Occupy Wall Street

[palemale]

BBC News

The protestors were apparently asked to leave, more than once. So they were open to trespass charges.

Citibank issued this statement:

A large amount of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place around 2:00 PM today. They were very disruptive and refused to leave after being repeatedly asked, causing our staff to call 911. The Police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed. Only one person asked to close an account and was accommodated."

To be clear: no one was arrested for closing an account; we didn't lock people in our branch - the police decided to close the branch; and we didn't ask for anyone to be arrested - that is a police decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/occupy-times-square-wall-street_n_1012942.html

Our fascist, corporation loving Mayor obviously prefers arresting people to merely keeping order. Standard operating procedure for the NYPD in the past is, where there is a complaint of trespassing, the police ask the trespassers to leave, and only arrest them if they refuse. How do I know this? First hand experience. In my youth, when engaged in political or union activity on private property and the owners asked me to leave and I refused, they called the police who asked me to leave and threatened me with arrest if I refused. There seems to be no indication that the police asked anyone to leave the bank branch. According to the bank, the police asked them to close the doors until they got there to arrest people.

 

[palemale]

I liked this report from the NY Times about the response from tourists in Times Square to the thousands of protestors:

Some tourists pumped their fists and whooped from atop double-decker sightseeing buses as the protesters cheered back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/occupy-wall-street-protests-worldwide.html?_r=1&hp

 

[T-Rexx]

They do, as a matter of fact. The only stipulation is that the park has to be open, but the owners can write and enforce any regulations they choose. That includes removing people they don't want in the park.

If the owners can remove anyone "they don't want in the park," then it is not open to the public, is it?

 

[andysayshi]

^ Exactly right. A park is either "public" or it is restricted in some way. With the park in question, it is zoned as "24/7 public access". The park wasn't provided as some altruistic donation to the city, it was part of an agreement with the city in order to develop the adjoining land. Yes, the land is privately owned, but it is still public space and can be used by the public in any way that a city-owned park would be.

 

[Stardreamer]

Citibank issued this statement:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/occupy-times-square-wall-street_n_1012942.html

Our fascist, corporation loving Mayor obviously prefers arresting people to merely keeping order. Standard operating procedure for the NYPD in the past is, where there is a complaint of trespassing, the police ask the trespassers to leave, and only arrest them if they refuse. How do I know this? First hand experience. In my youth, when engaged in political or union activity on private property and the owners asked me to leave and I refused, they called the police who asked me to leave and threatened me with arrest if I refused. There seems to be no indication that the police asked anyone to leave the bank branch. According to the bank, the police asked them to close the doors until they got there to arrest people.

The Citibank's statement that you cite says they were not locked in and were asked to leave more than once. That they were being disruptive. And only one person actually tried to close an account. The Citibank account says specifically that noone was locked into the bank, only that they closed the branch at police instructions. While there is no indication that the police asked anyone to leave there is no indication that they did not do so, until some more detail is provided to say one way or the other is an assumption.

I've been looking over the NY Laws both on Trespassing and Arrest and not finding anything that says Police are required to ask them to leave before an arrest if they have already been asked to leave by the property owner or representative. It does look like the officer arresting the woman outside the bank may have violated procedure though as he is required to identify himself and his intent if possible when making an arrest.

Keep in mind that this is one of multiple incidents that seem to have occurred on this one day, the same articles we cite above include incidents at other banks, arrests being made for blocking streets and sidewalks, etc. all as part of a mass movement of the OWS protestors over the day to Times Square. Yet the Police overall do not seem to have interfered with the overall protest, just stepping in where things crossed the line.

The emerging picture is clear that the protestors were already in violation of the law and could have avoided a confrontation by simply leaving the bank before the police arrived. The officers on the scene at this bank may have overreacted. I think from the video at least one of them did and there should be an investigation of that but the arrest appears to be valid based on the law and the actions of the protestors.

As has been pointed out the tensions in a large prolonged protest like this are high, there is a real possibility of a small confrontation like this spiraling out of control despite the best intentions of either side. The NY Police, particularly when you contrast situations occurring in other cities, seems to be showing a considerable amount of restraint. They are tasked with maintaining civil order AND respecting the rights of the protestors. That is not a simple task when such confrontations occur. In many countries, the march on Times Square would have been met with barricades and water cannons. And in a few Tanks and machine guns. Mistakes will occur on both sides as we are after all only Human.

We are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on a narrow view of the events which I agree is disturbing and should be seen as a warning sign. Questions should be asked and answers demanded but lets get the whole picture before we start pulling out the N word. The cop trying to do his job is one of the 99% too.

 

[Stardreamer]

^ Exactly right. A park is either "public" or it is restricted in some way. With the park in question, it is zoned as "24/7 public access". The park wasn't provided as some altruistic donation to the city, it was part of an agreement with the city in order to develop the adjoining land. Yes, the land is privately owned, but it is still public space and can be used by the public in any way that a city-owned park would be.

Even city owned parks have restrictions.

Summary of Rules and Regulations: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

The restrictions of course are to maintain the parks in good order for everyone's use, after all 24/7 public access is intended for everyone not just a specific group. When protest issues like this come up and their enforcement might infringe on free speech rights it becomes a matter that has to be weighed carefully.

 

[Kulindahr]

Citibank issued this statement:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/occupy-times-square-wall-street_n_1012942.html

Our fascist, corporation loving Mayor obviously prefers arresting people to merely keeping order. Standard operating procedure for the NYPD in the past is, where there is a complaint of trespassing, the police ask the trespassers to leave, and only arrest them if they refuse. How do I know this? First hand experience. In my youth, when engaged in political or union activity on private property and the owners asked me to leave and I refused, they called the police who asked me to leave and threatened me with arrest if I refused. There seems to be no indication that the police asked anyone to leave the bank branch. According to the bank, the police asked them to close the doors until they got there to arrest people.

Fascist indeed. Since when do businesses take orders from the police? If I'd been in charge of the branch, I would at that point have told the protesters, "Look, the police want us to lock you in so they can arrest all of you. You've been a pain in the ass, but I'm not going to help out tyrants, so please leave before the cops arrive."

Police used to keep the peace -- that was the function. It's why we have the term "justice of the peace" -- the measure of justice was whether the public peace had been violated. Now, they're not peace officers, but law officers, servants of the same attitude as religious zealots who want to stone gays. They're not catching criminals, they're manufacturing criminals.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've been looking over the NY Laws both on Trespassing and Arrest and not finding anything that says Police are required to ask them to leave before an arrest if they have already been asked to leave by the property owner or representative. It does look like the officer arresting the woman outside the bank may have violated procedure though as he is required to identify himself and his intent if possible when making an arrest.
. . . .

The emerging picture is clear that the protestors were already in violation of the law and could have avoided a confrontation by simply leaving the bank before the police arrived. The officers on the scene at this bank may have overreacted. I think from the video at least one of them did and there should be an investigation of that but the arrest appears to be valid based on the law and the actions of the protestors.
. . . .

The cop trying to do his job is one of the 99% too.

This is the problem with the whole concept of "the rule of law": it leans the cops toward arresting people rather than thinking. From a talk with the public defender in Portland, I know that over the last decade the trend has been that more and more of the people arrested are found not guilty. That tells me the police no longer care who they really ought to arrest, they just arrest people, like "when in doubt, apply handcuffs".

That's a sign of a sick, sick society, or at least a sick police community. Cops get points for making arrests, too, which contributes to the trend. Well, if they get points for making arrests, they should get big fat black marks for every person arrested who's found not guilty.

We need to get back to having peace officers, not law officers.

 

[Kulindahr]

Even city owned parks have restrictions.

Summary of Rules and Regulations: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation

The restrictions of course are to maintain the parks in good order for everyone's use, after all 24/7 public access is intended for everyone not just a specific group. When protest issues like this come up and their enforcement might infringe on free speech rights it becomes a matter that has to be weighed carefully.

And there's an interesting question as to the bank arrests: does free speech apply on private property?

 

[BostonPirate]

Civil Disobedience is not meant to be convenient. It is meant to cause disruptions that cannot be ignored until those with the ability to make changes ACTUALLY DO make the change.

That IS the point.

I was part of Act-Up and believe me, getting arrested WAS the plan, not the side effect of the behavior. Let the Property owners do as they may. All they are doing is making legends out of these young people, still young enough to believe they can matter, who have been shut out of the process of making decisions.

Arrests garner sympathy for the protesters. Those that dislike them, whose political plans conflict with theirs, can and will demonize them all they like.

Movements begin to take on a David and Goliath image, and americans LOVE underdogs.

In cases where the criminalized behavior is pure speech, civil disobedience can consist simply of engaging in the forbidden speech. An example would be WBAI's broadcasting the track "Filthy Words" from a George Carlin comedy album, which eventually led to the 1978 Supreme Court case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. Threatening government officials is another classic way of expressing defiance toward the government and unwillingness to stand for its policies. For example, Joseph Haas was arrested for allegedly sending an email to the Lebanon, New Hampshire city councilors stating, "Wise up or die."[32]
More generally, protesters of particular victimless crimes often see fit to openly commit that crime. Laws against public nudity, for instance, have been protested by going naked in public, and laws against cannabis consumption have been protested by openly possessing it and using it at cannabis rallies.[33]
Some forms of civil disobedience, such as illegal boycotts, refusals to pay taxes, draft dodging, distributed denial-of-service attacks, and sit-ins, make it more difficult for a system to function. In this way, they might be considered coercive. Brownlee notes that "although civil disobedients are constrained in their use of coercion by their conscientious aim to engage in moral dialogue, nevertheless they may find it necessary to employ limited coercion in order to get their issue onto the table."[20] The Plowshares organization temporarily closed GCSB Waihopai by padlocking the gates and using sickles to deflate one of the large domes covering two satellite dishes.

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

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm going to hope this triggers thousands of people closing their citibank accounts -- and other large banks.

 

[TheOscar]

I went to the Occupy Denver protest. I have some pics and videos, but here's just one for now....

Lolz, it came out backwards. XD I don't know why. But yes...I'll get some more pics and videos later...

It was really interesting, though. What is funny is that over by the capital, the congress people were having some speeches, too, but they were all protected by a line of police officers.

 

[White Eagle]

Who belongs to that face? I've seen it before these occupations, but can't remember.

 

[Kulindahr]

where are their ~300,000 employees going to work?

At the credit unions the customers take their money to.

 

[White Eagle]

Yeah! Ok thanks. Just couldn't remember where I've seen it.

 

[BostonPirate]

I went to the Occupy Denver protest. I have some pics and videos, but here's just one for now....

Lolz, it came out backwards. XD I don't know why. But yes...I'll get some more pics and videos later...

It was really interesting, though. What is funny is that over by the capital, the congress people were having some speeches, too, but they were all protected by a line of police officers.

it's a Guy Fawkes mask, popularized in the graphic novel/movie V for Vendetta.

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

(presumably they're taking their queues from V for Vendetta, since I don't know what attempting to assassinate King James for being protestant instead of catholic has to do with anti-establishment-ism)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta#Cultural_impact

Yeah! Ok thanks. Just couldn't remember where I've seen it.

This clip has become a bit of a manifesto for the occupiers. It is enlightening and it is moving.

When people make videos and post them to youtube with the mask on, they are signaling solidarity with this concept expressed here. I am not so sure the young americans know or care about Hawkes, so much as the message this clip represents...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY[/ame]

 

[White Eagle]

Guys, I want your opinion on this.
This guy "red slider Sacramento, CA" started the petition
http://www.change.org/members/5164660

Now I normally sign petitions to help the people out and have signed some on change.org. Just curious of what you think about this.
Would you sign?

Signatures
338 out of 1,000,000

Petitioning
The President of the United States (+ 8 others)

http://www.change.org/petitions/occupy-america-petition-to-stop-police-interference

OCCUPY AMERICA - PETITION TO STOP POLICE INTERFERENCE

Why this is Important

The people of the United States demand and petition the several Federal District Courts of the United States, The United States Supreme Court, the Department of Justice and all branches of Federal law enforcement to insure that the rights of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition their government for a redress of grievances, under the United States Constitution, are judiciously and vigorously defended. In particular, we ask that federal law enforcement observe and restrain all law enforcement jurisdictions, whether local, county, state or Federal, from behaviors intended to discourage the people's rights to assemble and present themselves through the mass occupations of public spaces.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've often contemplated buying one of those masks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Guys, I want your opinion on this.
This guy "red slider Sacramento, CA" started the petition
http://www.change.org/members/5164660

Now I normally sign petitions to help the people out and have signed some on change.org. Just curious of what you think about this.
Would you sign?

I like it. I signed.

 

[JB3]

If the owners can remove anyone "they don't want in the park," then it is not open to the public, is it?

If the people in said park are violating the rules of the park, like camping over night, the owners have the right to remove them. The 24/7 requirement does not apply. (and the city of new york has even said as much)