Occupy Wall Street

[jackoroe]

jackoroe, jackoroe, jackoroe,
Why must we go over this again and again. Zucotti Park IS privately owned, but it is open to the public 24/7.
If the protesters have broken any laws, please give a cite.
As for the Brooklyn Bridge, lets see how the law suit against the police or City comes out. I understand all 700 are going to ask for separate jury trials, I guess that would tie up NYC's courts for quite awhile.

That's the only thing that's relevant. Once the owners decide the protestors are to leave, they will be considered tespassers and subject to arrest. They have no Constitutional right to remain on private property. End of that story.

As to requesting trials, great! Asking for separate trials, doesn't mean you get one, does it? Especially when you act in a group like the Bridge people did. Think about it. We try bank robbers, rapists and murderers together. 700 cases in a city of 8 million is hardly going to slow things down much at all in any event. I'm sure a NY citizen who has been inconvenienced by the rabble is going to be a very sympathetic juror to some white suburban luddite who has forced him to take time away from work to hear some nonsensical defense of his stupid actions on then Brooklyn Bridge. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

The District Attorney's office has six trial teams with 50 ADA's assigned to each. That's 300 ADA's who do nothing but trials. Think they'll collapse a system that big? Not likely.

http://manhattanda.org/bureaus-units

A couple findings of guilt, a hefty fine or two will convince people to take the deal. The good guys have also read Alinsky's works.

 

[White Eagle]

That's interesting about the DAs office but where's the cite about the owners deciding the protesters are to leave?
They tried that once and backed down because the protesters were going to refuse to leave.

 

[jackoroe]

That's interesting about the DAs office but where's the cite about the owners deciding the protesters are to leave?
They tried that once and backed down because the protesters were going to refuse to leave.

What you don't understand the concept of private property? The fact that the owners of the park changed their minds, doesn't mean they forego the rights they have as property owners. They may exersise those rights at any time as they see fit and they certainly will at some point.

The protestors are not on public property. They are guests of the owner's of the park. If the owner decides they are no longer welcome, do you think it's their right to simply remain if they want to? You'd be wrong in believing that.

Estimates are that the protest without a point will cost NYC upwards of $2 million for police costs by the end of October, not to mention sanitation and other municipal services. And this money is simply being drawn from other places within the city's budget. I'm guessing the 1% won't be feeling that pinch, but the 99% will.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1...cy-s-costs-as-Occupy-Wall-Street-stretches-on

 

[Kulindahr]

If you think the USA is a police state or becoming one, you might want to visit one that actually is -- how about going to Iran for a month and living like you do here.

I'd suggest getting your affairs in order before you do though, because I doubt that you will never be heard from again.

Bottom line ... the US is not becoming a police state. The government is just enforcing the rules that we have insure that we live in a free country.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of all the whining about these poor protestors. Whine more about people without jobs, people losing their homes, people losing their savings. These protestors are caught up in a idea of living like the 60's. The only thing they have in common with 60's protestors is that their body stink, the drugs, and the few people who know how to pull their strings.

Rubbish. Even the University of Chicago law school concluded that cops today are in the business of manufacturing criminals, not catching them. Locking up citizens behind bars is a growth industry.

Nice to see you care more about temporary situations than basic human rights.

And your notion of them living in the 60s is ridiculous -- I saw a reporter asking OWS protesters if they took their inspiration from the 60s, and the typical answer was, "What happened in the 60s?" (which says something about our educational system).

 

[IokuA47]

The owners cannot "change their minds" because part of the DEAL of getting extra construction zones or higher buildings or whatever was that the part would be open 24/7 to the public. Unless they want to make their buildings shorter, or whatever the deal was, they cannot LEGALLY change the rules when they please. Stop and think for just one second.

And, the vast majority of people in NY support OWS. So their "neighbors" are not the majority.

Finally, those protesters were led onto the bridge. Also, you are allowed to protest on a sidewalk. You can't just make up rules as you go dude.

 

[Kulindahr]

You appear to have a misunderstanding of the force continuum. The police have many tools at their disposal ranging from ordinary force, which includes voice commands physical force which is the use of hands, fists and feet, to mechanical and ultimately deadly force.

The misunderstanding seems to come from the misconception that force can only be met with equal force. That isn't the case. For example a citizen who uses physical force may be subdued using mechanical force like a baton. In some places, if you fail to simply submit to an arrest, you are subject to pepper spray or even being tazered. We can debate the relative merits of these policies or laws, but they do exist and have been upheld by the courts.

In terms of disobeying an officer's lawful command, debating it on the street doesn't ever work out for the citizen. That's why we have courts. You are not permitted to resist even an unlawful arrest believe it or not. There's plenty of case law on that issue as well.

Given the context of the discussion, this is nothing but an endorsement of police brutality. You're operating with the ludicrous notion that police do everything lawfully, and actually adhere to "To Serve and Protect" -- a slogan that on a practical level means "to serve city hall and protect the wealthy".

All a citizen has to do when a police officer gives an order is ask, "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, the citizen can just walk away. If the answer is yes, then the citizen can ask "For what?", and if there is no clear and immediate answer, the citizen can just walk away.

Why don't citizens use these rights? Because they know bloody well that the cops don't care about citizens' rights, they care about getting their points for making arrest, and about their own power. They'll arrest a citizen who tries to stand on legal rights and make something up rather than face the fact that they're public servants, not lords.

In a free country, a cop making an unlawful arrest should be shot, and it should be considered justifiable homicide.

 

[Kulindahr]

Zucotti Park is privately owned. There is no Constitutional right to occupy someone else's property. There is similarly no Constitutional guarantee that protestors get to camp out overnight in violation of city ordinance. The sidewalks are indeed public property. The protestors have no Constitutional right to impair their availability to others, who may also wish to use them. There is no Constitutional right for the protestors to willfully obstruct traffic as they did on the Brooklyn Bridge, thereby impairing it's availability to others who may wish to use it.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the good people who actually live in lower Manhattan, must suffer protestors pissing and shitting all over their stoops and sidewalks. The neighbors, who pay rather substantially to live in NYC have about had it with these people.

You always see the utter negative in everything you disagree with.

By the view of the Constitution you give, the government could legitimately establish free speech zones, and people could only speak freely there. They could establish free press cities, and only allow freedom of the press there, or free press hours, and only allow the distribution of printed material during those hours. For that matter, they could establish curfews for religious activity, confining it to perhaps three hours a day.

But the freedom to assemble is just that -- the freedom to assemble. It doesn't say "except during hours prohibited by law".

Constitutional rights have to be absolute, or they're meaningless. Your position here is that they're meaningless.

 

[Kulindahr]

Estimates are that the protest without a point will cost NYC upwards of $2 million for police costs by the end of October, not to mention sanitation and other municipal services. And this money is simply being drawn from other places within the city's budget. I'm guessing the 1% won't be feeling that pinch, but the 99% will.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1...cy-s-costs-as-Occupy-Wall-Street-stretches-on

Thank you for introducing a point that justifies the protests: the burden of people exercising their constitutional rights will be borne not by the people who want them stifled, but by the rest. It's the super-wealthy who want them gone, but the super-wealthy don't even have to pay to get it accomplished -- they can force the people they regard as serfs to cough up.

 

[Jack Springer]

That's a free country?

In a free country, a cop making an unlawful arrest should be shot, and it should be considered justifiable homicide.

 

[White Eagle]

What you don't understand the concept of private property? The fact that the owners of the park changed their minds, doesn't mean they forego the rights they have as property owners. They may exersise those rights at any time as they see fit and they certainly will at some point.

The protestors are not on public property. They are guests of the owner's of the park. If the owner decides they are no longer welcome, do you think it's their right to simply remain if they want to? You'd be wrong in believing that.

Estimates are that the protest without a point will cost NYC upwards of $2 million for police costs by the end of October, not to mention sanitation and other municipal services. And this money is simply being drawn from other places within the city's budget. I'm guessing the 1% won't be feeling that pinch, but the 99% will.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1...cy-s-costs-as-Occupy-Wall-Street-stretches-on

So what you are saying is that the owners have not told them to leave. They did once but changed their minds.
There is nothing to do but wait til they make up their minds again and tell them to leave. That I'm not going to wait for. They know it's unconstitutional and they won't do it again. That's the reason they changed their minds to begin with.
You have nothing.

 

[White Eagle]

To add to your second para there ^^ If the owners change their minds and the protesters decide to stay, well that's their constitutional right to do so. Arrest them and let the law settle it. The cops will be told they were in the wrong and will lose their 3000 $$ for 2 weeks pay. They are the 1%.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Are you an anarchist?

 

[White Eagle]

No, I'm an American. I believe in the Constitution. Are you an anarchist?

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I'm an American. I believe in the Constitution. Are you an anarchist?

No, he's an authoritarian. The thinking in his posts shows he thinks the state is the origin of things political, and citizens are to put up with whatever abuses come their way.

The defenses of statism in this forum are astounding -- one would think we were in old Prussia.

 

[White Eagle]

AHA! That's it. Springer and jackoroe are coming across as those that order the peons of the state to do as they are told. Maybe I am anarchist, just not the violent part of demanding my rights.

 

[TickTockMan]

You always see the utter negative in everything you disagree with.

By the view of the Constitution you give, the government could legitimately establish free speech zones, and people could only speak freely there. They could establish free press cities, and only allow freedom of the press there, or free press hours, and only allow the distribution of printed material during those hours. For that matter, they could establish curfews for religious activity, confining it to perhaps three hours a day.

But the freedom to assemble is just that -- the freedom to assemble. It doesn't say "except during hours prohibited by law".

Constitutional rights have to be absolute, or they're meaningless. Your position here is that they're meaningless.

This seems fitting to me.

 

[JB3]

The owners cannot "change their minds" because part of the DEAL of getting extra construction zones or higher buildings or whatever was that the part would be open 24/7 to the public. Unless they want to make their buildings shorter, or whatever the deal was, they cannot LEGALLY change the rules when they please. Stop and think for just one second.

No, that's not actually true. There is a long list of regulations and laws that govern those parks, including not camping, not congregating in large groups, not sleeping over night, and not using it for any other purpose. All of these protestors have violated those regulations. YOU need to stop and actually understand the reality of the legal situation. The protesters have been allowed to remain by the good graces of the owners of the park, and no doubt pressure from members of the city council and the mayor's office. The owners could, at any time, ask the police to intervene and remove the protesters, and the protesters would have no choice but to leave.

And, the vast majority of people in NY support OWS. So their "neighbors" are not the majority.

That same poll also says people approve of the way the police have handled the situation.

Finally, those protesters were led onto the bridge. Also, you are allowed to protest on a sidewalk. You can't just make up rules as you go dude.

Not quite. In many jurisdictions, you can protest, but you can't obstruct public walkways (like sidewalks). If you do, you'll be warned to move, or arrested.

 

[chrisrobin]

No, I'm an American. I believe in the Constitution. Are you an anarchist?

You didn't by any chance, mean "antichrist"?

 

[Kulindahr]

AHA! That's it. Springer and jackoroe are coming across as those that order the peons of the state to do as they are told. Maybe I am anarchist, just not the violent part of demanding my rights.

A radical leftist is all you are. An anarchist would want Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and more dismantled.

 

[Kulindahr]

AHA! That's it. Springer and jackoroe are coming across as those that order the peons of the state to do as they are told. Maybe I am anarchist, just not the violent part of demanding my rights.

Yeah -- they even on occasion venture into telling us what we think.