For more than three-and-a-half hours, supporters and foes of Oakland’s proposed gang injunctions went toe-to-toe, head-to-head and sometimes, mano-a-mano to argue their positions on the civil action, which could render a 450-square block of the Fruitvale ‘hood a "safety zone" replete with anti-gang provision.

The committee got underway about 5:30 p.m., and didn’t let up until almost 9:30 Tuesday. That was a lot of standing around time. But though there was a lot of technical and legal mumbo-jumbo tossed around there weren’t too many dull moments.

“The subject of the gang injunctions is something that evokes very strong feelings both for and against," began Council Chairwoman Pat Kernighan. She might have been stating the obvious, but someone had to do it.

Rocio Fierro: Injunction is meaningful tool for the Oakland Police Department

That followed with a statement by Rocio Fierro, the Latina attorney on the prosecution side. Fierro played up her La Raza credentials, then moved to her talking points.

The injunction, she said, is a meaningful tool for the Oakland Police Department. In fact, she opined, it’s comparable to a restraining order against an abusive domestic violence offender. By definition, she said, “gangs and street gangs commit crimes." The injunctions, if enforced, could “protect lives of bystanders and gang members themselves.”

Fierro went on to run down the list of what the gang injunctions would do: limit illegal guns and drugs; stop assaults and robberies; prevent recruitment of younger gang members; and create a curfew. Her reasoning for the reasons gang injunctions are needed seemed logical.

“There is no constitutional right to gather and commit crimes,” she said.

OPD: Injunctions part of our vision for Oakland

Next up to bat, representing OPD, was Assistant Chief Jordan. The actual chief, Anthony Batts, was out of town on vacation, but his second-in-command was more than ready to drop a dime on crime. The gang injunctions, he said, were part of OPD’s “vision” for Oakland.

“Reducing violent crime goes to the heart of that vision,” he said.

Jordan mentioned all the things the OPD are involved with as part of their crime-reduction strategy, from their elementary school program to the street outreach program to the statewide Gang Prevention Network. He didn’t mention that one of the latter organization’s top criminologists was an expert witness for the defense against gang injunctions, instead he outlined OPD’s enforcement strategy, of which he saw gang injunctions as lining up just behind hotspot enforcement and prosecuting violent criminals.

He then read a statement from Chief Batts in absentia: “To the community, we say we are listening and we are responding. To the gang members, we say we are watching and we know what you’ve done.”

That right there might have been OPD’s finest moment in many a month.

For a minute, it seemed possible to forget the corruption scandals, abuse and brutality cases, instances of dysfunctional command, community distrust and budget issues plaguing OPD. The reality of what OPD is, as opposed to the ideal of Batts’ shining altruism, just didn’t seem all that important, for some reason.

More testimony followed, from District Commander Lt. Freddy Hamilton and 12-year gang unit veteran Lt. Fred Mestas, who described gang activity in the injunction zones. Most of the violence, Mestas concluded, was senseless.

“Gang members go through each others’ neighborhoods, literally looking for people to shoot,” Mestas said.

Ignacio de la Fuente has his say

The first public speaker wasn’t a member of the public at all, but City Councilman Ignacio de la Fuente, who represents the Fruitvale district.

De la Fuente explained how he lived “right in the epicenter” of gang activity. Going for the emotional jugular, the Latino politician played a voice mail from an elderly Fruitvale woman who was suspicious of her own family members’ possible criminal activities.

“My family will kill me,” she said. “But I don’t care anymore.”

The De la Fuente voice mail proved a perfect ending for the first act of this courtroom drama.

Act Two: Michael Siegel and those against the injunction speak

Act Two began with Michael Siegel. The civil rights lawyer had lined up a bunch of speakers in opposition to the injunctions. Siegel stood in front of them like a shepherd, before leading them to the podium.

Sagnicthe Salazar provided the first sound-bite worthy moment for the anti-gang injunction contingent. Salazar, an organizer for Youth Together, talked about the things that go through a Chicano’s mind when seeing a cop: harassment, profiling, fear of deportation.

“Our communities need solutions that work. Our communities need accountability,” Salazar said. “If you want to avoid violence, give our people jobs."

Siegel followed, questioning the 70 John Does included on the injunction, and the criteria for determining who is and isn’t a gang member.

“Anybody’s presence in one of these zones gets you halfway to being a gang member,” he said. The injunctions, he added, affect not just the 40 people on the list, but Fruitvale’s 40,000 residents. And, he suggested, the California Correctional Officers Association backs the injunctions because they think they will result in more jobs for prison guards.

“It’s up to City Council to decide if this is bad policy,” he concluded.

By this time, a line of people, both pro-injunction and anti-injunction, reached from the chamber floor out into the hallway.

Katrina Vigil, the wife of an accused Norteno, said the injunction is already having an effect on her family. In a halting voice choked with emotion, she related, “My son told me today, ‘I’m embarrassed to be Mexican because only Mexicans do bad things.'”

Nancy Muller told the committee how she had been the victim of a robbery and home invasion by a gang member.

“We’ve got to do something so that innocent people can walk down the street at night,” she said.

David Hernandez, one of the 40 names on the injunction, contrasted her account by saying he had been kidnapped at gunpoint and held for 18 hours by a gang named OPD.

“If OPD were trusted and respected by the community,” said Esteban Cuaya,” I would not be here, none of these people would be here.”

But Pat Revelis, a 35-year Fruitvale resident, mentioned the need to “take a strong stand against crime.” In Oakland, she said, “If we have 100 murders a year, we think we’re doing good, doing better.”

George Galvis mentioned how, as a teenager, he identified as a Norteno, but has dedicated the last 17 years of his life working for change. If de la Fuente was serious about public safety, he said, looking around for the Councilman (who had already left the hearing), “maybe his son wouldn’t be in prison. Maybe he should stop drinking and driving” – a reference to the Councilman’s recent DUI arrest.

And so it went. Iris Winocard of Adams Point related how, though the injunction “doesn’t affect our neighborhood directly,” she knows Fruitvale folks who “live in daily fear of the Nortenos gang.”

But alleged Norteno Michael Muskadine had a different take.

“I’m just surprised why I’m on the list,” he said. His last arrest, he said, had been five years ago. Since then, he added, “my only offense is I’m on probation.”

Muskadine said he often works late and likes to go to the gym after work – which would be a violation of the curfew if the safety zone is enforced.

“I only got a few more months,” he said, before he’s off parole and out of the system. His concern was being displaced.

“If this does pass, where am I supposed to go?”

An issue with many sides

Yet while Muskadine’s testimony seemed poignant, it was no less so than that of Josie Walls, who said she supports the injunctions in the memory of Ricardo Cortes, a 14-year-old mistakenly shot for being a gang member.

One of the most dramatic moments came during the comments of OUSD board member Noel Gallo. In an Al Pacino moment, he turned to face not the committee, but the audience, making sweeping hand gestures as if he was delivering a closing argument.

“We’re talking about defending individuals who have chosen to break the law,” he said, explaining why he supports the injunctions.

Duncan Essex, a recent addition to the Fruitvale, talked about Oakland’s public image – a concern to prospective employers in the corporate world.

“If you really want jobs, you’ve got to create a better impression,” he insisted. “If you look at the figures, it’s the gangs who do the profiling … it’s ridiculous to think you can apply the racial profiling to the police.”

Scott Peterson, of the Chamber of Commerce, echoed Essex’ remarks.

“Trying to keep businesses in Oakland is a major problem because of public safety,” Peterson said.

However, Cesar Cruz, of the Homies Empowerment Program, talked about the availability of guns and cocaine and the relative unavailability of books.

“We don’t have a single youth center in the so-called safety zone,” he lamented. Soberly, he recalled, “I’ve buried six students this year. I don’t go to many graduations … . We are tired of gangs. Let’s start with OPD.”

Volunteer political activist Max Allstadt told the committee he was “troubled by all the polarizing rhetoric in this room” – which was undeniable.

Also undeniable: The gang injunctions have divided Oakland along economic and class lines. Race plays a part as well, although both supporters and opponents of the injunctions come in every color – Latino, white, African American, Asian.

At least two African-American speakers appeared at the podium accompanied by Caucasians to emphasize this point, including Wilson Riles, who referenced the California Gang Prevention Network’s recommendation, of a “need to transcend a fear-based super-predator strategy.” His own daughter, he said, had been kidnapped and raped.

“I’m against crime like everyone else. But this doesn’t work,” he insisted.

“I’ve listened to all these arguments,” said one of the last speakers, South Berkeley resident Sam Herbert. “We’ve gotta deal with the reality that there’s violent crime done by the same people,” she said.

Oakland City Council shared their views as well

Once the public comments were over, the committee members had their turn.

Councilwoman Nadel said her biggest fear wasn’t gang activity, but “cocaine-using investment bankers who threw a coup and came to power while we are scrapping over crumbs and have nothing to offer out residents.” She indicated she would vote against the injunctions, as did Rebecca Kaplan.

Larry Reid, meanwhile, declined to make any public comments.

Kaplan quizzed Fierro on questions of authority, criminal history, inclusion of unnamed individuals and confusion over the injunctions being referred to as gang injunctions before any proof of active gang membership had been established.

“It seems to me,” she said, “that’s part of where the breakdown of the rhetoric is coming from.”

Council Chairwoman Kernighan had the final word. Noting the city spent millions of dollars on youth programs, affordable housing and violence prevention, her belief is that “we do need both law enforcement and positive opportunities.”

For that reason, she said, “I’m willing to have this go forward.” Kernighan suggested an evaluation after a year, before enjoining any further injunctions.

Despite all the heated emotion displayed by both sides, it was unclear whether any of it made any difference in the final result.

Hearings, meetings and discussion continue.