November 2011 Night of Broken Glass

Why did occupiers (probably outsiders hired or asked to escalate trouble) in the Oakland, CA protest march smash the bank windows and the window of an organic food market? Isn't the organic food market the good guys, the people who buy pesticide-free produce from local farmers? California doesn't need its own November Night of Broken Glass. It's supposed to be a peaceful movement protesting income disparities. See, What Have Protesters Done to Oakland's Beloved Whole Foods? [Protests].

And why smash bank windows at all? Check out the November 3, 2011 Sacramento Bee article by Andy Furillo, "Occupy Sacramento protesters vow to flood courts with trials." One issue is that no arrests were made of the outsiders hired to march in and smash windows in what was supposed to be a peaceful march of locals in Oakland, CA.

There's only one catch. The front page Sacramento Bee photos shows the guy smashing the window has a specific tattoo on his arm. He neglected to wear long sleeves when he donned a face mask. The others behind him in the photo shows thin men with black hoods over their faces. Can the police track down the culprit with a close up photo enlargement of the specific tattoo on his arm? After all, perhaps it's easy to find the tattoo parlor or artist with the particular design?

On the other side of the coin, the occupiers vow that they'll jam the courts with trials, and a top judge worries about handling the city deluge, but the art of suing is in Sacramento. The craft of smashing was seen in Oakland, CA. At least in Sacramento, the movement is peaceful so far, thank goodness.

In Sacramento, the dozens of protestors taken into custody at Cezar Chavez Plaza for staying late in the night when the park closes at 11 p.m. according to the Sacramento Bee article, are expected to ask for jury trials. They aren't paying fines and going home. They aren't pleading guilty or no contest. And the effects are that many of these people are ready to go to trial. For Sacramento, that means standing up in court with a jury trial for First Amendment Rights. As a whole, those looking for a jury trail claim they did nothing wrong. The battle is between local ordinances versus First Amendment Rights.

The Sacramento City Attorney's Office is prepared to press charges to conviction. The City Attorney's office says it's following the law, according to the Sacramento Bee article. The people want a jury trial, at least some of those people who were arrested in the Occupy Sacramento movement. The law says people have to leave parks by the time the parks close, around 11 p.m. The Forty-nine occupiers are scheduled for court appearances today.

Do they accept the misdemeanor charges? Or do all those cases go to court around the same time, filling up the courtrooms? It's about a political message. And that message is the people won't settle before trial. Meanwhile, the courts are 'forced' to accommodate the cases, which fills up the courts' resources. Will there be too many cases and too few judges available? You have a set of lawyers for the protestors challenging the city curfew law that says people must leave the park by 11 p.m. weekdays at midnight weekends.

What complicates matters also in Sacramento and in Oakland is that often the homeless have moved into the camps set up by the occupiers to get free food and other hand-outs, and sometimes the homeless have other problems. For example, when a homeless person is up all night talking loudly, it keeps the occupiers up all night, and they complain to the media. But the real issue is political. And the defense lawyers for the protestors want the City Attorney to 'toss' out the charges against the protestors who were arrested for staying in the park after the curfew hour.

Meanwhile in Oakland, you have thousands of people marching from teachers to nurses and groups such as the Disability and Senior Action Brigade protesting cuts in services. You have the Feminists and Queers Against Capitalism protesting against 'capitalism.' You have flash mob dancers in the streets. You have the port closed by the marchers. But why didn't the Oakland march remain peaceful? And who hired the outsiders to smash the bank windows?

And why did an organic produce store get its window smashed when they're supposed to sell healthier foods? Could it be because the shoppers there aren't considered mainstream supermarket shoppers, but more elite 'yuppies' by some looking for higher quality organic foods? Time will tell. Yet in Oakland, no arrests were made in spite of the Sacramento Bee front page photo by Associated Press of two men smashing bank windows.

Why do you think the march turned violent? And who hired the outsiders to smash the store and bank windows? Why? Who's going to be asked to pay and make restitution in dollars when the parties are caught? On the other hand, in Sacramento, the occupiers are vowing that they'll jam the courtrooms with jury trials. Are all these costs going to be passed on to the average taxpayer to restore peace along with free speech? Who will restore the peace with words instead of smashing glass?