Patrick Gonzales

Patrick Gonzales11

Deadly Secrets: What Calif. Residents Can’t Know About Police Misconduct- Ali Winston
Oakland police: Too quick to fire?-Thomas Peele
Sergeant Patrick Gonzales Confronted During National Day of Action (for Andy Lopez) – Oakland California
No Criminal Charges for OPD Officer (Patrick Gonzales)-Ali Winton
Patrick Gonzales1

Officer Involved Shootings
Lovelle Mixon
Aged 26, Black, Male
Incident date: 03/21/2009
Alledgedly armed with: Rifle
Status: Killed.
OPB ID: SH00190
Officers involved: Michael R Leite, Patrick M Gonzales

Gary King
Aged 19, Black, Male
Incident date: 09/20/2007
Alledgedly armed with: Handgun
Status: Killed.
OPB ID: SH00175
Officers involved: Patrick M Gonzales

Rollins Ameir
Aged 17, Black, Male
Incident date: 06/05/2006
Alledgedly armed with: Rifle
Status: Injured.
OPB ID: SH00162
Officers involved: Patrick M Gonzales

Joshua Russell
Aged 19, White, Male
Incident date: 03/27/2002
Alledgedly armed with: Firearm
Status: Killed.
OPB ID: SH00127
Officers involved: Patrick M Gonzales, Rudy P Villegas
Sgt. Patrick Gonzales

Plaintiff(s): Rashan Kountz
Date filed: 2009-11-09
Settlement paid by the city: $4,779,970.00
Plaintiff attorney: John L. Burris, Benjamin Nisenbaum, Gina N. Altomare, Julia Sherwin, Michael J. Haddad
OPB ID: SE00414
Oakland City Attorney file number: SS27508

US District Court case number: 09-cv-05316
Officers named: Evan Frazier, James Bassett, Patrick Gonzales, Rochard E Holton, Shane Tarum
Case Summary
Alleges unconstitutional search by Oakland Police Department officers. Settled along with 16 other similar cases for an umbrella sum of $4.6 million, with the city paying an additional sum of $179,970 for plaintiffs’ attorney fees.

Plaintiff(s): Ashante Simpson, Gary King Jr., Catherine King, Gary King Sr., Boevi Lawson-Helle
Date filed: 2008-05-09
Settlement paid by the city: $1,500,000.00
Plaintiff attorney: Michael Haddad
OPB ID: SE00360
Oakland City Attorney file number: 26139

US District Court case number: 08-cv-02394
Officers named: Patrick M Gonzales
Case Summary
Fatally shot Gary King Jr., 20, in the back; family disputes OPD’s account of the incident.

Plaintiff(s): Ameir Rollins
Date filed: 2006-11-20
Settlement paid by the city: $100,000.00
Plaintiff attorney: David I Kelvin
OPB ID: SE00352
Oakland City Attorney file number: 25466

Alameda County Superior Court case number: RG06298877
Officers named: Patrick M Gonzales
Case Summary
Allegedly assaulted and battered plaintiff: Gonzales shot plaintiff, rendering him permanently quadriplegic.
Plaintiff(s): Ramona Ford, Angelina Ford
Date filed: 2003-07-15
Settlement paid by the city: $2,387,962.00
Plaintiff attorney: Unknown
OPB ID: SE00294
Oakland City Attorney file number: 23333

US District Court case number: 03-cv-03304
Officers named: Allan M Steinberger, Bruce A Worden, Chanelle J Del Rosario, Christopher M Saunders, David A Kozicki, Douglas E Campbell, Frank L Uu, Gary L Tolleson, Jack S Doolittle, James R Fisher, Lawrence J Low, Michael W Nichelini, Patrick M Gonzales, Roberto Gutierrez, Rodney W Yee, Roland A Holmgren, William C Wallace Jr.
Case Summary
Allegedly violated plaintiffs’ civil rights including: engaging in unreasonable seizure; violating Fourteenth Amendment through maltreatment; unreasonable and unlawful force on a discriminatory basis; assault and battery, intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Case involved officers allegedly aiming wooden dowels, bean-bag guns, rubber bullets and other projectiles at plaintiffs, causing injury.

Portions of this content were taken from

Could This Oakland Police Accident Have Been Avoided?


On Saturday April 12, 2K14, at around 1pm, Officer Peterson of the Oakland Police Department drove through an intersection at San Pablo near 17th streets causing a vehicle collision that led to him driving his cruiser head on into a building.

According to witnesses the officer was driving at fast speeds with lights and sirens activated when the accident occurred.

Screen shot 2014-04-13 at 1.05.23 PM

What is unclear is whether a “code three” (lights and sirens) was an appropriate way to be driving through downtown Oakland at that moment in time.


At around 12:45pm there was a non fatal shooting on 16th and Linden in West Oakland as well as an alleged simulated robbery in the downtown area.

By just after 1pm the Linden Street shooting was under control and medical was on site, and officers on Broadway had detained an individual associated to the “simulated robbery” claim, and that they were “code 4″ (which is short for things are ok).


If there was no need to be driving fast, this accident could very well have been avoided. Peterson was transported to the hospital bleeding from his head. Luckily no civilians were injured in this accident.

Note: according to witnesses, the “simulated robbery” was not a robbery but an verbal exchange that stemmed from a dispute where one individual asked for a cigarette from another.

Victory In Scott Olsen Case

Screen shot 2014-03-21 at 6.41.47 AM

$4.5 Million Tentative Settlement Reached In Scott Olsen’s Lawsuit for “Less Lethal” Shooting by Oakland Police

The City of Oakland has agreed to pay Scott Olsen $4.5 million to compensate him for devastating brain injuries he suffered when an Oakland Police officer shot him in the head with a “less lethal” munition on October 25, 2011, during a demonstration in support of Occupy Oakland. The lead filled “bean bag” round, fired from a 12 gauge shotgun, shattered Mr. Olsen’s skull and permanently destroyed part of his brain. The settlement in Olsen v. City of Oakland, 3:12-cv-06333, is pending final approval by the Oakland City Council. Mr. Olsen was represented by attorneys Jim Chanin, Rachel Lederman, and Julie Houk.

“After serving two tours of duty as a United States Marine in Iraq, Scott Olsen could never have imagined that he would be shot in the head by an Oakland Police officer while he was peacefully exercising his First Amendment rights in support of the budding “Occupy” economic justice movement,” said Rachel Lederman. “Scott was 24 years old when the shooting and ensuing brain damage robbed him of what had been a promising career as a computer network and systems administrator.”

Jim Chanin said, “There was no dispute that Scott Olsen never posed a threat and was protesting peacefully. He was shot because OPD commanders decided to simultaneously use chemical agents to disperse the demonstrators and have officers shoot impact munitions at anyone who might be throwing something — even though this violated their own written policies. The obviously foreseeable result was that the officers shot people who were desperately trying to flee the scene, including Mr. Olsen.”

Screen shot 2014-03-21 at 6.44.50 AM

Mr. Olsen had only been at the demonstration for a matter of minutes before OPD commanders gave the order to use munitions on the assembled crowd. He was shot 18 seconds later. Lederman explained, “The commanders knew the teargas and flashbangs would cause people to panic and run, yet they elected to shoot SIM into the densely packed crowd and it is only a matter of luck that more people weren’t injured as severely as Scott Olsen or killed. If the police had done sufficient planning for the demonstration and followed their own Crowd Control Policy, the use of weapons could have entirely been avoided. After all, no other Bay Area city responded to Occupy with SIM or teargas and no other city has incurred the enormous costs that the people of Oakland have as a result.” “The cost is not only money,” added Olsen. “If people can’t speak out without fear of being shot we don’t really have democracy.”

After being shot, Mr. Olsen lay on the pavement critically injured and bleeding from the head, clearly visible very close to the line of police officers. When concerned protesters ran to his aid, OPD Officer Robert Roche threw a flashbang-like CS Blast grenade into their midst, causing them to scatter. The grenade exploded close enough to Mr. Olsen to burn his shoulder as he lay helpless. Civilians re-approached and persisted in carrying Mr. Olsen to safety, screaming for medical aid – but no law enforcement personnel responded or summoned medical attention even though their own policy requires them to provide medical aid to anyone hit with a SIM.

Screen shot 2014-03-21 at 6.41.47 AM

In an independent investigation commissioned by the City, former Baltimore Police Chief Tom Frazier found that “the fact that no law enforcement officer, supervisor, or commander observed the person falling down or prostrate in the street during the confrontation was unsettling and not believable.”

Mr. Olsen said that he is unable to return to his high tech career. “In the hospital, I had to learn how to talk all over again. Part of my brain isn’t working anymore. It’s not like something I really want to talk about all the time. I relive it every day.“

“This is the same police department that shot longshoremen and protesters with so-called less lethal munitions during a peaceful antiwar picket at the Port of Oakland in 2003,” explained Chanin. “At that time, the City and Police agreed to stop these practices and adopted a model policy for constitutional policing of demonstrations.” “But as soon as they had some more large protests,” said Lederman, “OPD scrapped that agreement and repeated the same mistakes. Scott Olsen’s is the worst of the injuries that resulted from that and I wish I could say it will be the last but that remains to be seen.”

In July, 2013, the Oakland City Council approved a $1,170,000 settlement in a civil rights lawsuit brought by Rachel Lederman, Jim Chanin, and other attorneys on behalf of journalist Scott Campbell and 11 other persons, Campbell et al v. City of Oakland, 3:11-cv-5498. A separate lawsuit, Sabeghi v. City of Oakland, 3:12-cv-6057, was resolved in December, 2013, for $645,000.

As part of the Campbell settlement and a companion $1,025,000 settlement in Spalding v. City of Oakland, 3:11-cv-2867, regarding unlawful mass arrests of protesters, the City and OPD again agreed to abide by the negotiated Crowd Control Policy and gave U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson the power to enforce compliance with the policy for up to seven years.

However, according to Lederman, “OPD has refused to get rid of so-called “less lethal” weapons such as CS Blast grenades and lead shot filled beanbags, and until they do so, it is only a matter of time before we see another tragedy.”

More Copwatchers! Less Cops w Cameras!


Police Cameras- Quick Fix for Police Misconduct, or Counter- Surveillance Tool?
by Rachel Lederman, Chapter President National Lawyers Guild - S.F. Bay Area & Jacob Crawford, Legal Worker & Copwatcher

“S.F. officers scandal shows need for wearable video cameras,” proclaimed a March 1 Chronicle editorial on the recent indictments of SFPD officers for drug dealing, theft and corruption. After all, the indictments were based in significant part on hotel surveillance video, and bystander videos have played a huge role in bringing police violence to public attention. Wouldn’t police misconduct be deterred if all cops had to wear body cameras?


Across the country, body cameras are being purchased by police departments in the name of transparency. According to a widely publicized study, Rialto, California, boasted an 88% drop in complaints in the first year after the cameras were introduced there, along with a 60% drop in police use of force. Rialto is a small city with only 66 cops, and its Police Chief, Tony Farrar, collaborated with Taser International, Inc., in the study. The Taser corporation has gained record profits by marketing body cameras to hundreds of cities, along with a cloud-based backup and search service called, which was used to collect the data for the Rialto study that led to many of these sales.

Even the study’s authors acknowledged that their methodology was flawed, because no evidence was collected from the members of the public who were also being videotaped by the wearable cameras to see how that influenced their behavior in relation to the police and their willingness to make complaints. Taser’s involvement should be a red flag to anyone who thinks these cameras are an easy tech fix for police accountability, as should the public’s inability to access the body cam video recordings.

The Oakland Police purchased PDRDs (Personal Digital Recording Devices) following the videotaped murder of Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009. Although Grant was murdered by a BART officer, there was fallout in the streets of Oakland against OPD, which has been unable to bring its police force under control despite its 2003 agreement to a federal court monitored consent decree. Oakland was one of the first agencies to implement PDRDs, so our experiences here should be instructive for those calling for PDRDs in other large urban areas where there is an entrenched police culture of racism and impunity.

PDRD video is treated as evidence first and foremost. This means that regardless of whether the video has captured illegal activity, or is being used in an investigation, it is not accessible to the general public – at least not without an attorney and a federal lawsuit, and even then, it may be difficult and take months or years to obtain the complete videos.

And like dashcam video, these chest mounted cameras have already shown themselves highly likely to malfunction during crucial incidents – or fall off, or be left behind or not turned on, despite policies which require officers to wear them and activate them during stops and other encounters.

For example, on October 25, 2011, when Scott Olsen was being shot in the head during OPD’s attack on Occupy Oakland, only one out of the eleven officers who were assigned PDRDs and who were wielding less lethal weapons wore and turned on his PDRD during the critical time. Other police surveillance video from that notorious day was withheld literally for years, even from the City’s own attorneys in ongoing federal civil rights litigation (and some of it seems to have disappeared permanently.) In another high profile Occupy related OPD fiasco, on January 28, 2012, multiple officers were documented by independent journalists with their PDRDs off at various times, despite orders mandating that the devices be activated during direct contact with the crowd.

In his most recent, January 2014, quarterly report, the court appointed Independent Monitor of the OPD found that “The matter of the proper use of the Department’s PDRDs remains a concern. In too many instances, there are questions about the measure to which personnel throughout the Department understand the use, review, and utility of these devices.” While there had been some improvement in the past six months over previous years, “recent assessments of force cases revealed several serious incidents in which officers – who were in a position to obtain evidence of the facts and circumstances surrounding the use of force – did not have or activate their PDRDs.”

Moreover, even when they are used, the chest cam doesn’t show close proximity physical encounters between an officer and victim, allowing the officer to supply his own narration, such as yelling “Stop resisting” while pummeling a person, or turning the camera on and stating that she smells marijuana or that he has just seen the person drop something that might be drugs, to justify a search, arrest or brutality. And officers are able to turn the cameras on and off at will, thus editing on the fly. Since, absent lawyers and major effort and expenditure, the videos, if they are preserved, are only accessible to the police and not the public, they effectively turn primarily into tools for the police to collect evidence against the public and combat the public’s videotaping of the police, by creating their videos from the law enforcement point of view videos. After all, as Taser claims in its marketing materials for the wearable cameras and content management software, “Testimony is interesting. Video is compelling.”

As with Tasers, which were marketed as a high tech method of reducing Officer Involved Shooting deaths, PDRDs are a mixed bag and not an easy solution to what are actually much broader issues of racism and state repression. If the cameras are to create greater police accountability, it is essential that the videos be made immediately accessible to the public – and that the public (including Copwatchers and NLG Legal Observers) continue our own independent documentation of law enforcement actions.

More Info Below. . .

Journalists Ali Winston and Jacob Crawford reported on Oakland Police not using their cameras back in 2012
A New Way To Punish Oakland Cops?

You can watch the video produced by Jacob Crawford
Oakland Police MisUsing their Cameras

Oakland Police have been forced to wear cameras since 2011. A new report (2012) shows the department is still plagued with the same problems that landed it in a decent decree back in January of 2003, and their cameras still aren’t being used according to their own policy. .
You can read the Warsaw report here. .

Sixteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department

You can read the “Rialto/Taser”Study here. . .

Rialto PDRD Study

Ghosts of March 21 (Documentary Premier)


THE GHOSTS OF MARCH 21 premiers this week in the Bay Area.

La Pena Cultural Center
3105 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley, CA


The Ghosts of March 21 Trailer from /CRONISTAS/ on Vimeo.

This interrogation of a day in the life of Oakland, California, is focused on March 21, 2009, when a shoot-out between a young man named Lovelle Mixon and members of the Oakland Police Department resulted in the death of Mixon himself and four Oakland police officers. Closely following the day’s events, this documentary examination of the encounter’s underlying contradictions challenges the mainstream narrative of the confrontation and in so doing, it sheds new light on the nature and reproduction of racism in the contemporary United States.


To date, the dominant narrative of the shoot-out, propagated by the Oakland Police Department, state officials and the media, has been that Lovelle Mixon was a monster and a rapist and the slain officers were angels and heroes. This perspective, viewed through a liberal lens and reliant on misleading labels, pretends the shoot-out occurred in a vacuum devoid of history and sociopolitical factors; producing an illusion that has re-enforced the status quo, suppressed critical thought, and ultimately, attempts to delegitimize the Black experience in America by rejecting the validity of the systemic factors at its root.

-/CRONISTAS/ Digital Media Collective and We Copwatch

Community Ronda Keeps Narco Concert out of Cheran


By Simón Sedillo

A “narco-corrido” concert by “El Komander” had been promoted to take place in Cherán, Michoacán at 3pm on December 15th, 2013. El Komander is known for singing about organized crime and in particular about the Gulf Cartel. Even though the Gulf Cartel isn’t active in the Purépecha plateau, where the community of Cherán is located, community members clarify that they are absolutely against any type of organized crime organization and the activities that revolve around them, including narco-corridos of any type.

Narco-corridos have become extremely popular among Mexican youth who have been consistently desensitized to narco-violence and corruption within the Mexican state. A variety of artists can be seen aligning themselves and their music with rivaling cartels through songs that tell real-life tales of the drug trade in Mexico.

On April 15th, 2011 the community of Cherán, Michoacán rose up against the local cartel that was taking control of their daily lives through murders, rapes, extortion, kidnapping, disappearances, charging protection money, the illegal exploitation of forests in the region and even cases of modern-day slavery. Members from the indigenous Purépecha community declared that local, state and even federal authorities were complicit with organized crime in the region and were no longer working in the interest of the community.

Community members declared their community “ungovernable” and they kicked out political parties, the mayor and local and state police from their community and have now returned to a traditional indigenous form of self governance, which includes general assemblies as the primary decision making process in the nearly 20,000-person community. A rotating traditional general council was elected by community members, and a traditional form of community self-defense was reinstated. The community “ronda” is now completely in charge of the community’s safety and security.

Since the traditional community ronda has been active, organized crime activity has dropped to almost nothing, however there is a consistent threat that cartels will try to make their way back into the community. This holiday season it seems that the organizers of “El Komander’s” concert were intent on taking advantage of holiday festivities to sneak this concert into town. It also seem like an attempt at testing the community’s firmness with regards to these types of events.

Community members and the traditional self-governance council told the event organizers that the concert would not be allowed to take place, despite promotions and ticket sales, which had already taken place. The community ronda set up a barricade as a sort of checkpoint just ahead of the concert location to detain concert goers, send them back on their way and to defend the community from any sort of reprisals that organized crime thugs may have attempted. With an overwhelming show of force, and the participation of members from the main government council and the justice and honor council, the community of Cherán was able to prevent the event from taking place. This is an extremely rare victory in the battle for hearts and minds within this supposed drug war.

This post is also available in: Spanish