Most violent crime happens between individuals who know each other. Despite statistics showing this, an unreasonable fear about urban violence exists among those who are not involved in circumstances that would most likely lead to violence. Women, especially, have been fed the fear of being ambushed and raped by the stranger in the parking garage or looming in the bushes. And in almost every case, these fears of assault-by-stranger are unfounded. Women are most likely to experience an attempted assault, assault, or worse, at the hands of someone with whom they have had an intimate relationship.

The exception to this is women who are homeless.

According tot he Plan to End Homelessness, “Homeless women experience sexual assault approximately 20 times more than women in general.”

Even those who are not engaging in prostitution find themselves at a higher risk than the housed population.

The recent accusations of an attempted rape (or sexual assault, or unwanted groping, depending on whose story you believe) at Turning Point Park will be blamed by many on anti-establishment liberals. There is a question of how culpable activists are in this, but given the nature of the Occupy Wall Street movement, factoring homelessness into the equation complicates matters.

Demanding responsibility from corporations and from the government — does that in itself encourage crime to occur?

Creating an encampment which attracts those struggling with often undiagnosed and untreated mental illnesses, however, does seem to provide a breeding ground for trouble. It provides a service by offering shelter for those who had less previously, but it also means having a concentration of people who are self-medicating with drugs.

We know that drug use is prevalent in the suburbs and among those who are housed, but having means in the first place allows such behavior to take place out of the public eye and often affects the user, his friends and family, and his job. He is not likely to be using in public, around strangers.

From the beginning, Occupy Hartford has posted signage declaring the site to be drug and alcohol-free, though at some point, “alcohol-free” changed to reflect that what was unwanted was drunken belligerence. There have have social workers and health professionals on site trying to steer those with substance abuse issues into more appropriate spaces — like shelters and treatment programs.

Yet, without buy-in from all involved in the movement, how effective can such attempts at intervention be?

At what point does one admit that the model of protest being used is causing more harm than good for some?

Reports vary, but all hint that, at minimum, unwanted touching of one person took place at the site while others, who were using drugs, stood by and watched and/or did nothing. One story is that the incident involved aggressive, unwanted kissing. Another report is that the incident was an attempted rape.

The official statement says that the group responded by having the aggressor leave the site; he has apparently been banned from returning. Is this response strong enough? How will activists prevent him from remaining on site if he turns up again? How does this stop him from doing the same to others in the community, and by community, I mean to those who reside in Hartford year-round?

In October, a man with no certain address was arrested for threatening/showing (depending on who you ask) a knife on another person camping at the Occupy Hartford site. The incident was played up by local media, but played down by every person involved in Occupy Hartford who was willing to speak with me.

The truth must be somewhere in the middle– between an industry that knows dramatic implosion grabs eyeballs, and those who want, so earnestly, for this movement to succeed.

Unwanted sexual advances, attempted assaults, and threats can occur anywhere. How a community responds to such incidents is where the outrage comes in.

When asked for clarification about the details of the incident, I received no comment.

But an official statement — as official as anything from a group that shirks leadership — was posted on its website and on its Facebook page:

This statement has not been met with silence by those at the camp, or those who had sympathized with the movement. Within 24 hours, over 50 comments were posted in response, some of which were removed by Occupiers. A selection of responses (left on their public Facebook page) can be seen below:

In their statement, Occupy Hartford claims to have been respecting the wishes of the assaulted woman by not reporting the incident, yet it appears activists also sought to protect the movement from unwanted scrutiny. Instead of taking the high road to acknowledge the incident and even connect-the-dots between what struggles homeless individuals face daily and the social conditions that lead to homelessness, it appears that they, at least initially, took the cover up route, not unlike what Penn State — albeit with fewer victims involved — has been scrutinized for doing.

Police were informed of the sexual assault via an anonymous tip from someone at Heaven, a skatepark in downtown Hartford.

As if this painful event were not enough controversy for the activists to contend with, a separate group, Occupy Heaven has formed. In various email exchanges between current and past Occupiers, there has been concern expressed about how this new group does not seem to recognize how attempting to set up camp at the skatepark can create friction in the community.

An email exchange between defectors from Occupy Hartford includes this statement about why the Occupy Heaven contingent “left” Turning Point Park:

Occupy Heaven, however, denies that these events led to their decision to try to camp at Heaven:

None of this infighting, these conflicting accounts,  or the refusal to work within the community is new.

The divide that emerged in the early stages of Occupy Hartford seems to be growing instead of dissipating. There are those who believe in anarchist principles, and those who downplay their race, class, and gender privilege but fail to adequately blend. Those in the latter group have taken leadership roles, determined how conversations would take place, and even been deferred to by others in the group. One was recently assigned as the spokesman for an event that he did not bother to show up to, at least not in the first hour of the two hour rally.

The folks are not all happy campers.

Those staying at the site feel like others involved are trying to make decisions for them. One woman, pointing to a sign of anarchist principles, exclaimed: “You do your crap. I do my crap. Don’t interfere with my crap.”

Before the Solidarity with Oakland action in early November, a male involved with Socialist Action was seen screaming in a grandmother’s face. As other activists intervened to defuse the situation, all he had to say for himself was that he was “just talking to her.”

What prompted all this?

The woman, who had camped for over a week at the site, had questioned one of the “leaderless movement’s” leader’s commitment to Occupy Hartford, saying that the “City of Hartford was more supportive” than he was.

She was by no means the first to do this.

The night before, at a nearby coffee shop, I spoke with a seasoned activist who felt there were some involved in Occupy Hartford who did not want the group to succeed. He noted that those acting in ways to potentially undermine the group share a background of economic privilege, coming from nice suburbs and having received (or are receiving) college educations.

Before the rally in solidarity with Occupy Oakland, there were remarks from another activist about how one of the leaders “sucks as facilitator” and “doesn’t seem like he wants this to succeed.”

There were heated conversations about even whether or not this rally should have been in the highly visible location of Turning Point Park, or by the Federal Building, which is a bit more tucked away. There was confusion among activists over which location was finally agreed upon, both before and during the action.

Even though the group had help winterizing their camp — these tents were likely warmer than the homes of people who lost electricity during the late-October snow storm — there were Occupy Hartford activists not sleeping on site who wanted it to be taken down. Those who have been staying overnight wanted to be able to do their own thing. One person who stayed during the snowstorm said “we had a blast.” Several activists I spoke with acknowledged that it was unlikely that Occupiers would camp for the entire winter, but implied that when and how they drop the camping component should be up to those who have been staying there.

The actual occupation is not the only place where things have frayed. Some have decided to have the General Assembly meetings off-site, despite there being “way more people at Turning Point Park,” as one of the Occupiers told me. This decision was driven, sources say, by those not camping.

In low voices, activists spoke about one of the leaders, who has been in the habit of taking home equipment that “belonged to the site,” thus limiting access by campers to it. A month later, I would hear concerns that others were stealing money.

The laundry list of petty complaints, alongside serious concerns, points to a movement that can not get out of its own way.

Stay tuned for “Occupy Hartford: Post Mortem.”