On October 1, 2011, protesters encamped on City Hall’s front lawn and declared themselves part of the national Occupy movement protesting income inequality and corporate greed. City leaders promptly welcomed the Occupy L.A. protesters with open arms, with the City Council not only endorsing the movement but also inviting protesters to stay indefinitely.
The City leadership stated that the price of denying protesters’ First Amendment rights would be too great. So for nearly two months, LAPD officers policed the encampment, carefully balancing the Occupiers’ right to protest with the need to protect public safety and property. But as the costs of this policy started becoming apparent, the City slowly rescinded its support, and in perhaps the clearest example of its mismanagement of the situation, attempted to lure the movement off the City Hall lawn by offering them office space and other financial incentives. The protesters didn’t budge.
And so on November 30, long after encampments in other cities had been forcibly removed, our officers were finally given orders to disband the Occupy L.A. camp. The operation was efficient, orderly and involved a minimal use of force. The mayor lauded it as the LAPD’s “finest moment,” and indeed this was a job very well done, but to say that this was their finest moment did a disservice to our men and women in blue.
Our finest moments occur every day, every time LAPD officers prevent a crime, rescue people in danger, solve a crime or make an arrest. Our finest moments occur every time LAPD officers respond, capably, professionally and with appropriate restraint to the threats that arise organically in our society, not to problems fostered or even created by political calculation or attempts at political correctness.
This was a clear success for the LAPD and stood in contrast to operations in other cities, but many observers have recognized that there were serious and avoidable costs – far exceeding the price of repairing the City Hall lawn – resulting from the way the City handled this situation. Millions of scarce taxpayer dollars were squandered on over-accommodating protesters, some of whom abused the City’s goodwill by destroying public property and undermining respect for our laws. What kind of precedent has this set for future situations requiring the balancing of constitutional rights against public safety? The L.A. Times got it right in their editorial, “Handling the next occupation in L.A.”
We hope these costs will be fully considered should a similar situation arise in the future. LAPD officers, who must face considerable personal risk when carrying out orders to restore public order, deserve better. Taxpayers, many of whom are struggling with unemployment and reduced services, deserve better. Los Angeles deserves better.
