I will never understand the stupidity that so often accompanies selfishness.
There were thousands of horns “excessively horning” and hundreds of people who stood, yelled, and sang in solidarity in downtown Fullerton on Saturday. I’m grateful for that. Saturday’s protest in Fullerton was covered by nearly two dozen local and micro media outlets. In every single one of them, the main discussion focused on protesters turning violent, the number of arrests, or the PD’s response to what can only be labeled as intense stupidity on behalf of a few abnoxious a-holes who ruined it for everyone.
Not one outlet focused on what’s next for Fullerton. No discussion on Civilian Oversight, no discussion on a permanent year-round multi-service homeless shelter, no discussion on reforming POBRA . . . nothing discussing exactly what’s changed since July 5, 2011, what’s working, what isn’t working, and what’s left to be changed. Just lots of pictures of idiots in masks. One even throwing a chair.
There were a million opportunities to influence through the media by the time Sunday morning rolled around. Instead of seizing it, we squandered it. What’s worse is that those in the community who oppose any sort of effort to affect change got what they needed most: Empathy, and a whole lot of it.
A lot of folks in Fullerton have put in blood, sweat, and tears to make a case for positive change over the last two and half years. Their time away from their family and their jobs often came at a high price. To top it off, change was never guaranteed.
I’m not sure how simply I can state this: Making something good out of a man’s brutal death is extremely difficult. It’s hard to get people informed of the issues. It’s harder to get them to agree with your take on things. It’s even harder to get them to want to contribute, and it’s damn near impossible to get them all to fight for the same cause at the same time in the same way. We (I use the term “we” very loosely) don’t have any money, it’s not like we have a steering committee that sets goals for the group, and the folks who don’t agree with us have both.
The very last thing we (again, “we” loosely) need is to spend what little time and effort we have separating ourselves from jackasses who think it’s a great idea to spray-paint windows at the Slidebar and deface the police station. I don’t have time create an identity separate and distinct from Guy Fawkes. I really don’t. There are too many people on the Left who refuse to do anything and too many people on the Right who, well, think things are just fine. I don’t have time to deal with you.
So, if you are or you happen to know the idiot I yelled at who was blocking my car on Harbor Boulevard around 1:00 on Saturday, here it is again: You’re not helping. We’ve been working at this too long and too hard so you can come down here on a sunny Saturday afternoon and keep your back to traffic while wearing your black “I <3 my face too much to show it” bandana because you think it’s cool to piss off The Man. You want to come and express your solidarity? GREAT! Go stand on the curb and be grateful that no one dressed in black uniform is beating your black bandana into your 19 year old face with the business end of a taser.
Justice for Kelly isn’t about you. It’s not about us, either. It’s about trying to fix something that’s seriously broken and we can’t do that if you’re going to alienate the people we need to help us affect real long-lasting positive change.
That 70 year old woman you just accosted for not honking? She’s the person who I need to call Jennifer Fitzgerald to get her to understand that Civilian Oversight is something that’s wanted by the community. You just made it harder.
That 40 year old man with the two kids you just mocked for not getting out of his car? He’s the person I need to call Doug Chaffee to get him to follow through on building a homeless shelter this year. You just made it harder.
That 17 year old girl you chased away in front of FJC? Well, her Dad works for Sharon Quirk-Silva in Sacramento. I need him to fight for reforming the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights. You just made it harder.
That business you threatened to boycott? The owner sits on the Board of Directors for the Chamber of Commerce. I need her to call Jan Flory to demand decriminalizing being homeless in Fullerton. You just made it harder.
We have a lot of our plate. We don’t have time to be selfish let alone stupid. Instead, let’s talk about “what’s next”, particularly on Tuesday. It’s what we should have been talking about all weekend.
CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT– Fullerton lacks any direct connection between its citizens and its law enforcement officers. Policy making and internal investigations are completely closed to the public. How can we reasonably expect law enforcement officers to uphold the values and expectations of the community if the community does not have an active role defining what best suits its identity? Citizens ought to have the right to not only influence policy, but the right to investigate and resolve serious breaches of the public trust. Civilian Oversight is a direct response to “See these fists? They’re getting ready to fuck you up.” That can’t happen again.
A PERMANENT YEAR ROUND MULTI-SERVICE SHELTER– Kelly Thomas didn’t die from exposure or hunger, but the condition of dozens of individuals in downtown Fullerton requires daily interaction between the homeless community and the Fullerton Police Department. The FPD is a law enforcement agency. While it may possess some social service capacity, it is not equipped (nor should it be) to be the primary care response to Fullerton’s permanent social crisis. A year round multi-service shelter provides a better (and cheaper!) solution that more completely addresses an obvious need in the community.
REFORM THE POLICE OFFICER’S BILL OF RIGHTS (POBAR)– Cops shouldn’t be fired for political reasons. We all get that, but we need a better balance. The public has a right to understand who is carrying a badge and gun in the community. I’m not going to claim that Manuel Ramos had a history of badgering homeless, had threatened and even struck a few in the past . . . but if he did, how would we ever know about it? Would that knowledge have been material to the jurors during their deliberations? Because of POBAR, the jury would never see it. I concede that POBAR reform is complicated, but it can be done in a way that appropriately limits political or retaliatory officer discipline while respecting the public’s right to know who is authorized to respond with lethal force in the community.
DECRIMINALIZE HOMELESSNESS IN FULLERTON– Until we have a shelter in place, citing individuals for sleeping outdoors is simply inhumane. Quite frankly, I find it absurd that sleeping . . . a necessary function of the human condition . . . is more illegal in Fullerton than bashing a man’s face to hell with a taser. You should, too.
Let’s get to work, Fullerton. Don’t get distracted. Change is hard, but we have every reason to keep fighting.
I hadn’t really thought about it in this way. As someone who deals with college students on a daily basis, I was just happy to see young people up in arms, angry, out in the streets, trying to change something. But your points are right. Pissing off those whose support we need is completely counterproductive. I’m sure city council will spin this as “those evil out-of-town anarchists.” Not sure to what extent we should emphasize that lots of those arrests Sat night were unnecessary overreactions.
“those evil out-of-town anarchists.”
Hughes already did, and he speaks for the council. In this case, unhappily, he’s most likely right. My guess is the most rambunctious of the protesters was from outside Fullerton.
Hey! So was I!
True Dave. I subscribe to tons of groups like Cop Watch etc. and their spin is that Fullerton police shut down a valid protest and arrested non-violent, unarmed protestors en route to completing the final touches on the coming Police State. Whatever our local concerns are many people around the country (and world) are viewing this as some kind of epic battle between the Police (state) and the citizens. They want violence at these protests because they view this as all being significant far beyond Fullerton or OC. Like it or not, for those not in the area the Kelly Thomas verdict sent a shock wave. Critics of police violence and police tactics are looking at us as the poster child.
Thanks Ryan, you are totally right! City Hall does not really fear the protests, because I suspect the young thugs acting up are not high propensity voters, and they turn off the voters who do show up at the polls, so in effect they are working FOR the very system they claim to protest against. City Hall knows the immature tone of the protests promotes the image that discredits the message they don’t want anyone to hear.
Same problem in Anaheim. A dozen young men shot in roughly one year, and the big news story is the gathering of people in Guy Fawkes masks at the one year anniversary of citizens being shut out of the their own Council meeting, trying to object to the shootings. City Hall knew the crowds were coming, they knew Kris Murray had already packed as many available seats as possible inside Chambers with union people demanding jobs for the obscene Gardenwalk deal also to be discussed that night, and yet the ONLY preparation made to deal with the crowds was to pack City Hall with cops and riot gear, instead of pipe and drape and instructions on how to queue up to be let in and be heard. Imagine how far our demand to be heard at City Hall might have gone that night if, instead of a few punk kids smashing windows, we had stood peacefully demanding access to our own public building, and let he Eyewitness News film the Murbot Majority shutting us out. Instead, the very small minority provided the distraction Council needed to take attention from their own self serving policies and refusal to hold accountable the Police PAC that funds enormous chunks of Independent Expenditure money. Protesters gave Gail Eastman something to be thankful that night, you would think that would wise people up.
Excellent post, Mr. Cantor.
I’ll say to you publicly what I said to you privately, Ryan: “Welcome to Occupy.” And that is a way of saying that it’s not as easy as you may think.
The half-year of Occupy Orange County protests from October 2011 to March 2012 were entirely non-violent — not only in terms of physical confrontation, but also in terms of property destruction — until some people from San Diego went and threw glitter at a bank in Huntington Harbor and the HB Council and Police took the opportunity to justify shutting it down. (By that point, it was ready to end — the remaining people protesting were mostly homeless from out of town, because the people who had put it all together for 4444 continuous hours in Irvine and then Fullerton were by then exhausted.)
Our tactical choice not to offend the sensibilities of the people of Orange County was intended to address the sorts of concerns you address. But here’s the punch line: to a great extent, it didn’t matter. We could be as non-violent and non-destructive as we wanted — and people STILL just presumed that we were.
In the many long debates — seriously, you have no idea how many or how long — that we had over tactics, those inclined towards more aggressive actions argued that we had to “shake people up” and bring home the reality of what they were doing by going outside of their comfort zone. (My trump card at the time was: “ok, find someone else who will talk to the Police and City Councils, then, because it won’t be me.”)
The nasty truth is that they had a good point: by avoiding the confrontations that discomforted people and made them fear that things could get out of control, we let our Orange County audience largely ignore us. Not entirely so — and we did do some real good — but compared to San Diego, Long Beach, and LA, let alone Oakland, where protesters faced off against cops, we were generally deemed to be “not newsworthy.”
I think that we made the right choice, both tactically and ethically. And yet, I think that the criticism of our effectiveness was valid also. The problem was that our choices were between no publicity and bad publicity; good publicity — at least as much of it as other groups received for more aggressive confrontation — wasn’t on the menu.
My problem with your story, despite my general agreement with it, is that you don’t follow its implications far enough. You think the line is between property destruction (or maybe trespass on property, like banging on passing cars) as happened in the late afternoon, and the acceptably non-violent raucousness of the morning. I’m not sure that the public sees it that way. They will latch onto the violence as the reason for contempt for the protests and protesters, but in its absence they will hold the same contempt, merely voicing it more quietly. They still won’t make the calls you say that you want them to make, though.
And it’s even worse than that. The stuff that you (collective “you” in case it’s not true of you individually) thought was perfectly OK, like the regular haranguing of the City Council for hours during public comments at the meeting — THAT ALSO alienated the portions of public that you say you are targeting.
“But doesn’t the result of the Recall prove otherwise?”, you may ask. Not really. For the most part, it proves the effectiveness of massive and disproportionate spending in a local election; for the rest, it mostly proves that having gotten a public relations “black eye” — not from the fact of police brutality, but from the fact of its publication — the public did agree that someone had to pay. And so they turned out the City Council majority. And then — most of them considered the matter closed. Despite another massive PR effort (trust me, I still have the scars from it), the temporary Council majority couldn’t hold its seats.
The line in the public mind separating tagging the Police Station and the Slidebar from writing ineffectual letters to the editor not only has “raucous public rally” on the “we don’t like this” side of it, but Kelly’s Army speaking to the City Council on the “unacceptable” side of this as well. It just doesn’t seem that way when one is in the middle of it.
People have historically come to Orange County because they want peace and security. It makes truly challenging political activism here extremely difficult — although, with the right allies (as in Anaheim), it isn’t impossible. Sometimes, though, I think that we make it look too easy.
In any event, if you open the door to protest, don’t be surprised if protesters show up. And all the wisdom of those well past youth is, sooner or later, going to be rejected by the buzzing urgency of youth. We kept it reasonably contained and productively channeled for five months during Occupy OC — and I still haven’t totally recovered from the effort. And, like the fabled guy in the old joke who just once had sex with a goat and is thereafter remembered for nothing else, it only takes one misstep for one to be branded.
Yes, you think that they’re not helping — and I mostly agree. But they think that you and I are not helping. And who’s to say?
Greg,
The problems started when Occupy were granted the right to camp. The focus was lost and it became the campers vs. the non-campers. Maybe there was outside forces who caused problems in HB but the problems started long before they arrived.
That’s why I left. That’s why so many others who were committed left. It was like 14 year olds took over and that problem seemed to be happening to all the Occupy groups around the country.
Anytime there are protests you can bet there will be some who show up just to break shit. They aren’t there to protest anything. They are punks. And the media will cover their bad behavior. Great article Ryan!
Camping there was part of the Occupy “brand.” (It’s in the name itself.) Occupy Santa Ana tried and failed to camp out in that city, but ultimately gave that up except for one action — which was specifically themed around homelessness (a worthy project but not reflecting the broader Occupy agenda) — and it still wasn’t more successful at getting positive press. Sometimes there is just no right move — especially in the short term.
Greg, you raise a good point about events in Fullerton. Think what you will about the real reasons behind the recall, I’m willing to bet most of the city’s voters are tired of the crisis environment and wouldn’t support another recall. Let’s not forget that just a few months after the “reform” Council took its seats, an attempt to study turning police services to the Sherriff was vociferously defeated, and that was with the reform Council in the majority. (of course, contracting with the County would have done nothing to address the need for freeform Ryan discusses). Some of Saturday’s protestors were calling for the new police chief’s resignation; as you said about the old Council, there is a feeling someone has to pay, this time for the unbelievable acquittal of Ramos and Cicinelli. But even if it was deserved, which is questionable at best,Hughes’ resignation would still not address the reforms Ryan talks about. The only way that’s going to happen is through the firm insistence of an informed and impassioned electorate, at the state as well as local level. Its certainly not going to be accomplished by dopes with spray cans.
mr cantor speaks the truth,,,which is why we will always win
Never engage your adversary with his strongest weapon.
Oh, you may want to read the comments on Greg Rath’s hijacking of free markets: http://missionviejo.patch.com/groups/announcements/p/greg-raths-for-congress-2014_0c6df1e5
Ryan, I think your post touches on a very important distinction, yet one that seems a lot of “mainstream” people are missing. To oppose one thing is not to embrace its direct opposite. During the Vietnam War, a big chunk of the population associated being against the war with being pro-Communist, and until the anti-war sentiment went “mainstream”, it was tainted by that image for years. That some–a very few–protesters branded soldiers as baby-killers didn’t help, but that’s what the media focused on.
To be pro-law enforcement reform doesn’t make a person “anti-cop”. It does mean they have the ability to see a problem and suggest sensible and logical solutions, as you did. But, mix in enough morons who attack others in the community, and the logical gets drowned out by the dramatic. Protests by themselves mean nothing unless they’re backed up by the un-sexy grunt work of reform. The American Revolution would have failed if it took place solely on the battlefield, and not in the halls of debate that created the Articles of Confederation and ultimately, the Constitution.
Protests by their nature are loud and passionate, as they should be. But the Constitution gives no protection beyond the right to peaceably assemble. Move from the vocal to the physical, and you lose that protection. What’s worse, you shift attention from the real issues to what many people can easily dismiss as radical, out-of-town, out-of-control thugs who show up just to destroy. It may not read well on the 7:00 o’clock news, but the real change has to happen through the reforms you described.
I think this post really highlights the differences between conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives see things in black and white, it’s all good or it’s all bad.
A few rowdy protestors ruined the protest and its message. And that’s probably true, as we have a conservative media who always highlight the bad and for most of their conservative readers they’ll accept that account of events without question.
Liberals on the other hand see things in shades of gray, we know that in any protest or movement that there are outliers. We accept that and then look beyond it. We don’t dismiss the message just because it’s messy.
“Liberals on the other hand see things in shades of gray,”
Ah. Liberal = nuanced intellectual. Got it.
Further proof; Just who do you think Ryan is worried about getting turned off to the message of the protest? Liberals? I think not.
You obviously don’t know Fullerton.
Think about it David. What “liberal” would be dissuaded from supporting civilian oversight and homeless shelters because a few yahoo’s graffitied the police station? If you could find them, you’d probably be able to count them on one hand. It’s conservatives that would be turned off to the message by some hijinks.
My point is that Ryan’s concerns say far more about those receiving the message of the protests than the actual protest and the behavior of a few.
It’s all about being able to separate the wheat from the chaff, not a conservative strong-suit I’m afraid.
Specifically, Pam Keller, Doug Chaffee, and Jan Flory. That’s who.
Pam Keller, Doug Chaffee, Jan Flory?
Anonster wanted to know what local liberals . . .
Three, that’s on one hand ( I’ll have to take your word on it that they’re liberals) and do you know for sure that they’ve been dissuaded from supporting your goals based on the behavior of a few at the protest?
We’ll know today! Two are currently on the council as democrats. One is a former council woman who will probably make a comment tonight.
I’ve got a short list of Reeps, too. This isn’t about nuance. It’s about who is willing to make hard choices to improve all our futures. Decision makers on BOTH sides of the isle are required to affect change. Many of them are going to be less receptive to change as a result of Saturday . . . I thought I had made that clear.
Yes, Ryan, I was suggesting the same three as you.
Ryan’s talking about liberals too — and with good reason. You should see the comments in Facebook feeds. Liberals vary in their nuanced-ness.
I still disagree. If someone turned against some of the changes Ryan suggested because of a few yahoo’s, I don’t think I’d consider them liberals.
There are a lot of blue-dog democrats, who ARE NOT liberals and wouldn’t claim to be liberals. I’m not sure if you’d find too many republicans though who wouldn’t claim to be conservative (although I’m not saying ALL conservatives are of one mind).
I also think the democrats listed above may not support some of Ryan’s suggestions because of money and implementation issues.
I do however applaud his efforts and wish him success in changing things in Fullerton.
Not saying ALL conservatives are incapable of nuance, just the majority. The proof is in the policy.
That’s a pretty black and white statement for a shade of gray..
Liberals are also reality based. Facts and data hold sway with us.
Liberalism is based on emotionalism.
“Going to war is mean, so we shouldn’t do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, “no,” so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don’t they know we’re nice? If they did, they would like us! Bob has more money than Harry, so take half of Bob’s money and give it to Harry.”
Town Hall –
Thanks for proving my point about conservatives and nuance, skally.
Perfect example!
Ho. ho, ho! Yeah, sure. And the reality is that the program would have worked, gosh darn it, if only we had spent more of your money!
?
The standard, reality-based liberal refrain for a failed government endeavor.
Well, skally threw in let’s see … war, the poor, government programs, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, global warming, terrorism and income inequality.
So which “standard, reality-based liberal refrain for a failed government endeavor” are you referring to?
Or perhaps in your oh-so nuanced world view they’re all the fault of the evil liberals. Yes, you certainly aren’t a typical conservative. ROTFLMAO!
Well, let’s take the war on poverty: 50 years, trillions later and the same percentage of people are still below the poverty line.
The haystack is on fire. Quick, throw on more hay!
For children and 18-65s, since the “war on poverty” began, the percentage of those in poverty hasn’t ticked down much. But the impact of Medicare on those 65+ in terms of the percentage of those 65+ in poverty is indisputable (about 28% in 1966, 9.7 % in 2008).
So maybe, just maybe, that means we’re not doing enough for those under 65.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Yeah, you’re right. Medicare has had absolutely no impact on the poverty rate among the elderly. Nevermind.
I simply asked a question. No need to get all huffy.
The war on poverty is a great example for nuance, shades of gray and most of all complexity.
Your cranky, callow, conservative view is that we threw tons of money at poverty and we still have it; epic fail.
The truth though is very, very different.
During the first six years when we REALLY funded those programs , we reduced the poverty rate by 43%. Then of course LBJ started diverting those funds into Vietnam, then came Reagan who waged war on the war on poverty and funding for programs that alleviate poverty have waxed and waned ever since.
The US is particularly penurious when it comes to the poor, but even in 2012 our poverty programs helped millions keep above the Federal poverty line, especially children, the elderly and the disabled.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-war-on-poverty-at-50-illustrating-the-safety-nets-success/
The fact that you think of the war on poverty in terms of black and white proves my point. Most conservatives have childishly simplistic world views. All good or all bad, we still have poor people, so it’s a failure. Again, that is such a puerile perspective I’d think you’d be embarrassed to express it.
My advice; expand your mind and your reading material and learn some things.
One thing i do know about your various Wars is that they have created vast debt that has been piled on top of future generations – a veritable theft of their heritage without their permission. It’s actually a gross injustice not unlike being taxed without representation.
Black and white? You’re damn right, but you keep seeing all the nuanced grays you want as you selfishly pile on more.
Funny how conservatives NEVER point to REAL WAR as adding to the debt. Like Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraqi disasters.
You want to talk about TRILLIONS wasted and wasted for nothing, there you go.
At least the war on poverty has made OUR fellow citizens lives better. And fact check, most of those programs we pay into. They are social insurance, because most of us want to live in a civilized society, one where we work together to provide a safety net. Furthermore, many of those dollars go back into the economy;
“Economists consider SNAP one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus. Moody’s Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every dollar increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. Similarly, CBO rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting growth and jobs in a weak economy.”
http://www.cbpp.org//?fa=view&id=3239
Perhaps you need to stop feeling so aggrieved and spend that energy educating yourself.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Yeah, it is.
Anyway, rather than debate my affinity towards polarization, let’s get back to the issue of a man being dead and who we should see about that.
Nuance is bullshit – fuck nuance … and ……….. have a nice day.
Run the football goddamnit!
Woody Hayes.
And along comes skally to set anonster’s world right again! It’s a true public service.
Bravo, sir. Well said.