SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
Indybay About Contact Newsletter Calendar Publish Community

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Animal Liberation | Police State and Prisons

Home Invasion Robbery on Riverside; Suspects Get Away
by ~Bradley ( bradley [at] riseup.net )
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
On February 24th, police broke through the front door of a home on the 700 block of Riverside Avenue in downtown Santa Cruz at about 10pm. The Santa Cruz Police Department, UCPD, Santa Cruz County Sheriffs, and a Park Ranger all participated in the raid which took place after police officers spent the day monitoring the house and looking inside windows, including while a young women was taking a shower. Police refused to produce the warrant until they were leaving the house with their hands full of computers and other items that could be used to induce other other people to be compassionate.

According to somekid, the police presence was a response to a legal demonstration that took place on the same morning at the home of a vivisector at UC Santa Cruz. Experimentation upon living animals, also called vivisection, is a highly controversial practice that is being increasingly scrutinized and condemned throughout the entire University of California. Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science.
kids-cops_2-24-08.jpg
kids-cops_2-24-08.jpg

For more information and photos from the police raid in Santa Cruz on February 24th, see:

Police Outside of Home on Riverside Avenue
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/24/18481449.php

Green Scare Tactics Return to Santa Cruz
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/25/18481491.php

For information on the Green Scare, check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Scare

Green Is The New Red
http://www.greenisthenewred.com
§Santa Cruz County Sheriffs
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
sheriffs_2-24-08.jpg
sheriffs_2-24-08.jpg

The sheriff on the right decided to shove me for absolutely no reason while I was walking in the street. That just how some cops are, they show up to a place and immediately start pushing people around.
§"Your Police"
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
your-police_2-24-08.jpg
your-police_2-24-08.jpg

"Your Police" decided to park at least 16 vehicles on Riverside Avenue which blocked through traffic from both directions.
§Our Community
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
our-community_2-24-08.jpg
our-community_2-24-08.jpg

Our community... under police occupation.
§Shy
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
shy_2-24-08.jpg
shy_2-24-08.jpg

This Santa Cruz County Sheriff decided to remove his name tag from above the right pocket of his shirt and refused to provide his badge number when it was requested. What's up with that?
§Whose Streets?
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
whose-streets_2-24-08.jpg
whose-streets_2-24-08.jpg

§Shift Change
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
shift-change_2-24-08.jpg
shift-change_2-24-08.jpg

SCPD officers came in on a shift change to relieve the Santa Cruz County Sheriffs who were doing a stellar job of standing in front of the house.
§Waving
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
waving_2-24-08.jpg
waving_2-24-08.jpg

People trapped inside the house managed to find some time to wave to their supporters outside. One of them even made a heart-shape with their hands.
§Shine On
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
shine-on_2-24-08.jpg
shine-on_2-24-08.jpg

All night long, police used flashlights to disrupt people who were taking photos. It is very common for police to shine flashlights in peoples' eyes or camera lens because they do not want anyone to actually see what they are doing. This photo came out because the light was not directly on my camera lens, it was on someone else's.
§Loot
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
loot_2-24-08.jpg
loot_2-24-08.jpg

§Thought Crimes
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
thought-crimes_2-24-08.jpg
thought-crimes_2-24-08.jpg

Computers and other items that could be used to induce other other people to be compassionate were seized from the house.
§Front Door
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
front-door_2-24-08.jpg
front-door_2-24-08.jpg

Notice the broken glass and the damage from the battering ram. First they broke the glass then used the battering ram. They had a key, so why not use it to open the door, assuming they have a warrant? After the glass was broken, why not reach in to unlock and open the door? Oh yeah, that's right, because the police want to induce fear and dominance.
§Broken Glass
by ~Bradley Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:32 AM
broken-glass_2-24-08.jpg
broken-glass_2-24-08.jpg

Evidence from the home invasion robbery.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by EricR
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 9:02 AM
A little melodramatic, don't you think?

If a policeman came up and demanded YOUR ID while you were standing on the street, would YOU comply?

The residents 'somehow managed to find some time'?? They had nothing but time, did they?

Note that I agree both the police presence and the tactic of breaking in the door were overkill.
by Bunny
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 9:28 AM
The whole thing could have been avoided if the kids had not slammed the door in the face of the police that showed up at the start. It's usually a sign that you have something to hide when you won't answer a simple question and tell the police to "get a warrant". The police were investigating a vandalism spree.
Robbery? They got the warrant the kids asked for and took evidence based on what they found. Perhaps if the kids had talked to the police they would have been able to hold onto their stuff.
Sad thing for these kids is that if they are found to be responsible for the vandalism they will be expelled from UCSC and more than likely unable to attend another school.
by local
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:38 AM
So they broke in. Poor little babies. I really feel for you, NOT. Next time the police knock on your door - don't be suck a jerk.
by civics 101
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:06 AM
Are you insane? you don't let police in to have a chat in your living room, that's why we have lawyers and a constitution.
by Local
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:10 AM
Why not? If you have NOTHING TO HIDE... you have nothing to fear.
by Ryan
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:15 AM
So you not only believe a day long confrontation is an appropriate response to a protest but.....

You think being rude to a police officer is justification for your being arrested, having your house vandalized, and your personal possessions stolen by police??

Its sheep like you that has enabled fascists and tyrants to rise to power.
by civics 101
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:22 AM
No business executive or politician talks to investigators without their lawyer. Why should anyone else?
by student activist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:30 AM
If I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear.

Explain that to prisoner's who are violated, strip searched, and searched internally daily. Should they not fear being raped? That is the perfect mentality for a fascist state.

I still want to know how the warrant was addressed. It was not shown until the cops had mostly left the home. I feel that the para-military police squad did not show a warrant at the start because they did not have one, and broke in anyway. This leads me to question the validity of that warrant--is it forged?!

They entered just before 10pm and did not leave until just after midnight. From what I heard a search authorized after 10pm is not permitted by law (or just that searches cannot be authorized after 10pm), therefore the cops could have broken in before 10pm (as they did) and denied anyone the ability to see a warrant until 2 hours later when it was finally approved (possibly in error).
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:40 AM
Ryan asks if the police response was appropriate. If they had followed a group of students home from a rally on the street, on public property, that would be one thing. But now we're finding out that this "protest" was on private property, by people wearing black masks, vandalizing the property, and terrorizing little kids. It no longer sounds like a simple "protest".

When they first approached the house do we know if the police asked to enter the home? No. Do we know if they asked the occupants to simply answer some questions? No. Do we know if they were following up on a complaint by the people who were terrorized and whose house was vandalized? No. We don't know a lot of what led to this. But there is a lot of jumping to conclusions.

What we do know. These students screamed at the police to get a warrant and then slammed a door in their faces. The police got the warrant they were asked to produce. They then entered the home and gathered evidence. The police then left with the evidence the warrant allowed them to obtain. Not exactly a "theft".

We'll have to wait and see if these students are guilty of anything. But if they are, they are in for a major wake up.
by civics 101
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:52 AM
Ben says the kids in the house depicted here were terrorizing some other littler kids in some other house? Wow this is turning into an all out Santa Cruz terrorizing kids house drama! Maybe he can post some pics of the first incident.
by Local
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:57 AM
No Ryan - its "Sheep" like myself who's taxes pay for this - and it pisses me off. You need to know the facts little boy. The police were there because the people inside had terrorized a family in the name of "protest". They wore masks, tagged a house and made jerks out of themselves. Once these little punks crossed the line and went on private property - they lost all my respect! You can protest all you want - that is your right.....but do it legally. The children were scared out of their wits.


Shame on the lot of you!
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:03 PM
So Student Activist, let's pose the following scenario.

You're sitting home one night at 10:01pm watching tv and drinking a cup of cocoa. All of a sudden you hear breaking glass and screams outside. You see your neighbor smashing your car up with a baseball bat. Your neighbor takes out a black ski mask and puts it on. Then your neighbor starts screaming at you that you are a murderer, which makes your kids run and scream in horror. They say they are going to come back and kill you while you sleep. Then your neighbor spray paints lewd comments on the side of your house.

You run inside to call the police. Before the police get there your neighbor has returned to their house and has taken off the ski mask. They have hidden the baseball bat and boxed up the spray paint. When the police arrive you are beside yourself with fear. They walk up to the neighbors house and knock on the door. The neighbor screams at them to "Get a warrant!".

The police come back to your house and say. "Well, we don't have a warrant. So we'll come back tomorrow afternoon and look into this. You may be right that there is a baseball bat and spray paint in the house but, since we don't have a warrant we're not going to watch the house either. If they remove the evidence by tomorrow... oh well. See you later, dude."

I'm sure that you would be very happy that the police were following the proper process.
by eva
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:06 PM
Does anyone have photographs of this tag? I'm a connoisseur of visual arts.
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:07 PM
These were not student "kids" protesting other student "kids". These were young adults terrorizing small children in their home.
by log
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:17 PM
Here is the police log for that day, but there is nothing from California street, so I bet it wasn't entered yet

http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pd/MediaLog/022408.pdf
by civics 101
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:17 PM
Bunny said they were kids. Sorry I'm 30 miles away from Santa Cruz so relying on you all for the information on this one!
by incase anyone cares
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:23 PM
San Jose merc

Wearing bandannas to cover their faces, a group of men pounded on the front door of a Santa Cruz home Sunday and struck a man who opened the door to confront them.

Santa Cruz police are investigating the incident, which left the man with minor injuries.

"It's unclear what their motive was," Lt. Rudy Escalante said. "They were pounding on the door. The resident was struck by something."

Around 12:50 p.m., Santa Cruz police responded to the city's west side on California Street to reports of six men who were pounding on the front door of a residence. The man told police he had secured his wife and children in the back of the home, then went to the front of the house to investigate. When it appeared the door might break open, the man opened it and confronted the group, according to police.

The man, who was struck by an object, fended off the attackers, according to police. The group of attackers fled in a vehicle.

Police obtained a description of the vehicle from a witness and served a search warrant for a residence in the 700 block of Riverside Avenue. Police found several items of evidence related to the investigation. Five people were home when the warrant was served, but no arrests were made, Escalante said.
by PATRIOTIC AND IGNORANT
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:25 PM
I agree. Why should police need to follow a process or get warrants before entering people's homes? I thought they were exempt from all oversight and do not have to abide by laws... those are for the poor! Come to think of it, laws are also for those who resist our Great Way of Life here in AMERICA™. Those commie wankers had it coming. I hear they even wore masks to protect their identities so the honorable police and federal agents couldn't profile them and start political intelligence files on them. Some said they even had the audacity to wear dark colored clothing! How dare they protect themselves from the State!? Pinko... wait no... what is it now... TERRORIST scum go back to Russia! Only patriotic Americans like me and the Police belong in Santa Cruz. Where senator McCarthy (God Bless™ his soul) when we need him most? 'Freedom' is slavery! Ignorance is strength!
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:26 PM
Civics, I'm not trying to be difficult but, come on. You're not following what people are saying. In re-reading the posts "Bunny" is stating the kids as being the students. In that post kids=students. The other posts are talking about the kids, as in children, of the people that were terrorized.

The sad thing is that these are children of a researcher working on cancer treatments. Their parent is doing something to better humanity and these "children" are terrorized for it.

I don't wish ill on anyone, that would be horrible, but if any of these students should discover that they had cancer it would be interesting to see if they accept the treatment that they protested against.
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:29 PM
Yeah, peaceful protest on the street. Uh huh.
by incase anyone cares
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:45 PM
Just want everyone to know the 'facts'.
by Violations of U.S. Constitution 4th Amendment
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 1:50 PM
Bradley wrote;

"Police refused to produce the warrant until they were leaving the house with their hands full of computers and other items that could be used to induce other other people to be compassionate."

If this statement is true, then the police are in error. According to the U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment, police are instructed to show proof of search warrant prior to entry into any building or residence. This is called the "knock and announce" rule..

"Even when police have a warrant certifying probable cause, in other words, they still have to execute the warrant in a legitimate fashion. The Court has identified one component of reasonable execution as police knocking and announcing their presence and purpose and then waiting an appropriate period of time for an answer, before forcing their way in to perform an authorized search.

It was only eleven years ago, in Wilson v. Arkansas, that the Court explicitly recognized that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to "knock and announce." But the requirement itself is not new. Courts have long assumed that this obligation - part of the English common law - represents an element of the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures."

found @;
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060628.html

So the police were wrong in their actions and all siezed property needs to be returned to residence. If not, then these police officers are in violation of the law themselves and should be treated as criminals..

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

found @;
http://edp.org/borsr.htm

In addition, it is questionable whether the search warrants were themselves valid, as under the recent Patriot Act of GW Bush regime the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment laws are either circumvented or ignored..

It is a shame to witness people calling themselves patriots encouraging police incursions into private residences. Anyone who is truly a patriot would support the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitiution, the two most attacked since the takeover of GW Bush regime..

Here's a segment of timeline of attacks on civil liberties under GW Bush regime;

"October

The USA Patriot Act becomes law. Among other things the law: makes it a crime for anyone to contribute money or material support for any group on the State Department’s Terror Watch List, allows the FBI to monitor and tape conversations between attorneys and clients, allows the FBI to order librarians to turn over information about patron’s reading habits, allows the government to conduct surveillance on internet and email use of US citizens without notice. The act also calls for expanded use of National Security Letters (NSLs), which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records of US citizens without a court order, exempts the government from needing to reveal how evidence against suspected terrorists was obtained and authorizes indefinite detention of immigrants at the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities.

NJ Superior court judge and civil liberties scholar Anthony Napolitano, author of A Nation of Sheep, has described the law’s assault on first and fourth amendment principles as follows, “The Patriot Act’s two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name “national security letters”] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it’s likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime… Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. The Patriot Act allows [agents] to serve self-written search warrants on financial institutions, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 in Orwellian language defines that to include in addition to banks, also delis, bodegas, restaurants, hotels, doctors' offices, lawyers’ offices, telecoms, HMOs, hospitals, casinos, jewelry dealers, automobile dealers, boat dealers, and that great financial institution to which we all would repose our fortunes, the post office."

timeline found @;
http://mondoglobo.ning.com/group/questionauthority/forum/topic/show?id=1509099%3ATopic%3A2937

Was the search warrant court ordered or was it written up as a NSL under Patriot Act falsehoods??
by Propoganda mouthpiece
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:13 PM
Bradley posted this entire story and made it sound as if a group was targeted and attacked for no valid reason.

But now we're finding out that there was a very good reason for the police to go after these people. They were identified by witnesses and followed home.

It feels to me that Bradley tried to do damage control by getting ahead of the story and throwing out a false trail; a propagandized version that candy coats the role of the individuals and exaggerates the role of the cops.

I support free speech and lawful protest. I don't support propaganda or intimidation by terrorists calling themselves activists.
by Yeah, right
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:22 PM
So Eva wants photos of the demonstrators tagging a family's house and pounding on the door? Maybe her friends in the River Street house can get her one. I doubt the family that was attacked is in any rush to get their pictures on this rag.
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:43 PM
There are 3 different threads going on about this. Very confusing.

Check on some of the others. There is one post made by someone that was there. The police were on the property, with the consent of the owner of the property. The police did not enter the house until after the warrant arrived.

There have been so many false statements made on here that it has been hard to find out the truth.
by student activist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:01 PM
I really doubt activists demonstrating for animal rights are concerned with "terrorizing" the children of a vivisector. I don't see how her or his children have any say in what the s/he actively decides to do in the workplace.

And with the vandalism. I've heard a number of assumptions that vandalism must mean severe property damage and that graffiti must mean spray-painting the walls of a house. I've heard that chalk-drawing on a sidewalk can be considered graffiti and vandalism.

Also with animal rights activism, the general goal is to not harm animals or otherwise breach on their rights? I have serious doubts that any animal rights activists condones violence in any form. I am more inclined to think that a vivisector who comes to work daily to kill or torture animals would be much more likely to initiate a violent confrontation.

When you call someone a terrorist, you are calling them everything you despise and/or fear. In doing this, you trivialize any ACTUAL actions or events that take place in exchange for prejudice.

"Terrorism" is a catchall for political dissent. It had been a justification for police to target and attack individuals of this society.
by Yunn
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:20 PM
Writing on streets/sidewalks with chalk is definitely something that police often threat to write citations for. I know this because during New Years downtown a police officer threatened to give a citation to the parents of 2 girls who were drawing hopscotch square on the ground if they continued drawing. YAY SCPD!!! Protecting OUR community :)

However, I believe the definition of vandalism is generally aimed towards PERMANENT damage to property, not artwork that gets erased from the rain. So a citation for chalk writing would probably get ignored.

So I figure it's usually an intimidation tactic.

Just for the clarification :)
Have a great day everyone!!!!!!

by Frustrated wit the cop for good reason
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:26 PM
police_brutality01.jpg
police_brutality01.jpg

Whoever you are you don't seem to worry much about putting your info on this "rag". ... See that's the beauty of Indymedia, anyone can post up anything within the guidelines. You don't like what's on here? Do it you damn self then. This website is a forum for presenting opinions not normally covered in the "Mainstream" (ie classist, sexist, and racist) media so is it any real wonder bradley put up his perspective and opinions on the matter. The Scotts Valley Senile ain't gonna publish them. Neither will the Mercury, so once again, this website is the only place to put up OUR information and version of the story. Quit harping on bradley for his reporting quality. As the author he has total creative rights, as do you if you choose to use the site. However, does that mean I have to believe everything he writes/states. Of course not and I'd be a fool to do so. I, unlike the majority of the American Public, enjoy THINKING FOR MYSELF AND NOT AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVING WHAT I READ OR AM TOLD. There is no such thing as "objective" or unbiased reporting. Everyone has an agenda. Therefore, I believe it is better to take in the information from all sides, left and right (or whatever you want to call them) and then make up your mind. Quit being a damn sheep and following everything you're told or read. The key here is that you wouldn't have the whole story by reading just one account. It takes many sides of every story to truly understand it from an informed and enlightened position. That is what this website if for, presenting our side of the story.

On another note, I wonder how many of these anonymous responses are police officers checking on bradley's reporting. As one of the cops noted, bradley is well known by many officers by sight and we know that they monitor this site and have done so for years. Why don't some of you big bad boys (and girls?) in blue explain why there was such an overwhelming response to what essentially boils down to some verbal harassment and a possible assault and/or battery charge. I guess it depends on the individual incident, but I wish they responded with such enthusiasm to every rape or robbery or murder when the "victim" wasn't a middle to upper class (most likely) white male. Was it really necessary to bring in 16 cars, a SWAT team, officers from NUMEROUS departments, and all your fancy (and expensive) equipment just to serve a warrant on 3 individuals in a small house? Why the Fuck was the SCPD Tow Truck there??? Why was the other tow truck there? Did you really need to break down the door when you had a key and had already broken the glass on the door and could have very easily unlocked it yourselves? How much did all this cost and who pays for it?

And let me finish by saying I don't hate all cops or what they represent, to an extent. I have friends on the force and respect what they try (often unsuccessfully) to do. However, these are officers who respect the general public and treat the people they encounter and investigate with respect, something WAY too many awful-sirs lack. This whole action by the police, regardless of the circumstances that led to it, was way overkill in my opinion and seemed to trample the rights of most involved.

PS. And fuck anyone who says what happened earlier in the day was "Terrorism". While I agree it sounds like a stupid tactic to confront someone on or in their property, that does not equate terrorism. Terrorism is dropping a bomb from 15,000 feet, missing your target, and killing dozens in the name of "freedom". Terrorism is denying people access to lawyers while holding them without charge while also torturing them physically and psychologically. Terrorism is when someone takes a gun and blasts numerous people around them in a careless disregard for life because of what they feel or believe. Confronting someone who may or may not be harming animals in the pursuit of a cancer therapy and doing so in a not so friendly manner? Not terrorism.

Put that in your pipe and Suck on it.....
by Community Supporter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:29 PM
Add this to the bundle: they are now saying that this whole thing is taking place because of an incident that occured earlier that day. Interesting, seeing as how everyone in the house were essentially on house arrest since noon (while the neighbors report 2:00pm, the people at the house recall it as 12:00pm). I highly doubt that a bunch of college kids would get out of bed before noon, go get there 'intimidation' on, and be back before the cops even got there.

Again proving to throw out what you are reading in the major news articles. Calling them terrorists, violent activists, etc. is really nothing more than tactics on account of the police attempting to get further support for their cause. There has been leaps and bounds more information out there on the house arrest than the home demonstartion, so how on Earth are any of you actually trying to make a point about all of this being justified because these people were harming babies?
by 897
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:32 PM
Theoretically, it would have been more carbon neutral to have walked or biked to the researchers house, than driven a car, at 12 noon Sunday.

If a group decides to pick this style of protest, it would be a good idea to attend some evening lectures at UCSC, or read books on social movements under risky conditions with police states, in South America, Europe, southern Mexico and so forth. Learning about this and adopting some of the perspectives could help with strategy, both for being maximally effective while getting backing of the community, and for avoiding moves that might get one arrested.
by victoria
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 5:46 PM
I am a resident on Riverside Ave. From 8:30pm until 1am I watched what was going on as both police AND activists occupied my neighborhood. I spoke with many activists at the scene to try to get information on what was happening. I wasn't taking any sides, because most of what I heard was hearsay and pure speculation. And, although I spoke to some very respectful and informative activists, no seemed to really know the hard facts. Although I admired and supported the activists for making their presence known to the the police officers on the scene, I did not support many of the tactics employed during the several-hour protest. Yelling and calling the police derogatory names was completely counter-productive. Additionally, verbally assaulting the police with threats about how they "will be trampled" by all of protesters didn't exactly foster a calm, non-violent atmosphere. Not only did the cause lose credibility with the police, it lost credibility and respect from our neighborhood. Many of us Riverside residents were annoyed with the vulgar language and antagonistic nature of the remarks being yelled. Before the protesters crossed the street, both parties were peacefully standing on the same side. Once the street was crossed, the antagonism began, not by the police, but by the activists. Now, as for the issue of the cops eventually blocking the street with additional squad cars, well that didn't happen until a police officer was approached by a protester who felt it necessary to puff his chest up, push against the cop, and yell in his face. What did you all expect to happen when the cop was approached so aggressively? The cop pushed the man away from him, which promptly had everyone yelling, "Assault! Assault!" and pulling out their cameras to take pictures. When put into context of the protester's aggressive behavior, the push to get the man away was reasonable and definitely not exerted with any kind of excessive force. I, as well as the 7 other neighbors who watched this altercation occur, will readily sign witness forms to state that the action taken was within reason. Only after this event occurred did all those other squad cars park in the street. Up until the point the street was usable, with the exception of the occasional dancer, patty-caker, and bicyclist getting in the way. Please don't use your images to misconstrue what happened with regard to the police bringing in back-up. The protesters were predominantly more aggressive than the stagnant police presence in the neighborhood. Protesters were occupying the neighborhood, not just the police. I'm not going to comment on the investigation itself, because although many people assert that they know exactly what was going down last night, I still believe that most people are in the dark about it. I don't believe in rolling over and turning a blind eye, but I also don't believe in provoking aggression and violence. Please think about the communities in which activists occupy and disrupt while they protest. And also think about how your own view can be skewed just as much as your enemy's.

Good luck to your cause. May it be more productive and peaceful in the future.



by Doubter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 5:46 PM
I'm sure there are some good attorneys in Santa Cruz. If the police did indeed violate the 4th amendment, either by not having a warrant or executing it properly, then the folks in the Riverside Drive house have nothing to worry about.

As a special aside to "community supporter", I don't need the police or the Sentinel to tell me the masked folks who attacked a family in their home were terrorists. The actions of the masked people were meant to intimidate and terrorize. If you truly support our community, you won't support thugs who try to get their way through violence and intimidation.
by Student Activist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:09 PM
"If you truly support our community, you won't support thugs who try to get their way through violence and intimidation."

Though you are speaking about the activists, who you would so proudly label as guilty before even a crime has been charged, this same argument can be said of some of the police actions, public speakers receive--simply for being public.


Until the Rights Activists speak about their intentions, we should hold-back with our profound conclusions. At this point it is all speculation.


I don't think anyone here has any right to speak for someone else. We can't assume people are guilty based on rumors (or a san jose media report!). I say, let everyone involved in this speak before conclusions are drawn.
by Puh-leeze
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:36 PM
You don't think people should speak for others, but don't seem bothered by the post that originates this thread. What is Bradley doing, by posting an unsubstantiated claim by an anoymous person with a psuedonym, if not speaking for others with no facts to back up the post?

I find a duality in your apparent desire to have your say based upon your subjective opinion, but at the same time expecting others to desist from doing the same.

And I see nothing incredible about the first hand account from the neighborhood witness. She seems credible, and willing to go on record. What's "rumor" about her first-hand accounting of what transpired?
by Rico
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:23 PM
Actually, I believe I am the man whom the neighbor is talking about.

In the incident she is referring to, I was assertive, but far from aggressive, in contrast with the officer.

I was standing nearby to observe the police in my community, off the property that police were claiming was a "crime scene," on property owned by a neighbor. As the police were posturing and standing in a line, we were observing at the edges of the property.

One short bald angry officer told me to get back. I politely pointed out that I was standing on private property and that I had a right to observe. The cop stepped forward and snapped angrily, "When I say move back, move back. Don't get on my side." I again pointed out that I was on private property and well within my rights. He stepped forward and pushed me, and yelled, "Don't get on my side!" I stood my ground. He grabbed my arm and pushed me again. And I held my ground.

At this point, another officer touched his shoulder to signal that he should chill the fuck out.

We eyed each other for a few minutes and then he backed off.

This is pretty typical of police posturing and intimidation. And unfortunately typical of observations by bystanders unfamiliar with police tactics. Police can stand with clubs drawn, ordering people, shoving, pushing, and grabbing. But if anyone dares be assertive and stand their ground against police oppression, people see noncompliance as aggression.

So there's your first hand account.
by Rico
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:34 PM
And as for the neighbor, she councils that perhaps as protesters we should be more courteous and aware of the communities we might be interrupting.

WE didn't choose that night or that neighborhood to be there. WE didn't bring 18 cop cars to block your street. WE didn't trespass through a neighbor's property without permission, break down his fence in order to get to the target house. WE didn't bust in a door and break windows. WE didn't restrict your neighbors from getting into their house until after midnight. WE didn't hold four of your neighbors hostage. WE didn't raid your neighbor's house in a desperate search for circumstantial evidence after an animal rights protest. WE didn't bring guns and teargas and weapons and gas masks into your neighborhood.

We were just there to observe the police state at work in your neighborhood.

Next time you council someone to be more respectful of your neighborhood, maybe you should take a lot more thoughtful look at your relationship to your community police force.
by No dog in this fight.
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 12:14 AM

Quote: "WE didn't choose that night or that neighborhood to be there. WE didn't bring 18 cop cars to block your street. WE didn't trespass through a neighbor's property without permission, break down his fence in order to get to the target house. WE didn't bust in a door and break windows. WE didn't restrict your neighbors from getting into their house until after midnight. WE didn't hold four of your neighbors hostage. WE didn't raid your neighbor's house in a desperate search for circumstantial evidence after an animal rights protest. WE didn't bring guns and teargas and weapons and gas masks into your neighborhood."


Actually, yes you did. You can not sit there and claim that your hands are clean. Those 4 poor people that were "held hostage" are (at this point) thought to be responsible of terrorizing a family and assaulting a man. Those people acting either directly in your name or for your cause. That in and of itself would have prompted some reaction by the police. Add to that the act of jackassery that turned it into what passes for a standoff. Ramping up, but still nothing that the SCPD can't handle. But then add a large group of people, many masked and in support, and of course the SO will be called in. Why, because of you and your knuckleheaded friends that think that dressing up like wanna be ninja and causing trouble is "cool".

As for the trespassing, when you pulled attitude on that cop, I'm willing to bet that wasn't your yard that you claimed as private property. Try that on my block and you'd get a sprinkler shower. I would have shed one tiny tear if he busted you over your head for being an idiot. Because that's what this is, an idiotic move that has set your cause back. You can claim heavy handed treatment from the police,and whine and piss and moan about a 'police state' but it has only been brought down on yourselves. Spin it as you'd like, it's still your own damned fault.

As an interesting aside, how come you never hear about Cabrillo students acting like asses?
by Questioner
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 7:06 AM
Having done nothing wrong or illegal is not an open invitation to waltz through my privacy.
Get a warrant and get me a lawyer.
by This is your ego talking
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 7:50 AM
Your macho post about how you bravely stared down a cop is embarrassing. "We stared at each other and then he backed down".
Yeah dude, yer Clint Eastwood and Edward Abbey all in one package.

But your presence WAS the cause of the substantial police presence. By Bradley's own timeline, and the account of the residents both; there was a small police presence until some posturing people with hidden faces arrived and started harassing the cops.

You've now identified yourself as one of those people. And it was apparently your actions that swelled the police presence in the neighborhood, and brought on the swat team.

So consider taking your own advice, and shut the fuck up once in a while.
by frou
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 9:18 AM

The article today in the San Jose Mercury News makes it sound like this bunch probably watched the Peter Young film about animal rights on Saturday, and then rushed out in a misguided fashion the next day to imitate what they had seen. This easily might not be true, but the wire story is drawing the connection.
The really reckless details of how they went about this, by driving a car and wearing ski masks in broad daylight on a busy street, and by touching his house instead of picketing out front or at least running a legal pamphlet campaign first... it all sounds so ridiculous that I decided I psychologically want to hear private gossip about these students which allows me to dislike them for other reasons. I mean, I don't share the animal rights goals, but there are so many people who have a period where vegetarianism is their greatest emphasis, and they later turn out to be very effective in legal work, politics, and other things. If they couldn't at least make it easier to support them, I wish I was able to learn that they secretly are a bunch of jerks who recently converted to their positions from being apolitical.
by Peter K
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 9:34 AM
This discussion needs more love guys. Chill the fuck out.
by John
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 10:11 AM
The reason the cops can traipse around our neighborhoods with their automatic weapons is that they know that the citizenry probably won't take arms against them. It's a pretty low probability that these bastards will be shot--especially in Santa Cruz.
I'm not a right-wing conspiracy nut, but recently a coworker who is a right winger pulled up some videos on youtube of Waco and Ruby Ridge. The government (Pigs, US Marshalls, FBI etc) basically showed up and took the lives of women and children in both incidents without any repercussions. The guy that pulled the trigger, Lon Horiuchi, was indicted, but later dismissed--because hes a cop. My point is that these fuckers are pretty much immune to any prosecution. They can come into our neighborhoods, treat us like shit, beat a few heads, leave, and that's it. And, they do it using our tax money.

I'm not comparing what happened in SC with these other two events, but just want to point out that basically, uneducated, well-armed soldiers can show up in our neighborhoods anytime they want, start shooting, or beating in doors, justify it somehow, and do no jail time. I have never felt safer knowing that there were cops around--NEVER. All of the interactions with pigs that I have ever seen always seem to escalate. Why is that?
by Craig
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:04 AM
Once again, uber-left wing "activists" cross a serious line and there are repercussions, and others in their ilk decry the massive police state and fascist brutality that this somehow "proves".

Here's an idea: don't vandalize private property; don't send threatening messages (anonymously, like a coward); don't show up at the private residence of a researcher and physically attempt to enter and/or do harm to the people inside. Maybe then there won't be a large police presence or a need to search your house for evidence of these crimes! What a shocking idea!

Why some of you are apologists for these punks' actions and immediately critical of the police response (which was legal) is something I'll never ever understand. Somehow, when individuals do it, it's alright, but when the police take action it's the end of times.

And someone posted this earlier but it needs to be re-stated: if the "action" at the researcher's house was a legal protest, where are the photos and videos of that? Why wasn't that trumpeted here for partnership and PR? Maybe because it wasn't legal, it wasn't right, and these monkeys knew it.

Yet another reason why I'll never give money to the alumni association. Although, chances are these fools are on a full ride from their parents and don't get scholarship support.

by tangent
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:24 AM
Look what can happen in very threatening situations like New Orleans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
by Adam
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 7:32 PM
I just read the senile article.

"Witnesses to the Westside attack provided police with a license plate of the vehicle the attackers fled in, Escalante said."

"... "They were wearing bandanas ... and were screaming and trying to break into the house."

Why would you be screaming while trying to break into a house and why would you park your car close enough to be spotted?
These 'activists' should be arrested for being stupid.
by community member
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 7:52 PM
A lot of the stories and explanation seem to have the same logical flaw here. If these protesters are protesting for animal rights and thus honor a non-violent approach, then how would an effective protest against violence involve violence? This sounds really fishy, and we've only heard the side of the story from the faculty member's household.
by Cholito
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 4:37 AM
You give some of these activists too much credit “community member”. I am pretty sure they were not thinking when they did what they did, so trying to rationalize it too much will likely not produce an explanation.
This site has collected some of the stories surrounding this event.
"The reason the cops can traipse around our neighborhoods with their automatic weapons is that they know that the citizenry probably won't take arms against them. It's a pretty low probability that these bastards will be shot--especially in Santa Cruz. "

People make assinine statements like this, it's not the fascist state and corporate media keeping you down, it's your own stupidity.

You guys are a joke, that's why you get ignored, not because of the police and the corporate media oppressing you.
by other "ELF/ALF" Green scare similarities
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 1:30 PM
This remains a 4th amaendment issue and fits the pattern of police state repression against anyone who professes to speak out for either animal rights or earth defense, together grouped as eco-terrorists by the GW Bush junta regime..

Collectively the rights of people to resist police invasions into home and/or body has deteriorated since 9/11. John is correct in pointing out the treatment received by the Waco group of Seventh Day Adventists of Branch Davidians by the FBI. Burning people alive was than allowed under Clinton as the Branch Davidians were deemed a "cult". In reality the Branch Davidians were an independent religious group that avoided processed foods and factory farmed animal products, because God instructed David Koresh that this consumption was wrong for the human body, our temple. The Branch Davidians avoided sending their children to the public school system, though were denied the right of home schooling as they were eventually branded as "child molesters" by the U.S. Government, who then used this to justify burning adults and the children they tried to rescue alive in the building. In some way the "far right" aspects of the Branch Davidians have been increased by the media as these people were basically "Holy Health Nuts" who avoided participation in the corporate food culture that has so many others hooked and addicted. BTW, i use the term "health nuts" as a term of love and appreciation, as i myself am a health nut though certainly less than holy!!

Here the police treatment of the Branch Davidians and the termed "ALF/ELF" animal rights activists comes full circle as police repression labels these groups as "extremist" and uses deadly invasive force, deception and propaganda (cults, terrorists, etc..) as weapons to harm and discredit the participants of these groups. When the 4th Amendment is overruled by Patriot Act "war on terror" or other such abstractions, civil liberties are indeed repressed and the U.S. marches one step closer to the home invasions of dissidents during Nazi occupation of Germany..
by scmoderate
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 6:23 PM
Nice try, dude. David Koresh was a child molester whose supporters shot and killed four law enforcement officers.
by scmoderate
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 6:25 PM
"In some way the "far right" aspects of the Branch Davidians have been increased by the media as these people were basically "Holy Health Nuts" who avoided participation in the corporate food culture that has so many others hooked and addicted."

-Yeah, the Davidians were "persecuted" because they were health food advocates. Nice argument.
by Dragon Lover
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 8:58 AM
I would ask ELF/ALF how this is a 4th amendment issue? A warrant was served on the residents of the house and duly carried out. The only people that the police have to show the warrant to are the people it is being served to and/or their lawyer. As a interested party you have no right to see the warrant.
by Thinker
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 9:46 AM
With all the legal and socially acceptable methods available to effect change in policy and practice, these morons use blow horns and door banging tactics.
My six year old effects as much change as these uncreative loons do with her sidewalk art.
I can think of a number of methods and campaigns that if initiated that would yield immediate and substantial growth of support for anti-vivisection policy.
These methods generally take the hard and selfless work of dedicated visionaries, whom lack any narcissistic hungers for recognition.
by Rico
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 11:23 AM
I really sincerely would like to hear some suggestions for tactics that will affect immediate and effective change regarding vivisection and animal experimentation.

However, I remain skeptical (but open).

Being an activist, one often hears that one should go through the proper channels. Though I observe that most people suggesting that have never tried to make change about anything they care about through these proscribed channels.

It isn't just a matter of impatience, that it takes a long time or a lot of energy and negotiation (something you also hear -- that activists are too lazy to go through this process), but that these channels are meant to shunt energy away from real change.

The status quo is the way it is for a reason. Simple reasons: money and power. It isn't just hard to make change that acts against the motives of money and power, it is impossible. The system is not set up that way. If it was, we wouldn't have the top-down, rigidly hierarchical, gap between rich and poor system we have now, would we?

Lucy Parsons warned, "Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth." That applies not just to voting, but petitioning, negotiating, urgent pleas, and spirited rallies.

Simply put: The rich and powerful will never act against their own interests, unless they are threatened, either economically, politically, or physically. The story of revolutions and movements is the story of the rich and powerful making change because they are forced to. Whether you are talking about civil rights (political), New Deal reforms (economic), or the French Revolution (physical) the ruling class did not act out of charity and goodness, but out of a desire to save their own necks (sometimes literally as in the Magna Carta, one of the pillars of modern democracy).

One can dismiss animal rights activists as ignorant, compulsive punks, but it doesn't go very far to understand why they would be willing to take such risks for a cause they believe in. After all, if there were less risky immediate and effective tactics for ending animal experimentation, don't you think they'd prefer that? Don't you think they might have tried that?

Of course, it's fun and popular and makes you feel superior to call other people ignorant and impetuous -- especially on the internet anonymously -- but if you aren't looking for deeper answers, who's being ignorant?
by Another activist
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 6:16 PM
People have compared the use of violence by some animal rights activists as necessary and compared it to the Black Panthers and other groups that at one point used violent tactics.

The difference between the Black Panthers and those animal rights activists that use violence is that the Black Panthers used violence because their motivations were based on facts. It was a fact that racism and a denial of civil rights was indeed happening, it could not be denied, there was no need for evidence, the argument was about whether it was right or wrong. The situation with those who acted violently this past weekend because they are fighting vivisection is quite different. Their motivations are not based in reality. First question is, have they been to the labs of the people they are attacking? Do they really know what happens there? Probably not. They are acting based on information given to them in the form of videos or speeches. Every activist should learn to questions his sources, coming from any direction, before acting. We shouldn't just take whatever is presented to us as true just because we agree with it. Even if vivisection is happening, as seen in the case of Britches, they don't know if that is happening at UCSC. Researchers do not condone treating animals like that, those who hurt Britches are despised by the scientific community as well. A few cases, or even a hundred, are not proof that that is what is happening at UCSC.

by fanatic
Saturday Mar 1st, 2008 10:08 AM
The Santa Cruz Sentinel constantly prints articles by this woman, who very often comes across as hysterical, presenting exaggerated scenes of islamic terrorism. Here she is weighing in on the local animal rights people, and saying they're a step away from murder:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1386792
by finding common ground
Tuesday Mar 4th, 2008 9:34 PM
Contrary to "scmoderate", the people who died in Waco, TX alongside Koresh as Branch Davidians renounced any charges of child molestation, and believe they were being framed by the U.S government for being self sufficient and out of step with the norms of mainstream society..

"Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. Read this page if you believe otherwise. If you still have doubts, get the video Rules of Engagement for visual evidence. Or read the book Armageddon in Waco. Or see the film Waco: A New Revelation.

Waco occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno and Wesley Clark in supporting roles. Already back in 1993 the US government demonstrated its contempt for the American people by carrying out a massacre in order to "demonstrate" (on prime time TV) its supposed "authority" (a tactic favored by fascist governments). Following the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 by the psychopath George W. Bush, and the subsequent installation of the insane John Ashcroft as Bush's Himmler, things became much worse. On 9/11 about forty times as many people were murdered as at Waco. In both cases the murderers have so far gone unpunished."

read on @;
http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

Branch Davidian lifestyle;

"The BDs at Waco led a communal, highly regulated and disciplined life: raising early, eating together, growing their own food, committing long intervals of time to Bible study, etc. Some members had jobs outside the community which contributed financially to the organization."

found @;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc1.htm

MOVE Family in Philadelphia faced similar FBI/police state repression in the form of helicopter bombings. The current animal rights activists under attack in SoCal would be wise to study and understand the police tactics used against these two groups in the form of propaganda, isolation and erosion of public sympathy resulting from false accusations. Even if there are disagreements between "leftist" and "rightist" groups, both are labeled as "extremist terrorists" by the FBI and police state media mouthpieces, and there we find some common ground..

What happended to the MOVE family??

"PHILADELPHIA, May 13-A state police helicopter this evening dropped a bomb on a house occupied by an armed group after a 24-hour siege involving gun battles. A 90 -minute shootout this morning came after a week of growing tension between the city and the group, known as Move. Residents in the western Philadelphia neighborhood had complained about the group for years. The only known survivors from within the house were a woman and a child. The fire spread to 50 to 60 other houses in the neighborhood, said the Fire Commissioner, William Richmond. He declared the fire under control about 11:40 P.M.

Aimed to Hit Bunker

The Police Commissioner, Gregore Sambor, said tonight that it was was his decision to drop the charge, a square package of explosives designed to destroy a bunker atop the house and drop it through to the second floor. He said the charge succeeded in eliminating the threat from the roof, but touched off the fire. Steve Harmon. a resident of the area, said: "Drop n bomb on it residential area? I never in my life heard of that. It's like Vietnam."
"

Who were the MOVE family??

"It appeared that the MOVE people were vegetarians and ate their food raw because they believed raw food healthier for the body and the soul. They believed in letting orange peels, banana peels, and other organic refuse 'cycle' back into the earth. Composting? They did not believe in embalming dead people or burying them in caskets. They thought they should be allowed to 'cycle' back to the earth, too. They loved dogs (their leader, John Africa, was called 'The Dog Man' because he cared for so many) and never killed animals of any kind, not even rats (which infuriated their neighbors), because they believed in the sanctity of all life."

above found @;
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Alice-Walker1988.htm

also;
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm



by James
Wednesday Mar 5th, 2008 8:39 AM
I posted a few critical comments yesterday that were taken off that had no offensive material whatsoever, most likely because I am not sympathetic with ALF/ELF terror tactics, made a point that you did not like, even though I have spent many years as a liberal activist, environmentalist, anti-war protestor, etc. which kind of makes it hard to pigeonhole me as "the enemy".

If you walk like a terrorist, and quack like a terrorist, guess what? You joined the terror club. If you don't care for that comparison, quit terrorizing people whose careers you don't agree with.

If you can't take the heat of opposing opinion you should get the heck off the internet. I am contacting the Electronic Freedom Foundation and letting them know about this violation of free speech rights on the Internet to skew the postings to more "favorable" pros and cons. I am not surprised however since anyone who would support home invasions as a "legal demonstration" should have their head examined.
by Rico
Wednesday Mar 5th, 2008 9:46 AM
Indymedia is an independent DIY project. It is not an institutional project, but a group of people who choose to make Independent media happen in their community. I see no problem in their exercising some editorial control.

They are not beholden to you or me to publish what I say just because I choose to voice my opinion. Though I guess it is obvious that everyone who's Extremely Important and Profound Opinion doesn't get published cries censorship.

Many indymedia projects regularly remove comments that don't add anything to or advance the discussion. Indybay Santa Cruz exercises a pretty light hand.
by the tactic
Wednesday Mar 5th, 2008 11:25 AM
indymedia is not a person. it is not even a select set of people.
"There's a long history of home demonstrations in this country," said Ryan Davis, a UC Berkeley student and activist who took part in the demonstrations, in an e-mail. "The civil rights movement used this tactic. (It sends) the message that individuals are not morally exempt from the atrocities they commit on the job," he said.

Courts have said that because the sidewalk chalk washes away easily, it is not vandalism.

"Calling a person an animal abuser and a puppy killer is protected speech," said Christine Garcia, a UC Berkeley alumna and animal rights attorney. "Constitutionally protected speech is not harassment."

"It would be nice if they would stop abusing (the animals) when we ask them nicely," said Jerry Vlasak, a doctor and spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front press office. "But sometimes these tactics are required. Nothing that comes out of animal research couldn't be discovered in a more efficient way."
by scmoderate
Wednesday Mar 5th, 2008 11:43 AM
"Contrary to "scmoderate", the people who died in Waco, TX alongside Koresh as Branch Davidians renounced any charges of child molestation, and believe they were being framed by the U.S government for being self sufficient and out of step with the norms of mainstream society.."

So, you take them at their word for it? Also, considering the considerable power of the FDA, USDA, the ag business, the grocery store business, pesticide manufacturers, why would they need to resort to such measures because of "food choices"? They've already got the system locked down. This is just nonsensical conspiracy-mongering.

Also, as for your other sources...


http://www.serendipity.li/

.. is a right-wing "libertarian" (actually, nazis in this case) site run from Liechtenstein that includes links to Holocaust deniers like Ernst Zundel.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc1.htm

... is run by a group that includes a high-ranking scientologist on its board, and which has systematically kept any negative references to Scientology out of its database.

by Rico
Wednesday Mar 5th, 2008 2:22 PM
A fine discussion with all sorts of lovely name calling and flaming without having to bring Waco, 9/11, Ruby Ridge, Jim Jones, and Chemtrails into it.

I respect people's desire to hole up and be socially off-the-map in remote armed enclaves if they want. However, I think any comparison of animal rights defenders and Waco is not a very apt comparison.

by onespeedbiker
Wednesday Mar 5th, 2008 5:21 PM
"Courts have said that because the sidewalk chalk washes away easily, it is not vandalism." You need to keep up on your case law my friend. The most recent case law by the California Appellate Court says that, "any action the changes the original condition, regardless of how easily the original condition can be returned, fulfills the elements of malicious mischief. And no, children writing on the sidwalk is not illegal because vandalism is a specific intent crime.

"Calling a person an animal abuser and a puppy killer is protected speech," said Christine Garcia, a UC Berkeley alumna and animal rights attorney. "Constitutionally protected speech is not harassment." Again more silliness from the uninformed. Since there is no law against "harassment” per se , to say protected speech is not harassment, is like saying no one can stop me from making a fool of myself; since there is no law against it who cares (and it is usually amusing). Calling a person a puppy killer is certainly harassment, there just isn't a law against. On the other hand even a UC Berkeley alumna and animal rights attorney should be able to tell you the difference between harassment and stalking; in stalking even "Constitutionally protected speech" could land you in the hoosegow.
by Jeffrey Dillon
Thursday Mar 6th, 2008 6:52 AM
Police don't use keys. see cannabis club 1444 Market street, 1996...we don't forget...neither should you. peace is the wave of the future, get on board and prepare to live in peace, when all is sid and done, that's all we'll have left. So be kind to one another and live everyday in peace.

by Rico
Thursday Mar 6th, 2008 5:06 PM
Neither of these things have been even remotely confirmed by reliable sources. Even the Sentinel backed off from "home invading" and the much flaunted assault was reduced to "grapple" in the trial by press.

You are operating on old information, that has been corrected numerous times even within this thread. But it suits your argument, so keep on with that, if ignorance is working for you.
by onespeedbiker
Thursday Mar 6th, 2008 7:03 PM
"Even the Sentinel backed off from "home invading" and the much flaunted assault was reduced to "grapple" in the trial by press. " Rico, why do you insist on making shit up to try and prove your point. The Sentinel has not backed off an inch on calling the the incident a home invasion. From their site dated 3/05.

"Terrorism experts who specialize in investigating animal rights cases were in Santa Cruz on Tuesday to meet with police detectives and compare notes regarding last week's attack on a UC Santa Cruz biomedical researcher." and "Five masked protesters and a man with a bullhorn demonstrated in front of the Westside Santa Cruz home of a UCSC scientist around 1 p.m. on Feb. 24, according to police. The masked protesters banged on the front of the house and confronted the researcher's husband when he opened the door. He was hit at least once, then chased off the group, police reported. The man in the sketch Santa Cruz police released Saturday was the man with the bullhorn and wasn't wearing a bandana as the others were."

While the Sentinel quailfied their copy with "according to police.", they certainly have not questioned in any way the victim's, neighbor or police account of what happened and that it was indeed an attempt by 6 masked protesters to try and gain entry into the scientist's house.

Rico, these guys screwed up and what they did make all animal rights activists look bad. Now you know how the police feel when one of their own does something wrong and it reflects on all those who have been fighting the good fight. Maybe it's time to start policing your own.



by Frederick
Thursday Feb 26th, 2009 4:39 PM
America: land of the free, home of pure hatred.