#OccupyWallstreet

[GarfieldtheCat]

Fixed it for you.


Just becuase you do not like what the federal statute says does not magically change what it says. It is pretty clear, considering it is a federal statute (some of which are quire convoluted).

It is about Bank Robbery and the items done during committing one. No where in it does it mention the requirement for there to be violence. You claim there MUST be violence, but the law does not have that same requirement.


Tell you what, show me the part in the law which says there must be violence and I will concede that you are correct. If you cannot, then you must concede I am correct. Sound good?

Just quote the portion of the law which says violence is required. Should be simple, since you say it is in there.


EDIT: I also never claimed anything about a sidewalk...that is a different discussion. This one is about you claiming the federal law says something it does not say.

So you refuse to answer the question about this diversion? Typical. Woolfe and Jhnn pointed everything out to you, may I suggest you reread their posts until the light bulb comes on?

So again, what does bank robbery have to with pepperspraying of peaceful protesters? This is the OWS thread, not the robbery thread. (hint: it doesn't it's a diversion since no one can really justify the pepperspraying, but you can't admit that)

Are you pj? this account started right around the time he got banned. When you know you are so bad as to be banned on a forum like this, why do you come back for more abuse? Everyone knows you are a lying troll, since you got banned. Why create a new account? Is it masochism?

 

[Jhhnn]

It means crimes which happen during the bank robbery. You know the entire PURPOSE of the statute.

You can continue to say the statute covering bank robberies does not actually cover bank robberies if you like. You can continue to say the statute which does not require any violence to happen does require violence to happen if you like. You can continue to be wrong.

You saying the statute is wrong does not magically change federal law...you are not a supreme court judge, no matter how much you think the law itself is wrong.

It's not smart to dig yourself into a hole quite so deep.

"Violence or threat of violence" is the operable phrase, which I referenced in my initial comment wrt your "peaceful bank robbery" faux pas. Actual violence does not need to occur but rather threat of violence, which can be subtle. A person who says "this is a robbery" threatens violence, because that's part of what defines robbery, threat or performance of violence. A person who offers the impression that they have a gun in their coat pocket while giving the teller a note demanding money threatens violence. A person who claims to have a gun or bomb while demanding money threatens violence. A person who displays a firearm or bomb like device to the teller while demanding money threatens violence. So forth and so on. They all threaten use of force, violence, which differentiates robbery from larceny. It's in the statute you cited earlier.

This isn't hard stuff- it's just hard when you try to defend an inaccurate assertion as if your life depended on it.

OTOH, a woman wearing shorts, flipflops & halter top, no purse, no nothing else who puts both hands on the counter & offers the teller a note saying "My kids are hungry, please give me some money" probably isn't a robber, but rather a beggar... but she'll likely be arrested anyway, with law & order, compassionate conservatism, values & the terrorist threat of OWS being what they are. Can't be too careful, after all...

 

[cybrsage]

So you refuse to answer the question about this diversion? Typical. Woolfe and Jhnn pointed everything out to you, may I suggest you reread their posts until the light bulb comes on?

About what diversion?

So again, what does bank robbery have to with pepperspraying of peaceful protesters? This is the OWS thread, not the robbery thread. (hint: it doesn't it's a diversion since no one can really justify the pepperspraying, but you can't admit that)

I am not the one who brought it up. I simply showed that the law does not require any violence to be committed in order for there to be a bank robbery.

I am sorry if you do not like the law. I suggest you write Congress and tell them to add it into the law. Once it is added, you will be correct.

Are you pj? this account started right around the time he got banned. When you know you are so bad as to be banned on a forum like this, why do you come back for more abuse? Everyone knows you are a lying troll, since you got banned. Why create a new account? Is it masochism?

Blah blah blah. No, I am not a banned member returning. Even the mods do not believe this (we talked about it due to people like you claiming everyone they do not agree with is some banned member returning).

You can drop that diverse now.

 

[monovillage]

It is so ironic you being so clueless you don't even know what you are arguing about. Reading is so difficult for you?

For several pages, myself and others have pointed out it was wrong to pepperspray the UCDavis protesters. In your infinite trollness and ignorance, you jumped in claiming it was OK, and that other OWS protesters were violent. So why don't you learn to read?

Again, your claim that pepperspraying UCD is OK somehow by claiming other OWS protest sites were violent is total bullshit. That is simple fact. Sorry if you cannot or will not understand that, but it is a simple fact. Again ,learn to read.

What part of my post about UC Davis did you miss? The part where they broke multiple laws or the part where they linked arms and resisted arrest? If they had not linked arms, they would not have been sprayed. I said it was legal you clown, let me know when you see those police in Davis get convicted for a crime as opposed to the criminals they sprayed and then arrested.

 

[cybrsage]

It's not smart to dig yourself into a hole quite so deep.

"Violence or threat of violence" is the operable phrase, which I referenced in my initial comment wrt your "peaceful bank robbery" faux pas. Actual violence does not need to occur but rather threat of violence, which can be subtle.

Well yes, when you ignore the other hundred or so words you are correct. Of course, they are still there.

A person who says "this is a robbery" threatens violence, because that's part of what defines robbery, threat or performance of violence.

A person who hands a note which says "Put all the 100s in a bag" both did not say anything and never mentioned the word robbery. I already posted several notes which made no mention of robbery and no mention of weapons or violence.

A person who offers the impression that they have a gun in their coat pocket while giving the teller a note demanding money threatens violence.

Therefor a person who does not do this is not threatening violence.

A person who claims to have a gun or bomb while demanding money threatens violence.

Therefor a person who does not do this is not threatening violence.

A person who displays a firearm or bomb like device to the teller while demanding money threatens violence.

Therefor a person who does not do this is not threatening violence.

So forth and so on. They all threaten use of force, violence, which differentiates robbery from larceny. It's in the statute you cited earlier.

Therefor a person who does not do these things is not threatening violence. They are still robbing the bank.

This isn't hard stuff- it's just hard when you try to defend an inaccurate assertion as if your life depended on it.

I know, yet you keep doing it anyway.

OTOH, a woman wearing shorts, flipflops & halter top, no purse, no nothing else who puts both hands on the counter & offers the teller a note saying "My kids are hungry, please give me some money" probably isn't a robber, but rather a beggar... but she'll likely be arrested anyway, with law & order, compassionate conservatism, values & the terrorist threat of OWS being what they are. Can't be too careful, after all...

Please is a request. If they say no and she walks away she did not attempt to rob the bank. However, if she walks up to the counter and says "give me some money", she is attempting to rob the bank.

Would she be prosecuted? That is for the legal system to decide. Someone trying to take money from a bank that does not belong to them is a bank robber. Success in the theft does not matter.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

More news from the sweetheart #Occupy people.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/25/BAK41M4FV0.DTL

"Two dozen Occupy protesters began marching around downtown at sundown, chanting protest slogans. They'd hoped to make their anti-consumption point at the annual Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Union Square, but the crowd was so massive they couldn't get near."

Trying to stop a Christmas tree lighting ceremony? Fail.

I hear they coordinated the entire "anti-consumerist" march using iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks. They then piled into their parents' SUVs and headed downtown...

They even blocked the Apple store...

 

[blankslate]

They even blocked the Apple store...

Blocking the Mac store huh? That should be a positive in anyone's book.

 

[monovillage]

They even blocked the Apple store...

"There was no trouble at the tree lighting ceremony. Once it was over, the occupiers went back to blocking store entrances, like the Apple store on Stockton Street where they used their bodies and even a little shoving to keep shoppers from getting in. "

Everyone knows that blocking people and a little shoving aren't real violence.

 

[spidey07]

"There was no trouble at the tree lighting ceremony. Once it was over, the occupiers went back to blocking store entrances, like the Apple store on Stockton Street where they used their bodies and even a little shoving to keep shoppers from getting in. "

Everyone knows that blocking people and a little shoving aren't real violence.

So they're pissed because of no jobs, so they block consumerism which is the driver of jobs? Does not compute or they are so stupid they don't understand they're doing the exact opposite of what they want. Did the chant "our store!"?

How many times does proof they have zero respect for other's property does one need. Remember, the abolition of private property is one of the founding tenants of communism.

Blocking the entrance? Arrest them for trespass, that is highly illegal and violates the store owners rights.

 

[alanarrow]

If you would like to help to get bankers prosecuted visit this site

http://www.indiegogo.com/Prosecute-the-Bankers?I=adr

 

[cubby1223]

So they're pissed because of no jobs, so they block consumerism which is the driver of jobs? Does not compute or they are so stupid they don't understand they're doing the exact opposite of what they want. Did the chant "our store!"?

How many times does proof they have zero respect for other's property does one need. Remember, the abolition of private property is one of the founding tenants of communism.

Blocking the entrance? Arrest them for trespass, that is highly illegal and violates the store owners rights.

That's the thing - these "protestors" when you get down to the nitty-gritty, do *not* care about other people. And everyone who is not caught up in the drug that is "I hate the 1%", see this pretty clearly.

It's an "us versus them" mentality, and anyone who is anyone knows that situations almost never can be reduced down into such simplistic terms.

 

[cybrsage]

If you would like to help to get bankers prosecuted visit this site

http://www.indiegogo.com/Prosecute-the-Bankers?I=adr

What crime do you want to prosecute them for committing?

 

[cubby1223]

So you refuse to answer the question about this diversion? Typical. Woolfe and Jhnn pointed everything out to you, may I suggest you reread their posts until the light bulb comes on?

So again, what does bank robbery have to with pepperspraying of peaceful protesters? This is the OWS thread, not the robbery thread. (hint: it doesn't it's a diversion since no one can really justify the pepperspraying, but you can't admit that)

Are you pj? this account started right around the time he got banned. When you know you are so bad as to be banned on a forum like this, why do you come back for more abuse? Everyone knows you are a lying troll, since you got banned. Why create a new account? Is it masochism?

*sigh*

You were the one who had to lie in order to make your first point on this subject:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32608869&postcount=4057

Your whole position is based on lies. You lied when you wrote "the police skipped everything and went straight to pepper-spray." Maybe one day you'll wake up and realize that the world does not revolve around you? My guess is not.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What part of my post about UC Davis did you miss? The part where they broke multiple laws or the part where they linked arms and resisted arrest? If they had not linked arms, they would not have been sprayed. I said it was legal you clown, let me know when you see those police in Davis get convicted for a crime as opposed to the criminals they sprayed and then arrested.

So much for reading comprehension and logic. And still waiting on that explanation what bank robbing has to do with blocking a sidewalk.

But continue to rant away, if it makes you feel better.

 

[monovillage]

So much for reading comprehension and logic. And still waiting on that explanation what bank robbing has to do with blocking a sidewalk.

But continue to rant away, if it makes you feel better.

They're both crimes! yes, yes! I win.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

*sigh*

You were the one who had to lie in order to make your first point on this subject:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32608869&postcount=4057

Your whole position is based on lies. You lied when you wrote "the police skipped everything and went straight to pepper-spray." Maybe one day you'll wake up and realize that the world does not revolve around you? My guess is not.

Really? I guess monotroll never wrote this several pages ago to start this:

Yes, you just peacefully file into the bank, peacefully go behind the counter, peacefully open the cash drawer, peacefully remove the money and then peacefully leave the bank. There's nothing the police can do as long as you do it peacefully. Unless they're stormtroopers who spray you with toxic chemicals and violently throw you to the hard ground copping a feel as they do.

Obviously attempting to either distract from the original point, or trying to make some sort of false equivalence. Either way, he and one other troll brought up the peaceful robbery BS as as smokescreen. Clear now?

Again, this robbery issue has nothing to do with pepperspraying peaceful protesters. Nothing. Do you disagree? He was trolling, and doesn't even know what he is talking about anyway.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

They're both crimes! yes, yes! I win.

A dunce cap, yes, you win that. Grats.

 

[cybrsage]

The issue is that the protestors were not being peaceful. The rule of thumb (ie, rules created for the police by the police) on the use of pepper spray is that it should not be used unless the person resisting arrest is actively resisting. Passive resistence does not warrant said use.

Since at least two of the protestors were actively resisting (caught doing so on film), then those in the immediate area were allowed to be sprayed.

But again, having the legal right to do something does not make it right to do that thing. Just like with the victory mosque in NYC, the right thing to do is to not follow through with what you have the legal right to do.

Sometimes, right is not right.

 

[monovillage]

A dunce cap, yes, you win that. Grats.

You seem to be angry that I think that protesters that break the law should be treated as if breaking the law is a bad thing.

 

[Throckmorton]

So they're pissed because of no jobs, so they block consumerism which is the driver of jobs? Does not compute or they are so stupid they don't understand they're doing the exact opposite of what they want. Did the chant "our store!"?

How many times does proof they have zero respect for other's property does one need. Remember, the abolition of private property is one of the founding tenants of communism.

Blocking the entrance? Arrest them for trespass, that is highly illegal and violates the store owners rights.

You fucking moron. They aren't "pissed because there are no jobs". They're pissed because the financial elite has hijacked capitalism and the government. The reason unemployment is 10% right now is because those people crashed the world economy, not because you can't get to the store on Black Friday.

How stupid can you be that you still don't understand the Occupy movement at all? My mind is utterly boggled. You are one dumb piece of shit.

 

[Throckmorton]

The issue is that the protestors were not being peaceful. The rule of thumb (ie, rules created for the police by the police) on the use of pepper spray is that it should not be used unless the person resisting arrest is actively resisting. Passive resistence does not warrant said use.

Since at least two of the protestors were actively resisting (caught doing so on film), then those in the immediate area were allowed to be sprayed.

But again, having the legal right to do something does not make it right to do that thing. Just like with the victory mosque in NYC, the right thing to do is to not follow through with what you have the legal right to do.

Sometimes, right is not right.

Are you talking about UC Davis? You just posted this out of nowhere, with no indication of who you are responding to.

If so... The UC Davis cop violated university policy. Not only that, but assembly is a Constitutional right, just like the right to bear arms.

By the way, if a cop is trying to infringe on your right to assemble using force, you have the right to do even more than interlock your arms and not move, you have the right to shoot him in self defense. That's the reason gun rights exist... Self defense against government, not for hunting like Obama says.

Or are you rightwingers backpedaling on the right to bear arms?

 

[Bowfinger]

The issue is that the protestors were not being peaceful. The rule of thumb (ie, rules created for the police by the police) on the use of pepper spray is that it should not be used unless the person resisting arrest is actively resisting. Passive resistence does not warrant said use.

One nit that I corrected you on before. You're implying that if an officer encounters resistance during an arrest, he should use pepper spray. It's actually a situation where he MAY use pepper spray. That's an important difference.

Since at least two of the protestors were actively resisting (caught doing so on film), then those in the immediate area were allowed to be sprayed. ...

You keep making that claim, but have yet to back it up. All you have is one retired Philadelphia officer who claims he saw resistance on the video. Of course his purported "resistance" was one woman allegedly withdrawing her arm and a guy curled up defensively on the ground, neither of which matches the examples of active resistance listed earlier.

Further, the other key requirement that you consistently ignore is that in order to be resisting arrest, there must actually be an officer trying to effect an arrest. You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever this was true, and the article you linked suggests otherwise. Instead, based on everything I've seen, it appears we had a large group of students seated peacefully on the ground (in a public area, no less). Then a UCD officer walks up out of the blue and starts painting the students with pepper spray, having made no apparent attempt to arrest anyone or interact with anyone individually.

Finally, you continue to brush away the 9th Circuit court ruling stating explicitly that protestors sitting peacefully with arms locked does NOT constitute active resistance justifying the use of violent measures like pepper spray. In fact, the court made this ruling in spite of the fact these protestors took it a step further and placed metal guards over their arms to prevent police from separating them. So even if the Philly cop's spin is true AND if there was, in fact, an attempt to arrest either or both of those individuals, there is still no legal basis whatsoever for assaulting all of the other students who were merely engaged in peaceful protest.

If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to produce it. Otherwise you're just blowing the usual partisan smoke. I expect you'll just keep yapping dishonestly without making any effort to support your assertions.

 

[HendrixFan]

So they're pissed because of no jobs, so they block consumerism which is the driver of jobs? Does not compute or they are so stupid they don't understand they're doing the exact opposite of what they want.

Most of the crazed black friday shoppers aren't buying products outright, they are putting it on their credit cards. The consumerism that we see is a driver of debt which, as I explained earlier in this thread, is a big part of the destruction of the middle class. Guess who is profiting off of the debt induced consumerism that we see on black friday?

 

[palehorse]

Guess who is profiting off of the debt induced consumerism that we see on black friday?

Answer: The corporate owners, the manufacturing executives, the factory workers, the retail franchise owners, the logistics company employees, the retail employees, the stock market and private investors, AND the credit lenders.

I hope you realize that protesting at the retail locations has a negative impact on all of the above -- not just "the ebul credit lenders;" and, the worst of that impact will be felt by the employees at the lowest levels.

Subsequently, the protesters are going to continue losing support as they piss off more and more average working Americans.

The anti-consumerist angle that the creators of OWS fantasize about needs to be dropped ASAP, or the entire "movement" is completely (and rightfully) f*cked.

Unless, of course, their goal really is to destroy capitalism...?

 

[spidey07]

You fucking moron. They aren't "pissed because there are no jobs". They're pissed because the financial elite has hijacked capitalism and the government. The reason unemployment is 10% right now is because those people crashed the world economy, not because you can't get to the store on Black Friday.

How stupid can you be that you still don't understand the Occupy movement at all? My mind is utterly boggled. You are one dumb piece of shit.

This is the mind of a liberal at work, ignoring all reality. The liberal will ignore everything the movement does to push their beliefs onto it, what they FEEL it to be or WANT it to be. Facts be damned. You've seen this same mentality from just about every left leaning person in this thread. If your premise is true then WHY are they blocking retail establishment?

The movement started as being pissed off at all the student loan debt and no jobs and that was "the evil bankers" fault. You know, banks got bailed out we got sold out? If you will PAY FUCKING ATTENTION, one of their main demands is elimination of student loan debt because of lack of jobs. That is one of their main points in every official document or demand I have seen. That and elimination of private property.

And you're calling me a moron. Pay attention to their words, signs, etc. It's an anti-capitlist movement to it's core (really communism) and one of the ways to attack capitalism is to attack consumer buying. You're not paying attention.

But by all means, keep blocking access to private property/business, it really makes the movement look bad. Keep it up please, and keep spreading your message protesters! This is your democracy in action!