Dang it, one little slip of the finger and nice long response is wiped out.  So here's the short reply:

first quote - they are possibly guilty and possibly innocent.  Our justice system assumes they are innocent until proved to be guilty.  In this case, many were proved to be guilty, and handed down their rightful punishment.  The system works.

People such as you in your ideological fervor wanted to pull out the torches and pitchforks at the moment, throw away the rule of law, just because the accused wore police officer uniforms.  They were police officers, they are guilty, no need to investigate.

Now lets look at the report:

When Internal Affairs conducts an administrative investigation, it is determining if the alleged conduct violated an OPD policy. The penalty for violating a policy would be a disciplinary action ranging from a reprimand, to suspension, to termination of employment.

The most common sustained finding is that officers did not properly activate their video recorder, as required. Others include excessive force, improper supervision or command, failure to accept a complaint, refusing to provide names when required, and false reporting. Cases that resulted in a sustained finding for excessive force were also referred to the Criminal Investigation Division for possible criminal prosecution.

I know you would like to believe every incident of reprimand to be directly related to excessive force, which would make your case they are all thugs, that is not the case.  I've never claimed there are no thugs on the Oakland PD, or any police department payroll.  Nor have I said they shouldn't pay the price for being thugs.

Now I assume since you linked the report, you take its findings as valid. 

So:
From the actions taken on 10/25, 25 of the 34 cases have been closed.  The findings:  15 sustained (means it was determined the act occurred and did violate a policy), 24 not sustained (means the investigation was unable to prove or disprove the allegation based on a preponderance of evidence, which is the standard of proof for administrative investigations.), 22 unfounded (means it was determined the act did not occur), and 61 exonerated (means the investigation determined the act occurred but was within policy).

From the 11/2 actions, the score was 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

And from 1/28 action, the score was 26, 55, 6 and 36. 

What can be drawn from this?

There are some thugs within the OPD.  They need to be dealt with. And when appropriate, criminal charges need to be handed down.

Not all of the OPD are thugs.  In fact, when we look at the stats, we could conclude that the majority are not, since there were, in each case, more exonerated than sustained.

Regarding the second quote - I still stand by my belief it is not acceptable to throw bottles and rocks.  You may think this acceptable protest behavior, but I don't.  That this makes the thugs in the police force rise to the occassion doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable, but it still exonerate the protesters in my book.

Yes, the guy with anger management issues who breaks the jaw of the asshole in the bar  provoking him should be charged with physical assault.  But the asshole has no one to blame but himself for provoking him for no justifiable reason.  Throwing bottles and rocks serves no purpose, except maybe to release some anger about one's daddy not loving one enough so long ago.

Q, you don't want to jump in on this?