nolympics submits

My name is Scott Fleming. I am an Oakland resident and an attorney. On April
7, the Oakland Police Department shot me five times with wooden bullets, four
times in the back, as I ran away from them during a completely peaceful protest
at the Port of Oakland. I am speaking here today on behalf of all of the
anti-war protesters who were attacked and injured by the Oakland Police
Department.

On the morning of April 7, a number of protesters gathered at the port and set
up peaceful pickets in front of a handful of shipping lines. The protesters
were doing nothing more than carrying signs and walking in circles. There was a
brass band there which helped create what can only be described as a festive
atmosphere. There were a number of middle-aged and senior citizens in the
crowd. There was nothing about the tone of the protest or the actions of the
protesters that could have led the Oakland Police Department to fear violence or
confrontation.

Nevertheless, when the police arrived on the scene, all of them were wearing gas
masks, and a number of them were armed with what we later learned were wooden
bullets, beanbag-firing shotguns, and grenades. I have been to countless
demonstrations over the years, and I cannot recall a single instance in which
any Bay Area police agency has displayed these kinds of weapons or worn gas
masks to a political demonstration. I can only surmise that the Oakland Police
Department would not have arrived at the demonstration with this type of
weaponry unless they had a pre-planned intent to use it.

The officers lined up on Middle Harbor Road in front of the entrance to American
Presidents Line. When they ordered the demonstrators to clear the intersection,
the demonstrators complied and the entrance was cleared. Unfortunately, there
was nowhere for the demonstrators to go after they cleared the intersection. By
blocking Middle Harbor Road, the police denied the demonstrators the nearest and
most direct route to leave the port.

As the crowd milled about, it seemed that nobody knew what to do or where to go.
Many of the protesters, including myself, had never been to the port before and
were unfamiliar with the geography there. After a few minutes, and for no
obvious or apparent reason, the morning quiet was pierced by explosions as the
Oakland Police Department opened fire on the crowd. Neither I nor anyone else I
have spoken to is aware of any act on the part of any demonstrator that could
have provoked this violence.

From this point on, the Oakland Police Department swept down Middle Harbor Road
and Maritime Street firing repeated barrages, over and over again, into the
crowd. They fired on the crowd for approximately an hour and a half to two
hours as they pursued us for more than a mile. For much of this time, the
Oakland Police Department repeatedly drove a line of large police motorcycles
into the crowd. It is my understanding that a number of those who were injured
by the motorcycles were terrified young women who were run over as they pleaded
with the officers to allow them to escape from the violence.

The munitions used upon us, especially the wooden and beanbag bullets, are
extremely dangerous weapons, which was evidenced by the severity of the injuries
that day. As we continued down the road, more and more people in the crowd were
bleeding and bruised. A law student who was clearly identified as a legal
observer by a bright green armband was shot in the head and had blood pouring
down his face. A man who works as an environmental engineer for a federal
agency was shot in the face and looked to me as if part of his nose was missing.
I am told that one young woman had tire tracks up her leg after being run down
by a motorcycle officer. And I think we have all seen the sickening and
grotesque photograph of Sri Louise, the woman who was shot in the jaw and neck.

I want to make clear that the use of these types of weapons against peaceful
protesters is unacceptable under any circumstances. However, it is also clear
that the severity of the injuries we saw that day was significantly increased
because the Oakland Police Department disregarded the manufacturers safety
warnings and misused these weapons. For example, we recovered a shell casing
used to fire wooden bullets. The casing indicated that it was manufactured by
Federal Laboratories in Casper, Wyoming, and fires 264W wooden baton rounds.
The casing includes a very clear warning, which states: "Do not fire directly
at persons or serious injury or death may result." The warning then admonishes
officers to fire the weapons at the ground, from which they are intended to
ricochet into peoples legs. The fact that so many people that day received
injuries to their heads, arms, and torsos strongly indicates that the officers
were not firing these weapons as the manufacturers intended. The fact that so
many people, like myself, were shot in the back, underscores the fact that the
Oakland Police Department was firing on people who were running away.

As reported by the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the manufacturer's training
manual states that, when firing wooden bullets, "areas such as the head, neck,
spine, and groin . . . should be avoided unless it is the intent to deliver
deadly force." Oakland Police Departmental General Order K-3, governing the use
of force, similarly requires officers to avoid firing these weapons at these
areas of the body. According to the Department?s use of force policy, beanbag
(and presumably wooden) bullets are classified as the second most severe use of
force in the police arsenal, second only to firearms. In fact, these weapons
are classified as being more severe than a police canine bite. Therefore,
according to the stated policy of the Oakland Police Department, if the police
had been justified on April 7 in shooting us with wooden bullets, they would
also have been justified in unleashing police dogs on the crowd. I think we all
know exactly which images that evokes, and we all know exactly how wrong that
would have been.

The actions of the Oakland Police Department on April 7 evidenced not only an
enthusiastic desire to use grossly unreasonable force against peaceful
protesters, but also contempt for the exercise of First Amendment rights. The
San Francisco Chronicle reported that Chief Word sought to justify the shootings
by stating that, ?the police decided to fire because they feared that more
protesters would arrive later in the day. To me, this amounts to an admission
by the police chief that he approved the shooting of demonstrators because he
hoped the shootings would deter other people from exercising their First
Amendment rights. I hope we can all agree that this is unacceptable.

Word also told the Contra Costa Times that his decision to shoot at us was
influenced by one of the shipping lines. According to the Times, Chief Word
said that ?APL told us, ?You have to clear the property. This sounds
frighteningly like Chief Word allowed American Presidents Line to assist him in
deciding when to use force against the citizens of Oakland.

Those of us who were fired upon on April 7 demand that the Oakland City Council
take immediate action by exercising the authority that you have over the Oakland
Police Department. We support the idea of a truly independent investigation of
the shootings, and believe that such an investigation should lead to
terminations up to, and including the police chief, as well as a comprehensive
reformulation of police crowd control and use of force policies. However, we
also believe that the City Council should not wait for such an investigation
before conducting its own inquiries. We demand that the City Council, at the
very least, take the following three actions:

1. We want to know who made the decision to fire on us on April 7 and how that
decision was made. It is obvious to those of us who were there that morning
that the police were armed, wearing gas masks, and prepared to shoot and injure
us from the moment they arrived. With only a few exceptions, the Oakland Police
Department did not attempt to arrest us before they opened fire. These facts
strongly suggest that the Oakland Police Department had decided sometime prior
to April 7 to violently attack the port protest.

We know from press accounts that the Oakland Police Department conducted prior
meetings with individuals from the Port of Oakland, several shipping lines, and
the San Francisco Police Department. Mayor Jerry Brown has enthusiastically
supported the shootings. We want to know what role these individuals and
organizations played in this decision. We also want to know whether or not the
Oakland Police Department had any discussions with state or federal authorities
prior to making this decision.

2. We want the officers who fired on us that day to be suspended from the
Oakland Police Department. The Oakland Police Departmental General Order
governing the use of force states that, ?any member or employee whose use of
force results in the . . . serious physical injury of any person shall be placed
on paid administrative leave for a period of not less than two days, unless
otherwise ordered by the Chief of Police. The officers who injured us that day
should be suspended. If Chief Word has overridden this policy and prevented any
suspensions from occurring, the City Council should be asking why.

3. The Oakland Police Department should immediately cease the use of so-called
?less-lethal weapons. On April 7, the police showed that they are incapable of
determining when this level of force is appropriate and they are incapable of
following clear warnings on the proper use of these weapons, even when those
warnings are written right on the side of the ammunition. The City Council
should demand that the Police Department enact guidelines that prohibit the use
of these weapons against demonstrators.

If the Oakland Police Department is truly a democratically accountable
institution, then all three of these demands can easily be met.

In closing, I would simply like to say that the City Council is in a better
position than most to know that the Oakland Police Department has an ugly and
intolerable history of abusing the citizens of this city. The ongoing Riders
scandal showed that the department has a culture which tolerates the abuse and
brutalization of citizens in Oakland?s poorer neighborhoods. The jury verdicts
in the Judi Bari lawsuit last year showed that the Department has manufactured
evidence in order to discredit political activists. And the shootings of April
7 show that the Oakland Police Department is now willing to shoot and injure
peaceful demonstrators for the apparent purpose of chilling and deterring First
Amendment expression in the City of Oakland. The City Council must exercise its
authority to get to the bottom of these abuses and bring them to an end.

Thank you."