Occupy Oakland Occupiers Arrested For Mugging Critic
Occupy Oakland has reached a new low of petty villainy.
From Seth Hemmelgarn in "Occupy Oakland protesters face robbery, hate crime charges," The Bay Area Reporter Online at http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=67496
Three Occupy Oakland protesters are facing robbery and hate crimes charges after allegedly attacking a woman and calling her anti-gay epithets.
The Alameda County District Attorney's office has charged Michael Davis, 32; Nneka Crawford, 23; and Randolph Wilkins, 25, each with a felony count of second-degree robbery and a count of violation of civil rights "because of the victim's status and perceived status as a homosexual." They've also been ordered to stay away from the alleged victim.
Among the hilarious aspects of this case is that the muggers are also being slapped with the bullcrap ascriptive-status based charge of a "hate crime," which is a concept deeply at variance with equality under the law. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Left radicals, who probably supported the whole concept of prosecuting "hate crimes" as such -- until they wound up the targets of harsher penalties owing to the "victim's status and perceived status." Heh heh heh.
But that's ok, as the actual crimes they committed were also blatant and severe. To wit:
According to the Oakland Police Department, officers contacted the alleged victim at 6 p.m., Wednesday, February 22 after they responded to a robbery report in the 4000 block of Piedmont Avenue.
The woman told police she had been across the street from Wells Fargo Bank "near a small group of Occupy Oakland protesters calling for a riot," according to a police statement. The woman "suggested" they not riot in her neighborhood, police said.
Officers reported that three protesters surrounded her, battered her, and "yelled vulgar epithets regarding their perception of her sexual orientation." Additionally, her wallet was stolen, police said.
... which rather makes it difficult for the defendants to claim that they just got carried away in the heat of the moment by their deep political committment. Yell at someone, sure. Hit them, illegal and immoral, but understandable as "losing self-control." But stealing someone's wallet -- that's not the kind of thing that anyone who deserves to be walking the streets free would do automatically or even impulsively. These are people whose lives can best be viewed as a trajectory to prison, and who should be dispatched there as swiftly and for as long as possible, so that they aren't in a position to bother decent human beings any more.
As of Tuesday, Davis was in custody in Glenn E. Dyer jail in Oakland on $125,000 bail.
According to the Alameda County Public Defender's office, Crawford and Wilkins were both in Santa Rita jail Tuesday.
Note the level of bail. This is being taken seriously by law enforcement. Perhaps because of the obvious and nakedly intentional criminality of the action, perhaps because Oakland has just gotten tired of lying down before the Occupiers and offering to be their bitch, but I'm glad to see some Occupiers in real trouble with the law.
Yolanda Huang, the attorney representing Davis, said the protesters were leafleting and "engaging people in courteous, civil discussion" at Wells Fargo when the incident started.
Huang said the woman approached a group of protesters and "initiated a verbal altercation." She said that the woman "started using racial slurs, like the N-word" and "accusing people of using crack."
"Things got a little heated," Huang said, and the woman grabbed the button on a demonstrator's jacket. People told her to leave and also tried to restrain the woman, who was "smacking people," by holding her hand, Huang said. She added that the victim had "prior relations" with some of the other occupiers, but she didn't elaborate.
Huang said that after the woman used "the N-word," one of the defendants said, "How would you feel if I called you a bull dyke?"
Uh-huh. Well, the assault was captured on video, so the jury may be able to find out whether or not Huang's claims are or are not true. And even if they were, this still wouldn't explain the stolen wallet.
Huang said the DA should dismiss the case and allow for a "civil compromise" and "restorative justice."
This is a weak statement by Huang, and implies that she doesn't think the evidence supports her position. If no crime was committed, why would she want to offer a "civil compromise" or "restorative justice?"
John Viola, who's representing Crawford, didn't respond to an interview request. However, in a statement, he said, "These charges are part of a blatant effort" by Oakland police "to discredit and intimidate activists." He added that the incident has been "exaggerated."
When someone tries to defend actions by reference to conspiracies rather than the facts of the matter, it's a good sign that they don't have a leg to stand on.
Analysis
The first thing that I find amusing about this incident is that the "hate crime" concept, which should never have been allowed to pollute our Constutionally-based legal system, has come around to bite the Left on the ass here. Responding to verbal criticism by unlawfully-detaining, beating and mugging someone is already illegal: why should it be more illegal if the victims is of a different and "protected" social "status?"
Constitutionally, all adult non-felon citizens should have the same legal "status." The concept of a "hate crime" is a throwback to pre-Enlightenment ideas of different social orders, and the silver lining here is that this is going to be demonstrated to three Leftists for every additional day in prison they serve for this reason.
The second thing I note is that the behavior of the Occupiers is perfectly consistent with what I've seen on the Left when they face criticism from people belonging to groups whom they believe should have a "protected status." Heterosexual men may have the right to criticize the Left; homosexuals or women (let alone homosexual women) are expected to be grateful to the Left for their "protection," and are treated with extreme anger as "betrayers" when they dare criticize their "protectors."
Finally, if Davis is telling the truth, the violence was provoked, because "grabbing a button" constitutes assault and battery. However, I find it suspicious that none of the other defendants are making the claim that the victim attacked first, and even if Davis is telling the truth, this wouldn't explain the robbery.
Another milestone passed on the descent of the Occupiers into brigandage, and their increasing lack of welcome from the city of Oakland :)
From Seth Hemmelgarn in "Occupy Oakland protesters face robbery, hate crime charges," The Bay Area Reporter Online at http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=67496
Three Occupy Oakland protesters are facing robbery and hate crimes charges after allegedly attacking a woman and calling her anti-gay epithets.
The Alameda County District Attorney's office has charged Michael Davis, 32; Nneka Crawford, 23; and Randolph Wilkins, 25, each with a felony count of second-degree robbery and a count of violation of civil rights "because of the victim's status and perceived status as a homosexual." They've also been ordered to stay away from the alleged victim.
Among the hilarious aspects of this case is that the muggers are also being slapped with the bullcrap ascriptive-status based charge of a "hate crime," which is a concept deeply at variance with equality under the law. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Left radicals, who probably supported the whole concept of prosecuting "hate crimes" as such -- until they wound up the targets of harsher penalties owing to the "victim's status and perceived status." Heh heh heh.
But that's ok, as the actual crimes they committed were also blatant and severe. To wit:
According to the Oakland Police Department, officers contacted the alleged victim at 6 p.m., Wednesday, February 22 after they responded to a robbery report in the 4000 block of Piedmont Avenue.
The woman told police she had been across the street from Wells Fargo Bank "near a small group of Occupy Oakland protesters calling for a riot," according to a police statement. The woman "suggested" they not riot in her neighborhood, police said.
Officers reported that three protesters surrounded her, battered her, and "yelled vulgar epithets regarding their perception of her sexual orientation." Additionally, her wallet was stolen, police said.
... which rather makes it difficult for the defendants to claim that they just got carried away in the heat of the moment by their deep political committment. Yell at someone, sure. Hit them, illegal and immoral, but understandable as "losing self-control." But stealing someone's wallet -- that's not the kind of thing that anyone who deserves to be walking the streets free would do automatically or even impulsively. These are people whose lives can best be viewed as a trajectory to prison, and who should be dispatched there as swiftly and for as long as possible, so that they aren't in a position to bother decent human beings any more.
As of Tuesday, Davis was in custody in Glenn E. Dyer jail in Oakland on $125,000 bail.
According to the Alameda County Public Defender's office, Crawford and Wilkins were both in Santa Rita jail Tuesday.
Note the level of bail. This is being taken seriously by law enforcement. Perhaps because of the obvious and nakedly intentional criminality of the action, perhaps because Oakland has just gotten tired of lying down before the Occupiers and offering to be their bitch, but I'm glad to see some Occupiers in real trouble with the law.
Yolanda Huang, the attorney representing Davis, said the protesters were leafleting and "engaging people in courteous, civil discussion" at Wells Fargo when the incident started.
Huang said the woman approached a group of protesters and "initiated a verbal altercation." She said that the woman "started using racial slurs, like the N-word" and "accusing people of using crack."
"Things got a little heated," Huang said, and the woman grabbed the button on a demonstrator's jacket. People told her to leave and also tried to restrain the woman, who was "smacking people," by holding her hand, Huang said. She added that the victim had "prior relations" with some of the other occupiers, but she didn't elaborate.
Huang said that after the woman used "the N-word," one of the defendants said, "How would you feel if I called you a bull dyke?"
Uh-huh. Well, the assault was captured on video, so the jury may be able to find out whether or not Huang's claims are or are not true. And even if they were, this still wouldn't explain the stolen wallet.
Huang said the DA should dismiss the case and allow for a "civil compromise" and "restorative justice."
This is a weak statement by Huang, and implies that she doesn't think the evidence supports her position. If no crime was committed, why would she want to offer a "civil compromise" or "restorative justice?"
John Viola, who's representing Crawford, didn't respond to an interview request. However, in a statement, he said, "These charges are part of a blatant effort" by Oakland police "to discredit and intimidate activists." He added that the incident has been "exaggerated."
When someone tries to defend actions by reference to conspiracies rather than the facts of the matter, it's a good sign that they don't have a leg to stand on.
Analysis
The first thing that I find amusing about this incident is that the "hate crime" concept, which should never have been allowed to pollute our Constutionally-based legal system, has come around to bite the Left on the ass here. Responding to verbal criticism by unlawfully-detaining, beating and mugging someone is already illegal: why should it be more illegal if the victims is of a different and "protected" social "status?"
Constitutionally, all adult non-felon citizens should have the same legal "status." The concept of a "hate crime" is a throwback to pre-Enlightenment ideas of different social orders, and the silver lining here is that this is going to be demonstrated to three Leftists for every additional day in prison they serve for this reason.
The second thing I note is that the behavior of the Occupiers is perfectly consistent with what I've seen on the Left when they face criticism from people belonging to groups whom they believe should have a "protected status." Heterosexual men may have the right to criticize the Left; homosexuals or women (let alone homosexual women) are expected to be grateful to the Left for their "protection," and are treated with extreme anger as "betrayers" when they dare criticize their "protectors."
Finally, if Davis is telling the truth, the violence was provoked, because "grabbing a button" constitutes assault and battery. However, I find it suspicious that none of the other defendants are making the claim that the victim attacked first, and even if Davis is telling the truth, this wouldn't explain the robbery.
Another milestone passed on the descent of the Occupiers into brigandage, and their increasing lack of welcome from the city of Oakland :)