest and are in need of defense fees. In an effort to fundraise for multiple defense campaigns across the Bay Area, student activists from University of California-Santa Cruz, University of California-Berkeley and San Francisco State University organized a benefit party in San Francisco.

The peaceful benefit took place in a rented two-tier gallery space. In the bottom level, a sound system was set up, and the area was converted into a dance hall. Above, people were enjoying the social atmosphere and mingling with other students from around the Bay.

Around 1 a.m., police arrived at the door of the space and ordered an immediate evacuation. Within five minutes of their arrival, they busted through the main doors, which had previously been closed and locked. When the owner of the gallery space asked to see a warrant, he was put into a pain-hold, thrown on the ground and arrested. A younger female officer, who was dressed as a civilian with just a badge hanging around her neck, was pushing and shoving people out of the gallery and into the street...

Officer Samson Chan of the San Francisco Police Department justified the intervention by claiming, "Initially, we had numerous complaints about a large fight outside of the venue." However, partygoers recall the night continuing peacefully until police arrived...

"I think that because the party was advertised so openly on the streets as well as on campus, my suspicion is that were well-informed of the political nature of the party and its purpose," Hicks said. "Why else would they have reacted so strongly to some group of college kids?
I felt that something really positive and peaceful turned very ugly, very fast..."

http://socialistworker.org/2010/02/05/police-invade-sf-fundraiser

[name not needed]

1. "large fight outside of the venue" riiiiiight

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

2. i bet that's a typo. "fist fight"

[The Doctor.]

3. So, there was a 'large fight' outside of the venue...

Which somehow gave the police the right to storm the building?

Jesus H. Fucking Christ these people are assholes.

[JoeyT]

4. This is what the 2nd amendment was intended for.

Of course they didn't have a warrant. They don't need one anymore.

[Chulanowa]

5. Yes, because a shootout would have had a happy ending

Did you have a different amendment in mind?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Well, no, they've got probable cause.

Not to college kids- police bust parties all the time. Particularly large noisy parties at 1 AM.

It ain't some conspiracy.

[Luminous Animal]

9. They still need a warrent to enter.

The police will be sued and they will lose.

[paulsby]

11. actually, no

in numerous situations, we do not need a warrant to enter. exigency comes to mind.

if we get a call of a domestic violence incident for example, 95% of the time, we are invited in, but if not, we are coming in, generally speaking, to check the safety of the parties involved.

if a neighbor calls and hears fighting, for instance. etc. reasonable suspicion, and also our duties under community caretaking

there are other examples where a warrant is not required.

i have no idea (nor does anybody reading the article, most of whom assume the story is told correctly and omnisciently by the story teller, since of course the anti-police bias allows one to assume ANYBODY is telling the truth, if the truth leads to an anti-police conclusion), if the story teller is being truthful. it is also possible he was truthful, and there was in fact a fight in progress, he simply did not know about, because it was a large venue.

but in brief, if there is exigency, the police do NOT need a warrant to enter.

i have no idea if there was or wasn't exigency, but of course neither do any of the people here posting who have already made up their minds, in the usual biased way.

[druidity33]

12. i'm sure

it's just as innocent as that "other" political fundraiser the Cali cops busted up. At least this time they didn't try and justify a helicopter... and the party wasn't at an old ladies house.

:eyes:

[blindpig]

15. In other words....

the police can do damned near anything they want, there is always an excuse to be found.

Of course, a large numbers of Americans already know this, it is only among the myopic, insulated middle class that the fantasy of 'justice' has any currency.

[paulsby]

16. no, it means we have immense restrictions, MORESO

than many, if not most, other countries (such as the UK - which has no exclusionary rule, and if you remain silent, it CAN be used against you, and has lesser requirements for warrants)...

i have taken classes with UK cops (london metro to be precise), and i was surprised at how much MORE power they have. studies of comparative law have borne those suspicions out. french cops also have significantly more power. it is actually a crime, for example, in france to insult a police officer. an arrestable offense

there are two questions here

1) is the storyteller telling the truth?
2) even if he is telling the truth, does he in fact know if there was a afight, etc. or whatever other exigency might have justified entry?

i don't know the answer to either, so i am agnostic on them.

[blindpig]

20. Ummm

If I called a LEO a 'fascist pig fucker' I feel sure that I would get arrested and quite possibly an ass whupping to boot. Some charge would be found. LEOs around here shoot to kill a citizen because 'he had a knife' or 'I thought he might have had a gun' at least once a year. There are no convictions and seldom disciplinary action.

Those 'immense restriction' are arbitrary when the rubber hits the road.

And don't get me started about 'no-knock' and entrapment.

[awnobles]

21. Please, spare me.

Its not whether it is legal or not. The problem is that it is wrong for law enforcement to target political entities because it is a well known tactic of oppression by majorities. Read the history of the CIA and realize this politization and infiltration of college political groups is part of our history and our nature. Ignoring this is stupid, as is argueing whether it was legal by statute.

[paulsby]

22. please, spare ME

i have no idea if law enforcement targeted this political entity or not. i've got one account from some third rate socialist periodical that claims they did.

you do realize there is often a difference between facts and allegations?

i am AGNOSTIC (as i said) on whether this is the case or not. i am certainly not assuming this (alleged) witness is completely truthful and even if truthful, it doesn't follow that what he perceived encompasses the totality of the circumstances.

this is DU. if a story fits the metanarrative (cops are fascist pigs and students are oppressed), then it is ASSUMED that this account is true.

this creates problems. see for example, the duke case. i've investigated dozens of rapes. as soon as that case came out, it was very suspicious to me. there were all sorts of red flags, but it FIT the metanarrative , which was

lower income single minority mother working as a stripper, claiming to be raped by three (presumably) privileged white jocks.

why, it HAS to be true.

of course it wasn't. and it was pretty clear from the beginning, like when the suspects were bending over backwards to cooperate with police (here's a hint. innocent people do this frequently. guilty people rarely do), provide alibis, and even VOLUNTEER for DNA testing, and their defense attorney stated that their dna would NOT be on the victim. iow, he KNEW they were innocent, which is rare for a defense attorney. ask them.

sights like DU and even worse (feministing), refused to accept the possibility, and later the glaringly obvious inconsistencies until there was literally a mountain of evidence, and a recalcitrant prosecutor.

i prefer to look at cases from an unbiased perspective, instead of bringing all the political baggage into analysis of case facts.

i've investigated scores of cases, and i *know* that things are often not what they seem, and i have learned what to look for when analyzing such claims.

there are more things in heaven and earth and all that...

[Flaneur]

32. How does a street fight justify entry into a building?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. They don't need to justify entry into the building if it's a public venue.

The definition of "public" in these cases is somewhat variable depending on the organization of the party, but basically if you're selling tickets then it's a public venue and you can't prevent the cops from entering.

[paulsby]

37. generally speaking, this is true

the wording used in case law refer to "places open to the public as invitees or licensees"

it may also have been the case, that as part of the RENTAL CONTRACT, there was a clause that made the renters aware that the police were authorized to enter the (publically owned?) building under certain circ's.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. Party organizers jump through all sorts of hoops to avoid...

...being considered a "public" venue. Usually not selling tickets on the door and claiming it's a "private" party is the main thing. They'll usually do the same kind of thing with booze. The bars won't accept money - they only accept "tickets" that you purchase, which are in theory redeemable for any number of things but in reality only used for drinks. That way there's never any actual exchange of legal tender at the bar.

[paulsby]

41. that's what i've seen on several occasions

everybody plays their game the best they can

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

43. Generally speaking I don't have a problem with this provided it's done...

...with some reasonable level of concern for safety and reasonable respect for the neighborhood. People are gonna have parties. Hell, even SFPD doesn't care most of the time as long as you keep it on the QT in a venue that isn't ridiculously unsafe or irritating the fuck out of the neighbors. Usually people only get into trouble with the cops on this when they don't follow the unwritten rules.

[hansont]

45. The UK is a poor example. They are *not* "European", and are more a police state than us

[joeybee12]

18. Apparently you have, too...n/t

[Gman2]

25. Yes, thats how cops do it now. They claim to get a dom abuse call

Ask nme how I know. They can do anything they want, just call in and report spuriously. No warrant. Full search of home. Then, tricks, to gain further search. Crooked as hell. Fourth ammendment is DEAD!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. Sure. The fight OUTSIDE required the pigs to break down the door to gain entry INSIDE.

Now scurry back over to that other thread and tell us all about the Boston racist pig cop and his constitutional rights to call Professor Gates a "banana eating jungle monkey"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. Does exigency even need to exist in this case?

It's always been my assumption that the police don't need a warrant or even probable cause to enter a public venue.

[galileoreloaded]

14. NEVER invite the man into your life.....n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. The cops don't need a warrant to enter an event venue.

They never have.

[Tunkamerica]

6. isn't sf supposed to be some sort of bastion

[Luminous Animal]

10. Newsom, (ick) appointed a new police chief who is a law and order guy.

Emphasis on order.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. This has been going on for years. It's no different under Newsom than it was under Brown. n/t

[ThomCat]

7. So a cop walks in without a warrant, lies about why he's there

immediately assaults someone, and then arrests the person the HE assaulted.

If there really was any rule of law the other cop would have arrested HIM for that assault. :(

But cops are allowed to attack people any time they want, and lie about it, and get away with it. This isn't law and order. This is thugs with badges.

Damn, I am so sick of this shit. x(

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. First of all, cops don't need to get a warrant to enter a venue for a public event.

Second, they're under no obligation to be truthful about their purposes when entering said event. People who organize parties would be wise to remember these facts. Sadly, some don't.

[Selatius]

13. Well, at least it didn't end like Kent State where there was a bunch of dead students afterward.

I would like to know if the reports of fighting near the venue are valid or were simply trumped up charges. I want the police to produce the documents and recordings of complaints asserting there was a disturbance near or at the venue.

[leftstreet]

17. K&R

[Robb]

19. Slightly different take from a right-wing rag

...Do I need a sarcasm tag?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BAQ81BQGPC.DTL

...A 23-year-old man remains in jail after police said he threw a large M-80 firecracker, barely missing an officer. He faces felony charges of aggravated assault.

Police went to 154 Seventh St. around 1 a.m. after neighbors complained of noise, (Officer) Chan said, and the fire marshal couldn't get inside the party attended by several hundred.

When some started throwing bottles and firecrackers, "there was no other choice but to make sure this party was stopped," he said....

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shell Beau]

31. Wow. You need to count to ten or something.

Death to anyone? Harsh, don't ya think?

[FiveGoodMen]

34. Very harsh.

And yes, counting to ten would be a good idea for me quite often.

I've had it with cops acting like thugs and getting away with it, though.

[Shell Beau]

38. I understand getting upset. But posting stuff like

that doesn't add anything productive. If anything, it does quite the opposite. But, at least you do admit that!! :)

[FiveGoodMen]

40. Well, letting people know HOW upset you are has some communication value

At any rate, it's just a sentiment unless someone has developed a death-by-internet weapon.

But yes my statement was hyperbolic.

[Shell Beau]

42. I got ya.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. Uh - wait a minute.

The main doors were locked?

Look, I've been to more illegal warehouse parties in SF than I care to even think about, and I've been involved with organizing a few of them, but if you're locking the main doors on the event space, precluding their use as a fire/emergency exit, the police aren't even going to argue with you when shutting it down. They no longer trust you not to get people killed. They're going to kick everyone's ass out immediately. Again, having been through this more times than I care to count, here's probably what happened:

1) Organizers set up a sound system at an illegal venue.

2) Police got wind of it, either because the neighbors complained or because there were people on the street.

3) Police arrive and start inspecting the venue. Venue has fire safety issues.

Contrary to popular belief, SFPD doesn't particularly like arresting people for these sorts of things because it results in a ton of paperwork, consumes a lot of time, and most of the charges are inevitably dropped. Generally speaking they like to take a "just shut it down and everybody goes home happy" approach.

4) Police find that exit doors are locked. This is Very Very Bad(TM) and any party organizer worth their salt would never have let this happen.

5) Cops tell organizers to shut it down. Organizers get arsey with the cops. Now you have a potential fire danger situation with uncooperative people running things. All bets are off at this point. And yes, at this point you will get arrested if you don't cooperate.

As for the political aspect, I've never been involved in an illegal party or met a SFPD officer who gave two shits about the political affiliation of people in this kind of situation. Really, they don't care. This also means that when you try to claim that your party is for a good cause they still don't care. If they decide it needs to be shut down because of any of the above, their primary concern is getting it shut down so that they can go back to doing something else.

[Tesha]

29. "Locked" could easily mean "locked against entry from the outside".

There's no reason from the story to assume that the doors were
locked against egress.

Tesha

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. It was, according to the article, the "main doors" of the venue.

You CANNOT lock the main doors against ingress or egress. Emergency services may need to use it for ingress in case of medical emergency, fire, or similar. There are rules about this for a reason.

[MadMaddie]

44. So my question is if we looked at the record of police

breaking up political events. Are the (invasions) for lack of a better term skewed more to the left, to the right or are they even.

We also would need to see who exactly reported there was a fight etc. Was it an anonomous person? Was it someone from the neighborhood?

If we are able to look at those statistics then maybe we can make an informed decision.

[nilram]

46. It's getting to where you have to have your own videocameras running all the time

in order have available to defend yourself from trumped-up government charges.

[maryf]

47. kick

sorry I missed this until now...