'Occupy' types

[cpayne5]

Me and Daseal wanted to go check out the local OWS rally, so we took our Ferraris for a spin...

[firstdown]

The Norfolk & Va Beach OMS got together this weekend and they were about 10 people strong. Excecpt 2 were people who stoped to listen for a minute or two, 3 homeless people who live there, and 5 OWS people smoking a blunt.

[firstdown]

This is a pretty funny read. It the minutes of a 3 hour meeting they had and got nothing done. It ends with the secretary getting up and just leaving.

Demands | Forum | Minutes of 4th Demands Working Group meeting | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

Here is the last minutes of the meeting:

[At this point the police again intervene in the meeting. Facilitators come and do, old ones replace new ones who replaced old ones as we’re threatened with eviction from the space. The group, which has dwindled to half the size it was at 7:15 pm descends into fighting and chaos with nobody in charge and no minutes to keep. I stick around for another 10 or 15 minutes to try and figure out a way to keeping track of what’s happening, but cannot. The fighting and madness continues for at least 10 minutes when I inform facilitation that have to leave.


I also have to ask why they have to have their meetings in the street. Don't they know you can get a library card and they have meeting rooms you can reserve. Oh, maybe you have to have an actual adress to get a library card

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This is a pretty funny read. It the minutes of a 3 hour meeting they had and got nothing done. It ends with the secretary getting up and just leaving.

Demands | Forum | Minutes of 4th Demands Working Group meeting | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

Here is the last minutes of the meeting:

[At this point the police again intervene in the meeting. Facilitators come and do, old ones replace new ones who replaced old ones as we’re threatened with eviction from the space. The group, which has dwindled to half the size it was at 7:15 pm descends into fighting and chaos with nobody in charge and no minutes to keep. I stick around for another 10 or 15 minutes to try and figure out a way to keeping track of what’s happening, but cannot. The fighting and madness continues for at least 10 minutes when I inform facilitation that have to leave.


I also have to ask why they have to have their meetings in the street. Don't they know you can get a library card and they have meeting rooms you can reserve. Oh, maybe you have to have an actual adress to get a library card

the daily show showed their meetings in the deutsche bank lobby... what an odd place for OWS to meet.

[firstdown]

Was that a meeting or the protest they are having today?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Was that a meeting or the protest they are having today?

it was a council meeting for planning etc, not a protest at all... they said it was too loud outside. weird.

[firstdown]

Its funny watching these protest. You have like 20 people protesting and another 100 trying to take picture or video of the cops doing something wrong or just news people trying to get a few shots. You then have the protester stuckin the middle. While the cops are trying to push them back you thave photographers leaning over them trying to take the pictures.

[NC_Skins]

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The old woman getting maced almost brought me to tears. What an effing disgrace.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

The old woman getting maced almost brought me to tears. What an effing disgrace.

Have you ever worked crowd control or disbursement? Can you say that she hadn't just spit on or otherwise forced the police to take more radical steps? If she had been ordered to move and defiantly linked arms with others, would you rather the police use brute strength to enforce the law and possibly cause her serious, lasting physical injury? NC_Skins consistently blasts others for taking snapshots of protesters out of context to demean them but has absolutely no compunction against doing the same if it casts the police in a bad light. Sorry, in this thread, NC_Skins' posts are as agenda driven as anyone - and more so than most.

When it comes to the police and the protesters, neither side has been perfect. The police are outnumbered and trying to execute lawful, just orders from the local govt. to disburse a gathering that had become a public nuisance, a hazard to public health and that was occupying private property against the will of its owners; in order to execute their lawful orders, the police had to force people to leave a place they did not wish to leave. On the other hand, the protestors forcing the issue (not all protesters mind you - many disbursed peacefully) genuinely believe they are either in the right or are happy to force the issue. In light of these conflicting goals, it seems inevitable that occassions of excessive force would occur. I have, however, seen nothing to suggest that such excesses were rampant or in any way the norm.

Would the various Occupy groups have politely and peacefully disbursed if given 24 hour notice or would they have entrenched and made the confrontation more difficult and violent? I think the latter given the ideological nature of the protesters. As I posted many pages ago, it seems to me that the police have, generally, acted with constraint while faced with a difficult and stressful task. Had the protesters disbursed the tent cities when ordered, no violence would have been necessary.

I am sure that, to many - perhaps even the elderly woman, it is some sort of badge of honor to be the victim of "police violence". Sorry, if you invite forced removal by insisting on the primacy of your rights over the rights of others and refuse to obey lawful instructions from the police, then you get what you get.

Bottom line, the Occupiers exceeded their rights and infringed on the rights of others. Ultimately, there are many, many alternative methods for them to lawfully protest and have their voices heard. In fact, they are free to return to the various parks, etc.; they are just not free to set up squatters camps.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Have you ever worked crowd control or disbursement? Can you say that she hadn't just spit on or otherwise forced the police to take more radical steps? If she had been ordered to move and defiantly linked arms with others, would you rather the police use brute strength to enforce the law and possibly cause her serious, lasting physical injury? NC_Skins consistently blasts others for taking snapshots of protesters out of context to demean them but has absolutely no compunction against doing the same if it casts the police in a bad light. Sorry, in this thread, NC_Skins' posts are as agenda driven as anyone - and more so than most.

When it comes to the police and the protesters, neither side has been perfect. The police are outnumbered and trying to execute lawful, just orders from the local govt. to disburse a gathering that had become a public nuisance, a hazard to public health and that was occupying private property against the will of its owners; in order to execute their lawful orders, the police had to force people to leave a place they did not wish to leave. On the other hand, the protestors forcing the issue (not all protesters mind you - many disbursed peacefully) genuinely believe they are either in the right or are happy to force the issue. In light of these conflicting goals, it seems inevitable that occassions of excessive force would occur. I have, however, seen nothing to suggest that such excesses were rampant or in any way the norm.

Would the various Occupy groups have politely and peacefully disbursed if given 24 hour notice or would they have entrenched and made the confrontation more difficult and violent? I think the latter given the ideological nature of the protesters. As I posted many pages ago, it seems to me that the police have, generally, acted with constraint while faced with a difficult and stressful task. Had the protesters disbursed the tent cities when ordered, no violence would have been necessary.

I am sure that, to many - perhaps even the elderly woman, it is some sort of badge of honor to be the victim of "police violence". Sorry, if you invite forced removal by insisting on the primacy of your rights over the rights of others and refuse to obey lawful instructions from the police, then you get what you get.

Bottom line, the Occupiers exceeded their rights and infringed on the rights of others. Ultimately, there are many, many alternative methods for them to lawfully protest and have their voices heard. In fact, they are free to return to the various parks, etc.; they are just not free to set up squatters camps.

I'd rather the police just move her, physically. Even arresting her would've been better. She was 84 and just went to the protests out of curiosity. I mean, really. If she had threatened them or had otherwise proved a danger? Cool. Do what you gotta do. But cops are so quick to abuse power and then hide behind a badge and say they're just doing their jobs.

I mean these protesters are so unruly and unpredictable. Better hold onto your shirts, it's another '68 riot in the making! Oh lawdy, lawdy.

It's only a matter of time before some protester gets killed anyway. If not by police then by the hands of some protester. So. Everyone who's against this can take comfort in how wrong these protests are and how they led to someone's death *Shrugs*

I personally think there are much more progressive ways to go about change than clogging up streets and marching around. But if these guys wanna go at it, I've got no problem with it. They aren't bothering me or infringing on my rights so. Whatever. I'm a bit apathetic about the whole thing. So sue me.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yes it does.

The Occupiers were not denied the right to protest - they may gather peacefully and within the local regulations. Lawfully ordered to leave, they refused to comply with those regulations and had to be forcibly removed.

Nothing in the local governments actions were in contravention of the OWS's right to freely assemble. In Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the Supreme Court addressed the impermissible use of regulations and ordinances by governments as a way to prohibit or abridge the right of free assembly. In that case, the ordinance in question forbade “the leasing of any hall, without a permit from the Chief of Police, for a public meeting at which a speaker shall advocate obstruction of the Government of the United States or a state, or a change of government by other than lawful means”. The city invoked this ordinance to deny the CIO “the right to hold lawful meetings in Jersey City on the ground that they are Communists or Communist organizations”. The City then, “pursuant to an unlawful plan[,] … caused the eviction from the municipality of persons they considered undesirable because of their labor organization activities, and have announced that they will continue so to do.” Hague, 307 U.S. at 501 (1939)

As to the that ordinance, the Court said it did "not make comfort or convenience in the use of streets or parks the standard of official action." Rather, it "enable[d] the Director of Safety to refuse a permit on his mere opinion that such refusal will prevent 'riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.' It can thus, as the record discloses, be made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of views on national affairs for the prohibition of all speaking will undoubtedly 'prevent' such eventualities. But uncontrolled official suppression of the privilege cannot be made a substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection with the exercise of the right.” Hague, 307 U.S. at 516.

In reaching this conclusion, however, Justice Owen Roberts, speaking for the Court, made it very clear that the right to free assembly was, in fact, subject to reasonable regulations and not absolute:

“The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied." Hague, 307 U.S. at 515-516 (1939).

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Unlike the CIO in Hague, the OWS is not being denied its right to assemble. Rather the right is being regulated in conjuction with the "interests of all". The protestors are free to return, sans tents, and continue their protest. According to the NYC Judge, however, the owners of Zuccotti Park and those living and working in the area also have a few rights:

"To the extent that City law prohibits the erection of structures, the use of gas or other combustible materials, and the accumulation of garbage and human waste in public places, enforcement of the owners rules [prohibiting those things in their park] appears reasonable to permit the owner to maintain its space in a hygienic, safe, and lawful condition, and to prevent it from being liable by the City or others for violations of the law, or in tort. It also permits public access by those who live and work in the area who are the intended beneficiaries of this zoning bonus."

"The [OWS Movement] have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner’s reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely."

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/press/OWS111511.pdf

[NC_Skins]

Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics | ThinkProgress

In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

[NC_Skins]

UC Davis pepper spray video: Chancellor Linda Katehi refuses to quit after police attack | Mail Online





LOL@ their motto. "A community that embraces civility".

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

LOL@ their motto. "A community that embraces civility".

Ms Spicuzza told the Sacramento Bee that police used the pepper spray after they were surrounded. Protesters were warned repeatedly beforehand that force would be used if they didn't move, she said.

'There was no way out of that circle,' Ms Spicuzza said. 'They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation.'

The tents went up on Thursday, and protesters were apparently warned on Friday morning that they had until 3 pm to take them down or they would be removed.

On Friday, Katehi released a statement saying the police had no option.
'Following our requests, several of the group chose to dismantle their tents this afternoon and we are grateful for their actions. However a number of protesters refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal.

'We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used. We will be reviewing the details of the incident,' she told the New York Daily News.

The university lacked the resources to keep the protest site from becoming a public health hazard. she said


Read more: UC Davis pepper spray video: Chancellor Linda Katehi refuses to quit after police attack | Mail Online

They were asked, they were warned and some complied others left the authorities no choice but to use force. Not like they surprised them with the pepper spray. It's a no win for the police. If they don't use the spray then they risk a melee trying to break up an illegal protest. Sorry, don't demonize the police when ample warnings were given and ample opportunity to disburse peacefully.