Public Comment

Arreguin plan for Berkeley Police problems will do little

Thomas Lord
Friday January 16, 2015 - 03:22:00 PM

You give Councilman Jesse Arreguin far too much credit in your January 16 editorial ("Berkeley panels to discuss police issues on Saturday").

Arreguin does not propose to reign in excessive force by the police department.

Arreguin proposes to legitimize and indemnify the use of police violence to suppress dissent.

As you noted Arreguin has placed two items on the council's agenda. One of these calls for an independent investigation of BPD's response to protesters on December 6. The other item proposes to update the City's standing orders to the police department regarding so-called crowd control.

The outcomes are predictable, should these items pass. 

An independent investigation will be limited in scope. Arreguin has proposed it look only at December 6th and, in that context, investigate only a few possible technical violations of department policy. The only possible outcome for an investigation of this sort is (at best) a minor reprimand and some inconsequential recommendations to the city. 

Even with the stakes so low, Arreguin has to practically apologize for calling for the investigation at all. 

He writes, confessionally: "Initiating an independent investigation after a major policing event is not unusual. For example, the City of Oakland hired an independent firm to investigate allegations of excessive police force in response to the Occupy Oakland protest on October 25, 2011. The resulting report led to a number of findings and recommendations to improve crowd control policies, procedures, and tactics of the Oakland Police Department." 

Got that? Before any investigation has even started Arreguin is reassuring the police and the city that, just like in Oakland, the investigation will dissolve into nothing more than a toothless and easily forgotten report. Most of all, he promises to improve the functioning of so-called crowd control. 

The problem isn't police repressing dissent, apparently. No, according to Arreguin, it's just that police aren't repressing dissent quite correctly. "Repress better!" Arreguin says to the police. 

In his other item, Arreguin asks the Police Review Commission to offer some suggestions regarding where it is better and where is less desirable for police to beat people with a baton. The outcome is again predictable: the commission will suggest police try to avoid kidney and genital strikes when they can conveniently do so, but beating people's ribs and limbs will be generally approved. Cracking skulls will be frowned upon but breaking fingers overlooked. 

Berkeley progressive leadership says: "Oh Pharaoh, let my people have 48 lashes rather than 50 but you can still get the job done if make greater use of water cannons, OK? Please? If its no trouble. Otherwise, forget it." 

Arreguin, a supposedly progressive member of council, apparently approves of using a para-military force, not under meaningful civilian command, to violently put down peaceful protesters. His main concern is to slightly tweak the specific modes of violence police will use for this purpose. 

Let's step back from Arreguin's false progressivism for a minute and consider what we've witnessed: 

Berkeley police, armored and armed to the teeth, confront and menace peaceful protests. 

Berkeley police menace protesters until, inevitably, some sole obligingly throws a rock or bottle. Or not. The police can just say someone did and later, at a press conference, show the teevee reporters what rocks and bottles look like. "Can you imagine seeing one of these flying through the air at your helmeted head and armored body? We can!" 

Thereupon the police declare the entire assembly unlawful and commence their violent attacks on unarmed, peaceful protesters. 

Who could have seen that coming? I mean, police show up just looking for an excuse to attack protesters and, by gosh, wouldn't you know it, after hassling the crowd for hours they get an excuse to attack! 

During this time the police make no moves to protect property from the small number of vandals who show up. No, the police rely on such vandalism which they then present as proof that their violent collective punishment of protest was justified! 

In carrying out this repression the police even, from time to time, set aside civilian control and join a so-called "unified command": a tangible demonstration of how the federal government has worked to convert local agencies into an unaccountable and illegal standing army. 

In the context of this unified command local policies become worthless paper. 

At these exercises, what's more, so-called intelligence gathering is in full force. Nearly 50 years after the '65 and '68 the secret police are still gathering files on dissenters, setting out to destroy the lives of activists. 

And Arreguin wants to respond to these conditions by asking the police to please consider trying to avoid causing organ damage when they beat people with clubs. 

Berkeley needs better progressive leadership than that