OPD uses tear gas used in post-Superbowl Manuevers

When they've dumped money on robocop get-ups and associated props, they need to find an excuse to use them and make a show of force.

Plus, as someone pointed out elsewhere, the cops assigned to control crowds are often brought in from other places - good cops don't want that detail - and then things fall apart because they're the hardcore bad cops.

Man! I can't believe they'd go after a McDonalds! Did someone give them an anarchist's treasure hunt map?? I was thinking someone should have tried to help refocus any violence to appropriate targets.

Didn't say a word about a McDonald's or any cars or police cars, just talked about a trash can that was on fire, and that crowds were playing cat and mouse with police.

anyone got a link to a local mass media website?

so is the protest largely black? interesting McDonald's comment too.

more info, let's hope things don't get out of hand....

black, white, latino...

"Oakland Rioters Torch Cars, McDonald's"

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Rowdy crowds set cars on fire, pelted passing vehicles with rocks and bottles and vandalized a fast-food restaurant in the wake of the Oakland Raiders' Super Bowl loss Sunday."

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=1099752&nav=5D7iDa7R

The noisy crowd screamed and yelled, "Raiders rule, fuck the police."
...
"60 officers formed a phalanx across International near 37th and stopped the crowd from advancing by firing teargas and flash-bang grenades that sent troublemakers running down side streets. One car was nearly turned over before the driver managed to escape."
...
"At 90th Avenue and International, a group of young people threw bottles at police, forcing officers there to retreat to 92nd Avenue and regroup"
...
"Raiders fan Byron Perez said people broke car windows and he saw seven men beating a police officer before police cracked down"
...
"At the intersection of High Street and International Boulevard, about 300 people gathered for a giant street party with people dancing and dueling with sideshow cars. The police had no control, but no damage or injuries seemed imminent at the scene. "
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/27/OAKLAND.TMP

That last quote is interesting since it shows that where the police did not deploy, there was little to no violence and it was the police's attempt to break up gatherings that caused the conflict.

Thanks for taking the risks of being there to cover the story. The latest news they're reporting is that another car got lit on fire and exploded.

I and a few of my housemates were also hit with tear gas while we stood right in front of our door on International and 48th. A huge line of police were walking down the street with several rows of squad cars behind them and yelling at people to "GO HOME!" When they got to us, I began taking photos, and telling them "I am home." They responded by shooting tear gas right at our feet, so we were forced to go inside. Three of us were stung by the gas in our faces,a nd I wasn't really able to see straight for about 20 minutes.

The only thing I have to say about all this, is that isn't it ironic that the city has all this money to pay the police for overtime, and to have extra cops on the street tonight, but they can't seem to find the cash to keep a few libraries open? Nothing makes it more clear what the city government's priorities are.

In here they say the cops are outnumbered, but on TV they were saying there were equal numbers. Which is it?

Oakland police no match for street mayhem

Glen Martin, Nanette Asimov, Wyatt Buchanan and Jim Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writers Monday, January 27, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarchy broke out on the streets of Oakland Sunday night when beefed-up police forces proved inadequate to stem eruptions of mayhem after the Raiders' loss in the Super Bowl.

Hundreds of police with riot gear, squad cars and helicopters were no match for larger numbers of troublemakers in scattered locations along International Boulevard who set fires, smashed windows and destroyed property, including a McDonald's restaurant that was ransacked and partially burned.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/27/OAKLAND.TMP

People, now is the time to unite. When the Warriors don't make the playoffs.....again.......we'll take this city!! What do ya say?!?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1B221D33

It might be good to make a link there if you post these.

Hey, reporter, were there any assaults or fights among people in the crowd (like the Chron reporter who said he feared because he was white implied) or was it all raider nation vs. the police and McDonald's?

Before going to WWII, my father attended central High school in Wichita, which had a mostly upper class student body who drove cars during the depression and so forth. They had one fewer year of school back then. When he was a 13 year old freshman, their football team went unscored upon during the entire season, and so they held a big bonfire and had a snake dance that left the bonfire area and entered the downtown. There, various students started looting stores and breaking things, and then when some were arrested, they went on a spree, pelting the police station and tipping over a street car (many towns had trolleys back then). It got into sociology textbooks for mob behavior, but I've been searching for some articles about it because it's such a long time ago. Depending on your perspective, Kansas in the 30s either would or wouldn't have a lot in common with Oakland in the 00s.

CNN website has no coverage of the riot! Check oit out for yourself CNN.Com.

IT'S NOT A FRIGGIN RIOT!

I can't believe that some of you people out there believe that the "riots" of Oakland were something more than American Hooliganism.

WAKE UP, YOU GOOBERS!!!

The English, Germans, Italians, Russians, and occassionally the Japanese riot when their soccer teams loose.

It's simple over-bearing pride and beer fueled stupidity!!

WAKE UP!!!

So I did some research to find out who owns the vandalized McDonald's. As you might expect, finding out the owner was not easy, in fact I can't say that I definitively have. However, I did track down one Edith Duvall; the owner/operator of three McDonald's restaurants in Oakland, CA. She also happens to be the winner of one gold and two silver track & field medals from the 1964 Olympic games in Tokyo.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/sports/olympics/people/people.html

The only other information I could find comes from this person's account of a booklet...

September 3, 2000 | 12:00 AM
So I'm over at McDonald's a couple hours ago, and there's a sticker on the drive-up window advertising their Little Known Black History Facts booklet. I ask for one, get a strange look, and am handed a copy of the booklet.

Does it make me a bad person that I immediately expected this booklet to have some McDonald's propaganda hidden in this otherwise educational media? I certainly hope so. And I didn't have to look far -- the book opened to the center, where the staples held the it together, and there was Edith Duvall, who apparently won three medals in the 1964 Tokyo Games, and then went on to become a McDonald's manager. Just shows to go that you can have a dream, achieve it, and your life might just end up sucking anyway.
http://www.automatictaxistop.com/index.cfm?content=journal.inc&content_id=5

...Now I don't know if her life "sucked," but if the McDonald's that was vandalzied was one of hers, this particular day most definitely sucks.

So go ahead and lash out at "the system" because the people you hurt don't have lives or feelings that matter -- unless you're crazy enough to care for people like Edith Duvall.

sometimes one can come out ahead when these sorts of thinhs happen...hence all of the small business owners who burn their own places down when the insurance says their place is worth more than the current market value

Are you kidding? Crying for someone who owns THREE fucking McD's cholesteral slinging barns and who knows how many apartments, other businesses, stock portfolios, bonds, and other financial instruments!

Next an asshole like you is going to tell us that the homeless, panhandling for the never-satisfactory quarter, is selfish. Or the rioters are too for ruining Edith Duvall's American Dream.

Well fuck you and wake up and smell the coffee. Living in the capitol of capitalism, Amerikkka, makes us all spirtually impoverished and MOST of us materially impoverished as well.

Smashing McDonald's is the first step in destroying this system which is premissed on greed and avarice.

LOVE LIVE THE BRAVE COMRADES WHO ATTACK THE CAPITALIST MERCHANT PAR EXCELLANCE--McDONALD'S AND ITS McDEATH CULTURE.

Louise

Louise, if you had any integrity you'd take that two-bit rhetoric and sit down and have a face-to-face talk with Edith Duvall.

Hey hate-mongering-smasher,

First, the McDonalds you're talking about is off International in the 20s (and wasn't touched), while the one trashed was in the 60s--the cross street is 63rd, isn't it?

So you're asking me to tell Edith Duvall that I'm sorry for glorifying the destruction of SOMEONE else's junk food joint. Is that right. And you want me to tell that to her face? Why?

Why don't you, who seem to hold owners in such high esteem, go and volunteer to kiss her ass and clean her toilets for free?

Maybe she'll let you polish her olympic medals.

You're a pathetic sycophant.

Louise

"and clean her toilets for free?"

Then, you'll be mad enough to light something on fire. Maybe that OTHER McDonalds, a few blocks down.

From what i could see on tv, the "rioters" were a bunch of male teenagers. Most likely without any political agenda. Just a bunch of bored kids. Destroying things that aren't theirs. Hell, I was an asshole too when I was young.

Dude, if you hate Mcdonald's, then don't eat there. Don't punish the rest of us.

Murder the organizers of your boredom.

Then what explains the Circle-A painted on the side of the police van?

See http://www.indybay.org/ for pic.

the personal IS the political. why divide everything up like an academic? not to be new-agey, but isn't everything interconnected?

they did it for a myriad of reasons, but the common demonator is probably hatred of living in this sick society where greed is good and sharing is weak.

they were right on!

How come they didn't burn any banks?

I was hoping the police would use VX or serin to kill as many protesters as they could. Obviously that's the most politically correct way to crush a rebellion or a mere sports riot. The Iraqi police state has done this for YEARS and nobody from the boo-hoo liberal set has protested it. In fact, they welcome Saddam's method of death by flying out to Baghad to be "human shields."

What, and you did? Where? When? Be specific.

As far as I know, the only people who protest illegal U.S. aid to foreign despots is the left and anti-capitalists. For instance, right now the left is engaged in battles against Argentine and Chilean dictators who should be charged with war crimes. Pretty much no one else in society does this, and it is largely ignored.

To the person with the burning bank question--where are you from mutha fucka? Very, very obviously not Oaktown.

If you were you'd know that in the fire zone, along International/East 14th between like Fruitvale and the 90s there are hardly any banks--if there is even one. Great place to get a taco from the delicious roach coaches, though.

And as for the nerve gasses and biological weapons--where did the Iraqi state get them? Look down mutha fucka, because they came from contractors in the good ol' USofA. And for the few not from here, the Germans or other Europeans.

You are burned, asshole. If you shed crocodile tears for Saddam using them on Iraquis, why don't YOU protest their being design and manufactured here.

Is this Football-Club sth. like 1. FC St. Pauli in Germany? This is a football-Club in Hamburg whose supporters are mainly anarchists and punks. Check:
http://www.bambule-hamburg.org
This is the site of a vans-camp in Hamburg which has been destroyed by police and the supporters usually do solidarity-demonstrations for the camp after each game. On this site there are a lot of pics of the (sometimes very militant...) demonstrations for the camp.
So what is your football club like? I think that they even have a similar logo (skull&bones)

Please, don't try and coopt this pathetic thug behavior as part of your political movement. First off because these people who are vandalizing shit obviously don't give a fuck about the same issues you do (an antagonistic relationship with the police is not enough - that's par for the course with criminals). Secondly, you can whine about how capitalism is destroying communal bonds, but really who is doing more to foster community, the guy running Gomes' tire center who employs local people or the dumbfucks who smash his shop and steal new rims for their cars?

Who's "great" idea was it to associate any anti-capitalist movement with this pathetic riot? I would think that it would be obvious to any intelligent human being that these people were not rioting for any significant moral cause. In fact, I think I lost a few brain cells reading about this pathetic act.

I'm no fan of Capitalism, don't get me wrong. But this riot had nothing to do with it. Nothing. These were just a bunch of stupid people who look for excuses, any excuses, to cause chaos and to loot for their personal gain. That's not what anti-Capitalism is about. Anyone who wants to put a political spin on this one needs to take a serious reality check, and take it quickly.

Okay, let's get theoretical for a moment. Let's SAY that this riot was somehow - I can't even begin to fathom how - politically motivated. No, let's not say that on second thought: because these are just a bunch of football hooligans looking to cause trouble and garner personal gain, and not at all looking to join any cause. Yes, maybe someone sprayed an Anarchist symbol on a car. Do you know how many people actually understand the Anarchist movement? He probably thought that him smashing a few windows in the name of the Raiders - a football team! - was Anarchy. Nay, it is stupidity. If I were an anarchist, do you think I would even WANT them and their actions associated with our cause? Their looting for personal gain under the weak guise of football-related riots not only expresses the greed of Capitalism, it also expresses it's "attack those unable to defend themselves" mentality of Capitalism. NOW who wants to associate themselves with these people?

Yes, there needs to be a solution. No, this isn't the solution. And lastly yes, the people in these riots probably wouldn't know political struggle if it bit them in the face (which it does, daily, to us all). The people in these riots need to be informed of what is a real reason to riot, and not praised.

Click here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1563065_comment.php#1563736

umm...

*** Quote: Anti-Nowhere League ***

I was hoping the police would use VX or serin to kill as many protesters as they could. Obviously that's the most politically correct way to crush a rebellion or a mere sports riot. The Iraqi police state has done this for YEARS and nobody from the boo-hoo liberal set has protested it. In fact, they welcome Saddam's method of death by flying out to Baghad to be "human shields."

***** End Quote ******

Umm... again, it's time for a reality check. The reason that Capitalist governments continue to exist is because they DON'T do things like this. They control people with covert oppression. The moment that they begin to overtly control people through threat of life is the moment that they lose what support from the international community that they have, and they lose the support of even the uninformed public within their own country. In short, they are obliterated.

You're not going to see what you hoped for ever happen, my misinformed friend. These people know what they're doing, they're not idiots. They know how to keep power, and how to lose it. Saddam doesn't know that, and his use of Overt power (paired with the fact that he owns oil that our country covets) will eventually be his downfall. You won't be seeing a Capitalist regime do that anytime soon.

I had hoped that the Anti-Capitalist movement would have more people in it that think clearly and rationally... but from the posts here, I'm beginning to worry. Before you take action, people, try to take a reality check first. Here, I'll help you out with it.

These are the things you should ask yourself:
1) is what you're saying even remotely realistic?
2) Are you giving a certain group far more credit than they deserve?
3) Are you giving yourself too much credit, or assuming that your belief is right without supporting evidence?
4) Are you not giving your opponents enough credit, assuming them to be unintelligent war-mongers? Our foe is both experienced and, obviously, much more intelligent than the great majority of those who are against them. Do not ever take them lightly.

I hope this helps. I'll come up with more as posts come up that need a reality check. And don't flame me for this, I'm doing it for your own good. If we are ever to be successful in changing people's hearts about Capitalism, we MUST begin by making our case believable. Who will listen to us if we don't?

Addendum #1 to the "Reality Check" list.

1) A quote from an anti-Capitalist song is NOT (repeat, NOT) evidence that the group or act referred to is valid or justified.

Since I too should follow my own rules, I will give evidence (evidence, shock!!!) that proves my theory.

Okay, we all hate the Gap right? These facist groups who believe that exploiting labor on other continents is valid as long as they can sell their product and make people believe that theirs is the only product worth buying, right? Well, when they make their commercials advertising their exploited-labor produced products, and people buy into it, it is THE SAME THING as us blindly taking a group like "football hooligans" seriously because someone said that they were a good thing in a song.

We are fighting groupthink and those who blindly follow what a given media piece tell them. We shouldn't be so blind ourselves, as to take a song lyric as evidence of a wordly truth.

If you can come up with a valid reason as to why Football Hooligans should be considered a valid anti-Capitalist group (and not the un-political greed mongers that I consider them to be), then please state it so I can be corrected.

Again, I state that this is for our own good. We must be able to make valid arguments to each other if we are ever to make valid arguments to other people.

I hate pretentious leftists who think that they are smarter than everyone.
Why do people think that people would go to such great risks for no reason?
These people were not stupid "football hooligans." Sure, they may be emotional about sports, but lots of people are in this country. Just because you reject it for political reasons does not mean yo uare any smarter than these people.
This riot was "political." It was people responding to state repression. It was a reaction to the harsh violence of the police. It was a reaction to the effects of McDonalds and global capitalism.
The football game may have caused hightened emotions that led to celebrations in the streets, but the attempt by the pigs to stop this creative expression is what led to property destruction and violence.

Here, I'll give you this. If you can give me one shred, just one piece, of a justifiable argument that this riot WAS in fact about repression and corporations like McDonalds and WAS NOT about breaking things, causing chaos, and looting, then I'll shut up and admit your correctness. Until then though, I will be awaiting a valid argument to converse about.

And also, I didn't mean to infer that the people involved were stupid: I meant to infer that they were ignorant of political issues. This is a statistical fact, based upon real data such as the fact that less than 50% of the population in our country votes in elections for positions of leadership: they don't even choose to have enough political knowledge to have a say in who controls us. Based on that, it can be assumed that at least the same percentage in the crowd did not vote, and therefore 50% of the people there lacked the political awareness to understand that without direct revolution, voting is the only way to potentially change our power structure.

You say "voting doesn't matter"? Well, if the 50% that didn't vote had instead voted for a third party candidate, whomever you choose, said person would win any election you could put him in, and the party he represents would instantly become the dominant party of the country.

If my comments were interpreted as anything other than this, I apologize. However, I do not apologize for my statement that most people are politically ignorant, because it is a plain and undeniable fact.

... I'm doing this for our own good, for this movement's own good. We have to come to a realization that A) People are in need of education. They need to know of the oppression that is so well covered-up in our society. B) In order to teach the people, we need to make valid arguments to them.

Well, truthfully, if we were the majority we wouldn't need valid arguments because the media often makes arguments without justification that are believed. But we are the minority, and as such our arguments must be well formed and valid, otherwise no one will listen to them.

You see what I mean? I'm not trying to flame anyone, or piss anyone off... although after re-reading my posts, I can see why people might be angry. I didn't put my argument very softly. Anyways, I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I just want all of us to think about how we explain our beliefs to others. We have to make it valid, make it concise, or people will close their ears and we will always be a minority.

So that's what I'm really trying to say. With any luck, you agree and perhaps we can start building these argument-making skills together. It's our greatest weakness as a group, and yet also the one thing that we need the most.

Now that much I completely agree with. Corporations do control the genuine power structure of the world. I would ask you to give evidence, but since I agree with you I'm not going to... although we ought to be providing solid evidence to practice the whole arguing thing.

But you see, my opinion is that the Coprorations need the government front-end in order to operate. If Corporations were put into a position where they had to acquire power directly (IE if someone who opposed them were elected), they would be exposed. Their Covert power would be turned into Overt force, and Marx's theory of people's uprising would instantly come to fruition.

Because, educated in politics or not, people throughout the ages have risen up when Covert oppression turns to Overt exercises of power. It's the reason why Americans fought the British (Or rather, why they THINK they were fighting the British.. that one's a long story), the reason why Batista was overthrown by Castro, and the reason why Milosevich was overthrown by the Peasant Rebellion of Yugoslavia in October 2000. People, by and large, may not know politics... but they know when Overt oppression shows it's head.

They key is that they have to be able to SEE that oppression. If an elected official forced the Corporations to play their hand (and, yes, that is a big "if"), I have all confidence that the people would rise up and overthrow them.

Now, that last statement I must admit is more of my hope than any validated or proven argument. But I trust that you all believe this as well, otherwise you wouldn't be here debating about this cause.

are you a military person?

Nope, not I. To tell the truth, I'm a pacifist. Now, what makes that out of the ordinary is that I'm a Communist-Pacifist.

Basically, that amounts to this: I believe in the correctness of Carl Marx and his teachings, except his prediction that the Power Elite could only be overthrown militarily. I believe that a nonviolent solution is possible, and even preferable.

However, as a Communist I also realize that violent uprising is indeed the least complicated way to gain power for the Proletariat. In fact, I understand that my idealistic hope for nonviolent solutions may indeed be foolish, and conflict, as Marx put it, is truly inevitable.

That is why I don't rule out confrontation outright. But I'd rather that we put the Corporate Dictatorship into a position where they have to reveal themselves than put the populace into a position where they have to fight something that they might not be sure of it's existence.

Hell, even before a non-pacifistic solution can be found to oppression, people must be made aware of the Corporate Dictatorship's existence. Otherwise, why would they fight and join our side? Take China, for example. It took the Kuomintang's overt slaughter of countless Communists in Shanghai for people to truly realize that the Kuomintang were the evil ones, and then to rise up against them. China taught us that those who seek to oppress us must be exposed for what they truly are, otherwise we will never have the strength of numbers to become the majority.

Hmm... I think I went off on a tangent a bit there. Anyways though, that's what I believe, and what I am. You won't find me holding a gun, or going off to kill innocents in some oil-driven war. (EDIT: Actually, I should be more clear. Though I wouldn't do the things I just stated, I cannot realistically blame those who do so. They are as much members of the Proletariat as you and I, only they have been oppressed and controlled to perform a much more horrible task. The ones truly to blame for war is those in power who convince people that they have no choice but to engage in war. Military people should be pitied much more than hated.) So no, I'm no Military person.

Now that I think about it, I think I should make an unpopular statement, because I think it needs to be said. I, for one, don't hate the police. If anything, I pity them, as I pity members of the Military. Why, do you ask? (well, you may not be asking why, but I'll tell you)

Because they are as much a member of the Proletariat as we are. They have no control of the means of production. They have no power or authority, other than what they are ordered to do by those who do have power which passes down to lower and lower ranks. Think about it... in the end, they are people earning a living by doing something which mainstream society has deemed a suitable labor position.

My logic goes like this. (Here's where the meat of the argument is, for those watching to see if I'm going to support my argument =) ). 1) If a person has no control of the means of production, then they are powerless in a political sense. This is supported by the philosophical works of Marx, and as I am a Communist it is a valid statement for my purposes. Arguing about the validity of Marx's work is out of the scope of the argument for now, although I would be happy to argue it's validity if someone wishes to engage in that debate. 2) Police, being nothing more than skilled laborers (whose labor is law enforcement), do not control the means of production. 3) Therefore, the Police are Politically powerless. 4) Those who have political power (Corporations, some governments, wealthy individuals) are the ones who shape the repressive laws that Police, in their job, are forced to enforce. 5) If those who have Political Power are those who shape the laws, then changing those who have Political Power gives the potential to change those laws. 6) Therefore, we should be seeking to uproot and disturb those with Political Power, not those members of the Proletariat who earn their living following their rules.

I will also approach the issue conversely. Some say that, as Police are the enforcers of the Power Elite's laws, they are an enemy. But by that logic, every mainstream citizen of America or even the world too then would be an enemy of the Anti-Capitalist movement: because does not the mainstream citizens of the World support and perpetuate social and economic trends that the Media tells us to support? Do they not too follow the laws which we are governed by? Therefore, they too serve to enforce the oppression that we see in society by accepting it and living with it, and passing it on to further generations.

However, if we were to make a statement such as "then the Mainstream followers of the world are also our enemy", we would create a conundrum, for our movement is designed to save and free the oppressed masses. If we label the majority of the world as our enemy, then we are seeking not the freedom of the world but the destruction of it. Hence, in final and decisive conclusion, if the main assembly of citizens, who follow the same trends of the Police, are not our enemy, then the Police are not our enemy either. They are both in the same group, which is those who are waiting to be liberated.

And thus ends my probably unpopular statement. It's my hope that after you've read this you might see that this makes more sense then first assumed.

Hmm... I should probably put in a quick addendum here. My theory does not count those who take up the job of a Police Officer with the intent of abusing their position. Those are people who, though they are still Politically powerless on a large scale, pose a potentially violent threat to the people that they were intended to serve. They do not count in the aforementioned group of those who should be reformed and liberated.