Occupy Wall Street

[Kulindahr]

Ignorance of the law or the orders of the police is not an excuse for defying an order.

That is the biggest apologia for tyranny this country has.

It's utterly irrational -- it means cops could deliberately mumble and not make themselves clear, and arrest people for not complying with what they did not hear. It means cops could stick up a 20mph sign around a corner on a highway, and hand out stacks of tickets because it's the job of the citizen to be aware of a limit that just got imposed. It means a city council could suddenly decree a one thousand dollar fine for being in a park between midnight and one, and not inform anyone, just have everyone there arrested. In other words, it's license for totally arbitrary rule.

And your statement is irrational -- if you don't know of the order, you can't defy it (except in the fantasyland of lawyers and politicians).

The moment you cross the line from being a peaceful protest to being one where an assault rifle is allowed is when the police should become involved. The gun had no place at the protest. With the way these protests have gone, the introduction of any weapon into the situation is very dangerous. It is NOT an assault on the second amendment.

There is no evidence there was an assault rifle that I have seen -- just a report by someone who thought he saw an AK-47. Given that it's easy to get an AK-knockoff that's single-shot, and VERY difficult to get one that's an assault weapon, what I see is coward politicians using a scary image as an excuse to unleash the thugs -- which is what happened.

 

[Kulindahr]

The gun had no place at the protest. With the way these protests have gone, the introduction of any weapon into the situation is very dangerous. It is NOT an assault on the second amendment.

This is total police-state garbage.

Under the Second Amendment, every single person in that gathering may have a weapon. You're arguing that only the state should have weapons. But that's the foundation for every tyranny of the twentieth century -- only the government gets guns.

My statement was entirely accurate: the moment Second Amendment rights got involved, the gloves came off.

 

[opinterph]

… an assault rifle, which means a weapon capable of single-shot, multiple-shot, and fully automatic fire.

The operative component in this particular circumstance is perhaps, “capable.”

[WSBTV]​

 

[Kulindahr]

The operative component in this particular circumstance is perhaps, “capable.”

[WSBTV]​

Nice piece. From the pic it looks like an older model, but I'm no expert so I won't swear to it. I'd want to know why the hell he has a full clip in -- unless you're intending to shoot in the near future, that's just macho shit... and stupid: he has no way of knowing whether the people around him are gun-smart and gun-safe, so unless that clip is empty it does NOT belong in the firearm unless that firearm is 100% under the owner's control, and there is no way on God's green earth he can call it under control when slung that way.

BTW, I call that a foolish way to sling it, too: even though the AK (Russian-made, anyway) has a reputation for being dependable even if dirt gets in the barrel, tempting fate is a way to reduce one's life span -- so the way to sling it is with the barrel up (and a condom over the end).


But the proper response here would have been to have a pair of officers find out if it really was, verify whether it's full-auto-capable, and if so to ask to see the federal license for the thing. A guy with the Pink Pistols once had a rifle that came in a full-auto configuration, and he got asked those questions.

...and ended up talking customizing with the cops.


They really need some NRA folks at these, to deal with stuff like this. Were I there, whether the (non-) leadership liked it or not, I'd set up a little booth and insist that for everyone's safety, anyone with any kind of weapon check in, show the weapon and any pertinent ID, and I'd keep a list. I'd also set up a little program to not just delete, but NSA-security-wipe that list in case cops got nosy without cause.

 

[EastMed]

The latest Congressional Budget Office report shows in a remarkable way the relevance of OWS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/26/how-1-got-richer-99-poorer

 

[White Eagle]

I've finally got to the end of the thread and see where there seems to be some confusion about the ak47. It was in Atlanta from what I've read. So, anyone thinking the police in Oakland had the right to attack unnecessarily is wrong thinking.
The Oakland police have had a lot of bad cops and this attack proves it to me.

 

[jackoroe]

Let's see. The police made an announcement over a PA system, instructing everyone to vacate the park as they were in violation of a local law. The announcement was made loudly enough so that everyone could hear and understand.

The protestors respond by attacking first throwing rocks and bottles and the police do what they said they would do and gas the protestors and use other less lethal means. Yes, people do get hurt when force is used. Unfortunate, but not surprising.

Seems a pretty straightforward matter.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHlHiNEZ1wA[/ame]

 

[White Eagle]

Then you support a police state?

 

[chrisrobin]

Let's see. The police made an announcement over a PA system, instructing everyone to vacate the park as they were in violation of a local law. The announcement was made loudly enough so that everyone could hear and understand.

The protestors respond by attacking first throwing rocks and bottles and the police do what they said they would do and gas the protestors and use other less lethal means. Yes, people do get hurt when force is used. Unfortunate, but not surprising.

Seems a pretty straightforward matter.

Please "Google": U.S. Constitution, First Amendment and Civil Disobedience.

 

[jackoroe]

Then you support a police state?

The issue at hand is the law. Were the protestors lawfully in a place they were allowed to? No, they were not. The police advised them very specifically, as to the nature of the violation.

They were afforded an opportunity to leave and not only failed to comply, but as the female in the video frankly admits, attacked with rocks and bottles. Is that a lawful use of force? No, it isn't.

The appropriate response would be to leave and petition the courts as to your grievance.

 

[jackoroe]

Please "Google": U.S. Constitution, First Amendment and Civil Disobedience.

Civil disobedience does not entail violence. Had the protestors simply sat down and refused to assist in thier arrest, that's fine. Instead they elected to riot and attack first.

I've googled "riot" for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot

 

[chrisrobin]

Civil disobedience does not entail violence. Had the protestors simply sat down and refused to assist in thier arrest, that's fine. Instead they elected to riot and attack first.

I've googled "riot" for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot

This is very perplexing. It depends on whom is telling the story. I heard that the rocks and bottles were a response to the initial police attack. Who knows? I wasn't there either.

General question: Where is Gov. Brown with all of this going on? Just askin'.

 

[White Eagle]

Riot? yes! The police rioted.

 

[White Eagle]

I want you to remember this policemans name. Gonzales.
He has been a hothjead since the late 90s. However, there is no way to look at his police records. The Calif Supreme court ruled that police misconduct records are to remain confidential. There is no way to see what this man has done. He has killed unarmed people before.

 

[White Eagle]

Now I know someone will question this so I looked it up for you. It's a long read but it is mainly about Gonzalez's hotheaded misconducts. I wouldn't be surprised if he is the one that shot this Iraq Soldier.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011...law_has_shielded_oakland_police_violence.html

Gonzales was on the lookout for a suspect in a month-old murder that had taken place several blocks away. Witnesses say he swerved across six lanes of traffic into the liquor store parking lot, where he got out of his car and approached King. The two exchanged words. Gonzales then slapped soda and chips out of King’s hands and grabbed hold of him. King resisted, and witnesses say Gonzales pulled the young man into a headlock by his shoulder-length dreadlocks and punched him repeatedly. Gonzales then Tasered King multiple times, according to a civil suit filed by King’s family.

King broke free of Gonzales and staggered west across MLK Way, holding his sagging pants up and yelling for help. Witnesses say Gonzales then drew his pistol and fired twice. King fell to the sidewalk with two fatal bullet wounds in his back. Gonzales ran over to King’s body and planted his foot on top of it while aiming his pistol at King’s friends, warning them to back up. He then cuffed King’s hands behind his back.

 

[Kulindahr]

The latest Congressional Budget Office report shows in a remarkable way the relevance of OWS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/26/how-1-got-richer-99-poorer

Note especially this:

The CBO report concludes that the top 1% was the only portion of the total income-earning US population to experience a sharp rise in its share of the total US income taking into account all federal transfers and taxes. Indeed, the top 1%'s share of income rose further after all transfers and taxes are taken into account than before taking them into account. Federal spending and taxing policies were thus complicit in furthering this last generation's sharp turn toward greater income inequality.

 

[Kulindahr]

The issue at hand is the law. Were the protestors lawfully in a place they were allowed to? No, they were not. The police advised them very specifically, as to the nature of the violation.

They were afforded an opportunity to leave and not only failed to comply, but as the female in the video frankly admits, attacked with rocks and bottles. Is that a lawful use of force? No, it isn't.

The appropriate response would be to leave and petition the courts as to your grievance.

Spoken like a true foe of liberty.

Human rights trump law. Your position would tell gays in Iran to meekly go along with being hanged, just "petition the courts as to [their] grievance".

And any time a police response to non-lethal behavior by citizens includes use of military-grade weaponry, the law becomes irrelevant -- justice is what's relevant.

Your opening statement is the cry of a police state supporter. It maintains that law is more important than people.

 

[Kulindahr]

I want you to remember this policemans name. Gonzales.
He has been a hothjead since the late 90s. However, there is no way to look at his police records. The Calif Supreme court ruled that police misconduct records are to remain confidential. There is no way to see what this man has done. He has killed unarmed people before.

That's an incredibly baffling court decision.

The police are our employees. This is like saying that unions have a right to hide illegal activities of their members from employers.

 

[fetaby]

Let's see. The police made an announcement over a PA system, instructing everyone to vacate the park as they were in violation of a local law. The announcement was made loudly enough so that everyone could hear and understand.

The protestors respond by attacking first throwing rocks and bottles and the police do what they said they would do and gas the protestors and use other less lethal means. Yes, people do get hurt when force is used. Unfortunate, but not surprising.

Seems a pretty straightforward matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHlHiNEZ1wA

Penal Code 409, eh?

Every person remaining present at the place of any riot, rout,
or unlawful assembly, after the same has been lawfully warned to
disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them in
attempting to disperse the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Unlawful assembly, huh?

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.

So which is it? Was the assembly unlawful, or protected under the 1st amendment?

So it's back to the rules and regulations of public parks and plazas. Does the decision to assemble on any given public piece of property give the people protesting 1st amendment protections by making the rules and regulations of these spaces void?

Seems the only thing that's straight forward is the answer depending on which side of the line you're on.

So let's continue to see just how free Americans are.

 

[White Eagle]

I'm gonna channel an Oakland cop.

"Hey! You hit me with a plastic water bottle, now I'm gonna shoot you with a rubber bullet or beany bag in the face!!!"