Written July 20 2005
San Franciscans were shocked to hear this month that a police officer had been clubbed over the head by members of
Anarchist Action marching through the Mission District to protest the Group of Eight summit. But anyone who follows the political scene in San Francisco should have seen this coming.
This is a city that prides itself on being a center of left-wing politics, and anarchism is simply another offshoot. Although
anarchism as a philosophy encompasses various political and social ideologies, anarchists share an opposition to hierarchy in all forms, including the state and capitalism. Adherents differ on the use of violence to achieve these goals, but local anarchists are known for their less than peaceful tactics.
Indeed, the San Francisco Police Department has a long history of trying to limit the damage done by these people, but due to a lack of political support from City Hall and sometimes the citizens themselves, their hands have been tied. Years of political correctness have taken their toll on the SFPD and its ability to protect citizens and their property from violent groups such as Anarchist Action. So when word came of this latest incident, it was really a case of the chickens coming home to roost.
Although the anarchists like to talk tough, as soon as they’re called on their illegal tactics, they cry “police brutality” and try to portray themselves as political martyrs. This time around they didn’t even have a permit for their march, yet they still reacted with
the same outrage when the police tried to enforce the law.
A Riot, Not A March
It could hardly be called marching, because what the group was really doing was rioting. An unruly mob armed with pipes and baseball bats, their faces covered in the signature black bandannas (terrorist-style), made their way through the working-class neighborhood, overturning newspaper stands, smashing windows, spraying graffiti on buildings and buses, burning flags and generally causing mayhem.
It was just such behavior that caused locals to seek help from the police. The call went out over the Mission frequency, and Officer Peter Shields and his partner Officer Michael Wolf, who were on patrol in the area, answered it. Due to an alleged radio mix-up, they showed up first, despite the fact that a group of riot-clad police officers were nearby. When Shields and Wolf arrived, the anarchists threw a large piece of Styrofoam in the police vehicle’s path, which became wedged underneath it. The officers got out of the car and attempted to control the mob, but they were outnumbered.
After chasing a man who had threatened him with a Roman candle-style firework, Officer Shields was surrounded by a group of about 30 anarchists and hit in the head from behind, fracturing his skull. Additional officers then arrived on the scene and arrested several suspects on various felony violations. Three have been formally charged by the district attorney, one of them on attempted lynching charges, although it is thought that the person who hit Officer Shields in the head is still at large. Incredibly, the remaining mob of anarchists was allowed to continue their rampage even after the attack and all the other illegal activities.
Decks Stacked Against Police
So what accounts for this apparent inability to enforce the law? In a city whose politics are distinctly anti-authoritarian, the decks are stacked against the police department. When police officers do take strong yet legal measures to curb demonstrators who break the law, they are almost always censured for it. The
Office of Citizen Complaints, while addressing some valid concerns, seems never to have met a complaint against the SFPD it didn’t like. The legions of liberal lawyers and community volunteers from the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild who are conveniently on hand during such occurrences add to the “gotcha” atmosphere. In fact, the NLG had such “
legal observers” on hand the night of the anarchist march and were quick to offer those arrested help in finding a lawyer. The local activist Web site IndyBay.org, in
its version of the night’s events, even provides the NLG phone number for any witnesses or suspects.
A friend of mine, who’s a San Francisco police officer, told me that these legal observers often walk the police line before the start of a protest and take down badge numbers. He also described how protesters will occasionally try to provoke police officers into violence, while the observers look on, apparently hoping to catch them in some crime. One has to wonder at the ethics of those who witness felonies and don’t report them because they’re too busy trying to find fault with the actions of the police department.
During the first week or so of the war in Iraq, San Francisco became ground zero for
antiwar protests and civil disobedience. Thousands of protesters marched, attempted to block roads and bridges, and basically tried to shut the city down. Hundreds of arrests were made, but through mishandling on the part of the D.A.‘s office, almost all the
charges were dropped. The same pattern was repeated over the next couple of years, as various protests led to arrests and the eventual dropping of charges by the D.A.‘s office. In the process, the political establishment undermined the police department again and again.
‘Black Bloc’ Tactics
It was during those early antiwar protests that the extent of the anarchists’ violent tactics was laid bare. A collection of anarchists banding together into what they call a “
black bloc” split from the main group of protesters and rampaged through the city streets. As usual, they smashed windows, sprayed graffiti and generally caused chaos. But their plans may have gone beyond simple vandalism. A backpack filled with 12
Molotov cocktails was found abandoned in an alley by clean-up crews. Although the exact ownership of the backpack was never discovered, it was likely that it belonged to one of the anarchists who had come through the area earlier in the day. It’s hard to imagine your typical nonviolent protester bringing along such weaponry. The backpack was clearly abandoned by its owner because he or she feared getting arrested and wanted to get rid of the evidence. What plans the owner and friends had in mind for the Molotov cocktails can only be imagined. If such people are willing to firebomb businesses or police cars, what else are they capable of?
I don’t really want to wait and find out.
Talk to any police officer in San Francisco and they will tell you that to be a cop in this city, one must be a strong advocate of freedom of speech and assembly. This is a political town and protests, marches and civil disobedience come with the territory. But where do you draw the line? The police department facilitates 100-150 events in San Francisco each year, what with parades, street festivals and protests, but it is only when the anarchists are involved that serious trouble arises.
Legally, all marches are required to have permits and to follow a certain route. Once marchers break off and go into the streets blocking traffic and damaging property, they are no longer a peaceful assembly— they are involved in a riot. With this in mind, police officers should be able to nip the anarchists’ illegal “marches” in the bud, but there doesn’t seem to be any support for such decisive action from the department or the city. Instead, police officers keep going through the song-and-dance routine of reading dispersal orders, only to have the anarchists split up into smaller groups and resume their antics. It’s clear that such groups don’t take the presence of San Francisco police officers seriously. Considering the department’s lack of power, who can blame them?
Capitulation By Leadership
In terms of the inner workings of the police department, it comes down to command decisions. When one’s officers are in trouble or need backup, it should be the top brass that comes to their defense. But all too often, the department leadership is hampered by political concerns. Fears of investigations, lawsuits and witch-hunts, not to mention protection of their own pensions, can lead to capitulation at the expense of the rank and file. I spoke with Kevin Martin, vice president of the Police Officers Association (POA), who feels that, “support from the leadership for the rank and file is simply not there.”
Shows of support for the police in San Francisco in general are so rare that Senator Dianne Feinstein
received a standing ovation last year at the funeral for slain officer Isaac Espinoza, when she criticized D.A. Kamala Harris’ decision not to ask for the death penalty for the alleged killer. Would that more of the local political establishment showed as much concern for the lives and safety of the city’s police officers.
Mayor Newsom’s office is offering a $10,000 reward for help in arresting the person who attacked Officer Shields, but it may be too little, too late. This latest case is just one
in a series over the past few years in which the police department has seen its morale eroded and its effectiveness steadily undermined. As Officer Martin put it during our conversation, “When do we take a stand?”
In the wake of Officer Shields’ beating and the growing frustration among the SFPD rank and file, the department is undergoing a shake-up. Although there has been much talk in the media of
a communications glitch the night of the incident, Chief Fong’s review didn’t find any such problem. This put her at odds with Deputy Chief Greg Suhr, who was in charge of the police response that night and who claims he never received the dispatch message. Meanwhile, Officer Juanita Stockwell, a 25-year veteran, has put forward a no-confidence petition drive against both Fong and Suhr.
Someone had to take the fall and it appears to have been Deputy Chief Suhr. Although Chief Fong claims otherwise, the timing of Suhr’s reassignment to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) seems awfully convenient. Gary Delagnes, president of the POA,
told The Chronicle he didn’t “believe that Greg [Suhr] should have taken the fall for this.” Indeed, it looks like Suhr may have been a scapegoat for a problem that runs much deeper than any one commander. Instead of getting at the real cause of this debacle—the underlying political climate in San Francisco—the city is once again opting for the quick fix.
It would seem that a city that encourages law breaking while neutering its police force is just asking to become a magnet for troublemakers. At the same time, local politicians are constantly trying to disarm law-abiding citizens through measures such as the
handgun ban on the ballot this November. Since the police department cannot necessarily be counted upon to keep the peace, San Franciscans are pretty much on their own. If the situation continues, anarchy could indeed be the order of the day.
- Post 9/11:The Fight Must Go On - Friday September 11, 2009 at 11:11 am
- Fuel or folly? Ethanol and the law of unintended consequences - Tuesday May 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm
- Homeless by the bay - Tuesday April 22, 2008 at 12:01 am
