From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Police State & Prisons
Police Outside of Home on Riverside Avenue
by ~Bradley (bradley [at]
Sunday Feb 24th, 2008 8:43 PM
Neighbors report that police have been waiting outside of a residence on the 700 block of Riverside Avenue in downtown Santa Cruz since about 2:00pm on Sunday, February 24th. Police declined to comment on their reason for being there, other than to say it was an "ongoing investigation." Approximately 25 people on bikes showed up at 7:15pm to witness the police in the side-yard of the residence and waiting on Riverside Avenue. There is speculation that the police are waiting for a warrant.
by ~Bradley Sunday Feb 24th, 2008 8:43 PM
There were 5 or 6 police vehicles at any given time and at least that many police officers..
by ~Bradley Sunday Feb 24th, 2008 8:43 PM
§Defend those that Defend Animals
by somekid Sunday Feb 24th, 2008 9:49 PM
This police presence is a response to a legal demonstration that took place this morning at the home of a known vivisector. Demonstrators were tracked down and this police presence is mostly meant to intimidate. Please show solidarity and support.
§A neigbhor's perspective
by Riverside Ave. Neighbor Sunday Feb 24th, 2008 11:24 PM
We live right in the center of this activity and have been watching it grow since the police showed up originally. It is still happening outside of my window, all over the street.

The police arrived with three cars, three uniforms, and a detective. The story we heard was, the police knocked on the door, the woman their opened it, saw it was the police, said, "Get a warrant," and closed/slammed the door. Since then the police have been increasingly present.

The detective and other officers spoke with folks in the neighborhood, asking about a specific car (with very generic details), and was there any activity or group of people that left earlier today. Another person told me they were asked about 'suspicious activity' or somesuch. Since then, no fewer than two officers have been present, more likely three since there have been no fewer than three police vehicles here all day. This included one or more University of California police cars.

The officers on vigil stayed usually across the street, where they could watch all the front entrances. At one point, the officers checked the perimeter of the property so they knew how someone could get out of the house, and have positioned officers all day to watch the exits.

Our presumption has been that they were waiting for someone(s) to exit, then they would be held for questioning. Otherwise, if the police had a warrant for arrest or search, they would have served it.

As the afternoon went on a few more people arrived. By the time we of sunset (5:45-ish), there were about twenty people across the street, standing quietly in a broken line behind the vigilant police. By 7:00 pm or so, the group had moved across the street, with the police on the actual property forming a loose line inside of the white picket fence. The people have been standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the fence.

Currently, I'd estimate there are ~12 police vehicles, including now four County Sheriff cars that arrived with a half-dozen deputies for reinforcement. There are about 20 officers at various parts of the property or patrolling up and down what is no longer a street but instead a police vehicle parking lot. The people number around 75, maybe more.

It has been quiet at times, then someone will start shouting for a badge number, or cursing the officers, or asking them if they know how to think for themselves. Lots of social stuff, people laughing, making jokes, "Call me if I don't call you first," hugs, and etc. Many, many flashes of photography going off. Some folks have been busy documenting the officers, getting their photos and the license plates of the police vehicles.

The whole experience has been a bit surreal. The police response has felt extreme from the beginning. We figured it was about serious amounts of really bad drugs, or a violent crime, or even murder, to require this many hours of vigil. When we found out it was about an animal rights activist and a protest, it seemed even more extreme. It's hard not knowing how to respond. If the police hadn't been holding a vigil, then likely their suspect or witness could have left the area. But the vigil has turned into a full-on protest, which I'm sure the police had no intention of causing yet they keep feeding into with their increased presence and silent as stone faces.

Hard to know what is going to happen here tonight. Will people get tired and leave? What exactly do the police think they are preventing with their huge presence? Will people continue to keep their protest relatively quiet and peaceful, or will they escalate?
§update 11 PM
by danielsan Sunday Feb 24th, 2008 11:30 PM
As of 11:00 PM, there was still a huge police presence on Riverside and a large group of copwatchers and neighbors, friends and supporters. At around 9 or 9:30, police in full SWAT/Riot gear (including gas masks) entered the home by breaking windows and smashing through the door. Most refused to give any information, including their badge numbers. They still have not shown anyone outside a warrant or removed anyone from the premises. Cars from every conceivable jurisdiction and agency are on the scene, as are photographers from the Scotts Valley Sentinel and other media.
§Update 12:40 am - Police leaving/gone, and the people ...
by Riverside Ave. Neighbor Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:51 AM
Happy-for-so-many-reasons to report that the police have exited the house on Riverside Ave., packed up their cars, and are gone into the night.. They began to exit the property, carrying bags and boxes, first to boos from the people. The police packed up the load, possibly taken as evidence?, and drove off. Almost instantly, people who had been in the house for hours began to emerge, to cheers from the people.

Right now there is a shrinking crowd outside, who all sound about the same as before, except more chatty and jubilant. Except for a few attempts to get a rise out of the police, the crowd of people was mainly respectful, and primarily present.

I like the term 'copwatcher'. We felt a bit like that today, watching the drama unfold, heat to a simmer, and slowly cool back down again. Glad this didn't splash over more than it did.

Expect to see lots of pictures; the cameras were flashing very often for hours. Lots of cellphone glows on people's faces as they called around. Lots of regular faces we recognized, local activists who got the call to show up and support Still curious how the whole story is going to turn out. What of this was necessary? Justified? Legal? Moral? Ethical? Weird? Our we lucky things didn't get worse here tonight? Or are we unlucky they got this far, this fast?
§Political Targeting
by Student Activist Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:22 AM
Only one cop needs to show up with a warrant in order to search the premises. At the height of this scare tactic, 17 squad cars, including UC Police and a Parks Service Vehicle, and at least a couple unmarked police vehicles were present.

The word going around is that the police followed protesters home from a legal street protest encompassing animal rights and vivisection (animal testing by inflicting distress unto an animal to research the effects of a variable). Had this been any other form of protest, these people would not have received the same treatment: being surrounded, having strangers nosing around your windows, having their doors and windows broken, having armored police officers enter their homes pointing automatic rifles in the faces of unarmed house-members without warrant for search, being arrested without charges, and having box loads of personal property stolen from their house, not to mention any technological surveillance equipment installed while the house-members were being held hostage inside a secluded room of the house. But because Animal Rights or intelligent speech about it is sooo very much harmful to our government and commerce, it must be suppressed at all costs regardless of individual freedoms, constitutionally determined rights and laws.

I feel that if protests were treated regardless of content, first no search warrant or other intimidation tactic would be used, and even if so, the protesters on the sidewalk this night (the same fashion as the protests of earlier that day) would have warranted the same police behavior, targeting all of them as intelligent members of society.

A man who lived on the opposite side of the block, sharing the same fence, said he believed the police assault-team clearly trespassed onto his property to cross into the targets' house, and may have also damaged the fence crossing. Another house may have also sustained police-inflicted property damage, but the owner could not be found to comment.

The Santa Cruz Police are THUGS, and will do anything they are ordered to do. One police officer stated, "I'm just doing my job." Yeah? That's the excuse Nazi's used when they murdered minorities throughout Europe.

Welcome to your police-state. The people are waking up to a world of fascism, where order is enforced rather than community safety.

(I had heard that the landlord of the house had given police a door key to avoid the cost of replacing the door when the police smashed it in, but they smashed the windows in anyway because it scares the shit out of those who live there. Police do not work for justice so much as for intimidation and thuggery. They will go out of there way to keep the people in fear and subsequently in line. Once you realize a police does not even support your interests, and is rather a grunt to maintain a productive economy, then you will also realize the state of control they have over the general people.)

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Doubter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 8:21 AM
We have only the word of "somekid" that the protest or "action" earlier in the day was legal. Perhaps the action was not legal. In fact, perhaps most of what is "reported here is distorted, misstated, or outright lies.
by Tron
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 9:09 AM
UC Santa Cruz doesn't have a medical science department. What nature of research were they protesting?
by Tron
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 9:13 AM
Here is one event which I found using search words. It could be more elaborate than this.:
by J S
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:02 AM
It is interesting that the only pictures posted were of the police action. I understand that the action earlier in the day was from when a large group of adults dressed in black with ski masks on decided to have their demonstration at a private home where their were small children in the house. The children ranged in age 2 to 8 years old. The researcher the protesters were protesting is doing cancer research. The protesters probably would not have been visited by the police if they had a peaceful protest in a public place. I was told by the father of one of the little girls in the house the protest was neither peaceful nor on public property. Me thinks you protest to much Brutus.
by Bunny
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:14 AM
Terrorizing innocent little children, vandalizing personal property, and subjecting academics to personal attack. That does not sound like a peaceful protest.
by FrankLove
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:28 AM
That was an intimidating police show, wtf? I hope by saying "at" somekid meant to say "on public space in front of" because a demonstration "at" a vivisector's house sounds intimidating and unlegal and more likely to wake the p-state hive. What happened at morning demo?

by Santa Cruz Native
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:33 AM
If they had not slammed the door in the face of the officer - things would have been different. If you are not guilty of anything - you do not scream - GET A WARRANT and slam the door. Do us all a favor and move up to Berkley. Your parents must be SO PROUD!

by taxi driver
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:53 AM
what about UC's human torturers like John Yoo?
by student activist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:58 AM
if you've had any know-your-rights training, or have read through the u.s. constitution, or have read through ACLU or copwatch articles ( on handling police, you would know that the police cannot engage in a search without consent or without a warrant, and must observe your right to a lawyer. police do not care whether or not you are being polite, an order they receive will still be acted upon. Politely saying, "please show a warrant" or yelling "get a warrant" makes no difference in their procedure.
by ulas jones
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:04 AM
Some kid only wishes it was legal. The little ignorant juvenile moron and his buds get off on smashing shit. They couldn't care less about the animals. It is just an excuse for a bunch of arrogant stupid children to harass people. Glad they took your stuff. Hope they find evidence to prosecute your punk asses.
by somekid
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:12 AM
Sorry, I misspoke. My understanding is that the demonstration happened on the sidewalk in front of the house, not "at" the house itself.
by Very different perspective
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:26 PM
By Mark Gomez
Mercury News
Article Launched: 02/25/2008 10:53:15 AM PST

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.

Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to call the Santa Cruz police TIP LINE at (831) 420-5995.

Monday Feb 25th, 2008 12:29 PM
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 12:48 PM
Patriotic, you're not helping your cause. They did get a warrant. And now it looks like these guys might be facing assault charges for what they did.

Protest is one thing. And it is a beautiful thing that we are allowed to do so in this country.

Physical violence, on the other hand, is another thing.
by Community Supporter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 1:19 PM
While arguing back and forth as to whether the police had a justifiable reason to search the house might seem logical, it really is irrelevant. What happened to prompt this might explain things, but it neither accounts for the sheer force, the magnitude of their hostility, and their repeated breaking of the law. They were on the property before a warrant arrived, they were IN THE HOUSE before a warrant arrived, and many police officers refused to give badge numbers. Oh, and must we forget them hitting an individual twice for "crossing boundaries" (the first incident took place on a neighbors driveway where the police were not given permission to be at, and in turn meant the police were trespassing on private property, the second time was in front of the house where the individual was trying to get a name and badge number when it was refused).

While arguing animal rights is important, I think most of the people here are looking over what's being discussed. Think ACLU: it sucks that stupid people have the right to say really fucked up things, but there is no reason for them to be silenced. Similarly, regardless of why they were there, it is fucked up that this is happening to these people.
by The Mercury article changes my opinion
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 1:34 PM
There is a huge difference in level of appropriate response and my concern about rights being trampled dependent upon the context of the situation and what caused the reaction of the police.

When I first read this report, all I knew was that police had shown up after some people had legally protested.

Now I read that the police showed up because people hid their identities, terrorized a family in their house, and assaulted a citizen in his doorway.

When I first read the report, I thought it was an overreaction by the police.

When I read it in the context of the SJ Mercury news, I think it's an appropriate response.

by Was there
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 1:46 PM
They were not in the house before the warrant arrived. They were allowed on the property because the owner was there and did not ask them to leave (he gave them the keys). Once the people demanded a warrant and slammed the door, the police have to secure the area until the warrant is issued. Gee, since it was a SUNDAY - I am sure it was hard to find a judge to get one signed and that took awhile.
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 1:51 PM
So finally the Sentinel releases information...after getting the facts.

SANTA CRUZ - More than a dozen police officers stormed a house in the 700 block of Riverside Avenue late Sunday night and confiscated cell phones, clothing and paperwork in connection with a case of stalking, conspiracy and an attempted home invasion burglary on the city's Westside earlier in the day.

The police department's SWAT team broke down the side door to house at 9:50 p.m. and searched the residence where three UCSC seniors reportedly live. Inside police say they found several items relative to the investigation and possible other attacks.

The search lasted more than three hours and ended a little after 1 a.m., said Lt. Rudy Escalante, adding that the three people in the house were suspects in the home invasion and when police tried to question them, they slammed the door and told them to get a search warrant.

According to Escalante, six suspects wearing bandanas pounded on the front door of the Westside residence about 1 p.m. The homeowner secured his wife and child in the back of the home and when he believed they would break down the door he answered. The victim, who was confronted by several people, was hit with a black object and suffered minor injuries.

"They were wearing bandanas on their faces and were screaming and trying to break into the house," said Escalante. "Witnesses gave us information on the suspect vehicle. We tracked it to Riverside Avenue. We obtained a search warrant. We served the search warrant last night. It's relative to a home invasion and right now the case is continuing. We've got evidence we're processing."

The owner of the house on Riverside Avenue, Frank Male, said he received a call from police Sunday afternoon letting him know that three of his tenants were not cooperating with the investigation and that they were going to have to obtain a search warrant and possibly break down the door.

Male said he gave police officers the keys to the house, but Escalante said officers broke down the side door when no one answered.

Joe Marcus, a concerned Santa Cruz resident, said he heard the "shattering glass" and a woman inside the house "scream" once police barged through the door.

Male said his tenants kept his house clean and in the month he's rented to them have posed no problems.

Several students from UCSC gathered around the house in the early afternoon. Some of them were wearing bandanas on their faces.

The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office helped police secure the area, Escalante said.

"The sheriff's office got called in later after the crowd got agitated," he said.

While the search was taking place, protesters taunted the officers, asking them to reveal their badge numbers and shining flashlights in their eyes. When officers emerged from the house carrying seized evidence, some of the students were following the police, taking pictures of the undercover squad car and its license plates with their cells phones.

No arrests have been made and the investigation is continuing.


So these guys terrorized a family, broke into their home, assaulted the man with an object and fled. And some of you have no problem with this. Absolutely unbelievable.

The police had "just cause" to question them, and came back with a warrant.

Do these students know how much trouble they are in if found guilty of this??!!
by student activist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:31 PM
Maybe before we all draw conclusions based on the agendas of corporate media and rumor, we should allow those whose home was penetrated and desecrated to speak.

Wasn't media spin one of the reasons O.J.'s case was compromised?
by Rico
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:43 PM
You believe that the man at the protest was assaulted? I'm not sure I believe that yet. The source of that information was the police themselves. Earlier reports said it was just a raucous demo. I'm not sure what's fact and what is fiction yet, but I do know that police have a long history of inventing justifications.

If the police said, This was an animal rights demo and we (and the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force we receive money from) believe that even peaceful demos are the nations number one terrorism threat, it would be much harder to swallow this kind of overreaction and repression.

So as far as I'm concerned, on facts, the jury's out. If you have the attention span to follow this story, watch what comes out. Bet you that later, the assault claim will be retracted.

And uh, no, a landlord cannot give police permission to enter his/her tenant's houses. And hiding your identity is itself not a crime. And you are under no legal obligation to let police into your homes, or to answer their questions. And no, refusing to answer questions is explicitly called out by the courts as NOT probably cause. And no you do not have to identify yourself in this state (though you do increase your risk of arrest if you are a suspect).

Why do so many people on Indymedia spout such ignorant authoritative bullshit? If you don't know, are not sure, or are just full of supposition, why not be clear? Failing that, how about you shut the fuck up?
by anon
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:44 PM
Right, shooting them would have been justified. Because, that's what we do in this country, right? People who try to save lives (whether they be human, animal, or plant) should be shot. You're making perfect sense. 'But think of the chiiiiiillllldren! There were children in the house when masked protesters publicly suggested their parent's job could be ethically unsound! What is that going to do to their self esteem?' I guess its only too bad that he didn't have a gun. Then at least the kids would have gotten a real show. Right? You stupid fuck.
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:47 PM
"Maybe before we all draw conclusions based on the agendas of corporate media and rumor, we should allow those whose home was penetrated and desecrated to speak."

Who are you speaking about? The family that was threatened, forced into the back of their home, children terrorized, and the husband beat over the head with and object? Or the students that slammed a door in the face of the police?
by Rico
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:47 PM
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:55 PM
Rico, this is not the only website that is reporting on this incident. If you would take a nanosecond to do a little digging you will find reports from people that know the other family confirm this did indeed happen to them. Friends of theirs have been posting about it.

This is unbelievable. Are you the kind of person that stands up for rapists and then makes the victim prove that they are not a liar?
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 2:58 PM
Student Activist says : "terrorism" is a catchall for political dissent

No, terrorism is when you are forced to hide the back of your home while people wearing masks beat your husband and father at the front door and then run off into the night like cowards.
by student activist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:08 PM
good point ben, nothing is fact yet. everything is based on rumor.

nothing is coming out of this discussion except ideological arguments.

let's chill for a bit.
by Community Supporter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:15 PM
As stated earlier, you are not correct:

A) you cannot enter tenants property without consent of tenants, which was obviously not given
B) given such, their front yard is their property, they were asked to leave and didn't. again, this is trespassing on part of the police officers.
C) and, specifically what I was talking about, the warrant WAS NOT PRESENTED WHEN THEY ENTERED THE HOUSE. I went in and interviewed the people living there after the police left. When the swat team arrived, they knocked once. The tenants asked to see a warrant, the door was then broken down without response. They were held at gunpoint. They demanded to see a warrant. Continued for a good 30 minutes or so, and then the police responded with "the warrant is on its way".

No, you cannot enter property, no matter whether the homeowner is present or not, without a warrant PRESENT.
by Think About It
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:22 PM
"Witnesses gave us information on the suspect vehicle." Not the suspects' vehicle, the suspect vehicle. Why was it suspect? As far as I have heard, it is suspect because, at a protest, witnesses saw masked protestors get into the car after publicly raising questions regarding the ethics of animal testing at researcher's home and then, later, masked protestors assaulted this researcher at said home. By no means is this kind of assault OK. All I am wondering is: is the only thing validating the SC Police departments extreme show of force the tenuous connection that people in masks were seen both leaving the protest in the "suspect vehicle" as well as later attacking someone? Everyone wears masks at protests. So, as far as I have heard, the reason that the Santa Cruz Police department decided to have the SWAT team break down someones door and hold them at gunpoint is because they were wearing masks? Like I said, assault of this kind is not only mean-spirited, it is detrimental to a greater cause and only cheapens the real validity of animal rights avtivites. However, if the only evidence that police needed to point guns at college students was the common coincidence of wearing a mask at a protest, think about all the things tying you to someone committing illegal activities, and realize that they may be enough to have your house raided by people in suits of armor, gas masks, and guns.
P.S. When did college students become public enemy number one in the eyes of the public? Was it when anti-intellectualism began sweeping the country? Or was it when the politicians you all so proudly voted for raised tuitions to such extremes that only the wealthy few could attend? College students have for centuries been the leaders of important social movements, but in America they are demonised. What gives?
by Ben
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:37 PM
Your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is "anti-intellectual" is a laugh.

Terrorizing a family into hiding in the back of their house while the father/husband is beaten on the head by masked cowards are not a thinking man's actions.

Stalking people and planning vandalism on their personal property are not a thinking man's actions.

Hiding your identity from others while performing illegal activity is not a thinking man's action.

They are the actions of a desperate person who cannot achieve their goal without inciting fear on another group of people.

Now where have we heard that before?
by Community Supporter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:48 PM
I posted this in the other thread, but I felt it might help you to hear it, seeing as how the only thing you say is that these people are harrassing babies.

A) they haven't been charged. Meaning, in the eyes of the law, they have done nothing wrong yet. Innocent until proven guilty.
B) the ONLY place this information came from was ONE san jose newspaper. The sentinal reprinted the same article in their own.
C) the facts DO NOT add up as to when people where preforming this activity that day, and when they were barracaded in their home.
D) OF FUCKING COURSE THEY WEAR MASKS. Take a look at other political groups in the past: Black Panthers, IWW, SDS, etc. All of them have instances of police IDing them in a crowd, when they have done nothing wrong, and planting fake evidence, placing bogus charges, and doing exactly what they did here: get a warrant to raid their house. There are countless incidence of the police doing this in this country, despite that most people have done nothing wrong. Masks are not a way to get away with a crime: its an act of security against a force that will gladly strangle you for nothing more than being someplace that is undesireable.
anyone who thinks that hiding one's identity is a punishable offense is a cop...
i know, liberal, you don't think you are a cop, but to those for whom the police are actually a problem and those you use the cops against. you too, liberal, are a cop.

when did indymedia become a mouthpiece for liberal apologism? fucking free speech biting us in the ass... good thing freedom's about a lot fucking more than what we can post on the internet. but for you cops and liberals, is it?

thanx to "patriotic and ignorant". the liberals don't realize they are enemies, if you can't beat 'em join em....
"community supporter," right on, at least you want to keep the conversation on track. you don't have to be militant vegan to resist the police state just because today that's who the state chooses. liberals, when they come for you they'll be no one left to defend you.
by Bakunin
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 3:58 PM
I think it is inaccurate to call the assailants terrorists. What they do to "protest" something they happen to disagree with is more akin to the tactics employed by anti-abortion protesters, hood-wearing, cross-burning Klansmen, and various other right-wing fascists. These are bigoted, anti-intellectual hate-crimes, pure and simple, and should be prosecuted with the same vigor as any other hate crime.
by Gemma
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 4:03 PM
Very nice.... and convenient too - ditto!

Yes, Ben the police are state robots protecting their greedy masters and vested interests

Your assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is "anti-intellectual" is a laugh. (Check out the average IQ of Bush or the police)

Terrorizing a family into hiding in the back of their house while the father/husband is beaten on the head by masked cowards are not a thinking man's actions. (The police do this all the time!)

Stalking people and planning vandalism on their personal property are not a thinking man's actions. (Again, this is called a police raid)

Hiding your identity from others while performing illegal activity is not a thinking man's action. (How many police that broke into the property and stole personal belongings gave their name or number?)

They are the actions of a desperate person who cannot achieve their goal without inciting fear on another group of people. (More like a desperate government who can not achieve their goal without going to war illegally, remember that!)

Now where have we heard that before? (Most days probably - Governments and their lackies AKA 'the police' do the bidding of those with vested interests to keep the status quo in big business pharma that kills, maims and tortures millions of defenceless non-human animals every year - just so that adverse side effects from animal tested drugs is the third biggest killer in the US. Thousands of people die because of bad science. Time to wake up and take sides...
by I know you're loving this
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 4:03 PM
I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is anti-intellectual, and, if you had read the entire post, you would realize that I don't even really disagree with you. What I disagree with is the dismissive attitude towards the opinions of students. I DISAGREE WITH THE VIOLENT ACTIONS PERPETRATED, just like you Ben. See, I think that people that agree with me can be reactionary too.
by ar45
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 4:18 PM
terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

what part of intimidating someone and invading their house doesn't fit in the above definition? how does terrorizing a professor change anything? eco-protestors, get your shit together and stop espousing conspiracy theories and go through the proper channels (such as the police did), otherwise these battles will always end not in your favor.

invading peoples homes? you would have no legs to stand on, literally.

by victor
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 4:20 PM
here we go again with the students at ucsc demonstrating their irrational fear of science. go to fucking class, learn about the subject, then judge it. destroying the industrial military complex starts with education, not violence.
by Student Activist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 5:34 PM
victor, before you go and generalize all 15,000 students maybe you should talk to a couple of them. maybe even realize that their perspective of arguments whatever the take is just as valid as yours.

If you trivialize us or anyone else, you objectify us, and you might as well continue narrow-mindedly talking to yourself.
by victor
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 5:49 PM
student activist,
why don't you publish your name? your fear of being identified is just as irrational as your comment that assumes i am not informed. if you frequent the indy news board, you will find i have been one of the largest promoters of dialog between the protesters and the scientific community at ucsc. i have asked the indy community where this fear of science stems from and i still have not gotten a decent reply. if you find some of my previous posts, you will realize that i have conversed with the protesters as they were camped in front of my laboratory for quite some time.

as with all things, there are appropriate channels to change those things you don't agree with. the methodologies used by the ucsc protesters in the recent path have not been these. i believe in the right of dissent and the current era of protest at ucsc is fucking it up for everyone in the future. excuse my outrage for educators being targeted by people who really have no concept of their own plight yet less a cohesive plan of action that can augment change. i could write volumes paralleling the current student activist plight and iraq, but i'll leave that for a humanities student.

in summary, being a bully and performing violent protests are not the actions of forward thinking sentient people. until protesters come out of the shadows and become visible agents of change, they will always end up looking like the bad guys.
by Community Supporter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:14 PM
Like Martin Luther King Jr., right? Because that most CERTAINLY ended racism...

I don't know how many people saying this have actually tried to go throught the "proper channels", but let me tell you: it rarely works. Why on Earth would people stop doing something incredibly profitable, because a few college kids say that its wrong? Hell, if the entire world said it was wrong, and didn't do anything, would they stop? No, probably not, because the cash keeps flowing.

Also, how many times do I have to say that this is not only irrelevant, but also much less reliable than the information presented here. The ONLY info any of you are getting outside of here on the back story is ONE san jose newspaper (read: NOT LOCAL), and a santa cruz paper that stole what they said, and in affect misquoted it.

Stop talking about these people as terrorists, because you don't have any proof of it besides some hear-say in the form of an illogically written newspaper article a full city and a half over.
by Puh-leeze
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 6:43 PM
Since when did being a city away make a resource unacceptable and unreliable? By that standard, every other IndyBay region linked on this website is suspect and untrustworthy.

As for not calling them "terrorists"? How about that term gets dropped in exchange for "vivisectionists". Both are used to polarize the issue, and neither accurately portrays what these two groups are and do in most instances.

If a professor whose research includes the infrequent use of animals is a vivisectionist, then a well intended and typically non-violent student who gets over-impassioned and goes after that professor is a terrorist.

by Community Supporter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 7:04 PM
I'm not saying to use the term 'terrorist' is the problem, though I do have qualms with it. My point is is that there isn't basis for that claim: the only newspaper that reported it was not a local one. Why does this matter? Because they, more than likely, weren't fucking there when it was happening. That doesn't mean that nothing that paper says is legitamite. It means, on this particular issue, with it being the ONLY paper to initially talk about the subject and being the basis for all the other papers to follow, that you can't really take its word as fact.

These people aren't necessarily terrorists: not because I believe that what they did does not count as terrorism, but because NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID. Give it a few weeks and see what pops up. Wait for a statement from the person targeted and her husband; wait for a statement from the people involved with the home demo; WAIT FOR AN OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE WITH MORE DETAILS THAN TWO PARAGRAPHS IN A NON-LOCAL NEWSPAPER.

This is what I'm saying. If you want to call them terrorists, thats fine, but keep in mind that you have no basis for the information. I'd take Primary sources over third-person sources anyday, but maybe that's just me.
by victor
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 7:21 PM
the world isn't perfect, however, having a nihilist attitude and not promoting dialog will do nothing but perpetuate the problems we are working to solve. if the proper channels do not exist it is within our power to create them. how do we create the channels? i'm not sure, but i can tell you education is the first step. when we all understand and are experts at the problem, only then can we contribute to its solution. this is the biggest issue facing the current cycle of activists at ucsc related protests(yes, there are new ones every four years); how much time is being spent educating each other on the issues versus espousing propaganda of the atrocities committed by the university. i give some of the recent LRDP protesters credit for working on their own education about some of the untruths they had accumulated. that attitude needs to continue and not be dismissed.
by onespeedbiker
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 7:39 PM
To Community Supporter,

To be believable you can’t just make shit up. A little information is a dangerous thing. You may have gone to some activist meeting to learn what your rights are, but rarely do you learn what the police rights are. Contrary to what you may believe, the cops know much more about what the law is than you do. While your blowing smoke, they are attending legal up-date training.

1) The location where the warrant was served is shared by three apartments. Any one of three with the addition of the landlord can give the police permission to be on the shared portion of the property.
2) Further case law allows the police to trespass in areas where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, where there is no expectation of privacy. The ninth circuit has clearly stated that there is no expectation of privacy in a front yard of a residence.
3) There is no requirement that a copy of the warrant be presented to the occupants of a residence were a warrant is being served upon entry. The case law on this is based on officer safety. The police must present the occupants of a residence a copy of a search warrant, only after entry has been made and the premises has been secured. Your comment, “No, you cannot enter property, no matter whether the homeowner is present or not, without a warrant PRESENT.” Is not only factually incorrect, it is dangerous; as it gives the readers the impression they have the right obstruct police officers. This is the type of bad information that gets people hurt and doors broken down even when you have a key.
by Should They Be Trusted?
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 7:42 PM
From the Sentinel: "Male (the landlord) said he gave police officers the keys to the house, but Escalante (Police Lieutenant) said officers broke down the side door when no one answered."

Why did the police get the keys? Why did they break down the door if they had keys?

There are so many aspects of this story that do not add up from the Sentinel, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Police and Chancellor Blumenthal. I do not believe the corporate media or the University of California. Where did Mark Gomez of the San Jose Mercury News go for his sources?

From the Mercury: "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."

According to who? How do the Mercury News get away with not citing where they are getting their information. If the source is confidential, then say so. Was Mark Gomez at the demonstration? Of course not.
by chris norton
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 8:44 PM
So where is the video of the people breaking into the researcher's home? Wasn't it a "legal" protest? Didn't you have a camera then?
by ucsc email blaster
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 8:52 PM
February 25, 2008

To: UCSC Community
Fr: Chancellor Blumenthal
Re: A Very Disturbing Incident Against UCSC Faculty

One of our faculty members, whose research addresses human disease, was the target Sunday afternoon of a very disturbing incident at the researcher's residence in the city of Santa Cruz. The faculty member and family were home when six masked intruders attempted to force their way into the family's residence. After a confrontation that involved a physical attack on one of the faculty member's family, the six intruders fled.

This incident appears to be part of a series of recent incidents targeting UC faculty, students, and staff who conduct biomedical research using animals. At UCSC, these incidents included earlier acts of intimidation, trespassing, vandalism, and property damage at the homes of faculty, staff, and students (see

I want you to know that we have reached out to this individual and others who were harassed earlier, offering them security and other support.

The faculty, students, and staff engaged in biomedical research on this campus shed light on the causes of breast cancer, neurological diseases, and on the toxic effects of lead and other metals. The work they do is critically important, improving our understanding of the causes and treatment of these and other diseases. Any research that involves animals is regulated by federal and state laws, and monitored by a committee comprising faculty, staff, and citizens from the Santa Cruz community.

Disagreement, debate, and dissent on a range of subjects are all hallmarks of a healthy university community. However, an attempted home invasion by masked perpetrators is not free speech -- it is a criminal act that threatens, intimidates, and stifles academic freedom.

For more than four decades, our faculty, students, and staff have been free to engage in scholarly research that has spanned the sciences, humanities, and arts. Attacks on this cherished freedom, such as the one that occurred on Sunday, should be chilling to each and every one of us.
by Not here!
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 9:08 PM
There's no video of the "legal" protest, because it would have shown how "illegal"it was. Protests are usually held to gain public awareness of an issue, unless of course, your committing crimes in the process, then you conveniently don't have s single cell phone photo of your "legal protest". Funny how there are plenty of pictures and videos of the service of a "legal" search warrant though.
by scmoderate
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 9:28 PM
Good points about the law, onespeedbiker. Whether one agrees with this cause or not, it doesn't help anyone to spread disinformation. Personally, I think we have gone way too far towards a police state over the past three decades. However, that doesn't mean that the cops are not covered by the law in this instance. That "probable cause" thing is a bear and gives a cop a lot of leeway. You may not like the fact it is on the books, but face it.. it is.

If the police believe that they are in pursuit of someone suspected of a violent crime, a lot of normal protections go out the window. Also, like onespeed said, the cops know this stuff. This looked pretty "by the book" to me. If you don't like "the book", go and fight for change. But don't make up an "unreality".

by nm
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 9:53 PM
Hey - was the targeted researcher D. Smith? I am just speculating. The blog post about a breast cancer researcher was for some protest that apparently happened 10 days ago. The researcher targeted sunday was a male. That press release above mentioned someone studying the effects of lead. Research in the cellular biology department looks pretty uncontroversial, where they're just working with cells and cellular products (which can be extracted from blood or plants w/o harming anything). The environmental toxicology department has a guy looking at lead effects.
yeah - I think the system of these protesters of identifying their targets is pretty flawed. Smith's work seems very good, if he was involved. There is all manner of stuff which is 3X as objectionable which you could find off campus in this region.
by Community Supporter
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 10:14 PM
I am more than happy to admit I am wrong, and to be proven wrong. That's fine. And yes, I know my knowledge of the law isn't that of the police, and in no way mean to say that I do.

What I DO know, though, is the first thing I have been told my ENTIRE LIFE by every single lawyer is to never allow police on your premises unless they display a warrant. While that may be misinformation, its misinformation that not only I am spreading, but also every lawyer I have ever heard of and talked to. If this is not the case, I am more than happy to admit this is not true.

As for the rest:

"1) The location where the warrant was served is shared by three apartments. Any one of three with the addition of the landlord can give the police permission to be on the shared portion of the property."

While this is true, I believe this is "shared" portion, where, as far as I can tell, the front yard and the back yard are not shared, they are just to this house. Correct me if I'm wrong. I realize that there are other residences on the same lot, but I don't believe they have direct connection to these yards.

"2) Further case law allows the police to trespass in areas where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, where there is no expectation of privacy. The ninth circuit has clearly stated that there is no expectation of privacy in a front yard of a residence."

While this is true, does this explain the back yard? Also, if there is suspicion, doesn't that mean no warrant is needed to enter the premises? While the above might account for no warrant being presented, it doesn't account for why there was even a warrant needed if there is probable cause.

"3) There is no requirement that a copy of the warrant be presented to the occupants of a residence were a warrant is being served upon entry. The case law on this is based on officer safety. The police must present the occupants of a residence a copy of a search warrant, only after entry has been made and the premises has been secured. Your comment, “No, you cannot enter property, no matter whether the homeowner is present or not, without a warrant PRESENT.” Is not only factually incorrect, it is dangerous; as it gives the readers the impression they have the right obstruct police officers. This is the type of bad information that gets people hurt and doors broken down even when you have a key."

Please site me where a warrant doesn't need to be present to enter private property. Unless this has happened within the last few years, I am tempted to call bullshit. If you present law stating that it can be given after the search has occured, thats fine, but I have never even heard of a case where a warrant doesn't need to be there.

And no, this does not give people the impression they have the right to obstruct police officers, it gives them the right to fair documentation. The people in the house never said "no" to letting the police in. They asked, as is there right, to see a warrant. If thats changed, thats fine.

And, on top of this, the who 'when you have a key' thing is, in reality, a load of shit. If they intended on using a key they would have no reason for a battering ram. They also wouldn't need to ask to be let in. The property damage occured almost the moment the person inside finished asking to see a warrant. There is nothing wrong with that, and there IS something wrong when the only response is a battering ram and rifles.
by PETA-Scientist
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:14 PM
In response to the person who asked what kind of animal research is done at UCSC--I am a biology researcher at UCSC so am familiar with the situation. The research being done is all basic science directed at understanding disease or mammalian processes. Such research is part of any university, not just ones with medical schools because it is part of a basic biology department. Animal research is a powerful way to answer complex questions about mammalian biology --how normal tissues like the liver and brain develop, how cancer arises and can be fought, how the immune system fights infection. There truly is no other way to mimic the complex interactions that occur in a whole animal, and thus carry out top-notch experiments. The research involves rodents--mice and a few rats. The research animals are not tortured at all--there is intense oversight into how the animals are treated, and also to verify that using animals is the only option to carry out the research. The research is overseen by a committee of staff, faculty, students and community members. The research is funded by groups such as the National Institutes for Health and the American Cancer Society--in other words, it is important research that may lead to cures for a variety of illnesses that none of us want. Calling these scientists vivisectionists is completely inaccurate--distress is not inflicted. Modern drugs used to treat many illnesses--depression, cancer, infections, to name a few--arose from research with animals.
by Down by the river
Monday Feb 25th, 2008 11:38 PM

All of these words, kind, and gentle, and cruel, they are all perspective. You may think it's kind, someone else may think it's cruel. The point, is that logic reasons: it's ok to think differently. It's better if we think differently. That is why we have something called the freedom of speech and expression. This is evolution at it's finest! The right to protest and say, hey, we don't like what you're doing. It's called diversity, and I'm sure Darwin would agree.

And law enforcement, university power, and city power do not have the right to inflict such abuse and fear onto it's concerned citizens. We are the city, the law, and the education too. We can not tell people, you are not allowed to think this way, you are not allowed to voice your opinion and use non-violent means to try and effect change. No government or institution can rightfully tell anyone that. It's not part of the deal.

Power to the People.
Power to the Peaceful.
Hang tough Copwatchers, hang tough.

by Onespeedbiker
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 12:33 AM
3) I’ll start from the bottom and work my way up. First I was mistaken regarding a California statue requirement to present the occupant with a copy of the warrant, there is none. From the California Peace Officers Legal Source Book

“D. Presenting the Warrant to the Occupant
If the occupant is present, you should show him the original warrant and give him a copy. (Nunes (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 915, 935-937.) However, in California there is no such requirement. (Calabrese (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 79, 84-85.) Therefore, the failure to do so will not result in suppression of the evidence seized. (Rodrigues-Fernandez (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 543, 553; Calabrese (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 79, 84-85.)
If no one is home, leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place. If no one is home, leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place.

However, it is not necessary to include notice of published, available, statutory or case-law remedies concerning how the seized property may be reclaimed once the state no longer has a right to retain it. (Perkins (1999) 525 U.S. 234, 238.)
On the other hand, you are required to leave behind a detailed list of the property taken, whether anyone is home or not. (Pen. Code, § 1535; Perkins (1999) 525 U.S. 234, 239.)”

However many departments such as the Santa Cruz Police Department make it a habit of doing so out of consideration for the occupants, and as I said earlier it is done after the premises is secured. Regardless if there is a law or not, think of what you’re saying here. Do you really think there would be a law in another instance, requiring the police to stop their high risk entry, where they know there are armed bank robbers, so the occupants could be presented with the warrant and then have wait till they read it; once it’s face such a requirement would absurd.

2) By definition, under our Constitution warrantless searches are presumed ILLEGAL! The rights of the citizenry to be secure in their homes, as spelled out by fourth amendment, demands that a search warrant, based on probable cause, be signed by a judge, before the police can come and search your home. Yes, there are exceptions, but they usually involve consent or exigent circumstances.

1) The location we are talking about has no real backyard. The back yard of the main house if the front yard of the rear unit and the rear tenant gave the police consent to be there. Just to make this issue more clear, here the case law that allows the police to secure a location will waiting for a search warrant. As you see, the law allows the police to actually enter the house and secure it, prior to the warrant getting signed. Again from the CA Legal Source Book.

C. Securing Premises Before Warrant is Obtained
There are two different ways police may, under limited circumstances, secure premises while they obtain a search warrant: (1) by actually entering premises which may be occupied; or (2) by staying outside unoccupied premises and preventing others from entering.

1. Securing by Actually Entering
If the police "secure" premises by actually entering while other officers are in the process of obtaining a search warrant, they are impacting the occupant's privacy interest, and the entry will be legal only if the police have, before entering, probable cause that contraband or evidence will be discovered inside, and exigent circumstances, i.e., a reasonable belief, based on the surrounding circumstances or information at hand, that someone inside will destroy or remove the contraband or evidence, before a warrant can be obtained, if the police don't enter. (Segura (1984) 468 U.S. 796, 811-812; Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 632; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 384-384; Elizabeth G. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 496, Koch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 770, 782.)

. Securing by Preventing Others from Entering
The California Supreme Court has upheld a second method of "securing" premises, namely, by remaining outside an unoccupied residence and preventing others from entering, while deciding whether or not to seek a warrant. (Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 385-388.)
Since this type of "limited intrusion" impacts only the occupant's possessory interests, rather than his privacy, it can be justified with something less than probable cause, namely, with only reasonable suspicion that contraband or evidence of a crime is inside.
Securing premises in this manner gives the police a period of time during which they can continue their investigation and/or assess the information they already have and decide whether they can or want to seek a search warrant.
The California Supreme Court did not set an outside time limit for seizing premises in this manner, although it upheld a period of 18 hours in Bennett itself. The court emphasized, however, that Bennett had already been arrested and was in jail during this time.
Lastly, the U.S. Supreme Court has also endorsed the concept of police excluding a person from entering his residence for the time it reasonably takes to obtain a search warrant for evidence of any jailable offense--even a "Class 3" misdemeanor--at least where they already have probable cause for the warrant at the time of the exclusion. (McArthur (2001) 531 U.S. 326.)
by Zonah
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 5:03 AM
What do you mean that " distress is not inflicted" upon animals in research? Do you really think we believe that!?? No torture? Your comments are absurd. Thats why WE try to speak for the animals - obviously, you are off in la la land, using any defense for the torture of helpless animals. If its not so bad, then why don't humans offer themselves to these experiments?
by another
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 8:14 AM
honestly- you are barking up the wrong tree. i work in biology at ucsc, was a vegan before you were born. activist, non-violence trainer, car free anarchist, have spent over a month in jail for political activities. i see nothing at ucsc that would qualify for animal torture- nothing. if i did i would be the first to speak up. there is more grief for animals coming out of one day at mc donalds on mission st than in a century of ucsc research. picking individuals might fit a romantic image for the self proclaimed revolutionary heroes but the truth is that we are mostly middle class kids trying to add some authenticity to our lives. sincere in our self deception but putting a bandana on your face doesn't make you subcommendante marcos or emma goldman. be proud of your activism- show your face!
by Gary G
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 9:02 AM
Were any of these "protesters" sitting around smoking cigarettes? I asked this question of someone that was there and the answer was "yes". Tobacco companies perform tests on animals all the time. The corporations that supply chemicals to the tobacco companies perform tests on animals all the time.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

If any of these "activists" became ill due to their cigarette smoking would they accept medical care and treatment for that illness? Or would they just sit still and die from that illness, rather than accept the benefits of the research they are fighting against?
by still asking questions
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 9:33 AM
reports are coming out that an occupant in the house actually came out and attacked a couple of the protesters and chased them down the street. i wasn't there, but i must say that is much more in line with what usually happens in these situations. i have never known any protester to physically assault any person, but there have been incidents were protesters have been assaulted. (there is a famous incident where a neighbor came out with a shotgun in LA.) obviously, only the people there know the true story, but i think it is ridiculous to think that a group of protesters would physically assault someone in broad daylight - there just HAS to be more to the story that we're not getting.
by SC Local
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 10:46 AM
"reports are coming out that an occupant in the house actually came out and attacked a couple of the protesters and chased them down the street. i wasn't there, but i must say that is much more in line with what usually happens in these situations. i have never known any protester to physically assault any person, but there have been incidents were protesters have been assaulted."

Seriously, if someone came out of the house and attacked protesters, the cameras would have come out and there would be pictures/video posted up on sites like this about it. The cameras weren't out however, because the "protesters" were acting like criminals, beating on doors/windows of a persons house while they were home with their family. As for the raid, apparently some people think telling the police to get a warrant and slamming the door in their face will make them go away. I for one am glad to see that the SCPD and other involved agencies did exactly that, obtained and served their warrant, and showed that so-called "protests" that are done to frighten families in their own homes aren't going to be tolerated in this county. Maybe there's still a chance we can get rid of this part of our local population and make UCSC into something that isn't despised by those of us who grew up here.
by scmoderate
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:10 AM
"reports are coming out that an occupant in the house actually came out and attacked a couple of the protesters and chased them down the street."

What is your source for those "reports"?

Also, these aren't "protestors". Groups like ALF have clearly demonstrated that they have left behind the normal democratic process or the path of nonviolent protest. PETA picketing outside of KFC is a protest, and I support it. Going into someone's house to threaten their family is an ATTACK. It's not a protest.

by Bunny
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:21 AM
Since many people are starting to talk "conspiracy theory" I took another look at the posts.
"somekid" mentions on Sunday evening that the police effort was linked to a protest at the home of a "vivisector". It's interesting because the Mercury news did not mention that it had anything to do with the incident on the west side until Monday morning, and the Sentinel did not mention it until Monday afternoon. I highly doubt that the police mentioned it to the onlookers milling about taunting them.
How did somekid get this information? Either they are involved with the group that attacked the family or they are a police moll trying to ferret out information on this site. The only people that knew what was going on were the activists locked up in the house, the family that was attacked (highly doubtful) or the police. Information on the family was not even mentioned on other sites until later on. Even then, much of the information on other sites is not correct. And if the people locked up in the house called friends to tell them what was going on then they did know that it was related to the incident on the west side and the surrounding circumstances, which means they were involved.
Makes you wonder.
by ricci
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:43 AM
Was the Hinck research group one of the targeted labs? It seems somewhat likely

I might agree that Safeway is probably worse to animals.
by scmoderate
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:56 AM
"How did somekid get this information? Either they are involved with the group that attacked the family"

Good point, that is the most likely scenario. The group inside must have contacted others of similar mind. Otherwise how would they have gotten 70 people to show up?

Brad knows many of the people within this movement and somekid was probably one of them and granted Brad an interview.
by --
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 1:22 PM
somekid posted a comment on this article, duh.

Defend those that Defend Animals
by somekid Sunday Feb 24th, 2008 9:49 PM
This police presence is a response to a legal demonstration that took place this morning at the home of a known vivisector. Demonstrators were tracked down and this police presence is mostly meant to intimidate. Please show solidarity and support.
by asdf
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 1:37 PM
'Were any of these "protesters" sitting around smoking cigarettes?'

People outside the home were not there as animal rights protesters. When people see their block full of cops, or hear that a street is full of cops, people want to see what is going and monitor the police. Most of us know the police are not to be trusted.
by scmoderate
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 1:47 PM
"somekid posted a comment on this article, duh. "

Duh, that post was two hours AFTER the crowd on bikes showed up according to Brad's timeline! In other words, somehow this was organized as a "show of solidarity". A crowd of 25 on bikes didn't just show up by coincidence.

Also, the sad part is that by clearly linking the home invasion to a political cause, the posters on this website are helping the prosecutors to add charges that involve POLITICAL intent to just basic home invasion/assault charges, assuming this goes to trial. So, if you REALLY support these people, the dumbest thing you can do for them legally is to help firm up a political motive for the attack. Which all of these indybay posts are doing.

by Bunny
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 1:48 PM
Um, we know he posted. That's where the question came in.

How did he know the specifics before the information had been released by anyone?
by still asking questions
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 1:55 PM
what's the sj mercury's source? it might just be one person's word against another. i was not there, but i know these things: one, it is very odd that someone was assaulted and yet arrests were not made. two, as stated above, there are many more examples of protesters getting injured rather than doing the injuring. three, the idea that this was an alf action is ludricrous. the alf doesn't physically attack people, doesn't tend to operate in broad daylight, and usually claims their actions. just because a protest happens outside someone's house doesn't mean that it is any different than a protest that happens outside a kfc.

who here has witnessed a protest outside a home? they tend to involve fliering the neighborhood and chalking the sidewalk. People have gotten violent just because you are in their rich white protected neighborhood, where they are outraged that someone would have the audacity to educate their neighbors that they probably should keep an eye on their pets.
by scmoderate
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 2:07 PM
-what's the sj mercury's source?

They talked to the police, to the neighbors of the scientist who saw what happened, and also, to people within the Lower Ocean neighborhood who seemed to support the protestors (those confronting the police, not the home invaders). I thought it was a fair article.

- one, it is very odd that someone was assaulted and yet arrests were not made.

Not that odd. There may not be enough evidence to arrest yet, hence the search of the house. This is America, you don't arrest without evidence.

-two, as stated above, there are many more examples of protesters getting injured rather than doing the injuring.

True, but these aren't "protestors". Going into someone's house to assault them is not "protesting". It is violent behavior.

- three, the idea that this was an alf action is ludricrous

You may have a point there, this may be some kind of "Black Bloc" faction that considers the efforts of ALF to be too moderate and nonviolent. Sorry, not an expert on ALF. But I do know there are animal rights advocates who are willing to hurt other humans in the name of their cause.

by Another Riverside Neighbor
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 3:09 PM
As we now all know, the police were not at 728 Riverside looking for people who had participated in a "legal street protest." They were looking for people who according to eye witness reports had entered private properly, violently banged on the doors and windows of a private home, assaulted a man who opened the door and then ran away as soon as they learned that police had been called. The police were at 728 Riverside looking for craven coward wanna-be terrorists.

I'm someone who has participated in many, many political protests and this "action" was not legal, and it was not a protest. It was an act of terrorism committed against innocent people. Even if you believe that the home was occupied by "a vivisectionist" (and I don't) there were innocent children and adults in the house who are now victims of a terrorist act. Say what you will about people you disagree with, but innocent children need to be kept out of it. A home invasion is not a path to ending whatever it is that you don't like about this person's research. It seems more like a tantrum. If it was indeed a protest, why did the "activists" flee before the police even showed up? They knew exactly what had happened, and knew it was a crime, not a protest.
by cp
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 4:08 PM
I live in Santa Cruz (and happen to be a researcher in a biological division). Once someone was pounding on my door and I looked out and he had a motorcycle helmet on his head which he hadn't taken off after getting off his motorbike at the sidewalk. Still, I opened it to talk to him, and it was some random person who thought this was his friends' house, and he just tended to have a forceful knock.
by and why are you on indybay anyway?
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 6:16 PM
For **** sake people, there is no PROOF there was any assault of any kind. You've already convicted these "protesters" or whatever before they've even been arrested, let alone been found guilty at trial. I never thought I'd find a mentality more closed minded than the American legal system in a place like this, but I guess being quick to make assumptions and be heavy handed is the order of the day.
by onespeedbiker
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 6:57 PM
I don't know about you, but I was on indybay to listen to what other people have to say; if all you want to hear is one side, then you may want to go elsewhere. I do however think your innocent until proven guilty rant is a little pre-mature for as you said, no one has even been arrested yet. You seem to be saying that if no one can be found guilty than no crime has occured. I'm sure the guy who was fending off the masked intruders might differ with you.
by NotMyWriting
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 7:18 PM
This was written by somebody else, but moved me enough that I had to post it.

I thought about making this a "booyah who called it" post but really, when I read the ucsc email about Sunday's attack on the family of a professor any mood to joke about the circumstances just vanished.

I've never seen anything more disturbing in my entire time of being a student at UCSC and now an alumn. I've seen these things in countries such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Taliban Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, but I never imagined actions of these students in intimidating and attacking science professors would so closely resemble the models of intimidation and murder that many Islamic extremist groups and authoritarian governments employ to retard the advancement of science, democratic representation, and women's rights in their respective countries.

There is a very disturbing trend growing in America. It is an anti-intellectual movement, similar to other movements in other parts of the world. It is a growing resistance to western ideals, and the enlightenment principles responsible for creating the modern western world. While the west has inflicted horrific atrocities upon it's own people and people of other cultures, the strides we have made in scientific understanding and civil rights are some of the most significant in the collective history of humans. Our history is filled with strong individuals and groups that have defied power, aggression, and violence to bring about social change for the betterment of all human beings, and with brilliant scientists who have collectively saved and bettered the lives of countless humans.

The students who attacked the family of a biomedical professor on Sunday in his home, and subsequently the students who tried to defend these attackers are in no way apart of this tradition. They represent a pre-modern way of thinking, a medieval and backwards way that our society has abandoned as crude and violent. These students represent the worst attributes of humanity: terror, intimidation, and violence.

As students of this University, their actions cast a dark cloud upon us all. Because of the nature and power of violence, their cowardly actions speak louder then our quiet appreciation of our professors. They send a message to all educators that any who disagree with their ideology will be targets of threats and violence. Can you believe this is happening in our country, in California, at a university?

I want to take this time to make a point, that extremism, regardless of which part of the political spectrum it falls on, gravitates towards violence. While these students who attacked the professor on Sunday may ideologically differ greatly with those who bomb abortion clinics, it is essentially the same type of thinking that motivates both groups to do what they do, obsess or fixate on one element of our society that turns into a more and more fanatical drive until violence occurs.

As people who attend an institution that was founded on the principles of rationalism, humanism, and the scientific method, we should all loudly and publicly REJECT this.

The only thing you and I can do right now is express as loudly as we can to both ourselves and our university how much we firmly reject the actions of these individuals. Remind your professors when you can how much you appreciate the work and dedication to both their fields, and your personal and intellectual growth. I would personally like to collect emails to the professor who was attacked as a show of support and gratitude for having to endure what's being thrown at himself, but I don't know his name or much about him as a professor here.

I really want the community to discuss this, because personally I feel this is the most significant event to happen at our university in my time here, and one of the most profound. I've re-enabled anon commenting to better facilitate this discussion if it will do so.
by chill
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 8:21 PM
It looks like everyone is arguing her or his same opinion based on what little factual information has presented itself.

Has anyone talked to the people who allegedly were involved in this violent conflict?

If not wouldn't this argument then be very one-sided in favor of UCSC researchers?

also scmoderate, this is taken straight from the ALF's website. One of their aims is "to take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human."

Sourced now, animal rights activism is non-violent.
by takeabath
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 8:21 PM
Not that any of these protesters would have any reason to come to my house, but if they did come pounding on my door, scaring my family, and assaulting me in my own home, on my property, they would get a face-full of BIRDSHOT.
by chill
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 8:22 PM
I meant "has anyone talked to the protesters involved in the conflict?"
by n5667
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 10:18 PM
"This police presence is a response to a legal demonstration that took place this morning at the home of a known vivisector."

Wow, I didn't realize trespassing and harassment was legal in the state of California, news to me!

Whatever, regardless of how you feel on the subject, how does anyone think that trespassing and harassment will further their goal?

I now have the urge to go vivesect some small vertebrates in retaliation...
by Septimus Severus
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 10:25 PM
Could this have anything to do with the attack that occured on Sunday at a UCSC researcher's home - a researcher in the biomedical field, whose work involved animals - when masked intruders used physical violence against one of the occupants?

Does violence really beget more violence, or does that not apply to animal "liberators"?
by =
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:37 PM
I have a very strong suspicion that the so-called "home invasion" and the battery with an "unknown black object" stand a good chance of being fabrications. From what I know of animal rights activists, which is a great deal and includes myself, such "tactics" are absolutely anathema to our goals and strategies, and even a young child would be able to see the hypocrisy of such actions as these - and refuse to engage in them. Peaceful home demonstrations are a long-standing and highly effective tactic used by animal rights groups; in this case, where this complex story just doesn't sound sensible, Occam's Razor dictates that what probably happened was that the target of such a home demonstration got a little fed up and decided to "teach those kids a lesson" (for being little more than annoying) by calling the sheriff and conjuring a tale of burglary and violence. Until all the facts emerge in this case, it would do us all well not to make assumptions, and certainly not to give in to childish stereotypes about literally millions of people who care for animals based of the claims of one regarding the conduct of six.
by Knock Knock
Tuesday Feb 26th, 2008 11:46 PM
This from another news source. The FBI has been called in. Doesn't seem they would give a damn about a "peaceful home demonstration" now does it?
by actually
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 12:22 AM
Actually, the FBI would "give a damn" about a peaceful demonstration.

Read about the history of COINTELPRO. Read about the Denver Spy Files. The FBI are routinely used as a tool for neutralization of dissent and political violence.

Just because the police/media say something doesn't make it true.

Even the latest news articles state that the man confronted people near his doorstep, that's a far cry from "they knocked down my door and invaded my home."
by nr5667
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 5:12 AM
"I have a very strong suspicion that the so-called "home invasion" and the battery with an "unknown black object" stand a good chance of being fabrications. From what I know of animal rights activists, which is a great deal and includes myself, such "tactics" are absolutely anathema to our goals and strategies..."

Totally right, it's not like animal rights activists planted a bomb under a UCLA researcher last week or anything....

You're doing a fantastic job of turning support away from your cause, keep it up!
by one of many
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 7:19 AM
FIrst, it was a peaceful home demonstration. Then, we find out that there was violence and that it was intitated by the protesters. Now, in the latest Sentinel article, it seems the violence was initiated by the husband (who "opened the door and 'grappled' with the protestors"). The last scenario seems much more likely, since, if the they were looking for a fight, the protesters wouldn't be running away immediately afterward.

Also, is it fair for the Sentinel to call them intruders? they never actually entered the home and it is only speculation that that is what they meant to do.

I can't say I am particularly in favor of home demonstrations in general, but now I am finding it very unlikely that any physical altercation was initiated by protesters.

Without physical documentation, of course, it is really all conjecture as to what happened. But, with the FBI involved, I woulld sympathize with any protester who would be very hestitant to release materials that contained their likeness, yaknow?
by Self cancelling post.
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 7:47 AM
As the principal of Occam's Razor stipulates that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, you've invalidated the principal and premise by proposing and assuming that the protesters were non-violent by dint of their possible affiliation as animal rights protesters.

by nr5667
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 7:52 AM
"Also, is it fair for the Sentinel to call them intruders? they never actually entered the home and it is only speculation that that is what they meant to do."

Yes it is, this was a private residence -- amid the yelling and general terrorizing they were probably told in no uncertain terms to leave -- it would appear they did not, thusly they were trespassing and thusly they were intruding.

They had no right to be on that property, and their behavior would probably count as harrassment and quite possibly assault and/or battery.

This was a stupid act, and considering the violent actions committed by animal rights activists in the past, I am apt to place the testimony of the family and neighbors before that of the "activists." And so will the public.

People who are law abiding generally don't show up at someone's personal residences in masks and proceed to harass them -- calling what they did a legal act is not likely to hold up -- especially among public opinion.
by Greg
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 8:28 AM
Why is it that the police standing on private property, at the Riverside residence, is trespassing and people feel the need to get up in their faces about it...... but a masked gang on private property is not trespassing because they did not physically "enter" the house, even though they were "on" the property just like the police were?
by FrankLove
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 8:38 AM
Regarding the tactical use of masks laid out by our Community Supporter, I hear what you are saying about their utility. Of course p-state will plant evidence! But you are telling us that you are not strong enough to withstand this. Our enemies have defeated you already. The mvmnt needs believers. Believers have the strength to face their enemies. So pls, let us all move past the tea and cookie social, add some downward facing dog to your routine for spinal strength. Stand tall CS, mice are depending on us.

by Jim
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 8:48 AM
It turns out that it was not a "legal street protest" that happened at the home of the researcher. It seems the "protesters" attempted to force their way into the house. The husband was hit on the head and injured. I think home invasion and assault should be investigated and the perps arrested!
by onespeedbiker
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 11:48 AM
Why do people like you think you can just think and reason the attack away because you don't like what these thugs did in the name of Animal Liberation. In a perfect world, all those that represent a cause would follow the dictates of that group, but to blanketly state that no one who involves himself in the animal liberation movement could do such a thing is being intellectually dishonest.
by Rico
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 12:06 PM
I'm afraid I'm not going to add any useful facts to this story. Really this is mere supposition, but I hope that beyond the excited rhetoric some calm thoughtfulness will be brought to this. Excuse me if I lapse into a rant by the end, but my experience with a deeply corrupt and cynical system leads me to certain conclusions.

The story thus far:

First it was a home invasion. Then later it was said protesters were just on the porch and in the yard.

Earlier protesters initiated violence. Now one of the homeowners says that her husband "opened the door and 'grappled' with the intruders."

First it was reported that the gentleman was hit on the head and had minor injuries, now the sentinel reports he was hit on the hand and is OK.

I wasn't there, and I don't know, just like you probably don't know. But I think we're going to find a pretty ordinary scenario:

Protesters showed up for a home demonstration (to hold a researcher personally accountable for what she does in her professional life. You can agree or disagree with the tactic.) After knocking on the door and irritating and clearly scaring the family, one of the owners of the house came out to physically remove the protesters from their property. There was a struggle in which at least one person was hurt, followed by a chase. Very probably that's the simple entirety of the story.

So here are my questions: If a similar scenario happened, and there WAS an actual home invasion for the commonplace motive of larceny, rather than political, would the police have acted similarly? Have you ever has your home or car broken into? Have you ever been attacked? Have you ever experienced the police taking your case so seriously, they had an 11 hour standoff searching for evidence of the crime? If your house was burglarized, would the SCPD call in the FBI to help with the case?

If not, why not? If not, what scares the authorities so much about politically motivated actions, in general, and animal rights protests, in particular?

Even with commonplace murders relating to the drug business, even with well-armed, right-wing militias, even after the Oklahoma City bombing, why are animal rights and eco-defense movements considered by the FBI the number one domestic terrorist threat?

How many people have been killed in actions by animal liberation and eco-defense activists? Even with all the much shouted about "violent" actions of these groups? Last I heard it was still hovering at zero.

There is a reason that the current FBI campaign against animal and eco-activists is compared to the McCarthy-era Red Scare of the 50's. It's a new Green Scare. And we are supposed to buy, that these zealous kids are a very very serious danger to life and limb, right up there with Timothy McVeigh.

Or is it really about money? Is there a chance that animal rights and eco-defense movements will cut into the profitable business of cutting down the national forests, manufacturing chemicals that don't kill us (right away), and developing drugs on the public dime and then selling them back to us?

You and I might not share the same world-view, and that's okay, but take a critical moment to think about the machinations and motivations behind the scenes.
by BC Treesitter
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 12:24 PM
First of all, it's been said here about twenty times, but we have no proof yet that A) an assault actually did occur or B) It was committed by the animal rights protestors. The proof offered by those willing to assume the protestors are guilty is from media reports, police statements and personal accounts. None of which are valid proof to me right now. How do I know who is telling the truth and who isn't? Isn't it possible that some people are lying? Isn't it possible that even if there was an assault that it wasn't committed by the same people involved with the peaceful demonstration.
Just because someone wears a bandana doesn't make them an animal rights protestor. Just because people wear masks when media is around doesn't make them violent criminals. But too many people are trying to put two and two together when it isn't that simple.
Let's keep this conversation limited to what we KNOW happened. The last poster had a good point.
Whether an assault happened or not, does it warrant a raid by that many heavily armed cops?
Why is it that police can respond like that to an ALLEGED assualt when murders on native reservations still to this day go uninvestigated?
The same thing happened up here last week. 50-60 heavily armed SWAT cops came in to remove 3 of us from trees at a LEGAL PROTEST. Seriously. And the week before that there was s shooting on a nearby reserve and the cops didnt even come out to investigate.
Why are our actions so threatening to the police? If you doubt that legal protest is being targeted you have your head up your ass, because our movement is under attack and everyone on this site who is damning the protestors before an investigation has begun are playing into the hands of the COINTELPRO like attack we are under.
by Equally plausible
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 12:52 PM
Rico asked that we shut the fuck up unless we had information. BC agreed that we shouldn't say unless we know what happened...but then seemed happy to accept Ricos theory of what happened. So in the spirit of hypothesis, here's my theory:
(And to be clear, "I wasn't there, and I don't know, just like you probably don't know. But I think we're going to find a pretty ordinary scenario")

That said....My theory is that Peter Young is responsible for this.

Think about the timelines and actions.

Peter Young. The guy who just got released from prison for ALF activity, just moved to Santa Cruz a month ago; close in date to when the harassment began. Peter gave a lecture the night before this most recent action occurred, and was present at the Riverside house raid. (And no, I'm not suggesting he was involved; I'm sure this is all coincidental.).

Protestations are flying around here that animal rights activists are non-violent, and that this is an obvious setup because ALF and animal rights supporters are non-violent. But as I research the topic, it appears that "non-violent" is a subjective description.

Look as an example some direct quotes from Peter:

"My faith in direct action has not changed, only my wish for the A.L.F. to go bigger and go for the throat."

"I don’t expect to regain trust in those elements of our movement that allowed Justin" (who testified against Peter) "to move through it unchallenged, those who looked away for the sake of harmony and those who allowed Justin to be present in large groups of activists (such as David Agranoff’s wedding) without showing him the door with force."

Peter goes on to credit musical groups such as Vegan Reich with having awakened his activism.

Peter states " "Hardcore taught me urgency. It taught me anger, and it taught me to point fingers."

Vegan Reich lyrics don't sound non-violent to me. Here's their lyrics to "No One Is Innocent:

"No one is innocent we all commit crimes, if you’re not guilty in their eyes, you’re guilty in mine. There are only two sides and a line that divides, if you stand in the middle you’re not on my side. No such thing as an innocent passerby you’re the enemy if you turn a blind eye. Not taking a stand while others die complicity your crime you will be tried. To bad if that’s cold there’s not time to be nice ain't playing a game it’s a war which we fight. In defense of earth’s future and all forms of life, against those in the way all is justified. And for what I believe I’m willing to die to free those enslaved I’ll take a life. Won’t shed a tear, I know I am right, and if I am caught, I’ll pay the price… cos there’s no excuse for letting things slide, in the actions of others or in your own life. If you don’t stand firm on the side of right you’re nothing but a waste of life so you’d better choose a fucking side and not besitting in the middle when the bullets start to fly. If you don’t make a choice it could mean your life for if you’re not on my side you’re a target in my eyes."

They're saying its war. Their willing to take a life. You better pick a side before the bullets fly. If you're not on my side, you're a target.

This is non-violence? This is the guy that just moved to Santa Cruz at the same time that coincidentally all this stuff started going down?

Info. on Peter:

by the guy who got his post deleted
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 3:25 PM
BC Treesitter: "The proof offered by those willing to assume the protestors are guilty is from media reports, police statements and personal accounts. None of which are valid proof to me right now."

Sooo...what proof are you looking for exactly? Considering you didn't witness the event yourself, it seems nothing short of time travel will convince you of the fact some protestors could be guilty.
by George
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 3:33 PM
To Equally Plausible:

How do you know Peter Young moved to Santa Cruz a month ago and that he was present at the Riverside House raid?

I didn't see or hear either of these two things announced or reported anywhere. Sounds like more disinformation to me.
by Greg
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 3:46 PM
Check the Sentinel. It was in a report on page one this morning........

"But Young, who said he moved to Santa Cruz a month ago after getting off probation, said he was present when police raided the Riverside Avenue home of the three UCSC students. He said he went to the house after hearing from friends Sunday that police were targeting the home of fellow activists, but said he didn't know about the home-invasion investigation."

It pays to keeps up with what's being reported on this subject.
by Ben
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 3:57 PM
Sure, it's in the Santa Cruz Sentinel in black and white, posted for everyone to see. But how do we know that this is not part of a conspiracy of misinformation being planted by the police, the UCSC Regents, President Bush, Celine Dion, Carl Rove, Hillary Clinton and above all.... The Man? Why should we read the paper or listen to reporters? They're all in on it. they've been planning this raid for years just to screw with the minds of everyone.
It's part of a plot!
by Equally plausible
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 4:22 PM

A 5 minute google confirmed 3 sources for me. You might want to do some searching yourself before tainting my info. as "disinformation".

Would Peters own Myspace page showing him as living in Santa Cruz be credible?

How about the Trash Orchestra posting to him on that page and offering to help him with a bank robbery? (And they close by clarifying that they're serious in that offer:

"We want to help. Invite us to wade through teargas with you, or break through police lines, to create a distraction while you rob a bank to redistribute the wealth in the name of the Cause. Invite us to help tear down the walls of oppression -- understand that it is totally okay if you mean this literally."

And if those aren't need only finish reading the Sentinel article, where Peter himself confirms it:

"But Young, who said he moved to Santa Cruz a month ago after getting off probation, said he was present when police raided the Riverside Avenue home of the three UCSC students."


Disinformation....I'm the king of it. *sheesh*

And what is Peters comment when he was asked what he'd do upon release?

"NC: What are your plans after your release?

Peter: To be right back out there, doing my part. You'll never be able to count me among the ones who stopped fighting for change.

Disinformation...its all a plot...even Peter is in on it.
by Rob. N
Wednesday Feb 27th, 2008 6:52 PM
But it seems a little convenient that nowhere in it does it mention a possible reason for the presence. This isn't a news story. Police standing outside a residence, and crowds showing up to watch them is not a news story. Claiming they are using intimidation tactics and trying to scare activists is not a story. They didn't just point to a house and decide to stand outside of it.

Tell me the full story, or don't tell me at all. This whole thing is misinformation. I, for one, would like to know more...because I know this whole thing is a half-truth at best. Indybay, you should know better. Or at least I would HOPE you would. For shame.
by Peter Young
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 2:14 AM
Dear Ms/Mr. "Equally Plausible". Thank you for your flattering interest into me, my politics, and my personal life.

A brief reminder of behavior exhibited by or directly serving police:
*assumptions of illegal activity by activists who are outspoken (thought crime = real crime)
*speculation of activities in public forums
*implying a role in an activity of interest to stimulate gossip and generate intelligence
*taking public statements challenging the status quo as basis for suspicion
*unwarranted investigation into activists to protect those responsible for terrible injustice
*making tenuous, conspiratorial connections based on correlational evidence

You're guilty of each.

In fact I was in SF with six friends the day of the protest in question. I owe an explanation to no one. The last time I was asked to explain my whereabouts in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation was by police in the Santa Clara County Jail before I was sent to prison.

You're either a vivisector or the police.

Whoever is behind that computer, whether you wear a badge or not, you're an absolute disgrace for doing their work.


by Dragon Lover
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 6:38 AM
I would say that by placing bombs under cars and Molotov Cocktails outside the home that animal rights activists themselves caused the increased police response to protests. With such deadly acts being committed the police can't sit back and wait for someone to get seriously hurt or killed. Oh wait I forgot. According to Mr. Young his fuzzy loving folks would never do such things. I would say to you that if you do not loudly condem those who would place such devices you are just as guilty as they are. Oh wait I forgot again. Those devices were planted by the neo nazi police in their attempt to discredit the fuzzy wuzzy lovers.
by Dragon Lover
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 8:20 AM
Just for the record I totally believe Peter Young when he says neither any organization he is affiliated with nor himself were involved with Sundays incident. This was such an amatuerish bone headed stunt that there is no way anyone who is part of a sophisticated activist group had anything to do with it. If anything it was a bunch of wannabes who heard the message and got themselves all worked up and decided to take it to the streets. My guess is if Peter was involved at all it was afterwards when he looked at the kids in disbelief and asked them what the hell they were thinking.
by Realistik
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 9:22 AM
Nice fscking try.

This was only the latest in a series of Klansman-like hate-crime attacks in Santa Cruz that have been going on for over a month, and not even the worst of them.
by Dragon Lover
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 9:25 AM
A crime was reported. Police followed up on the report. Found what they felt was good cause to investigate. Got a warrant and served it. How is that a hate crime?
by nr5667
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 11:40 AM
...The masked "activists" showing up at someone's house and intimidating them in a hope that the researcher would be frightened into giving up her research is probably what is considered a klan tactic -- terrorize your enemies... Since they have failed so utterly to convince this meat eating population of America to give up on animal research, this is considered a viable tactic, I suppose...

I doubt peter young was involved, it was way to amateurish, someone who just spent two years in jail after getting caught must be a professional!.. Though seriously, at least not dumb enough to do something like this that would wind him back up in jail again.
by Equally plausible
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 12:10 PM

You don't owe me an explanation, and I don't think the scenario I presented happened. It was a sarcastic retort to point out the duality that I've seen in this thread. It seems to be acceptable to exonerate activists and propose that its a plot by the establishment, but unacceptable to theorize in the opposite direction. I stated as much in the preface to my post, and used you as an example of how easy, and how circumstantial it is, to theorize with no facts.

In reality, I expect the truth will end up being somewhere in the middle. I think the activists probably got over enthused and crossed a line by pounding on a persons house, and that the homeowner probably got defensive and overreacted by pounding on a protester, and then blows were exchanged by both sides. No proof, just my guess.

That said, a few replies to your post.

RE your personal life: I'm not sure what is personal about what I posted? I found it all in a quick google, and all that I found was posted on public websites. You yourself provided each of the interviews and quote, to promote your cause or raise funds for yourself. You also gave an interview on site at Riverside. How is any of that private?

RE my being guilty and having helped the cops: Not sure how I helped the cops. If you weren't involved, then I told them nothing. And again, if I found all of that information w/ 5 minutes of googling, and it's all public record, what exactly do you think I've given them that they don't already have? They already have everything I just found.

Re my being either a vivisectionist or a cop, and my being a disgrace: I've never worn a badge, nor operated on an animal. If by cop you mean because I pointed them at information, or a disgrace because I didn't support this cause? I can live with that. I'm not as ardent animal rights supporter as you are. If I'm a traitor for caring more about a human in my neighborhood being harassed and terrorized at their home than I am about a mouse being used for research, then I plead guilty.

Some people may feel that everyone is either fully on board with this issue or else their a cop/vivisectionist/traitor. I feel that the people going to the levels of activism on this issue that you and others are are in a minority, and that a greater percentage of people fall into a more moderate cohort of commitment. I am one of those people. I support legal dissent and protest, and I'm against unnecessary abuse of animals or research for items like cosmetics. But I don't support intimidation or harassment of humans either. I do view what's occurred on Feb. 11 and 24th as intimidation and harassment.

And finally, I'm not sure if your comment about being with 6 friends on the day of the 24th is honest and a funny coincidence, or if it's coy humor. But in either case, you might not want to be placing yourself with the same number of people that are being searched for in regards to this case. By posting might be helping the police do their work.
by A UCSC Grad Student
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 7:27 PM
When I first heard news of the police raid, along with the "legal street protest" story, I felt extremely angry and indignant, and I wanted to support the students who were being targeted. However, as more information about the events preceding this raid come to light, I am beginning to feel betrayed and misled. I don't fault anyone for spreading rumors about this at an early stage, but I am outraged at the "demonstrators" themselves for their part in it.

It is not acceptable to engage in violent intimidation against someone you disagree with, and it is even more egregious that this was done at a researcher's home, drawing innocent family members and young children into a terrifying confrontation that should have never occurred in the first place. What's more, I find it especially cowardly that the perpetrators never took responsibility for their actions. The activist community in Santa Cruz has good reasons to be suspicious of the police, and many of us were quick to believe that the police raid was a fascistic response to a peaceful demonstration. Judging from the dialogue on this thread, it would seem that more than a few people still do. The perpetrators' failure to take responsibility (whether public or covert) for these acts has stained the community by taking advantage of our trust and our benefit of the doubt. How can we build solidarity without trust, and how can we trust one another if we don't know where we all stand? Santa Cruz, what ever happened to peace and integrity?

As a potential future academic, I am appalled that someone would find it fit to stalk and harass a university researcher in her home, for work that I doubt they fully understand. This woman is trying to help find a cure for breast cancer. You may very well disagree with the use of laboratory mice for cancer research, vehemently even, but there are much darker things going on out there, even at UCSC. The animal research that this woman does is highly regulated, and carefully managed to minimize suffering to the greatest possible extent. Nobody is pouring toxic cosmetics into anyone's eyes or punching beagles at that laboratory. There are better targets out there, so to speak, even if you think that these kind of tactics are a good idea.

Which they aren't, of course. What has this achieved, besides further tarnishing the reputation of Santa Cruz activists and anarchists, bringing the FBI into our town, strengthening opposition in the minds of everyday, law-abiding citizens against the animal rights movement, and forcing a very well-meaning scientist to hire security so that she and her family can sleep at night without worrying about being attacked in their home? It's not just morally outrageous, it's also mind-blowingly stupid. We're better than this.

Putting the issue of animal justice aside for a moment, it seems that somehow, in the midst of all this anti-science, anti-univerisity hysteria, people have forgotten that a functioning university system is one of the greatest assets our society has. Where else will you find people getting paid to do critical research, work that may save millions of future lives, without having to worry about short-term profitability, as in the corporate sector? Intelligent discussions abound as to whether UCSC is a functioning university by that standard, and I invite anyone with an informed opinion to join them. I say this as a graduate student, a tree-sit supporter, and a staunch opponent of the LRDP. Please join me in condemning these shameful acts, and gathering the collective courage to recognize that dishonest, violent tactics are not an acceptable form of dialogue.
by grad
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 8:32 PM
Oh boo hoo hoooooo poor "ashamed" UCSC grad student. Well, take your shame and apologetics for vivisection elsewhere.

Maybe you can come back to earth as a "research" monkey, a dog, or even a lowly mouse.

Yes, it IS bad to be a living being used as an unwilling TOOL for research, whose every movement and interaction is controlled by a researcher who chops your head off when your use is done.

You earned your shame by yourself.
by Allison
(bradleynowellislove [at] Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 10:39 PM
I don't normally respond to the hypocritical self-congratulatory one-sided writing about "political activism" in and around the UCSC and Santa Cruz area but this has really gone to far. The "legal protest" everyone is up in arms about was an illegal home invasion by a bunch of punk kids who don't know anything about legitimate political discourse and activism. Six masked people entered a family residence (the two children of the researcher were home) in protest of scientific research that may in the future save one of them from succumbing to the horrific and painful death of cancer. While I don't agree with using animals for research, I find it cruel and downright unappealing, until an effective alternative is found we should not go around like petty criminals breaking into people's houses just becuase we don't agree with what they do for a living. That makes the activists little better than the SCPD. So, until these animal rights activists start volunteering in place of the animals they are committing crimes for they should stick to legit forms of protest and let the scientists do their jobs, becuase the scientists might find a cure and the activists might actually change something.
by nr5667
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 10:49 PM
"Oh boo hoo hoooooo poor "ashamed" UCSC grad student. Well, take your shame and apologetics for vivisection elsewhere."

Good, I hope you animal rights people keep it up, so the FBI can come through and send you all to jail, and people who actually do something useful can do it unmolested.
by UC lies
Thursday Feb 28th, 2008 11:11 PM
'Six masked people entered a family residence'
It sounds like you get your information from the Sentinel, but even they quit publishing that obvious lie in the last couple of days.
by Berndta
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 7:13 AM
The grad student is very correct about selection of 'targets', for lack of better word, which don't even barely reflect the real list of objectionable projects going on in the Bay Area. It is as though they were unaware of what goes on in private industry, or didn't bother to look outside of areas they are at. I mean, Sunnyvale, or even Watsonville for agriculture, have all sorts of things going on. A researcher working with sea lions and other mammals (who is well liked, and students like her classes) was getting threatening letters too, and they don't kill their animals. They're looking at how they swim or talk or something, and probably got them via a rehabilitation program. I don't really know if they'll be released. However, this is really bottom picking compared to really objectionable weapons development over at Moffett Field, or the NSA copying internet traffic at AT&T downtown. apply yourself
by Tim Rumford
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 7:57 AM
I wanted to thank you for your detailed description of what occurred. Its interesting, I would think more people would be upset over the waste in tax dollars. After all, that many police for a few people they did not even arrest seems to be a bit much.

I find it interesting you mentioned a park ranger or officer of some kind was present. Did you notice if it was a National Park or State Park? They have been weaponizing the Park rangers, often to their own dismay. I mentioned a few months back, it would not be long that we start to see them helping the police.

Its important that you watched and gave us a great description of what happened.

Don't let people hang around here and post anonymously to every post just to antagonize. Ignore them and stick to people on ALL sides who have real dialog to contribute.

We should always watch the police to make sure they do not go over their legal boundaries. Regardless if it had been a drug bust or a bank robber, we as a community need to know how are police react. It has been cop watchers who have caught many police abuses from assault to murder.

It was not that long ago the police were beating up the homeless. I was beaten at age 14 inside the County building by a pissed off desked officer, desked for the very act of beating the homeless in their camps at night. I was not homeless, he was only supposed to watch me for 15 agonizing minutes. Many in the forums have asked we return to such days. Sad statement on the state of humanity. I guess it was a long time ago; I am 41. But the act of being beaten in a small room for smoking pot did not give me rosy feelings about the police. I understand they have a job. This by your account seems excessive. I don't know all the details and we may never know. Maybe the police were showing off for the FBI, who wanted to make sure they were not "Domestic Terrorists". Had they deemed so, their rights would have gone out the window.

You gave us a better picture of the incident then the Sentinel ever will and I as one appreciate your efforts.

The police have a place. Its to protect us and serve us in a legal and reasonable manor. No one really knows what happened at the house of the "Animal Researchers". Maybe they did try and break in, or maybe it was just an argument at the doorway. Maybe it was exaggerated, maybe not. I am sure Zack Friend will give us all the details...
I won't hold my breath. Thanks for being so detailed and giving us your perspective as a neighbor.

Tim Rumford
by Tim Rumford
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 8:16 AM
So were there any little children scrared by the multitued of masked and armed police to catch a few possible assaulter's? I have never got that kind of attention from the police when I was robbed?

Do you all believe everything you read in the Sentinel? We really do not know what happened at that house.

We have one small injury NOT requiring any medical attention. Those details were sketchy at best, and from one side. I agree it was wrong to go to their house with Kids there. Unless they were protesting outside on public property. Even then I agree a better place would be campus, where you would still be writing posts in opposition.

This neighbor is simply painting a picture. He really gave very little of his own opinion, accept it seemed a bit much from his and his other neighbors perspective. We need to respect them too as neighbors and part of our community. When will you anonymous commenter's ever write anything and use your real name? Are you all that scared of your own opinions? Give this guy a break, he wrote what he saw. It had an effect on children there too. So if they were real criminals, and we don't even know they are yet, doesn't it seem excessive use of your tax dollars. Maybe a wee too many police?

People who are not guilty often don't allow officers in their house without a warrant, its called using your rights. I would never allow one in mine without one. Use your rights or loose em.
Tim Rumford
by star
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 9:43 AM
I find it funny when people say, "A MUCH better target for protest would be..." etc. Really? If YOU think something needs protesting, then YOU go out and protest it. The protesters used their own set of priorities to determine what's important. For some, even the lowly mouse that you could give a shit about, is a worthwhile being to protect. If you want to go protest Lockheed-Martin or whoever, have at it. Meanwhile, stop shitting on what other people think is valuable.

I have to love the armchair activists. Particularly if someone is protesting for animal rights, there will always be people who walk by and give "suggestions" for what one should rather be protesting - meanwhile, like most of you, they do nothing but sit on their fat - and I mean huge, digusting, meat-eating - asses all day.
by haha
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 9:47 AM
That's a good point, Tim. Yes, there were children present when the police did their protest/invasion at the activists' home.

Now I'm waiting for all those who cry, "What about the innocent chiiiiiiildren!" to condemn the police for their scary tactics. But they won't, because they're hypocrites.
by ouchy
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 10:51 AM
I just cut my hand on a piece of paper. Now I have an injury similar to the homeowner. It doesn't require a band-aid or anything, but it hurts a little I think, if I really focus on it. Where's my sympathy? If I say that an "activist" caused me to hurt my finger, while I was trying to hit them, do I get some outrage too?
by student activist
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 11:26 AM
You expressed my feeling better than I could. I am also what I like to call an LRDP questioner and tree sit supporter but I do not agree with these violent acts.
by student activist II
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 11:56 AM
I'm with you. I do NOT agree with the violent and murderous acts committed by so-called "animal researchers." Shame on them.
by Observer
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 12:18 PM
A lot of folks have commented on the police response or the size of the police response. If you read all the articles you can find on this web site, the Sentinel, the Murky news, and the related comments, you can see the number of cops on scene grew as the crowd did. If you watch the video here on Indybay of the house door being broken down, by that point the crowd was extremely loud and rowdy.

If there were children in the Riverside house, I feel sorry for them. The adults in that house were responsible for the police being there, and were responsible for the police response.
by Greg
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 12:39 PM
No one has ever mentioned children being in the activists house on Riverside. Who's children were they? How many? and were they physically in the house at the time?
When the police first went to the Riverside house there were only 3 of them. After getting a door slammed in their face a few more showed up. When the crowd started forming, that's when more were called in.
by Curious
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 12:53 PM
I'm wondering if anyone can explain why all of the scientists targeted for protests at their homes -- at UCLA, Berkeley, and UCSC -- are all women? Are there no males doing animal research? Why do the protesters choose ONLY women to harass?
by BC Treesitter
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 1:09 PM
I can't believe there are still people here discussing events as if they were there. I still have no proof that there either was or wasn't a 'violent home invasion'. It seems unlikely to me, but again, I wasn't there. So why do people keep damning the residents of the Riverside house based on info from the mainstream press that eventhe mainstream press has stopped printing?
Do you even read all the posts here? Or do you just read the article, scroll down to 'post comment' and let the shit fly from your fingers.
Hey, those of us in the eco-defence and animal rights movements have a war happening against us. Wanna know what the main tactic of the cops is against us? Divide and conquer. Plant stupid shit in the media, send dozens of cops out without warrants to harrass but not charge people, and sit back as our own allies slice us open. That's why Peter meant about cops wearing more than badges. All the freakin armchair activists shooting their mouth off turning us against each other, playing into the hands of the cops. Do some f^%^ing research and educate yourselves about the Green Scare. This is a prime example right here.
Don't make me repeat myself for the third time.
by Rico
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 1:14 PM
Come on. That was a cute attempt to try to link animal rights activists with vague charges of misogyny, but it took literally 30 seconds of Internet research to find male animal researchers who'd been targeted.

Just for instance, Dario Ringach, a neurobiology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who researched on primates was targeted.
by cp
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 2:38 PM
from above: "Did you notice if it was a National Park or State Park? They have been weaponizing the Park rangers, often to their own dismay. I mentioned a few months back, it would not be long that we start to see them helping the police."

This is something I've wondered about. You see, if you draw a flow chart of divisions of law enforcement spread across government, quite a few sectors have a mission largely focused on protecting rural parks, forests, oceans and enforcing laws related to animals and land use. It is a big crazy quilt of different agencies, and the ethical issue that arises is that they can be tasked with both protecting the land, but have a lot of urban-style policing thrown in.

You might think that animal rights activists who feel all frustrated could even decide to pursue a reformist career by becoming a game warden or parks manager, and doing a super good job by putting in extra effort.

These would include urban dog catchers (as profiled on cable's animal planet), East Bay regional parks police (who apparently end up busting mentally ill homeless, and drug operations, although some of those marijuana grows can be damaging), the Coast Guard law enforcement (which has a split mission of catching poachers, but also interdicting immigrants and drugs ) etc. This was a decent article in the Chronicle today about forest rangers trying to catch people who illegally cut redwoods. If they weren't compromised into policing poor people squatting out in the woods, this would be a great avocation. My friend even said her mother's boyfriend was a trucker who had moved illegal old growth logs like this, so it must be quite common :
by another observer
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 4:46 PM
"If there were children in the Riverside house, I feel sorry for them. The adults in that house were responsible for the police being there, and were responsible for the police response."

Touche. If there were children at the animal researcher's house, then the adults in that house are responsible for that situation. The adults in that house KNOW that being an animal vivisector means you have a good chance of getting negative attention, and even home protests. It happens all over the world, has for years, and every researcher knows it. It's a hated and controversial profession to be an animal torturer. No matter what happens to the activists in this case, those visits will continue, and probably intensify. They're obviously not that worried about their kids. Although if their kids have any compassion at all, they'll probably hate them when they realize the sick work they do.
by Caught in between
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 5:49 PM
I am really close with people on both sides of the issue. I know from a very reliable source (i.e. neither the sentinel nor indybay) that this researcher's home was indeed attacked. They were trying to barge into the house because people inside refused to open the door until the researcher's husband opened the door. I don't know the details about what happened after that.

by Observer
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 6:19 PM
We will just have to disagree. I believe that cancer research is important, and that much of the rhetoric around what you refer to as "vivisection" is based on misunderstandings or distortions of the truth. I believe that attacking people or their families is immoral and works against civilization. I think doing legitimate research may be "hated and controversial" to yourself and people who believe as you do, but the burden is on you to make that case to a wider society. Incidents like the ones this past weekend won't help.
by x spot
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 8:01 PM
If you believe that cancer research is important, you won't be supporting that it be done on nonhuman animals. How many times do we need to create and cure cancers in mice to realize that that doesn't translate to humans?

You believe that standing outside someone's door and yelling is "immoral." I think your values are mind-numbingly screwed up and speciesist (yep, just as hateful as racism and sexism, although you ridicule it) that that seems worse to you than taking sentient beings against their will and hurting them for one's own selfish purposes. They did nothing to deserve the torture heaped on them but to be born the wrong species. Vivisectors daily practice immoral behaviors, and if the worst they get is people banging on their door every once in awhile, they got off lucky. Some day history will condemn them as the Mengeles they are.
by ilse
Friday Feb 29th, 2008 8:04 PM
Well, I know from a very reliable source that they were NOT trying to gain entry into the home, and they would never do that. Among other things, that would be against the law and they know it and they're not stupid. A loud home demo is not illegal.

Now stop faking it and pretending you know things that you don't.
by nr5667
Saturday Mar 1st, 2008 2:28 AM
To those who support the "activists"

I don't agree with you, so would you kindly provide your home address so that I may conduct a similarly peaceful demo?
by observer
Saturday Mar 1st, 2008 10:25 AM
You KNOW where these activists live on Riverside - go protest there. I'll bet you're too chickenshit. Drop the "how about I..." crap and just go do it (you won't. Ha ha. Way to stand up for your beliefs and dish out empty "threats").
by BC Treesitter
Saturday Mar 1st, 2008 11:56 AM
Ok, some random poster says they know what went on. No new info for me here. Same old, same old. I guess if someone was there they have the right to say what happened, sure, I wouldn't dispute that. Being close to anyone in this issue may be more than I can say but it's still second hand information and I'm not even ready to believe anyone who was even THERE.
Anyway, props to you for being able to be very close with both vivsectionists and animals rights protestors. You must be quite the diplomat.
I am beginning to feel myself though that I am playing into the divide and conquer tactics.
I am just following this issue because regardless of what happened, there is a story here about police response to dissent, and whether we get violent or not, we're all about to be treated as if we were.
by not the "activists"
Saturday Mar 1st, 2008 5:39 PM
This is directly related to the poster x spot. Unless you know what you are talking about, please do not share your unreliable biological "factoids". Cancer does it fact translate between a lot of vertebrate species. Cancer is simply the over-proliferation of cells to a dangerous and potentially lethal point. Because all organisms are linked through evolution and because they are ALL comprised of cells, we share many of the same very basic biological processes, including immunosuppresor and oncogenes. So please please, unless you know what you are talking about could you not share your biological insight? It doesn't do anyone good.
by A UCSC Grad Student
Saturday Mar 1st, 2008 6:18 PM
If you were to read my post more carefully, you would notice that I am not apologizing for "vivisection", if that is indeed your choice of terms for all animal research. I personally think that it is a poor one but I'd rather this not devolve into a semantic debate. I do not support all animal research, far from it, and any support that I do have for it is quite shaky, due to a deep personal conflict over the crucial importance of some research, as well as all the ethical issues surrounding it. The fact that I am unwilling to reduce my political opinions to an angry, knee-jerk reaction to anything I find objectionable does not reflect poorly on my character. If you disagree with this, then I guess we have little to constructively discuss.

I have no problem with people protesting animal research, I'm just saying that we need to have more perspective if actual change is going to be made. [S]tar's curt dismissal of my claim that the researcher's home was a poor target is, on the face of it, completely absurd. I'm not saying "you should be protesting Lockheed Martin/Burger King/Patriarchy/The War", I'm saying that stalking and harassing a university researcher, whose work seems to sit on the ultra-mild side of objectionable animal testing, on private property and at her home in front of her family, is an ethically bankrupt and useless tactic. Not only has it not stopped animal testing at UCSC, nor could it ever, but it has more likely turned a great number of potential supporters against the cause, people who may have been willing to listen before a small faction of immature pseudo-revolutionaries decided that it was time to take matters into their own hands and play anarchist dress-up, leaning on the support of an otherwise well-meaning community by refusing to take responsibility for their actions. Direct action has a time and a place, but at least at the point where I draw the line, this was not one of them. To that effect, I'd love to have a debate about where everyone else draws the line, which seems like a much more constructive discussion than being told to take my objections "elsewhere" (I thought this was a community site?) or being called a disgusting, meat-eating fatass (thanks star, that really hurts).

I find it interesting that there are those who criticize posts on an anonymous forum as coming from "armchair activists", as though they are prescient enough to be able to read the political history of a person from a few paragraphs of text. The jab isn't totally off-base in my case, though it's not accurate on the whole. Perhaps it speaks to a greater problem than that, though, which is that an activist community that cannot tolerate even moderate dissent and debate is bound to shrivel into a core of constantly bickering, holier-than-thou assholes. If you are concerned that there are too many people with little more than ideas, people that aren't helping your cause, perhaps you would be better off trying to build a broader coalition instead of rudely lambasting anyone with a difference of opinion.

You are flat out wrong.

Cancers in mice have been cured a number of times and guess what...the results did not translate to humans.

Plenty of drugs have tested safe in nonhumans and guess what...they were not safe in humans.

Why don't you go to your vet for your healthcare (or, I hope you don't have a vet, you'd probably abuse any animal in your sight).

Why don't YOU educate yourself?

"As a researcher I am involved with mutagenesis and cancerogenesis, two areas in which experimentation is fundamentally indispensable. I therefore know what I am talking about. And I say 'no' to vivisection above all on scientific grounds. It has been proved that the results of research with animals are in no case valid for man. There is a law of Nature in relation to metabolism, according to which a biochemical reaction that one has established in one species only applies to that species, and not to any other. Two closely related species, like the mouse and the rat, often react entirely differently"

-Gianni Tamino, Italian parliamentarian, researcher at the University of Padua, 1984
by Benjamin
Monday Mar 3rd, 2008 2:38 AM
I feel that overwhelmingly the rhetoric from both sides has simultaneously painted a very negative picture of the researcher/victim and the activists/(victims?). Understandably, I suppose, considering this is a pretty polarizing situation. What people seem to overlook is that both sides are working towards a common goal. Activists are not Terrorists, nor are researchers mad scientists "experimenting on animals". Both groups are simply working towards the reduction of suffering in this world as they best see fit. To demonize either faction is simply invalid.

We all know that in a capitalist society evil is generally committed in the pursuit of either power or money, usually by those who have both, in an attempt to accumulate more. What needs to realized is that through rhetoric we are creating a power struggle and a dynamic of oppression that does not exist in reality. No one is a victim in these circumstances, they are all simply suffering the consequence of their actions.

Fact: had the researcher not been experimenting with animals, she would not have generated the attention of activists.
Fact: had the activists conducted a direct action protest, they would not have generated the attention of the police.
Fact: no one likes the police.

Unfortunately, over zealous activists beget over zealous law enforcement and we all pick sides.

It is my (informed?) opinion that experimenting on animals is unsavory. however, conducting academic research utilizing animal models is a valuable research tool that has been utilized to great success, and is, in many ways, the reason we enjoy the quality of life that we hold so dear.

As an undergraduate I had the privilege to work in an environmental toxicology lab at UCSC. Unfortunately the moral ambiguity of animal research got the better of me and I didn't last working with animals. I think a valid allegory might be to compare it to cleaning public bathrooms, it's gotta be done, just be glad you don't have to do it.

"In some types of research, alternatives to animal use are available and are scientifically viable. These alternatives, computer models, tissue cultures and epidemiological studies have made significant contributions to advances in human and animal health. However, in other cases, these methods simply cannot be used as a substitute for studies in a living system."

I guess what I'm getting at is: this is the real world, and things are not so simple as wrong or right.

The good thing about academics is that they are generally willing to engage you in dialog, but you better come armed to the teeth with a fist full of citations or you'll probably leave with your proverbial tail between your legs.

Keep it up, research alternatives, but it also never hurts to keep in mind that a proportion of the animal research being conducted is being conducted in labs that simultaneously help those animals for whom you and I speak. Just ask the California Condor.

Keep the academics honest, terrorize the capitalists, to hell with the police.
by onespeedbiker
Monday Mar 3rd, 2008 8:41 PM
"Well, I know from a very reliable source that they were NOT trying to gain entry into the home and they would never do that. Among other things, that would be against the law". Would this be the same source that states, because all animal research activist are non-violent and that none of these 100,000's of activist who have never so much as taken a pledge to be non-violent, but because they are an animal reasearch activist they must by definiation be non-violent, because all animal research activist are non-violent, then there is no way any of the non-violent animal reasearch activist can be violent, because they are non-violent becasue they are animal research activist, that your reliable source says they would never do such a thing because it would be violent? Or does your reliable source know this because he knows animal research activist to not believe in civil disobediance, which by definition is violating the law for the better good? Just checking.
by smart people are against vivisection
Sunday Mar 9th, 2008 1:28 AM
Benjamin - you're right. It's just too bad the nazis were made to stop experimenting on the jews, right? That was the most valid vivisection ever done - and the research is still used to this day - because it was actually done on HUMANS. You're correct - it's all grey area - no right or wrong. It's o.k. to experiment on unwilling victims as long as they are "lesser" than those of us who are doing the research.

Fool. I wish your ethics would catch up with your overblown liberalizing. Maybe you can be the next unwilling victim to be tortured. "Unsavory?" Sure - but it might yield some valid results that could help me and my family live longer.
by Local kid
Sunday Mar 9th, 2008 4:04 AM
So, some kids protest outside someone's home.

Some cops bust into a house uninvited and take things away.

Everything else, sources disagree on. Stop assuming your source is right, and the other is worthless because you disagree with it. If you can't value what you don't agree with, can't take it for what it is worth, even if that's not much, you're not gonna get very far. And you're a dumbass.

Kids tend to protest. They tend to be overzealous. I'm one of 'em. IndyMedia tends to take our side of the story, 'cos we write it. We tend to support new and liberating social causes. 'Cos it's the right thing to do.

Cops tend to lie. They tend to beat people, and show up where they're not wanted. I'm not one of 'em. Newspapers tend to take their side of the story, 'cos then cops like them, and people can feel good about their cops and their newspaper. Cops also tend to protect the rich, the landed, the gentry, the powerful. That means punishing and oppressing people who try to upset the aforementioned. 'Cos that's what they get paid to do.

People do what they get paid to do. Or they do what they think is the right thing to do. Which is it for you? For the cop?
by Benjamin
Tuesday Mar 11th, 2008 5:33 PM
I think that citing Nazi human experiments in any discussion is in poor taste, and only serves to weaken your argument.

Clearly you haven't done your research on human experimentation and the questionable ethics thereof, or you probably would have cited the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, conducted right here in the good ol' USA between 1932 and 1972. Which was perhaps more cruel than any of the Nazi experiments, especially considering it didn't provide us with a single piece of medically relevant information.

However, to say that Nazi vivisection provided some of the most relevant data for modern medicine is also an outright fabrication; because of the pseudo-scientific nature of Nazi experimentation, the vast majority of the collected data is entirely irrelevant.

Of all the "research" done on human subjects in Nazi death camps, there are two sets of data with contemporary medical applications: Human cooling and rewarming curves, as they apply to hypothermia, and dose response data for phosgene gas. Neither of these experimental results are the product of vivisection, and as such, the Nazis did not conduct "the most valid vivisection ever done", on the contrary, they inexplicably and sadistically tortured hundreds of thousands of victims with no justification whatsoever.

It might also be noted that animal vivisection was banned in Nazi Germany, so if we are going to draw wildly inappropriate parallels, it might be said that opponents of animal vivisection share ideology with the Nazis. But as I said earlier, I think that would be in poor taste.

However, for information on a myriad of valuable research that has been conducted utilizing animal models:

... mind you, I'm sure there is nothing in that list that hasn't directly benefited you, your family, your friends, or your pets.

Yes, animal research is of questionable morality, and yes, researchers are constantly working on In Vitro substitutions. However, I think animal research has its place. Namely, in academic institutions, working toward the advancement of medicine, under the close supervision of review boards.
by Benjamin
Tuesday Mar 11th, 2008 5:42 PM
for some reason the link above isn't working. Copy and paste this:
by lil
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 1:07 AM
You're not only wrong, you're unethical. Re. Nazi studies:

"These studies were without doubt, carried out in the most inhumane fashion and with utmost disrespect for human lives. Some examples of these methods included subjecting victims to life-threatening environmental conditions such as freezing temperatures and low pressures and intentionally infecting victims with organisms causing immeasurable suffering and sometimes death. Yet, the lack of ethical standards governing these studies created a chance for some unique data to be produced: these experiments were performed on humans, as opposed to via computational means or via the use of animal models, which often have limitations as to the extent they represent the complexity of human biology.

As such, they may be much more relevant to understanding how the human body works and thus, have the potential to contribute to life-saving research. For example, University of Victoria’s Dr. John Hayward cited cooling curves obtained from Nazi hypothermia experiments that described the rate of temperature loss of humans over time at low temperatures to design the Thermofloat coat, which reduces heat loss in capsized boaters. Coast Guard testimonies show that these coats save lives.


The discussion centers on three main questions, the first being, can the means justify the end? If we look at those involved with biomedical research today, much of this research is done with the goal to find cures or save lives. That too, was (at least part of) the motivation of the Nazi scientists. Indeed, the rationale behind the Dachau hypothermia experiments was to obtain data on human response to cooling to develop strategies to reduce Air Force fatalities resulting from freezing, a common cause of death for pilots who crashed into the frigid waters of the Atlantic."
by george
Wednesday Mar 12th, 2008 1:25 AM
Hans Ruesch's book 1000 Doctors Against Vivisection now available online.

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”- George Orwell
... I've already addressed the hypothermia cooling curves, and by definition, taking temperatures is not vivisection.

Vivisection: -noun. the action of cutting into or dissecting a living body.

However, to argue that the Nazi hypothermia cooling curve is some of the most valuable vivisection data collected to date is wrong on more than simply a semantic level.

To paraphrase the NY Times: The experiments conducted at Dachau typify scientific fraud, and continuing debates over the relevance of Nazi Hypothermia research is moot; the research conducted at Dachau simply can in no way advance science or save human lives.

Although I've humored you thus far, I suggest you do some research into Godwin's Law/"Reductio ad Hitlerum."

Or, to save yourself the trouble, try this link:

And next time, provide some real references and insight into a situation before simply posting a kneejerk reaction of "you love Hitler" to any minor point you disagree with.

In the mean time, viva direct action, viva progress, to hell with the status quo, and thank you to independent media for bringing us all together (am I right?)!

by Chad
(ibkeene21 [at] Thursday Sep 11th, 2008 4:21 PM
I am writing a story on this event and on Nathan Pope's arrest which may or may not be linked. I would like to interview anyone who was present and /or who has info they would like the public to know about. Neighbors or friends please contact me A.S.A.P.. my email is ibkeene21 [at]
This can be on the record or remain annonymos.