'Occupy' types

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.

Okay seriously WTF is this thread and why does it keep getting bumped?

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/302418_10150385051233371_513593370_8614262_1207357 191_n.jpg

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297728_10150381533859563_532284562_8388437_1088790 206_n.jpg

Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/18/372361/rep-deutch-introduces-occupied-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-corporate-money-in-politics/)




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.

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297728_10150381533859563_532284562_8388437_1088790 206_n.jpg

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

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297728_10150381533859563_532284562_8388437_1088790 206_n.jpg

Yes it does. :doh:

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 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=496)

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

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.

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. :doh:

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.

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..

Sorry sick of this characterization - Sure some police are but the vast majority that I have dealt with (and I have dealt with many) are conscientious men and women who would take a bullet to protect me or mine.

As to the woman, I simply was not aware of her circumstances. If you know the context, fine. I am pretty sure, however, I don't want police trying to use brute strength to force an elderly woman to do what she doesn't want to - the next headline is "Police assault elderly woman break her arms".

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. :doh:

Or a 2011, London - also a protest that started out peaceably. So tell me, how would you "just move" the Occupiers without force when they refused to move? - - Lawdy Lawdy back at you.