Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Police Arrest Student For Trespassing On Campus!
San Francisco Police assaulted and arrested a student for trespassing and failure to provide ID in front of the student union at City College Ocean Campus.
Chris Kendrick, a full-time student and founder of the Anarchist Library, an organization which lends difficult to obtain socio-political literature to students, was assaulted and arrested by San Francisco PD in the parking lot directly in front of the bookstore on City College Ocean Campus on Wednesday, March 5, at 1:30 p.m. The student was approached by City College Police as he was walking through the parking lot towards Ram Plaza. The police grabbed his arm, and when the student shrugged away, he was taken down and pinned to the ground by the officers. Chris refused to provide the police with his student ID, although witnesses attest that he did in fact provide them with information supporting his status as a student at the college. A crowd of students gathered to question the police as to their motives. The students were informed that they comprised an unlawful assembly and were risking arrest themselves if they chose to stay. As of the time of this writing, Chris is being held at the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant in San Francisco.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I saw an email today of the same charge for a student in Canada whom they arrested, even though he was a student enrolled in the school.
You need to get your facts straight... The student was never arrested and was only suspended. City College of San Francisco is anti-war and anti-police. They don't even give their police guns.
What does it matter if he was arrested or not? He was removed by unnecessary force from campus and taken to the jail. Isn't that enough? <p>
CCSF is anti-police? Then why did they allow police to harrass a student unlawfully? Before you give some lames ass answers, were you even there to witness this event?
CCSF is anti-police? Then why did they allow police to harrass a student unlawfully? Before you give some lames ass answers, were you even there to witness this event?
If CCSF is so anti-cop then why were there over a dozen police at the SUSPENSION (not arrested, apparently handcuffing and being forcefully taken to the ground, then hauled around in a paddywagon constitutes suspension (or maybe the author meant his rights were suspended) of Chris Kendrick........as for getting facts straight, those were the facts at time of printing.....it's called breaking news......
I was there and I saw you there upstanding(old guy with a limp). City college is not our enemy. Most the students, workers and adminstration hate war, hate cops and are on our side. Your violent actions only turn the college community away. I don't agree with the cop's actions but they wouldn't have shown up if we remained peaceful. You will never stop war with violence, violence only creates news wars.
On what grounds is CCSF suspending him?
March 08, 2003
UN reveals chilling file on germ war arsenal
From James Bone in New York
A REPORT declassified yesterday by UN weapons inspectors gives a shocking account of the possible chemical and biological arsenal British and US forces could face in an invasion of Iraq.
The 167-page paper, obtained by The Times, suggests that Iraq has huge remaining stockpiles of anthrax, may be developing new long-range missiles, and could still possess chemical and biological R-400 aerial bombs and Scud missiles, and even smallpox.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told his fellow Security Council foreign ministers that the document was a chilling read. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, read passages from the paper out loud in the council chamber.
He said that it chronicled nearly 30 occasions when Iraq had failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims, and 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted those claims.
The decision by Hans Blix, the chief inspector, to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm. The report provides a particularly disturbing account of Iraq’s suspected stockpiles of anthrax and other germ warfare agents.
It said that the UN monitoring commission had “credible information that the total quantity of BW (biological warfare) agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax”.
It says that there is credible information indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed. “It seems improbably that the bulk agent that had been deployed out in the field would have been returned to Al Hakam for destruction in July 1991,” it said, making it highly probable that it had not been destroyed.
The report also concludes that the inspection commission could not discount the possibility that some chemical warfare and BW-filled R-400 bombs remain in Iraq.
Iraq claimed in 1992 to have 1,200 R-400 bombs, but three years later raised that to 1,550. Furthermore, the so-called “Air Force Document” given to inspectors last November reveals a discrepancy of about 6,500 R-400 and other types of non-conventional bombs. The report says: “It has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs.”
The paper, a collection of 29 “clusters” of questions for Iraq, offers some reassurance about Iraq’s missing botulinum toxin, a deadly germ agent, saying that any stockpiles, whether in bulk storage or in weapons that remained in 1991, would not be active today.
But there is cause for concern about other bio-weapons, including smallpox. While no substantial evidence was found that agents other than those disclosed by Iraq had been part of the BW programme, there were some indications suggesting an interest in other agents. “One of these concerns has been addressed in the virus research assessment, namely smallpox,” it says.
The report says that Iraq had failed to account for its stocks of precursor chemicals for VX nerve agent. Nor had it explained its indigenous Scud/Al Hussein production and 50 Scud-B warheads, which suggested that they may have been retained for a proscribed missile force.Iraq might still be secretly developing new missiles that fly beyond the UN-permitted range, it said.
UN reveals chilling file on germ war arsenal
From James Bone in New York
A REPORT declassified yesterday by UN weapons inspectors gives a shocking account of the possible chemical and biological arsenal British and US forces could face in an invasion of Iraq.
The 167-page paper, obtained by The Times, suggests that Iraq has huge remaining stockpiles of anthrax, may be developing new long-range missiles, and could still possess chemical and biological R-400 aerial bombs and Scud missiles, and even smallpox.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told his fellow Security Council foreign ministers that the document was a chilling read. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, read passages from the paper out loud in the council chamber.
He said that it chronicled nearly 30 occasions when Iraq had failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims, and 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted those claims.
The decision by Hans Blix, the chief inspector, to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm. The report provides a particularly disturbing account of Iraq’s suspected stockpiles of anthrax and other germ warfare agents.
It said that the UN monitoring commission had “credible information that the total quantity of BW (biological warfare) agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax”.
It says that there is credible information indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed. “It seems improbably that the bulk agent that had been deployed out in the field would have been returned to Al Hakam for destruction in July 1991,” it said, making it highly probable that it had not been destroyed.
The report also concludes that the inspection commission could not discount the possibility that some chemical warfare and BW-filled R-400 bombs remain in Iraq.
Iraq claimed in 1992 to have 1,200 R-400 bombs, but three years later raised that to 1,550. Furthermore, the so-called “Air Force Document” given to inspectors last November reveals a discrepancy of about 6,500 R-400 and other types of non-conventional bombs. The report says: “It has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs.”
The paper, a collection of 29 “clusters” of questions for Iraq, offers some reassurance about Iraq’s missing botulinum toxin, a deadly germ agent, saying that any stockpiles, whether in bulk storage or in weapons that remained in 1991, would not be active today.
But there is cause for concern about other bio-weapons, including smallpox. While no substantial evidence was found that agents other than those disclosed by Iraq had been part of the BW programme, there were some indications suggesting an interest in other agents. “One of these concerns has been addressed in the virus research assessment, namely smallpox,” it says.
The report says that Iraq had failed to account for its stocks of precursor chemicals for VX nerve agent. Nor had it explained its indigenous Scud/Al Hussein production and 50 Scud-B warheads, which suggested that they may have been retained for a proscribed missile force.Iraq might still be secretly developing new missiles that fly beyond the UN-permitted range, it said.
For more information:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-...
next time they threaten to arrest you for standing around and questioning their motives stuff this in their face
San Francisco Police Department5.07
GENERAL ORDER Rev. 02/22/95
RIGHTS OF ONLOOKERS
This order establishes policies regarding when persons are permitted to
remain as onlookers, their right to overhear conversations between the
officer and suspect, and their right to act as a witness.
I. POLICY
A. WITNESSING STOPS, DETENTIONS, ARRESTS. It is the policy of this Department that persons not involved in an incident be allowed to remain in the immediate vicinity to witness stops, detentions and arrests of suspects occurring in public areas, except under the the following circumstances:
1. When the safety of the officer or the suspect is jeopardized. 2. When persons interfere or violate law. 3. When persons threaten by words or action, or attempt toincite others to violate the law.
B. OVERHEARING CONVERSATION. If the conditions at the scene are peaceful and sufficiently quiet, and the officer has stabilized the situation, persons shall be allowed to approach close enough to overhear the conversation between the suspect and the officer, except when:
1. The suspect objects to persons overhearing the conversation. 2. There is a specific and articulable need for confidentialconversation for the purpose of police interrogation.
C. INQUIRIES 1. Persons shall be permitted to make a short, direct inquiryas to the suspect's name and whether the officer or the suspectwishes a witness. The suspect shall be allowed to respondto the inquiry. 2. If a citizen is a witness to the activity for which thesuspect was detained or arrested, the officer may requesthis/her name; however, the citizen is not compelled todisclose such information.
D. BYSTANDER FILMING OF OFFICER-SUSPECT CONTACTS. It is increasingly common for bystanders, who are not involved in any criminal activity, to record contacts between officers and citizens, during which officers are detaining, citing or arresting a suspect or engaging in crowd control at a demonstration. Bystanders have the right to record police officer enforcement activities by camera, video recorder, or other means (except under certain narrow circumstances as set forth in Sections A and B above).
1. An officer shall not seize, compel or otherwise coerce productionof these bystander recordings by any means without firstobtaining a warrant. Without a warrant, an officer may onlyrequest, in a non-coercive manner, that a bystander voluntarilyprovide the film or other recording. These requests should bemade only if the officer has probable cause to believe that arecording has captured evidence of a crime and that the evidencewill be important to prosecution of that crime. If a bystanderrefuses to voluntarily provide the recording, an officer mayrequest the person's identity as provided in Section C., 2.,above.
2. If a bystander voluntarily provides his or her recording and/orequipment, the officer shall provide the bystander with areceipt (SFPD 315). The receipt shall contain a writtenstatement verifying that the recording and/or equipment has beenvoluntarily provided to the Department and shall be signed bythe bystander.
E. VIOLATIONS/COMPLIANCE. As an alternative to arresting an onlooker who is in violation of Penal Code Section 148 or other related offenses (e.g., 647 c P.C., 22 Municipal Police Code) officers may order onlookers to "move on"; however, the person shall not be ordered to move any farther distance than is necessary to end a violation (see DGO 5.03, Investigative Detentions and DGO 6.11, Obstruction of Streets and Sidewalks). Persons who believe that an officer did not comply with the provisions of this order shall be referred to an appropriate supervisor or to the Office of Citizen Complaints.
References
DGO 5.03, Investigative Detentions
DGO 6.02, Physical Evidence
DGO 6.11, Obstruction of Streets and Sidewalks
DGO 6.15, Property Processing
San Francisco Police Department5.07
GENERAL ORDER Rev. 02/22/95
RIGHTS OF ONLOOKERS
This order establishes policies regarding when persons are permitted to
remain as onlookers, their right to overhear conversations between the
officer and suspect, and their right to act as a witness.
I. POLICY
A. WITNESSING STOPS, DETENTIONS, ARRESTS. It is the policy of this Department that persons not involved in an incident be allowed to remain in the immediate vicinity to witness stops, detentions and arrests of suspects occurring in public areas, except under the the following circumstances:
1. When the safety of the officer or the suspect is jeopardized. 2. When persons interfere or violate law. 3. When persons threaten by words or action, or attempt toincite others to violate the law.
B. OVERHEARING CONVERSATION. If the conditions at the scene are peaceful and sufficiently quiet, and the officer has stabilized the situation, persons shall be allowed to approach close enough to overhear the conversation between the suspect and the officer, except when:
1. The suspect objects to persons overhearing the conversation. 2. There is a specific and articulable need for confidentialconversation for the purpose of police interrogation.
C. INQUIRIES 1. Persons shall be permitted to make a short, direct inquiryas to the suspect's name and whether the officer or the suspectwishes a witness. The suspect shall be allowed to respondto the inquiry. 2. If a citizen is a witness to the activity for which thesuspect was detained or arrested, the officer may requesthis/her name; however, the citizen is not compelled todisclose such information.
D. BYSTANDER FILMING OF OFFICER-SUSPECT CONTACTS. It is increasingly common for bystanders, who are not involved in any criminal activity, to record contacts between officers and citizens, during which officers are detaining, citing or arresting a suspect or engaging in crowd control at a demonstration. Bystanders have the right to record police officer enforcement activities by camera, video recorder, or other means (except under certain narrow circumstances as set forth in Sections A and B above).
1. An officer shall not seize, compel or otherwise coerce productionof these bystander recordings by any means without firstobtaining a warrant. Without a warrant, an officer may onlyrequest, in a non-coercive manner, that a bystander voluntarilyprovide the film or other recording. These requests should bemade only if the officer has probable cause to believe that arecording has captured evidence of a crime and that the evidencewill be important to prosecution of that crime. If a bystanderrefuses to voluntarily provide the recording, an officer mayrequest the person's identity as provided in Section C., 2.,above.
2. If a bystander voluntarily provides his or her recording and/orequipment, the officer shall provide the bystander with areceipt (SFPD 315). The receipt shall contain a writtenstatement verifying that the recording and/or equipment has beenvoluntarily provided to the Department and shall be signed bythe bystander.
E. VIOLATIONS/COMPLIANCE. As an alternative to arresting an onlooker who is in violation of Penal Code Section 148 or other related offenses (e.g., 647 c P.C., 22 Municipal Police Code) officers may order onlookers to "move on"; however, the person shall not be ordered to move any farther distance than is necessary to end a violation (see DGO 5.03, Investigative Detentions and DGO 6.11, Obstruction of Streets and Sidewalks). Persons who believe that an officer did not comply with the provisions of this order shall be referred to an appropriate supervisor or to the Office of Citizen Complaints.
References
DGO 5.03, Investigative Detentions
DGO 6.02, Physical Evidence
DGO 6.11, Obstruction of Streets and Sidewalks
DGO 6.15, Property Processing
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$160.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network