Police forces clash outside Towers

| More

By Liz Navratil / News Editor

published: Wed, 30 Sep, 2009

Police scanner recordings from Friday night indicate a scene of confusion and confrontation in which Pitt police resisted other officers’ attempts to enter Towers Lobby.

“Stand back. That’s not happening ... We have jurisdiction on campus,” a Pitt police officer said over the radio.

Within two minutes, non-University officers had moved in front of Towers. Someone issued an order to “assemble attack team at the door.”

Eleven seconds later, a high-ranking Pitt police official was walking up to Towers to stop the non-University officers.

Earlier in the night, Pitt police and non-University police had argued over whether to enter University property, where students were present.

“Pitt doesn’t want us to make entry, so we’re gonna hold out here,” one non-University officer said. “If they come out, we’re gonna arrest them.”

Pitt police continued to resist the other officers’ attempts to enter Towers Lobby, but non-University officers persisted.

“They’re trespassers, we need to sort out that ASAP,” one non-University officer said.

The two sides were fairly united at the beginning of the night. Both Pitt police officers and non-University officers thought a protester ran across campus and was headed toward Towers Lobby.

They even agreed that they thought the protester was going to pull the fire alarm in Towers, causing thousands of people to evacuate the buildings and head toward the streets.

Pitt police arrested a protester on the other side of Towers, but non-University officers missed that announcement. Under the assumption that the protester was inside, they pushed for access to the dorms.

The result was a seven-minute argument, which ended when a Pitt police official came to the dorms.

Pitt police Chief Tim Delaney declined to give the name of the “high-ranking” officer who resolved the situation because the city is still investigating police actions.

But he did say, “I admire the guys for standing up — the Pitt officer. I would love to let the students know ... that I didn’t feel we abandoned the kids.”

City police spokeswoman Diane Richard did not return requests for comment.

Comments

by Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 9:41pm

Assault on Pitt Students

It's encouraging to read the Pitt Police tried to protect Pitt students. Bless them for their courage! I'm also encouraged that Pitt students are holding a peaceful gathering and call to action: the police need to explain their assault on Pitt students who were completely innocent bystandards or afflicted with normal curiosity that led them to venture outside. I watched the video footage and have a pretty good idea of what happened that night. My message to Pitt students: please hold your ground. "The characteristic of heroism is persistency" (Emerson). Our democracy will only survive if people like you take a stand against unnecessary reliance on police force.

I want to be clear: we must respect good police officers. I will be surprised if we discover that Pittsburgh police led the assault against Pitt students, in their own dorms. I like to think that Pittsburgh police would also protect Pitt students. We shall see...

by Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 7:36am

Pitt Accessory to Crime????

As a parent of a Pitt student, I am totally embarrassed by the actions of the so called "Pitt high official". Reading this and several other articles, it seems that the University of Pittsburgh not only allows their students to break the law, but they encourage it. This so called High Official was ignorant and only caused more problems for police officers in an already hostile environment. I was confident that my daughter was safe attending the University of Pittsburgh, with their large police department, including their own SERT department, but seeing that the High Officials make these kind of decisions leaves me questioning the safety of my daughter. The Chief states that he was on the sides of the students? What about the students who stayed in their dorms or left when police officers announced for them to leave only to have criminals rush through their buildings. I am not a police officer, but when there are thousands of "protestors" or demonstrators, it would be impossible to determine who is a student and who is not. Next time a crime is committed in Oakland I will inform my daughter and her friends to run outside, because the High Officials of the Pitt Police Dept have encouraged criminials to hide in their buildings and nothing will happen to them. WAKE UP CHIEF!!! You have a lot of students to protect, not just the ones who decide to break the law!!!! What a true disappointment in Chief Delaney. Instead of praising this "high ranking official", they should be put on leave and maybe given a desk job because making a quick decision in a hostile environment is not something he is good at.

by Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 9:51pm

Pitt Accessory to Crime????

It looks like you have misunderstood the article and misinterpreted the facts. I am a mother of college students and your misinterpretation makes me feel less safe. You might hear bits of information and draw the wrong conclusions about other people's children. You already portray campus police, Pitt leadership, and students who were victimized by police in a false light and that constitutes defamation.

by Carlos Ruiz (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 12:56pm

are you serious?

you should've sent your kid to college in Burma or Libya. then you'd be happy

oh, and the distinction so many are eager to draw b/w protesters and non-protesters shows a troubling disregard for the first amendment

by Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 1:26pm

I would have been happier if

I would have been happier if the police were allowed to protect those students who chose to either not protest or disburse when told to (as my daughter chose to do). I have no problem with standing up for what you believe in. However, the same laws that give us the Freedom of Speech also gives us laws to follow. I find it funny how those standing behind the "Freedom of Speech" are stepping on the laws that allow us to have those freedoms.

by Carlos Ruiz (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 2:08pm

Please explain that one

How are laws designed to subvert First Amendment rights actually protecting them?

The notion that only those who were granted permits have the right to assembly or expression is antithetical to what this country is supposed to be about. Though most of the founding fathers were slaveowning patrician scumbags, they were certainly progressive as far as protecting the right to dissent.

The charges against Pitt students will evaporate in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, those arrested during the occupation--and that's precisely what it was, make no mistake--of working class neighborhoods elsewhere in the city will be left to fight spurious charges after the media moves on to the next salacious trainwreck.

Perhaps one positive will emerge from this, in that some children of relative privilege will realize that the obscene police presence was not designed to protect the people of this city, but to insulate ruling elites from them.

by From someone who was there. (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 12:43pm

Hey, Parent ...

you've been confused by the article about the series events that took place that Friday night. The non-Pitt police were attempting (and succeeding) in arresting innocent students inside/around their own dorms, particularly Litchfield Towers. The "high ranking official" was protecting "your daughter" from being wrongfully arrested, not to mention prohibiting martial law that the non-Pitt police instigated that night on campus. The official remained loyal to the responsibility of the Pitt police by protecting those who are living on campus. In a confusing atmosphere, he was to keen to recognize the inappropriateness of the non Pitt police, and had the audacity to stop them. It is clear why this official is already "high ranking," and if anything, he should be rewarded for his boldness.

by Student (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 12:26pm

I hope you're joking..

First of all, if you were actually IN OAKLAND at the time, you would certainly change your turn. Also, if your daughter were really in her dorm room, then she was safe. Towers lobby is just that..a LOBBY. No one can enter the towers themselves (or any other dorm for that matter) without proper university ID. Get your facts straight before bashing one of the only officers that actually cared about protecting students and our campus not only from protesters but from visiting police.

by Pitt Student (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 12:21pm

Pitt Police Support Students

I think you missed the line in this article that says "Pitt police arrested a protester on the other side of Towers, but non-University officers missed that announcement. Under the assumption that the protester was inside, they pushed for access to the dorms."

Pitt Police did their duty in arresting the protestor. If the protestor had entered the building I am positive that the Pitt Police would have taken care of it. The Pitt police did not watch a protestor enter the building and then gaurd that person from arrest. They arrested the protestor and then gaurded the students who were inside from the non-pitt police who were on a rampage.

I am glad that you are taking an active role in what happens on your Pitt student's campus, but you were not there and are not reading the details properly.

I felt unsafe because of the non-pitt police who were pretty clear in their actions and words that no place you stood, on the sidewalk, on your residence hall balcony etc, was safe. Considering the campus locked residence hall doors, this left no place for students to go.

Think of it this way, you're on your front porch watching a mob of intense police in tactical war decor on the street. You're taking pictures on your cell phone and suddenly they try to push you off your own porch, then they tell you you have to go inside, but your door is locked. You're stuck, on your own property, a peaceful observer, and then you're arrested and/or tear gassed/shot with rubber bulllets.

I am glad the Pitt police tried to make boundaries between what was the student's property and what was public. Quite honestly we should be commending the Pitt-police, and berating the chancellor who didn't think it necessary to take preparative action and remove students from campus during the summit (hey, Duquesne did it and everything was smooth, because students were safe, away from harm (by police or protestors)).

When you parade thousands of poilce wearing comabt gear reminiscent of your favorite video game around the campus, you are niave to think large portion of college students won't try to get a closer look. I even spoke with adults who work in the area who came out on to the streets to get a closer look themselves.

Thank you Pitt police for trying to make some boundaries to protect us students from the over-excited, underinformed, mostly non-pittsburgh native, police force. Oh yeah, and from those 20 or so protestors.

by Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 12:46am

Police scanner recording from the night of Sept 25, 2009 YOUTUBE

Police scanner recording from the night of September 25, 2009

(MUST SEE!!!!!)

(condensed & captioned)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5qhquzewJ8

by Anonymouse (not verified) | Thu, 10/15/2009 - 10:28am

wtf!?

VIDEO w/ police scanner recordings of "police riot" at University of Pittsburgh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-cxHC_JU8o

by Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 4:52pm

attack team

They probably didnt say "attack team" they probably said a TAC team as in tactical team.

by asdf (not verified) | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 2:42pm

Thanks for the information.

Thanks for the information. Let me get this straight..... I can now commit a crime, hopefully any crime, get to private property, such as my house. Once I am in my house, I am safe and immune from ANY Police action, because my house is my private property. WOW!! You learn something new every day!!! I can't wait to try that one out!!!! HAHAHA

by Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 2:48pm

Wrong.

The issue here is that University of Pittsburgh police have jurisdiction on campus property.

I don't even know how to argue with you because I don't know how you could have come to the conclusion that you did by reading the article.

by Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 3:45pm

I understand that... and

I understand that... and Pittsburgh Police don't? Ok, so if I'm a student, who just committed a crime and The City Police are chasing me, all I have to do is get to a University owned building and they're not allowed to chase me into it......... The University is in Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Police have jurisdiction also.

by Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 1:09pm

I understand that ... AND ....

Ok, so if i'm a student, and i go outside for a cigarette, and The City Police are chasing me, all i have to do is ...wait. why are The City police chasing me?

by Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 12:17pm

whathappenedatpitt

http://www.whathappenedatpitt.com/forum/

by Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 9:53am

This is incredibly sweet to

This is incredibly sweet to hear about. I admire the U.Pitt police for attempting to stand up against the invasion of non-Pitt police. Most of the students (some of whom are my personal friends) felt extremely unsafe even in their own dorms during this incident. It's great to know that at least the uni's police did attempt to calm the situation down.

by Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 3:31am