#OccupyWallstreet

[cubby1223]

<snip>

Okay, if you want to get all super-legal, then everything you base your argument on is hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence.

 

[airdata]

Originally Posted by palehorse
Other than the strange private/public status of Zucotti Park during the first two months, have any of the other overnight OWS protests been "legal"?

Honestly curious.
Anyone?

Anyone?

Are we really nit picking about legality of assembling in public areas? Most people probably assume places like that are city owned.

What if the entire city was privately owned... would people be trespassing for walking down the street?

We've already done a head count in here and seen that there are plenty of people who are against curfew violations but pro pregnant woman beating.

 

[monovillage]

Are you a police officer, and do you prefer their exploits remain secret so as not to be criticized? Otherwise, why so serious? I don't recall having previous interactions with you and yet here you are unable to have a civil discussion...

Do you think it's appropriate to mark people without their consent? What has that got to do with whatever trumped up or exaggerated charges they were being arrested for?

I've been marked a few times with UV ink at concerts, bars and even a gun show. It's no big deal, it still washes off although it's persistent. I bet a random orbit sander or a belt sander would take it right off. Wait, those are tools and the debate if #Occupy primates are smart enough to actually be tool users hasn't been decided.

 

[airdata]

Okay, if you want to get all super-legal, then everything you base your argument on is hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence.

Why don't you reply to my post, instead of just doing whatever you're trying to do. It's really not hard.

UV marking without a persons consent. Do you agree or disagree with the tactic? Is it legal or is it illegal? Please post something with relevance to the thread or specific topic at hand. Not hard to do.

 

[palehorse]

Are we really nit picking about legality of assembling in public areas?

For the purpose of my question, absolutely.

Most people probably assume places like that are city owned.

What if the entire city was privately owned... would people be trespassing for walking down the street?

We've already done a head count in here and seen that there are plenty of people who are against curfew violations but pro pregnant woman beating.

I'm pretty sure my question was both honest AND required only a yes/no answer, or perhaps a simple list of those that were legal versus illegal.

Care to answer it directly and truthfully?

 

[cubby1223]

Why don't you reply to my post, instead of just doing whatever you're trying to do. It's really not hard.

UV marking without a persons consent. Do you agree or disagree with the tactic? Is it legal or is it illegal? Please post something with relevance to the thread or specific topic at hand. Not hard to do.

When you do something worthwhile with *your* time, then I and others will respond in a like manner.

As the evidence is presented, I believe they were stamped, not tattooed.

You are also ignoring the fact that they were arrested. They consented to being stamped just as much as they consented to being arrested.

There are a lot more details to work through before you even get to discussing your activist topic. So, no, you really are a waste of time.

 

[airdata]

I've been marked a few times with UV ink at concerts, bars and even a gun show. It's no big deal, it still washes off although it's persistent. I bet a random orbit sander or a belt sander would take it right off. Wait, those are tools and the debate if #Occupy primates are smart enough to actually be tool users hasn't been decided.

Thanks for even the slightest bit of serious reply in your post.

Are they arresting people for even the smallest violation and barring them from returning to the protest? And then using this as a means to identify people they've previously arrested?

I just expect the police to use more class and reasonable tactics. Honestly, if they ignored #occupy for a few weeks, people may lose interest all together.

But then when you have all of these beatings and pepper spray videos they just invigorate people and bring more people to the streets.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Constitution 101... you can't go around tattooing citizens of the united states like cattle.

Damn, are you really this ignorant? Last I checked people arrested in Canada are not covered by the US Constitution or laws.

When I was arrested at Occupy Montreal on the 25th of November 2011

 

[monovillage]

We all know what horrible thugs those Canadians are! eh?

 

[Patranus]

Where in the constitution is the government prohibited from doing so, crybaby? The government has all powers not specifically disallowed in the constitution, crybaby.

You have that reversed.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
These are your exact words child:

"You must have a permit to assemble, just like you need a permit to bear most types of arms. No right is violated if the assembly is illegal."

"Yes, but since they were illegally assembling, none of what you just claimed is valid."
​

I'm not in the least surprised you lack the integrity to acknowledge your exact words and the maturity to admit you were wrong ... yet again. ...

[ Infantile, off-topic duhversion deleted ... ]

sigh....

Karen Nikos, a UC Davis spokeswoman, said the campers were given written warning to remove the tents by 3 p.m. or police would remove them. She said many of the campers did take down their tents before police arrived.

Nikos said students who were arrested are accused of failure to disperse and lodging without permission of the owner, both misdemeanors.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/19/4066159/10-occupy-protesters-arrested.html#ixzz1exQvf7z8


TADA! They were there illegally. I expected you to know the obvious...but I suppose I have to spoon feed you what everyone else already knows.

How many strikeouts do you think you get? You asserted, and I quote yet again, "You must have a permit to assemble ..." There is nothing in that link supporting that. There is no mention whatsoever that any permits were needed or that the assembly itself was illegal. What was at issue was some students refusing to disperse when ordered to do so, and some students -- though only a subset of those protesting -- putting up tents.

In fact, according to the UC Davis Chancellor, that's what the campus police were initially told to do -- tell the students to take down the tents. Not to shut down the protest. On the contrary, the university has policies encouraging students to exercise their First Amendment rights to assemble and exercise free political speech. The UCD Quad is a public student space intended for such activities. As far as I can find, there is no permit required, and I found no reference anywhere to students failing to get a permit to demonstrate.

Where the students went overboard, in the eyes of the university, was erecting tents. UC Davis has a policy -- not a law, but a school policy -- prohibiting camping on the Quad. The campus police were told to have the students remove their tents, but to avoid violence. They failed. Further, the Chancellor stated that in light of the overreaction last week, she is reviewing that policy and may revise it to permit "camping" going forward.

Finally, to tie up one more loose end, it is now more clear that the campus police had not started arresting students when they pulled out the pepper spray. The police were taking down tents, a group of protestors sat down in front of them, the campus police took offense and started spraying. Students were arrested later, after the pepper spray assault. That puts the final nail in the excuse that the violence was justified by people resisting arrest. You can't resist arrest if nobody is trying to arrest you.

[ More infantile tripe deleted ... ]

Grow up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Other than the strange private/public status of Zucotti Park during the first two months, have any of the other overnight OWS protests been "legal"?

Honestly curious.

I understand the Occupy Des Moines group has been getting weekly camping permits for their park. I suspect that is fairly common, though obviously not universal, and they are subject to revocation if authorities get tired of them ... but only due to health concerns, of course.

I'd also say the UC Davis protestors fell into a gray area. They were violating a school policy by camping on the Quad, but apparently it wasn't inherently illegal. Presumably it became illegal once the university told them to leave and some refused. As mentioned in my previous post, the UC Davis Chancellor stated she is reviewing that policy and may permit camping in the future.

 

[Bowfinger]

Where in the constitution is the government prohibited from doing so, crybaby? The government has all powers not specifically disallowed in the constitution, crybaby.

Wow, you couldn't be more backwards if you tried. Please tell me you have no connection to law enforcement or the legal system ... or pretty much anything else connected with government for that matter.

 

[airdata]

For the purpose of my question, absolutely.

I'm pretty sure my question was both honest AND required only a yes/no answer, or perhaps a simple list of those that were legal versus illegal.
Care to answer it directly and truthfully?

Yes.

And passing curfews on the fly to mitigate peaceful protesters is shady and sad. Why is it that governing bodies and law enforcement are the ones taking to low ground all the time?

 

[spidey07]

Yes.

And passing curfews on the fly to mitigate peaceful protesters is shady and sad. Why is it that governing bodies and law enforcement are the ones taking to low ground all the time?

Blocking commerce, shipping and business, streets, trampling on the rights of others and their property, rape, etc are all taking the high ground in your opinion then?

 

[palehorse]

Yes.

And passing curfews on the fly to mitigate peaceful protesters is shady and sad. Why is it that governing bodies and law enforcement are the ones taking to low ground all the time?

Ok then... could you please list the overnight protests that were legal (regardless of the timeliness of the curfews)?

 

[airdata]

Ok then... could you please list the overnight protests that were legal (regardless of the timeliness of the curfews)?

<sarcasm>
Yeah, I actually have a list here.
Let me just list one all of the dozens or hundreds of #occupy protests from around the country. </sarcasm>

Many of the events have had permits... which in itself is ridiculous. Since when do you have to have a permit to protest? What if they deny your permit? Are you not allowed to protest?

 

[airdata]

Blocking commerce, shipping and business, streets, trampling on the rights of others and their property, rape, etc are all taking the high ground in your opinion then?

LOL
There you go w\ rape again...
Do you know how many people are out in the streets? And how many counts of rape are we talking about here? What kind of statistical percentage are we talking about here? Because they way you bring it up, you'd think it was a describable percentage.


Maybe there should be a separate forum for talking about actual issues being protested, and then have one for the people protesting them.

 

[palehorse]

Yeah, I actually have a list here.
Let me just list one all of the dozens or hundreds of #occupy protests from around the country.

Many of the events have had permits... which in itself is ridiculous. Since when do you have to have a permit to protest? What if they deny your permit? Are you not allowed to protest?

So, besides the rare or exceptional circumstances at Zucotti Park and UC Davis, you can't name any other overnight OWS protests that are/were legal?

EDIT: it sounds like the Occupy Des Moines protest may be legal (thanks Bow!)... any others?

In most U.S. locales, the right to assemble has been well regulated for quite some time... how could this possibly be news to you?

 

[spidey07]

LOL
There you go w\ rape again...
Do you know how many people are out in the streets? And how many counts of rape are we talking about here? What kind of statistical percentage are we talking about here? Because they way you bring it up, you'd think it was a describable percentage.


Maybe there should be a separate forum for talking about actual issues being protested, and then have one for the people protesting them.

How about interfering with a business, blocking streets and commerce and generally disregarding the rights of others? They are low lifes with zero respect for others property.

I mean, what the hell do people think occupy means? Their entire movement is based on occupying that which is not theirs. Do you not hear their chants, read the signs? Communism's basic premise is the abolition of private property and it's inherent rights.

 

[palehorse]

Maybe there should be a separate forum for talking about actual issues being protested, and then have one for the people protesting them.

Protester characteristics provide the context for any protest -- you cannot separate the two.

Example: Local soccer moms protesting in support of unlicensed daycare services versus a local chapter of NAMBLA doing the same.

Context and character are everything.

 

[airdata]

So, besides the rare or exceptional circumstances at Zucotti Park and UC Davis, you can't name any other overnight OWS protests that are/were legal?

In most U.S. locales, the right to assemble has been well regulated for quite some time... how could this possibly be news to you?

To me, the right to assemble has no exceptions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it say between the hours of 6am and 10pm, or specify a location where the assembly is deemed appropriate.

Also, enacting curfews on the fly to combat protests is a blatant violation of the first amendment which is clearly posted above.

But sure... lets let criminals in the government and wallstreet get away with crimes that send out entire country into a recession. Let's let them walk, and worry more about protesters who set out to the streets without researching where they were allowed to assemble and what hours they were allowed to assemble.


PH, you seem like one of the more reasonable people who oppose #occupy, but just barely.

 

[palehorse]

To me, the right to assemble has no exceptions.

To me, the right to carry a concealed handgun has no exceptions.

Maybe we can meet in jail?

Nowhere does it say between the hours of 6am and 10pm, or specify a location where the assembly is deemed appropriate.

Also, enacting curfews on the fly to combat protests is a blatant violation of the first amendment which is clearly posted above.

But sure... lets let criminals in the government and wallstreet get away with crimes that send out entire country into a recession. Let's let them walk, and worry more about protesters who set out to the streets without researching where they were allowed to assemble and what hours they were allowed to assemble.

I get it. You are advocating civil disobedience. (ie. Breaking the law on purpose in order to expose wrongs and/or effect change).

My point is to provide context for the entire discussion moving forward -- you must begin by admitting and accepting that the vast majority of the protesters are, by their mere presence, breaking the law.

The second step is to also accept that there will likely be bad consequences -- sometimes severe -- for ignoring and breaking the law.

Redirecting your efforts to focus on those EXPECTED consequences will not help bring people to your cause... it's actually a pretty big step backward.

PH, you seem like one of the more reasonable people who oppose #occupy, but just barely.

I'm not here to make friends, but thank you... I think?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't think there are many who oppose what OWS is protesting just the fact they feel like should be treated special (ie above the law). As well as they feel their rights trump all others.

Civil disobedience is fine to a certain point however, once the order to cease and desist has been given they should disperse or be prepared to pay the consequences of their actions.

 

[HendrixFan]

I'm positive those workers feel differently.

Your statements sound an awful lot like "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette," as though the low-level workers are expendable? For the greater good (aka "bigger picture"), right?

Yes an no. I'm talking about moving forward, and there will be some tough medicine in the meantime. You have to understand that the quality of life our country has enjoyed over the last 30 years has been propped up by tens of trillions of dollars in public and private debt. The boomer generation that is retiring leaves this enormous debt load as their legacy.

Not only will the following generations have to pay back that debt, with interest, but they will also not be able to prop up their own lives with such an enormous debt. Consumerism helped drive the reckless debt spending, and financial institutions helped push one bubble after another to fan the flames and take their cut of the pie. As it all comes crashing down, there will indeed be people who suffer it. Hopefully it won't be a burden that only those on the bottom carry.