Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Protest Shuts Down City Council, Urban Assault Vehicle Approved, Anti-Homeless Law Delayed
[Photo: a picture of what Santa Cruz’s new armored vehicle will look like. Picture supplied by Santa Cruz activist Brent Adams. A similar photo was eventually supplied by police after the public demanded a picture at Tuesday’s city council meeting.]
Santa Cruz City Council Approves New Armored Personnel Carrier
Protest Shuts Down City Council in Response
Shut Down Delays Passage of Worsened Anti-Homeless Law
By Steven Argue
On Tuesday, December 9th, the people of Santa Cruz were given only a day to respond to the city council’s latest military acquisition from the Department of Homeland Security. It will look like the pictured fully armored personnel carrier. Similar military vehicles have been deployed against the American people in places like Ferguson as outrage over the ability of the police to murder people with absolute impunity has reached the boiling point.
This urban assault vehicle was bought with our tax dollars through a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The total listed price is supposed to be $251,000. This is part of the federal government’s current $3 billion dollar per year project to militarize local police forces through grants from the Department of Homeland Security.
This latest military acquisition fits with the Obama Administration’s stated goal of militarizing police forces across the country. As austerity, low wages, racism, and foreign wars devastate much of the American working class, the U.S. ruling class is not spending money to ameliorate these problems; instead they are preparing for war on America’s poor, people of color, and working class in general.
In protest, a number of people in the Santa Cruz community were mobilized on short notice. City Councilperson Don Lane pulled the acquisition of the vehicle from the consent agenda, where the purchase of the military vehicle would have been approved without discussion. With discussion opened up, one speaker after another then stood up from the community making various demands including the release of a picture of the military vehicle to the public, assurances that the vehicle wouldn't be used on protesters, and the tabling of the vote for a future city council meeting where the community would have a real opportunity to consider the purchase and respond. In addition, a large number of speakers, including this author, demanded that the purchase be voted down.
Listening to the community to some degree, City Council member Micah Posner introduced an amendment that would have supposedly given a guarantee that the militarized vehicle would not be used on peaceful protesters and that future military acquisitions would be given more time and information for public review. This extremely weak amendment was voted down 5 to 2. Micah Posner and Don Lane were the only two who voted for it. The next vote of 6 to 1 approved the purchase with only Micah Posner voting against. Micah Posner expressed the fact that he has his finger in the air and senses prevailing winds saying, “After Ferguson, let’s be honest, it’s a muddy time for it.” Yet, he was timid in explaining his vote, clarifying that he was not voting that way because he was anti-police, he was only voting against due to the lack of any guarantees.
In response to the city council’s vote, members of the public broke out into chants of: "Shame! Shame! Shame!"
Mayor Lynn Robinson then had the chambers cleared by the police. Nobody was arrested. After the chambers were cleared of the public, the City Council then continued to meet illegally under provisions of the Brown Act for at least 15 minutes. During that time they decided to table the rest of the agenda for the next meeting which will be on January 13th, 2015.
Of the “seriousness” of the protest, the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported, "Police Chief Kevin Vogel said the outbursts were the most serious he’s seen since 1996, when demonstrators chained themselves to benches and light fixtures before being removed by police." This author participated in that protest as well. It was a protest against Santa Cruz anti-homeless laws. That protest was organized by the late Revolutionary Coalition. Protests did manage to eventually reduce the fines that homeless people receive for sleeping at night or covering up with a blanket outside or in a vehicle. The Santa Cruz sleeping ban was not, however, eliminated and a series of other laws have since progressively increased police harassment of homeless people.
Among the items tabled by Tuesday’s shutdown of city council is the final adoption of an amendment to an existing anti-homeless ordinance. That amendment will make the existing law far worse. Both the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Homeless Person’s Legal Assistance Project have declared the law unconstitutional. Steve Pleich of the Homeless Person’s Legal Assistance Project says he encourages diversity of tactics and is promoting fighting the law in court.
The existing banishment law (Section 13.08.100 Order to Vacate) gives the authority to the police and park officials to banish people from locations in much of Santa Cruz. Banishments are for minor “offenses”, including being homeless. The locations where the ordinance is enforced are any that are maintained by the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. This is much of Santa Cruz and includes parks, beaches, and the San Lorenzo Levee area. These banishments can be for violations of any law, no matter how minor, as well as violations of Santa Cruz’s anti-homeless laws. Santa Cruz anti-homeless laws include one that makes it illegal for homeless people to sleep at night. Banishments are currently issued at the discretion police and park authorities and they are not overturned if the homeless person is found innocent in court. Violations of banishment orders are punishable by up to a year in prison and by substantial fines.
The new amended banishment law will give police and park rangers the authority to banish people for up to a year for repeated violations. The old banishment law, currently in effect, only gives them the authority to banish people for 24 hours. Banishment for up to a year on the say so of cops and park rangers will be a major violation of constitutional rights to due process. The new banishment law is also retroactive, so a large number of people will be receiving new longer banishments for past infractions.
While there tends to be no justice in the capitalist courts, this ordinance has taken us one step further away from the supposedly constitutionally protected right to due process. As Obama carries out extra-judicial executions of whole families by drone in countries exploited by U.S. and European imperialism where people’s skin color brown, the local city council of Santa Cruz has likewise adopted extrajudicial punishments to be meted out on the say-so of city cops and park rangers.
While the city government and corporate media portray this worsened anti-homeless law as a needed response to terrible repeat criminals, actual statistics paint a far different picture. Raven Davis compiled data on over a thousand people cited with infractions that were eligible for banishment. These were infraction tickets from July 2013 to October 2014. All of the tickets could have been used to banish people and 52% actually were. Of the total infractions, she found that 14% were for sleeping, 20.2% for setting up bedding, 23% for setting up a campsite, 17% for smoking in a public park, 5% for the consumption of alcohol, 9% for open containers of alcoholic beverages, and 21% for limits to access violations in public parks (usually associated with trying to find a place to sleep). Nearly 100% were non-violent “offenses”.
Far from being directed at problem criminals, this law is directed at homeless people. In fact, Raven Davis found that at least 69% of the citations written by park rangers were to homeless people. Also, 78.2% of infractions were directly about being homeless because they deal with homeless sleeping issues. In addition, anti-smoking laws are widely believed to be selectively enforced against people who are homeless. Public alcohol charges are also far more prevalent for people who don’t have a living room and can’t afford to drink in a bar. Whatever one thinks of smoking and drinking, the vast majority of citations are for sleeping, bedding, camping, and being in parks after dark.
It is entirely possible that we saved one or two or even several lives by delaying the passage of the amended banishment law on December 9th by shutting down cit council This is because people will not be banished immediately in the cold of winter from public spaces where they can set up camp in attempts to stay warm and dry while they try to get some sleep. Yes, they can still be cited for “crimes” like sleeping and be banished for 24 hours as well as forced to pay hefty fines, but they will not be facing larger banishments that will not allow them to try to survive on publicly owned land without fear of a year in jail. If the amendment to this law passes on January 13th, it will take effect thirty days after its passage, and there should be is no doubt that it will kill people.
The first reading of the amendment to the existing banishment law was passed in October with one lone vote by Micah Posner against it. As in their votes for the new urban assault vehicle, incoming Mayor Don Lane voted for worsening Santa Cruz’s anti-homeless laws and so did Terrazas, Comstock, Mathews, and out going Mayor Robinson, Bryant also voted for the militarized vehicle, but was absent for the first reading on the new anti-homeless law. The same vote of 6-1 was expected in the second reading of the law, but due to the community shutting City Council down, the amended law will now not be up for final approval until January 13th.
ALL OUT JANUARY 13th TO THE DEMAND: NO TO WORSENING OF THE SANTA CRUZ BANISHMENT LAW! REPEAL THE BANISHMENT LAW, SLEEPING BAN, AND ALL OTHER ANTI-HOMELESS LAWS INSTEAD!
Meet at the Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA
January 13th, 2015
Time to be announced
Steven Argue is a member of the Revolutionary Tendency
Check us out on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/RevolutionaryTendency
For related articles by this author see:
Do Our Protests Accomplish Nothing? A Response to a Smug Cop
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/10/18765373.php
Some History of Blatant Political Repression in Santa Cruz, California
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/08/05/18718924.php
Santa Cruz Protest Against Arrests For Feeding People
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/10/18765364.php
* This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Protest Shuts Down City Council in Response
Shut Down Delays Passage of Worsened Anti-Homeless Law
By Steven Argue
On Tuesday, December 9th, the people of Santa Cruz were given only a day to respond to the city council’s latest military acquisition from the Department of Homeland Security. It will look like the pictured fully armored personnel carrier. Similar military vehicles have been deployed against the American people in places like Ferguson as outrage over the ability of the police to murder people with absolute impunity has reached the boiling point.
This urban assault vehicle was bought with our tax dollars through a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The total listed price is supposed to be $251,000. This is part of the federal government’s current $3 billion dollar per year project to militarize local police forces through grants from the Department of Homeland Security.
This latest military acquisition fits with the Obama Administration’s stated goal of militarizing police forces across the country. As austerity, low wages, racism, and foreign wars devastate much of the American working class, the U.S. ruling class is not spending money to ameliorate these problems; instead they are preparing for war on America’s poor, people of color, and working class in general.
In protest, a number of people in the Santa Cruz community were mobilized on short notice. City Councilperson Don Lane pulled the acquisition of the vehicle from the consent agenda, where the purchase of the military vehicle would have been approved without discussion. With discussion opened up, one speaker after another then stood up from the community making various demands including the release of a picture of the military vehicle to the public, assurances that the vehicle wouldn't be used on protesters, and the tabling of the vote for a future city council meeting where the community would have a real opportunity to consider the purchase and respond. In addition, a large number of speakers, including this author, demanded that the purchase be voted down.
Listening to the community to some degree, City Council member Micah Posner introduced an amendment that would have supposedly given a guarantee that the militarized vehicle would not be used on peaceful protesters and that future military acquisitions would be given more time and information for public review. This extremely weak amendment was voted down 5 to 2. Micah Posner and Don Lane were the only two who voted for it. The next vote of 6 to 1 approved the purchase with only Micah Posner voting against. Micah Posner expressed the fact that he has his finger in the air and senses prevailing winds saying, “After Ferguson, let’s be honest, it’s a muddy time for it.” Yet, he was timid in explaining his vote, clarifying that he was not voting that way because he was anti-police, he was only voting against due to the lack of any guarantees.
In response to the city council’s vote, members of the public broke out into chants of: "Shame! Shame! Shame!"
Mayor Lynn Robinson then had the chambers cleared by the police. Nobody was arrested. After the chambers were cleared of the public, the City Council then continued to meet illegally under provisions of the Brown Act for at least 15 minutes. During that time they decided to table the rest of the agenda for the next meeting which will be on January 13th, 2015.
Of the “seriousness” of the protest, the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported, "Police Chief Kevin Vogel said the outbursts were the most serious he’s seen since 1996, when demonstrators chained themselves to benches and light fixtures before being removed by police." This author participated in that protest as well. It was a protest against Santa Cruz anti-homeless laws. That protest was organized by the late Revolutionary Coalition. Protests did manage to eventually reduce the fines that homeless people receive for sleeping at night or covering up with a blanket outside or in a vehicle. The Santa Cruz sleeping ban was not, however, eliminated and a series of other laws have since progressively increased police harassment of homeless people.
Among the items tabled by Tuesday’s shutdown of city council is the final adoption of an amendment to an existing anti-homeless ordinance. That amendment will make the existing law far worse. Both the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Homeless Person’s Legal Assistance Project have declared the law unconstitutional. Steve Pleich of the Homeless Person’s Legal Assistance Project says he encourages diversity of tactics and is promoting fighting the law in court.
The existing banishment law (Section 13.08.100 Order to Vacate) gives the authority to the police and park officials to banish people from locations in much of Santa Cruz. Banishments are for minor “offenses”, including being homeless. The locations where the ordinance is enforced are any that are maintained by the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. This is much of Santa Cruz and includes parks, beaches, and the San Lorenzo Levee area. These banishments can be for violations of any law, no matter how minor, as well as violations of Santa Cruz’s anti-homeless laws. Santa Cruz anti-homeless laws include one that makes it illegal for homeless people to sleep at night. Banishments are currently issued at the discretion police and park authorities and they are not overturned if the homeless person is found innocent in court. Violations of banishment orders are punishable by up to a year in prison and by substantial fines.
The new amended banishment law will give police and park rangers the authority to banish people for up to a year for repeated violations. The old banishment law, currently in effect, only gives them the authority to banish people for 24 hours. Banishment for up to a year on the say so of cops and park rangers will be a major violation of constitutional rights to due process. The new banishment law is also retroactive, so a large number of people will be receiving new longer banishments for past infractions.
While there tends to be no justice in the capitalist courts, this ordinance has taken us one step further away from the supposedly constitutionally protected right to due process. As Obama carries out extra-judicial executions of whole families by drone in countries exploited by U.S. and European imperialism where people’s skin color brown, the local city council of Santa Cruz has likewise adopted extrajudicial punishments to be meted out on the say-so of city cops and park rangers.
While the city government and corporate media portray this worsened anti-homeless law as a needed response to terrible repeat criminals, actual statistics paint a far different picture. Raven Davis compiled data on over a thousand people cited with infractions that were eligible for banishment. These were infraction tickets from July 2013 to October 2014. All of the tickets could have been used to banish people and 52% actually were. Of the total infractions, she found that 14% were for sleeping, 20.2% for setting up bedding, 23% for setting up a campsite, 17% for smoking in a public park, 5% for the consumption of alcohol, 9% for open containers of alcoholic beverages, and 21% for limits to access violations in public parks (usually associated with trying to find a place to sleep). Nearly 100% were non-violent “offenses”.
Far from being directed at problem criminals, this law is directed at homeless people. In fact, Raven Davis found that at least 69% of the citations written by park rangers were to homeless people. Also, 78.2% of infractions were directly about being homeless because they deal with homeless sleeping issues. In addition, anti-smoking laws are widely believed to be selectively enforced against people who are homeless. Public alcohol charges are also far more prevalent for people who don’t have a living room and can’t afford to drink in a bar. Whatever one thinks of smoking and drinking, the vast majority of citations are for sleeping, bedding, camping, and being in parks after dark.
It is entirely possible that we saved one or two or even several lives by delaying the passage of the amended banishment law on December 9th by shutting down cit council This is because people will not be banished immediately in the cold of winter from public spaces where they can set up camp in attempts to stay warm and dry while they try to get some sleep. Yes, they can still be cited for “crimes” like sleeping and be banished for 24 hours as well as forced to pay hefty fines, but they will not be facing larger banishments that will not allow them to try to survive on publicly owned land without fear of a year in jail. If the amendment to this law passes on January 13th, it will take effect thirty days after its passage, and there should be is no doubt that it will kill people.
The first reading of the amendment to the existing banishment law was passed in October with one lone vote by Micah Posner against it. As in their votes for the new urban assault vehicle, incoming Mayor Don Lane voted for worsening Santa Cruz’s anti-homeless laws and so did Terrazas, Comstock, Mathews, and out going Mayor Robinson, Bryant also voted for the militarized vehicle, but was absent for the first reading on the new anti-homeless law. The same vote of 6-1 was expected in the second reading of the law, but due to the community shutting City Council down, the amended law will now not be up for final approval until January 13th.
ALL OUT JANUARY 13th TO THE DEMAND: NO TO WORSENING OF THE SANTA CRUZ BANISHMENT LAW! REPEAL THE BANISHMENT LAW, SLEEPING BAN, AND ALL OTHER ANTI-HOMELESS LAWS INSTEAD!
Meet at the Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA
January 13th, 2015
Time to be announced
Steven Argue is a member of the Revolutionary Tendency
Check us out on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/RevolutionaryTendency
For related articles by this author see:
Do Our Protests Accomplish Nothing? A Response to a Smug Cop
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/10/18765373.php
Some History of Blatant Political Repression in Santa Cruz, California
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/08/05/18718924.php
Santa Cruz Protest Against Arrests For Feeding People
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/10/18765364.php
* This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Saturday Dec. 13th, at 1:00pm
Clock Tower Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Clock Tower Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, California 95060
There is nothing temporary in banning a person for a YEAR—365 days is NOT considered temporary in any way!
Worse yet is doing a year ban without allowing the person DUE PROCESS guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our judicial system is based on the belief "INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty." The extra-judicial Stay Away Orders are given out by police and park rangers not by a JUDGE in a court.
On top of that City Attorney Barisone tries to mask the clear unconstitutional repercussions by giving a TWO day appeal process. Not a speedy appeal process as Barisone tries to portray doing city council meeting, but a two day maximum time period to get legal representation and file for court to appeal an illegal judgment not done by a judge.
J. M. Brown either needs to get his hearing checked or he needs to represent the TRUTH not the city council's propaganda. If the TRUTH is too embarrassing to publish then there is something wrong with the LAW being passed
Worse yet is doing a year ban without allowing the person DUE PROCESS guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our judicial system is based on the belief "INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty." The extra-judicial Stay Away Orders are given out by police and park rangers not by a JUDGE in a court.
On top of that City Attorney Barisone tries to mask the clear unconstitutional repercussions by giving a TWO day appeal process. Not a speedy appeal process as Barisone tries to portray doing city council meeting, but a two day maximum time period to get legal representation and file for court to appeal an illegal judgment not done by a judge.
J. M. Brown either needs to get his hearing checked or he needs to represent the TRUTH not the city council's propaganda. If the TRUTH is too embarrassing to publish then there is something wrong with the LAW being passed
shutting them down was fun and all, but a tank is still coming to santa cruz. a tank designed to be used against YOU.
when will you rise up and say enough is enough? when there are machine gun nests along the mall, the levee is mined, and gunboats patrol the san lorenzo?
does anyone know the names of the major campaign contributors to the 6 fascists that voted to fuck us over? John? Robert?
when will you rise up and say enough is enough? when there are machine gun nests along the mall, the levee is mined, and gunboats patrol the san lorenzo?
does anyone know the names of the major campaign contributors to the 6 fascists that voted to fuck us over? John? Robert?
During the 'crypto wars' it was common to call out .gov fearmongering and (ab)use of 'the four horsemen'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse
Note that .gov itself has long been infamous for being drug dealers (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Dark_Alliance), organized criminals (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bailout#Potential_conflict_of_interest), pedophiles (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_child_sexual_abuse_panel_inquiry#Background), and terrorists (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ferguson_unrest).
While the stated purpose for acquisition of urban assault vehicles is not for use against citizens exercising Constitutionally 'protected' rights, history has quite plainly shown that to be a lie (see also: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/after-small-victory-in-stingray-case-chicago-man-seeks-more-records/).
Citizens are no longer safe in Santa Cruz, because the SCPD is armed and dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse
Note that .gov itself has long been infamous for being drug dealers (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Dark_Alliance), organized criminals (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bailout#Potential_conflict_of_interest), pedophiles (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_child_sexual_abuse_panel_inquiry#Background), and terrorists (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ferguson_unrest).
While the stated purpose for acquisition of urban assault vehicles is not for use against citizens exercising Constitutionally 'protected' rights, history has quite plainly shown that to be a lie (see also: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/after-small-victory-in-stingray-case-chicago-man-seeks-more-records/).
Citizens are no longer safe in Santa Cruz, because the SCPD is armed and dangerous.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
...for your support at City Council, your description of events, and your analysis of the "no courts necessary" anti-homeless Get Away law that will be reemerging from the grave on January 11th.
I have some further thoughts at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/09/18765331.php?show_comments=1#18765390 .
Since City Council seems to be "having some trouble" with its video of the affair (one of the reasons I insist on making my own record in the Council--since they control what Community TV does and doesn't show), we may be waiting a bit to see "the official version" of events. Hopefully Brent Adams will be able to show as an uncensored version soon.
I have some further thoughts at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/09/18765331.php?show_comments=1#18765390 .
Since City Council seems to be "having some trouble" with its video of the affair (one of the reasons I insist on making my own record in the Council--since they control what Community TV does and doesn't show), we may be waiting a bit to see "the official version" of events. Hopefully Brent Adams will be able to show as an uncensored version soon.
Post the upcoming event to the calendar so more people can easily see it and can share it, etc.
I posted the following update and addition to the Sentinel story at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/government-and-politics/20141209/public-disruption-over-armored-vehicle-ends-santa-cruz-council-meeting .
Brown's story misses a few details.
Such as the fact that Robinson repeatedly and abusively interrupted my presentation at Oral Communications because she didn't like the sight of my back and the message of disrespect. And then compounded her disrespect for the public by filing out of the room during my speech.
I believe her behavior and that of the other Councilmembers may have violated the Brown Act. Conferring In the back room out of public view seems like a pretty blatant violation. I can understand why you'd want to do that in secret since your objective is to sharpen tools that will enable the Mayor to frighten the public into false forms of respect and cut off critical speech so as to maintain the illusion that all is going smoothly with community acceptance.
It has already been established by the 9th Circuit Court (at a cost of nearly $200,000 to the City) in my earlier mock-Nazi salute law cases. Violating a decorum "rule" is not an arrestable offense unless it creates an actual disruption--not a mayor's hissy fit. See http://www.santacruzsentinel.c... ). Particularly if that "rule" is one cooked by the Council and the Mayor cook up to shut down critical speech.
The "hearing" on the Armored Personnel Carrier was a prefabricated farce that had nothing to do with any real consideration of the issue.
This all was rushed before the new Council and the broader community had any real chance to consider the true costs and wisdom of further militarizing the face and force of the SCPD.
Deputy-Chief "Smirking" Steve Clark never told us the date of the alleged "deadline" that required the hasty passage of the item. "Mouseheart" Micah Posner didn't have the cajones to insist that Smirking Steve answer the question. Or that the cowardly Council not meet in the backroom or later in the chambers with the doors locked.
Mouseheart recently defended and justified the Council's criminal behavior on air by denying the illegal conferring-in-private behavior on the air (http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb1... 1 hr, 55 mins into the audio file).
Time to turn protest into direct action this Saturday. No business more business as usual as the SCPD continues to elude scrutiny, racially profile, hoard public resources, and routine crush the poor.
Brown's story misses a few details.
Such as the fact that Robinson repeatedly and abusively interrupted my presentation at Oral Communications because she didn't like the sight of my back and the message of disrespect. And then compounded her disrespect for the public by filing out of the room during my speech.
I believe her behavior and that of the other Councilmembers may have violated the Brown Act. Conferring In the back room out of public view seems like a pretty blatant violation. I can understand why you'd want to do that in secret since your objective is to sharpen tools that will enable the Mayor to frighten the public into false forms of respect and cut off critical speech so as to maintain the illusion that all is going smoothly with community acceptance.
It has already been established by the 9th Circuit Court (at a cost of nearly $200,000 to the City) in my earlier mock-Nazi salute law cases. Violating a decorum "rule" is not an arrestable offense unless it creates an actual disruption--not a mayor's hissy fit. See http://www.santacruzsentinel.c... ). Particularly if that "rule" is one cooked by the Council and the Mayor cook up to shut down critical speech.
The "hearing" on the Armored Personnel Carrier was a prefabricated farce that had nothing to do with any real consideration of the issue.
This all was rushed before the new Council and the broader community had any real chance to consider the true costs and wisdom of further militarizing the face and force of the SCPD.
Deputy-Chief "Smirking" Steve Clark never told us the date of the alleged "deadline" that required the hasty passage of the item. "Mouseheart" Micah Posner didn't have the cajones to insist that Smirking Steve answer the question. Or that the cowardly Council not meet in the backroom or later in the chambers with the doors locked.
Mouseheart recently defended and justified the Council's criminal behavior on air by denying the illegal conferring-in-private behavior on the air (http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb1... 1 hr, 55 mins into the audio file).
Time to turn protest into direct action this Saturday. No business more business as usual as the SCPD continues to elude scrutiny, racially profile, hoard public resources, and routine crush the poor.
The next city council meeting where we will be protesting is on January 13th, not January 11th.
Regarding the Sentinel coverage, it reminded me of the spoof article I wrote on them a few years back.
City Council Passes Resolution Preventing Vigilante Justice Against Homeless
by Scent-anal Staff Writer
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/21/18442098.php
Regarding the Sentinel coverage, it reminded me of the spoof article I wrote on them a few years back.
City Council Passes Resolution Preventing Vigilante Justice Against Homeless
by Scent-anal Staff Writer
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/21/18442098.php
I believe the last time they used an armored vehicle (the SCPD already has one, albeit not all nifty and specialized for police use) was the La Vie restaurant "standoff" a few years ago.
A short synopsis of events as I remember.
One of the workers told a homeless friend he could hang out inside while the restaurant was closed
Another worker shows up. Sees the non-employee making a salad or something with a knife, panics, runs outside and calls the police who then claim the homeless guy is a knife-wielder who held a hostage and it turns into an hours-long "standoff" with an unarmed suspect where they trotted out EVERYTHING... including a helicopter landing on the Soquel bridge
It only got stupider from there and I wonder whatever became of that guy. But I don't wonder at all about why the city council voted for this behemoth.
Quite simply every single m0therfucker on ANY city council, or any other government body is beholden to their centurions for their continued existence and will give them ANYTHING they want lest their centurions abandon them to the angry mobs.
A short synopsis of events as I remember.
One of the workers told a homeless friend he could hang out inside while the restaurant was closed
Another worker shows up. Sees the non-employee making a salad or something with a knife, panics, runs outside and calls the police who then claim the homeless guy is a knife-wielder who held a hostage and it turns into an hours-long "standoff" with an unarmed suspect where they trotted out EVERYTHING... including a helicopter landing on the Soquel bridge
It only got stupider from there and I wonder whatever became of that guy. But I don't wonder at all about why the city council voted for this behemoth.
Quite simply every single m0therfucker on ANY city council, or any other government body is beholden to their centurions for their continued existence and will give them ANYTHING they want lest their centurions abandon them to the angry mobs.
For more information:
http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com
PROTEST CITY HALL TO DEMAND:
No Worsened Banishment Law for the Homeless in Santa Cruz!
Repeal Approval of the Cop’s New Urban Assault Vehicle!
Repeal All Anti-Homeless Laws!
January 13th, 2015
Protest Starts at 3:00 PM
Meet at the Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA
Indybay Event Announcement
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/13/18765514.php
Facebook Event Page
https://www.facebook.com/events/377910239000830/?source=1
No Worsened Banishment Law for the Homeless in Santa Cruz!
Repeal Approval of the Cop’s New Urban Assault Vehicle!
Repeal All Anti-Homeless Laws!
January 13th, 2015
Protest Starts at 3:00 PM
Meet at the Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA
Indybay Event Announcement
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/13/18765514.php
Facebook Event Page
https://www.facebook.com/events/377910239000830/?source=1
It's time for a new day on the Santa Cruz plantation. Second step linked below.
I want to clarify something... this thing Is Not a military vehicle in the traditional sense of the word (From the manufacturer's milspec page: "The BearCat has been embraced by several DoD and DoE Security Forces", that's military POLICE usage. NOT combat!), and it's NOT something the DHS 'has on the shelf', like the $7 billion dollars worth of slightly used MRAPS the Pentagon is pushing in their 'reuse, recycle, or we'll simply turn them into scrap metal at taxpayers expense' giveaway program. The SCPD is CHOOSING to spend their money on this glorified pick up truck.
Ready for "Step 2"? Click the link: Because if it's 'like a bearcat' (these words used in the Senile article) then it's 'like'... A 1/4 million dollar Ford F-550 on 'roids.
If it's 'like a bearcat' IT IS NOT A RESCUE VEHICLE.
“The primary function is officer safety,”
It's a portable fort.
From LENCO, the manufacturer of BearCats:
"How do you get the flesh off at the end of the day? Do you scrape it off or hose it? ~Norman Mailer interviews an Illinois National Guard commander at the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention after noting barbed wire -strung racks on the grills of the NG's jeeps intended to be used as portable barricades.
I want to clarify something... this thing Is Not a military vehicle in the traditional sense of the word (From the manufacturer's milspec page: "The BearCat has been embraced by several DoD and DoE Security Forces", that's military POLICE usage. NOT combat!), and it's NOT something the DHS 'has on the shelf', like the $7 billion dollars worth of slightly used MRAPS the Pentagon is pushing in their 'reuse, recycle, or we'll simply turn them into scrap metal at taxpayers expense' giveaway program. The SCPD is CHOOSING to spend their money on this glorified pick up truck.
Ready for "Step 2"? Click the link: Because if it's 'like a bearcat' (these words used in the Senile article) then it's 'like'... A 1/4 million dollar Ford F-550 on 'roids.
If it's 'like a bearcat' IT IS NOT A RESCUE VEHICLE.
“The primary function is officer safety,”
It's a portable fort.
From LENCO, the manufacturer of BearCats:
Rigged and Ready
Santa Fe, NM – Santa Fe police presented their newest tool in crime fighting, the $250,000 BearCat armored tactical vehicle, to the City Council on Wednesday. With its black paint job and big, knobby tires, it looks a little like a not-so-aerodynamic Batmobile.
“The primary function is officer safety,” said Offier(sic) John Schaerfl, the department’s Special Weapons and Tactics team leader. Schaerfl said the BearCat is perfect for situations where officers might face armed suspects, such as hostage or barricade situations.
The vehicle is a converted Ford F-550 truck made by Lenco Armored Vehicles in Pittsfield, Mass. It seats up to 13 officers on two seats and two rear benches and is equipped with an intercom system that will allow officers to negotiate with an armed suspect.
Download Full Article: http://www.lencoarmor.com/rigged-and-ready/
For more information:
http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/1047...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network