SWAT

Oakland Uses SWAT Force With Tanks and an Armored Vehicle To Evict Squatting Activists

A group of homeless mothers moved into an Oakland, California, home they didn't own.

|

A SWAT team supplied with tanks and a Bearcat armored vehicle evicted a group of homeless activists on Tuesday morning after they refused to leave an Oakland, California, residence that they do not own.

Dressed in riot gear, deputies from the Alameda County Sheriff's Office arrived at the house on Magnolia Street around 5:30 a.m. Officers used a battering ram to enter the residence and arrested three squatters for obstruction and resisting arrest after they reportedly refused to leave the home. The targets of the raid were members of Moms 4 Housing, a group that describes itself as a "collective of homeless and marginally housed mothers" who believe that housing is a fundamental human right.  

Protesters criticized the deputies and juxtaposed what they perceived as an unnecessary display of force—replete with military vehicles—against a group of peaceful activists. "They came in like an Army for mothers and babies," Dominique Walker, a leader at Moms 4 Housing, said. "We have the right to housing. This is just the beginning."

Sgt. Ray Kelly justified the approach to the eviction, telling the Fox affiliate that projectiles were hurled at the officers and that the activists' barricade was fortified enough to require a battering ram. He also said that he recognized "violent" individuals in the crowd from previous Bay Area protests.

According to SFist, Walker, a 34-year-old single mother, moved into the residence after leaving Mississippi and returning to Oakland, where she is from, only to find that the housing prices had drastically increased. So she and several other mothers set up shop in the vacant house without permission from the owner—in part because of their financial situations, and in part out of protest.

"I feel like it's absolutely necessary, because I believe we're so desensitized that we don't even think twice now about [homeless] encampments," she told the San Francisco Chronicle. "[Housing costs are] an issue and it needs to be addressed." Walker, who was not arrested on Tuesday, said she resents the notion that property management companies are purchasing homes from poorer tenants, flipping them, and then letting them sit vacant before selling them to wealthier buyers.

Wedgewood Properties, which owns the house, recently announced that they will renovate the home with the help of a nonprofit that employs at-risk youth. "Wedgewood is pleased the illegal occupation of its Oakland home has ended peacefully," said spokesperson Sam Slinger. "That is what the company has sought since the start." They previously "urge[d] the squatters to leave voluntarily and peacefully" without assistance from the police.

But those activists did not comply. Kelly says that he may bill Wedgewood for the raid, which cost tens of thousands of dollars to execute.

Such a militaristic approach to policing is not only exorbitantly expensive, but also further destroys trust between cops and those living in any given community. That cost comes without a corresponding benefit: It doesn't improve safety. To the contrary, it often leads to heightened escalation in nonthreatening situations. But Moms 4 Housing squatters similarly took things too far, trouncing on legal property rights and oversimplifying a complex issue. Homelessness, while worthy of our empathy, is better solved by increasing housing supply through reducing regulations and cutting zoning restrictions. Illegally squatting, alternatively, is not a solution that will yield long-term gains for those who most need affordable housing.

NEXT: Justin Amash's Biggest Fiscally Conservative National Donors Are Abandoning His Re-election Bid

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They were trespassers and thieves. Can you imagine ownign a rental house and having a bunch of bums move into it and have no way of evicting them? What a nightmare.

    I don’t like SWAT Teams. They likely should not have been used here. That said, using them on a bunch of trespassers who refused to vacate a house and were throwing things at anyone who tried to evict them is not that beyond the pale. If nothing else, these people make about the least sympathetic of victims as there could be

    1. I see all sorts of problems with the Swatification of law enforcement.

      But, much like some other cases publicized here, these people are not the hill I’m going to fight on.

    2. How bad must things have degenerated that the cops used a SWAT vehicle, in California?!

      I’m also sure that the cops started the eviction with said show of force. LOL at the ‘on the one hand’ and ‘to be fair’ in the write up of this event.

      How trashed do you think that house got before they were evicted?

      1. How bad must things have degenerated that the cops used a SWAT vehicle, in California?!

        West Oakland. This could well have been their first trip into the neighborhood.

      2. It’s California. They love militarized cops there–it’s where SWAT _came from_.

    3. If regular police can’t handle a few squatters “throwing things”, then we have a real problem with the regular police. I might concede that SWAT would be appropriate if you can show that they were throwing malatov cocktails. Anything less? That’s well within a beat cop’s capabilities.

      1. I think the issue is they didn’t know what they might be throwing, so they planned for the worst

        1. Which is a) irresponsible and b) more likely to cause the escalation to violence that they claim to fear.

          1. “Which is a) irresponsible and b) more likely to cause the escalation to violence that they claim to fear.”

            Bullshit and bullshit.

    4. I don’t have much sympathy for squatters. But it is the tax code that often encourages leaving properties vacant rather than actually renting them out. And of course talking about that sort of change is the real taboo. Sending in the SWAT teams is just business as usual.

      1. Not the tax code but rent controlling laws that force price dislocation into the market

        1. No. the tax code. Real estate is, by far, the major tax shelter in the US tax code. where paper losses (not just actual cash losses) can be used to offset other non-related income and/or future non-related income. Not to mention that it gets indirectly favored by the preference in our tax code for debt v say equity.

          1. I challenge you show the math behind what you’re saying. You’d have to be taxed at greater than 100% on rental income to make it worthwhile to forgo that income.

          2. Given the complexity of tax laws, I’m loath to say that something “can’t” happen under tax laws — but I’m in real estate and I know several people who have left units vacant for rent-control reasons, and never heard of anyone doing so for tax reasons.

      2. “…But it is the tax code that often encourages leaving properties vacant rather than actually renting them out…”

        You make that claim with a lot of arm-waving, and in all my years of owning properties, my tax guys have never suggested leaving them vacant.
        Given that you bullshit on a regular basis, I’m calling bullshit here.
        In this particular case, it was a forclosure, bought by a company whigh specializes in renovating and reselling homes; they took legal possession some months after the auction and two days after the squatters moved in; so much for ‘keeping it vacant’.

    5. Questionable methods, good result.

    6. If I were the owner of the property in question, I’d be quite happy to employ bouncers for this purpose. All I’d need the deputy to do is take the trespassers into custody once my crew had them trussed up for delivery.

      -jcr

      1. My cousin was a bouncer for a few years. It was really amazing how many people “fell down” or “ran into a door frame” right before being handed over to the cops.

        The ones who didn’t “fall down” before being handed over to the police frequently showed up and caused problems again, the ones who did never came back. Must’ve been very embarrassing to “fall down” in public like that, didn’t want to return to the scene.

    7. Well said.

      They’re not sympathetic but couldn’t the cops have done the job without the hyper theatre of SWAT?

      “collective of homeless and marginally housed mothers” who believe that housing is a fundamental human right.”

      A) It’s not and B) You don’t get to trespass because you think it is.

    8. I don’t know what they needed the tank for, but they absolutely should have arrested them.

    9. I found it interesting that the cops were considering billing the OWNERS for the raid. Since when do you have to pay for the cops to enforce the law (yeah yeah, besides the taxes)? Besides, it was the cop’s decision to bring out the big guns, if the department wants to charge someone, bill the cop who signed off on bringing SWAT and an armored battalion instead of a handful of beat cops

    10. This is what SWAT should be used for.
      By presenting an overwhelming force, they were able to discourage violent response from the burglars and their supporters.

  2. So what are we supposed to do in this situation? Just let them steal the house from whoever owns it?

    They wouldn’t leave peacefully and they had no right to be there. If you’re going to barricade yourself in, expect them to bring tools to deal with your barricade.

    You don’t have a right to someone else’s house, and if you won’t vacate peacefully then you can expect violence. How is this any different than if the homeowner came home, noticed home invaders, and then scared them off with a firearm? The scale is different, but the idea and the justification are just as valid.

    1. If you are military, go around to local VFWs and American Legions and let veterans know.

      We all roll over there, kick the door in and remove the squatters and their shit, then repair your door and help you change the locks.

    2. BTW: you don’t “scare home invaders off with a firearm”.

      If you pull out a weapon, be prepared to use it. If they are home invaders, shoot them dead. Then hire the best blood cleanup business around.

      1. I agree, but I didn’t want to use that analogy since the police didn’t actually shoot anyone. The threat of being shot was enough to get the desired result.

        The police also wouldn’t have been justified in shooting anyone in this case, the homeowner absolutely would have been justified.

      2. “BTW: you don’t “scare home invaders off with a firearm”…

        Eh. Most defensive gun uses are achieved without firing the firearm. At least if you trust Gary Kleck’s research on firearms and crime. Shooting the bastards in California may result in a greater economic cost to the homeowner than just letting them have the house, what with defense lawyers’ fee, bail, and so on.

        It’s a nasty problem, with TPTB unintentionally encouraging nasty solutions.

        1. I think what he meant was never pull your firearm with the intention of ONLY scaring. Be prepared to shoot at the center of mass of the home invader multiple times. If they run off, or give themselves up, great, so much the better. No hazmat cleanup, no trial and no death on your conscience. But if you aren’t prepared to kill the intruder IF NECESSARY, then you shouldn’t own a gun.

          1. “I think what he meant was never pull your firearm with the intention of ONLY scaring.”

            Oh that I can agree with. I’m just quibbling with the idea that if a firearm is deployed defensively, it’s inevitable that someone is getting shot. Most of the time, that isn’t true.

            But yeah, it isn’t a talisman. It won’t stop bad people solely by existing. Even if you wave it around. If you carry, have in your mind the idea that you might have to use it, God forbid, be prepared for that situation, and commit to stopping the threat and prevailing.

            1. “You are no more armed because you have a gun than you are a concert musician because you have a piano” — Jeff Cooper

        2. I thought it was obvious but as bearOdinson says, dont wave your gun around hoping to scare people without being prepared to shoot to kill.

          Otherwise, that is how people get their guns taken from them and pistol whipped or worse.

    3. So what are we supposed to do? Send in regular cops. Just like we did for centuries before SWAT was invented. And just like most every other jurisdiction still does.

      Nobody here is defending the squatters. But the fact that they were in the wrong does not automatically make the decision of over-escalate to SWAT right.

      1. SWAT was originally intended to deal with those rare occasions with well armed bad guys who took hostages. It was never intended for no-knock warrants and to move squatters.
        That was why in the early days ONLY big cities had a SWAT team. And even then, they had 1 or two teams of guys.
        Now every “Palookaville” has a SWAT team. And they have to justify why they have it, so they will use it every chance they get.

        In this particular case, it happened in Oakland. So it is probably justified for Oakland to have a SWAT team. And I have no sympathy for squatters. If it ain’t yours, IT AIN’T YOURS!
        But, there is absolutely no reason to use the SWAT team and a Bearcat.

        If cops were such heroes, they would be willing to do these kinds of things the old fashioned way.
        With a night stick and some elbow grease!

        1. So the problem is not the violent response, but that the violent responders were dressed scary and a bunch of them showed up?

          SWAT is just better equipped police, we’re upset that they brought the good toys with them?

          There’s also an element of this that is about sending a message. Pull the same stunt these bums did and you’re not getting a citation from Officer Friendly, you’re getting armored vehicles and flashbangs. These “activists” had been playing this game on this property for a while, I don’t have an issue with going all in and ending the game. They had their fun, time’s up.

      2. “…But the fact that they were in the wrong does not automatically make the decision of over-escalate to SWAT right.”

        You are competent to make that call exactly how?

  3. no dogs were harmed in the filming of this scene.

    1. The west coast just doesn’t know how to handle this stuff, Dillinger. What they should have done is had the state police drop an explosive device on the roof…

      1. nothing spells authority like a city block on fire.

      2. This was in Oakland.
        A satchel charge on the roof would hardly be noticed.

  4. “Kelly says that he may bill Wedgewood for the raid, which cost tens of thousands of dollars to execute.”

    Whoa! You pay taxes to Government Almighty already, now you have to pay MORE for “special services” like this? Can I do this job for myself? Can I hire the Mafia, or a private army, to do it for less money? Or are we stuck paying Government Almighty TWICE for this, PLUS all these inflated costs for tanks and field artillery and what-not, vast overkill? I bet that the Mafia could do it for MUCH cheaper for me!

    1. How about they bill the assholes who were barricaded in the house for the raid? They are the ones who caused the situation.

      And yes, the guy who is the victim paid his taxes and shouldn’t have to pay again to get the services he already paid for.

      1. Wait wtf, they’re thinking of billing the homeowner? For what? They did everything they were able to do legally and peacefully before finally resorting to the police.

        This is literally why we have police, if they don’t do this kind of thing for “free” why are we paying taxes?

        1. Asset Forfeiture programs got cut.

          How else are the cops supposed to pay for gas for the “tanks” and Bearcat?

          1. Don’t they get that stuff free from the feds? That’s why every little village and town across the country has their own SWAT team with matching Bearcat. Obama had stopped the program but Trump started it up again.

        2. SQRLSY One had some incisive and valid comments.

          I guess we should be grateful that cops in California are responding to “mere” property crimes.

          But what’s next – sending homeowners the bill for capturing burglars and restoring the homeowners’ stolen property?

          Capturing jewel thieves and then keeping the jewels until the true owners pay ransom to the police department?

      2. As they won’t have money, perhaps organ harvesting the squatters could cover the costs associated.

        1. I see you too are an admirer of the chinese XD

    2. I noticed that too, fuck that.

  5. What a picture! Is that a helmet on the hood in front of the driver? I can’t imagine it would stay there for long if the vehicle were actually moving. I’d also guess that the bare heads would be no-nos if they were really going to bust a bunch of homeless mothers. Who knows, there might be dogs to shoot and infants to flash-bang.

    1. That picture is a joke. There isn’t even anyone in the driver’s seat.

    2. “”They came in like an Army for mothers and babies,” Dominique Walker, a leader at Moms 4 Housing, said. “We have the right to housing. This is just the beginning.”””

      Fuck this woman. She thinks her right to have housing usurps your property rights.

      1. Of course only one of those rights actually exists.

      2. I wonder how she would feel if someone came in to her squat and moved her belongings out to the garage, claiming they, too, have a right to housing

        1. How about some incels claiming that sexual satisfaction is a human right?

      3. She’s also 100% lying about the babies thing – they knew the cops were coming and sent the children away before they got there. This was a publicity stunt for the activist group.

      4. I wonder how she would feel if, in about ten years, an incel claimed to have the right to use her teenage daughter’s vagina.

      5. Leftists frame violations of others’ rights as requirements of their own.

  6. . . . supplied with tanks . . .

    Binion, it wasn’t a tank. It was an armored personnel carrier. Those are no more tanks than Ar-15 is a machine gun.

    And if you read this and think ‘well, that doesn’t really matter, its not the point’ then you are in the same position as gun-banners who don’t know the difference between the two rifles.

    1. You can’t expect him to correct every misrepresentation in the provided press release, can you?

      Shit, that would take some effort.

    2. Glad someone pointed that out. 3 things are needed to make a “tank”. Turret, tracks and armor.

      More lies from Reason.

      1. Turret, tracks, and armor are not what make a tank a tank. If they were then an M2 would be a tank. Its an IFV.

        Turret, tracks, and armor are the things that allow tanks to do the things tanks do – they do not define a tank however.

        A tank – more specifically a main battle tank – is a vehicle that exists to destroy other tanks. Heavy armor and a big-arse gun are common today. But you could put missiles on one instead. You could use an active protection system and forgo the armor. Doing so you could make it light enough to be able to use wheels.

        1. A vehicle that exists to destroy tanks is called a tank destroyer.

          A “tank” is an AFV designed for front-line combat.

        2. “Turret, tracks, and armor are the things that allow tanks to do the things tanks do – they do not define a tank however.”

          That is contradictory. Features are the basis for a definition.

          The first sentence for Wiki “Tank” article-
          “A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat. Tanks have heavy firepower, strong armour, and good battlefield manoeuvrability provided by tracks and a powerful engine; usually their main armament is mounted in a turret.”

          The wiki probably qualified turrets as “usually” because there are a few exceptions. The one that come to mind is the original British MK1 used in WWI. The male has sponsons and the female only MG’s. You might be able to get away with calling some APCs/ AFVs rubber tired tanks. The abuse of the word “Tank” is so common it is now common knowledge, much like how the word “shrapnel” is always used when “splinters” would be more accurate.

      2. I think in competence is far more likely than dishonesty. When was the last time you heard of a journalist who had any idea what a tank actually was?

  7. Kelly says that he may bill Wedgewood for the raid, which cost tens of thousands of dollars to execute.

    Nice racket. You’re not allowed to arrange to evict people yourself – you *must* use the police and then they’ll charge you for it on top of the taxes you’re paying.

    1. Exactly. This kind of thing encourages vigilante justice.

      I bet a shotgun and some ammo is far cheaper than whatever the police end up charging for the work. I don’t think California would want to encourage people to do that math and draw conclusions about how to handle their squatter problem.

      1. There’s a guy in my town who’s trying to organize an armed militia to go “deal” with the homeless problem. He doesn’t have any joiners, yet . . .

        1. If we’re going to import Latin America, why not all of their culture, including death squads? Get your Jeep Cherokees now, before demand rises.

          What will happen, and may indeed be already happening, is that a quiet, small group of people will show up in the middle of the night, and these problems will just ‘disappear.’ Not much noise, no drama, no police involvement, just a van loaded with a few bundles, headed to the wilderness or anywhere some problems can be dumped where no one will find them. A boat might be useful.

  8. “A SWAT team supplied with tanks “…… This guy wouldn’t know a tank if it bit him in the butt.

  9. Perhaps the owner should have just put up a fence with no gate and waited for them to starve to death?

    1. Guarantee you they had outside support that would toss food to them if needed.

    2. If a homeless person owns one tool, it’s a pair of heavy-duty wire cutters.

  10. “Kelly says that he may bill Wedgewood for the raid, which cost tens of thousands of dollars to execute.”

    Oh Great. Will they also bill homeowners, who have been burglarized, to cover the cost of showing up at the crime scene? I mean, assuming the cops show up at all.

  11. 1) it wasn’t a tank, get a clue
    2) if Reason is really libertarian – and I get the feeling they only mouth the words – then the property owner was completely in the right to want those people out.

    1. The article is not hammering the property owner.

      Its hammering the police for using excessive force (YMMV on whether or not it was excessive).

      1. And how much force is excessive?

        Any force sufficient to remove them, I imagine.

  12. Kelly justified the approach to the eviction, telling the Fox affiliate that projectiles were hurled at the officers

    Bottles of HIV-laden breast milk?

  13. “We feared for our lives. Those diapers were loaded.”

  14. According to SFist, Walker, a 34-year-old single mother, moved into the residence after leaving Mississippi and returning to Oakland, where she is from, only to find that the housing prices had drastically increased.

    Ok. So you just up and moved without knowing anything about the housing costs or even a job lined up? Right.

    1. Those are things that people who don’t have a right to housing have to worry about. Since she has a right to housing, no worries, she can just set up wherever the fuck she feels like, no planning required.

  15. They violated the NAP. Be thankful that Wedgewood and the state exercised caution. In Libertopia they could have carpet bombed the house, deployed their private child soldier army to raze the residence, or called the McSecret Police on them, which most likely would have ended in summary execution as Grand Leader Ronald McDonald is known to be especially ruthless with those who disregard private property rights. If only they had upgraded their legal representation from bronze level to silver, brought to you by Sierra Mist.

    1. In Libertopia they could have carpet bombed the house, deployed their private child soldier army to raze the residence, or called the McSecret Police on them, which most likely would have ended in summary execution

      No – in Libertopia we would use a neutron bomb so as not to damage the property. No one in Libertopia is going to close a factory down long enough to form an army of child-soldiers.

      1. Those monocles won’t manufacture themselves.

  16. I don’t see a tank. The vehicle in the picture is NOT a tank.

    What other “facts” did the author not check?

    1. It’s a stock photo.

    2. The vehicle in the picture is, however, a Bearcat – one of the other vehicles mentioned as being used in the article.

    3. There was no tank; hyperbole by the squatters, their PR firm (taxpayer-funded, I’m sure), or Billy.

  17. Nazis or communists.

    I’m having a hard time picking a side on this one.

    1. It’s not hypocritical to pick your battles.

    2. It’s possible to have both sides lose.
      Cthulhu 2020!

    3. What’s “Nazi” about removing burglars from a home that they happen to be in? Especially when it’s done in a way to prevent violence by the criminals, and without harming them?

  18. The squatters are no different than incels.

    1. They have kids, so they’re different in at least one respect.

  19. Kelly says that he may bill Wedgewood for the raid, which cost tens of thousands of dollars to execute.

    Private police force!

  20. I had to evict a tenant from rental property I owned in CA during the 1980’s. It was the ugliest thing I ever went through. Took me months to get it to court, and after I proved they hadn’t paid me for months the judge ‘took it under advisement’ and said he would mail the judgement. The bastard in effect gave them another six weeks in my house.
    And of course, it was trashed thoroughly in the meanwhile.

    1. My parents had some rental properties in VA when I was in high school. Most of their tenants were fine. They only had one evil tenant, but that was enough for me to keep my money anywhere but in real estate.

      Stocks go up and down, but you don’t have to paint them and they don’t have any plumbing to break.

      -jcr

    2. Be glad that after they trashed it, they didn’t call in a city inspector to declare the place not fit for habitation and have you ordered to fix the place up before you proceed with the eviction process.

  21. One day Reason’s telling us about a guy getting 12 years in jail for not having his cell phone confiscated while he was being booked on a misdemeanor, and I am outraged.

    The next day, they’re telling me about this, and I am outraged again. At Reason, for being stupid enough to publish this article.

  22. I am stunned that someone was evicted in California.

    1. In OAKLAND, California, especially.

  23. Illegally squatting, alternatively, is not a solution that will yield long-term gains for those who most need affordable housing.

    Comrade Bernie will fix this as soon as he declares squatting to no longer be illegal but to in fact be a human right. I would call dibs on Bernie’s lake house, but I imagine you’d never get the old man smell out when the old man in question is a commie who doesn’t believe in deodorant and probably bathes on a biannual basis.

  24. Went to the Twitter account.

    What part of ‘you don’t have the right to trespass on private property’ don’t you get? Love how they use the children to emotionally try and justify breaking the law.

    Of course, the evils of ‘gentrification’ has to be used.

    https://twitter.com/moms4housing/status/1217541264641413120

    1. This nonsense is so disingenuous. These women have every opportunity to get on welfare and get other public benefits that will support them enough to have a place to live. Sorry but that doesn’t mean ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE PLACES IN AMERICA.

      Go live in Stockton on public welfare you’ll be fine. Even if you believe that the country owes you a house and food and school and vaccinations and every other freaking thing for free, it doesn’t mean they owe you a house in OAKLAND.

      1. And these women aren’t even Oakland. they moved here to squat! wtf how can this even be an issue?

  25. For what it’s worth:

    https://twitter.com/RickPaulas/status/1217477595987660805

    Fair enough….but they still broke the law by all accounts.

    Ok. I’ll stop two-centing about stuff I don’t know enough about.

    1. Vice.com was all you needed to say, Rufus.

      Ad hominem dismissal of their views, but I really don’t care. Reading drivel like, “In between, they changed the conversation about housing, capitalism, and homelessness,” is enough to clue me in that the piece is going to be a leftist, personal-responsibility dodging pile of shit.

  26. I haven’t read everybody’s comments so maybe this has already been said. I’m kind of mixed on this story. I can’t stand the SWAT thing AT ALL, and I can’t stand what is obviously theft in the name of “direct action”. The Bay Area has brought this on themselves. But it would have been WAY better if the squatters had tried to occupy Oakland City Hall or another publicly-owned facility. They could lay some claim to a public building, after all, but stealing from private owners is absolutely unacceptable. And wouldn’t all of us have loved to see battering rams, tanks and armored bearcats ramming down the doors of, say, the local EPA office?

  27. Maybe a full swat response was not justified in this case, it’s hard to say. But “tanks”? Seriously? No state/local/federal law enforcement agency in this country has a TANK. A tank is a tracked military vehicle armed with a large gun. What the police probably had is some kind of armored personnel carrier, something that can withstand being fired upon and protecting the occupants.

  28. Se where’s the picture of the “tanks”?
    And it was necessary to use a mechanized battering ram to force the door as it was reinforced and barred in such a manner that it was virtually proof against any lesser measures.
    These weren’t just “squatters and trespassers”. Ss&Ts don’t generally “fort up” in the manner that these radical activists had.
    They were there to ~force~ a police confrontation and they got it.

  29. “According to SFist, Walker, a 34-year-old single mother, moved into the residence after leaving Mississippi and returning to Oakland, where she is from, only to find that the housing prices had drastically increased.”

    Note this woman is claiming a “right” to a house IN THE MOST EXPENSIVE MARKET IN THE US!
    She was in Mississippi, and I’m sure could have found affordable housing there or somewhere in the south, but claims to have been surprised to learn housing in the bay are had become more expensive, and still claims a “right” to a free home here.
    This woman is full of shit.

  30. Save the community thousands and use tear gas instead. Open up some boarded up windows and fire a half dozen in there. The squatters will come out.

  31. So by Walker’s logic, it would be OK for some guys to come by and stick their dicks in her pussy, since it was vacant and not being used. And those poor guys could not afford the local prices for pussy rent.

  32. What is a “Right”? There’s a five word definition of what is a “Right”.

    https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/just-right-anyway-5-word-test/

    No, housing is not a Right.

  33. “marginally housed mothers”

    Meaning: They have housing, they just prefer taking someone else’s.

  34. “ But those activists did not comply. Kelly says that he may bill Wedgewood for the raid, which cost tens of thousands of dollars to execute.”

    Is it common in California to bill the victim for enforcing the law?

  35. Well, socialists California is becoming more like socialists Venezuela so expect more of this.

  36. I love this kind of crap – shows the cops for what they really are, and generates the hate that’s needed to deal with the fuckers. Stop catering to them and start treating them like the lawless scum they are.

    1. Spookk
      January.15.2020 at 9:57 pm
      “I love this kind of crap – shows the cops for what they really are, and generates the hate that’s needed to deal with the fuckers. Stop catering to them and start treating them like the lawless scum they are.”

      All for the squatters, are you, you lefty piece of shit?
      Fuck off, slaver.

Please to post comments