Chapel Hill Police Violently Arrest Squatters at Yates (University Chrysler) Building

The crowd was chanting "Kill the cops, burn the prisions" at one point it appears.  Also, a statement from Mayor Mark explaining the rationale for today's police action.   http://www.chapelboro.com/Police--Protestors-Clash-On-Franklin-St--Dozen...The reporters and others were detained, not arrested per the Twitter quoted.  

It sounds to me like the town was acting completely within it's rights to protect private property and the safety of all individuals involved. It's hard to sympathize with a group of people who would break into and vandalize private property (a dance party?!), especailly when their counterparts/"comrades" down the street have been so incredibly conscientious of their presence here in Chapel Hill.Nathan Westmoreland
President - UNC Young Democrats

Well, I think police violence and militarization ought to be part of the Occupy conversation. I think folks should quit worrying about the taint of association with anarchists, or their personal feelings about those particular yahoos, and focus their outrage on militarized force used against peaceful fellow citizens engaged in an overtly political act.

Gimmie a break, Ruby.  These folks broke into a building that is not theirs.  And the police aren't supposed to do anything about this?  They're supposed to be nice to criminals now, especially while they're shouting insults at them? Reporting based on hearsay is also pretty irresponsible.  But this is all typical of the Occupy movement, as far as I've seen.  I honestly thought you'd be smarter than this.

Heavy handed would have been tear gas and tazers.  The police had no requirement to give anyone a warning to stop breaking the law.  My point was not that the police should change their behavior based on verbal insults, but rather that these folks can't expect the police to cut them slack when they're being a**holes.Unsubstantiated articles trying to turn folks against the police are just irresponsible, IMHO.  If you don't want a cop pointing a gun at you, don't go breaking the law.  Pretty simple.  Reporters included.

I've been following news from Occupy sites around the country over the weekend and have to wonder if the actions of the Chapel Hill police yesterday were a part of the apparent national, coordinated and systematic police crackdown on Occupy protesters yesterday. Police moved forcefully to shut down camps in Portland, Oakland and Denver, to name just a few. Viewed in this context, I think we should be asking if the shock and awe tactics used yesterday on W. Franklin were in part dictated by, or influenced by, law enforcement coordination at a much higher level than the CHPD.

Whoo, whoo, boogie for the homeless? Wouldn't volunteering or donating money to a charitable organization or otherwise participating in local government be more effective?  But I'm sure that's more boring than a dance party.  At least they didn't try to take over Greenbridge.

During today's press conference at Chapel Hill Town Hall, I asked Mayor Kleinschmidt and Chief Blue in what ways the Carrboro Police Department, or other agencies, participated in the W. Franklin Street operation. Blue responded that both Carrboro police and UNC police participated in support operations, including perimeter security.That's what I was afraid of.After the press conference, I was pleased to read the statements below from Carrboro aldermen Dan Coleman and Sammy Slade.From Dan Coleman to interim town manager Matt Efird (link):

Matt,I have a number of concerns stemming from the events yesterday at the empty Joe Riddle property on West Franklin Street. I would appreciate answers either in the form of a staff memo or in a future agenda item as you see fit.I am particularly concerned that the Chapel Hill police seemed to initiate their action via a heavily armed tactical force which pointed semi-automatic weapons at unarmed protesters. According to a tweet from detained journalist Josh Davis (and other observers) “No warning was given.” As far as I am aware, there was no reason to believe that anyone in the building was armed or had any history of violence. In addition, there could be times when an excessive show of force could be provocative and lead to violence that might not occur otherwise. I would like to be reassured that in Carrboro a more measured response would be taken, at least initially and particularly against unarmed nonviolent protesters, one that would be clearly visible to reporters or other observers present.I am concerned that CHPD justified their tactics as “based on the known risks associated with these groups” despite the fact that no one identified as associated with the W. Franklin occupation has any known history of violent resistance to police. To the contrary, according to news reports, those who occupied Greenbridge last spring tried to run away when the police appeared but did not apparently resist arrest otherwise (none were charged with resisting arrest). My concern is that Carrboro PD not make prejudicial judgments about citizens that might lead to this kind of over-reaction.I would like to suggest that while the PD has a legal obligation to protect private property, the occupation of a building that has been unused for many years and has no intended use might allow the PD to take the time to explore solutions short of the use of such a high level of force.I am concerned that journalists and observers were among those unnecessarily handcuffed and forced to the ground by CHPD. Even should arrests be warranted, a situation like this should allow the opportunity for police to identify who are suspects before such heavy-handed methods are used.Although Mayor Kleinschmidt knew of the CHPD action in advance, there was apparently no direct involvement by CH elected leaders. In Carrboro, we have a history of elected leaders helping resolve situations such as those on the Carr Mill lawn or with the Really Really Free Market. It is important for CPD to understand that as well as desiring a more measured response, Carrboro board members stand ready to help resolve such issues when appropriate.Finally, Matt, I want to express appreciation for your understanding of Carrboro’s values in regard to such actions and for being in touch with Mayor Chilton before sending our officers to Chapel Hill yesterday. Still, I am concerned about the presence of our officers potentially drawing them into unanticipated escalations. Recently there have been a number of cases nationally of police violence against occupy protesters (example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WVkC7kRFV8c). What is notable in this and other videos is that police, though highly trained, are only human and that discipline can break down under stress. Recognizing that CHPD did appear to maintain discipline in this case and has had a thus-far commendable response to Occupy Chapel Hill, I would hate to see Carrboro PD play a supporting role in an action that led to the injury or shooting of an unarmed, nonviolent protester. I would be interested in understanding how we can minimize this risk.Thanks very much.Best,Dan

From Sammy Slade, in response to Coleman's statement (link):

All,Firstly, thank you Dan, I will not restate what you have already done so well.  I agree with all of it.  I want to underscore the need to minimize Carrboro PD playing a supporting role in an action that could lead to the injury or shooting of an unarmed, nonviolent protester.  Matt, thank you for letting the Mayor know about this incident in advance and thanks, Mark, for making sure that Carrboro police, in responding to a call for support by the Chapel Hill PD as per protocol from an agreement between Chapel Hill and Carrboro, did not engage in any direct violence unless it was really necessary.I will add that this incident brings to light the need of finding a way to condition our collaboration with the Chapel Hill PD.  Though I understand that there is an agreement between Chapel Hill and Carrboro for times when help is needed between our police forces, it is hard for me to understand how this could have been understood as such a time.  I regret that the Carrboro police were backup to an action that was so over the top.  I cannot support our involvement with an entity  that can so grossly  overestimate the need for its use of force.  Perhaps there is something that I am missing that the Chapel Hill department knows, but as far as I know there was nothing that warranted the degree of force used. Though only as backup, regrettably Carrboro was involved; I believe we are owed some information on why and what was the basis for the Chapel Hill PD to react to this degree, and at a minimum an apology to Carrboro and the community at large.--Sammy

Wrote this before council meeting but I wasn't logged in.I am going to just number my points because I want to focus on the facts as I understand them: 1. A group of individuals illegally entered and trespassed on private property on Franklin Street. 2. They had a good time while creating a safety hazard for the area by inhabiting a building that has been empty and unused for some time with wood palllets and generators.  From what I have heard of their behavior on local news channels, from  eyewitnesses, and town staff, assuming these folks might not use the best judgement in regards to safety issues is not a far stretch.  3. Unlike the folks at Occupy Chapel Hill, when approached by the Police, they were menacing and aggressive. 4. The police had tried to engage the group and were not met with a response that suggested future engagement would be fruitful.   And in fact it has been the experience of the CHPD that when people illegally occupy public spaces and the police arrive, people run and hide - but not before destroying some private property. 5. There is a natural ambivalence around Police and the force that they use to do their jobs. But we as a community have not asked the police department to stop protecting our interests.  They take on this responsibility while also trying to protect their lives. 6. We as a community have watched the care and communication that has gone on between CHPD and the Occupy Chapel Hill group.  Why would we assume that they would not use the same care (especially due to the heightened scrutiny at this current time) with the incident on Franklin Street 7.While I am sorry that media was detained during the operation, I am focused on the fact that at the end of this situation that our police were called to respond to, but did not create, no one was hurt. I have done my share of protesting.  I was more surprised when I was not detained by the police than that the police arrived.  Part of speaking out against the system is knowing that the system will respond.  And part of how the system responds is dependent on those protesting.  That is not the case everywhere, but I believe it is the case with Chief Blue and those who serve under him. I am willing to have this conversation, but I wanted people to understand where I am coming from.  Donna Bell - Chapel Hill Town Council

After hearing Chief Blue statements last night at the city council
meeting I'm left with a couple unanswered questions.

1. Why didn't the police use undercover detective to go in and
   assess the situation? They had them under surveillance for the
   entire night. 
2. Were there any peaceful ways discussed to resolve this and if
   so why were they ruled out? I would hope that there was serious
   consideration to alternative ways to resolve this.
3. Did the Chapel Hill police chief seek any advice from the
   Carrboro police chief and is this protocol when you call another
   force for backup in these situations?

I look forward to hearing the findings
from the formal review.

If I had been at the press conference yesterday, I would have asked why the police handled this situation so much differently than they did when a similar (same?) group occupied Greenbridge just a few months back. I believe there were more individuals in/at Greenbridge and they had been destructive of private property. But yet, there was not the extreme show of force by the police:http://orangepolitics.org/2011/06/breaking-rioters-arrested-at-g

The first question I see among commentors is "why the violent police response".  From my point of view, it wasn't a violent police response-- there were no bruises, cracked ribs, banged heads, or any physical injuries of any sort. The use of the rifles was intended to intimidate the crowd into following orders instead of getting into a shouting, then shoving, then punching match.  Would injuries have happened if rifles hadn't been used?  Who knows?  I think it was a smart move, one that greatly increased the likelihood there would be zero injuries to either the officers or those being arrested.The police were coming up against a crowd of people who by their own admission hate police, and have used violence in the past against property.  All it takes is one moron in a crowd to throw a rock or otherwise escalate a confrontation and someone would have gotten hurt.   Another possiblity is the crowd would have resisted arrest, and the physical cohersion needed to arrest everyone would have increased the possibility of an injury.The next question I read is why didn't the police give the squatters the chance to  leave without being arrested?  You know what?  I want the police to arrest them!  They are most likely the same group that trashed Greenbridge, and instead of helping our community want to go around and see what kind of mahem they can cause to get arrested.I'm not saying they don't have a valid point about society, but their response is naive and completely counter-productive. 

I bet the protestors agree with you too.