On November 10 2011 14:04 Kappa09 wrote: More footage of Berkely Students at #Occupycal
Hmm when asked to disperse because they are unlawfully assembling, they cry about it? And then they whine even more when the cops try to evict them outta there? The results don't seem surprising to me. I also liked the fact that they had a title for "Edited By:" at the end. Where's the rest of the story?
US citizens are supposed to have a right to assembly.
The Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."
Unlawful assembly - a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot.
How is a college student protest a deliberate disturbance of peace?
They still need a permit from the city, which I'm willing to bet they didn't have. Otherwise they are subject to the ordinances of the city, and action can taken against them. If they did happen to have a permit, than the police made a mistake.
Edit: Grammar
Do you not find it odd that you need a government permit to be allowed to protest against the government?
Not really, as you retain the rights to assemble, but there are procedures that need to be followed, especially in the chaotic downtowns of larger cities. If they fail to provide you with public area for your assembly, you can sue them to kingdom come, and you'll win every time.
Actually no you do not, you need a permit in order to assemble ie large gatherings which is validated though sanitation and police enforcement ie so the city knows what's going on. You actually do not need a permit to protest your government as a private citizen or small group and they are doing here is technicality that you need a permit for large gatherings protest or not usually the permit is an agreement to ie not block say like sidewalks or not use certain things basically follow rules. To comply with 1st amendment law they cannot deny you a permit or be submitted to special conditions due to what you're protesting and they cannot deny you a permit if you meet all the requirements and said requirements must be politically neutral, enough though sometimes they are not at which point you can sue the city, but litigation takes years to sort out so cities often do violate 1st amendment law to temporarily quell civil unrest.
On November 09 2011 14:50 semantics wrote: There are plenty of cases were officers were killed in riots, usually when the riot is trigged by police action, usually dealing with police brutality. As far as a mostly peaceful protest killing a police officer without first there being escalation by the police and i know of none, doesn't mean there isn't one just means it's alot more obscure then finding an article about policemen causing the death of a protester.
Then provide a source of a police officer killed in a riot, which is not a protest, but I can still find no evidence of police officers being killed in riots in the US any time in modern history. I think the most recent example I can find is a single police officer killed in the 1968 race riots. So it does not seem to be a common occurrence.
Hum i actually couldn't find officers dieing due to riots, i did find injuries but i would have though i would at least find something for the labor riots in late 80's new york or rodney king riots in LA or chicago
On November 10 2011 14:44 phiinix wrote: Lol berkeley protests? Those guys look like they're pushing forward even after the first push. Provoking someone and then crying about it after they respond seems like a dick move to me, anyone else?
Don't trust everything you see lol. Both sides will edit stuff to make their side look better.
I personaly find it really funny that the crowds think they can make the cops go away or not do what their ordered to do. the "we pay your salary" as if who pays the cops should influence what they do was an extremly ironic quote from that video. crazy to see the difference between the 2.
"I don’t begrudge anybody who has earned a good salary as part of our capitalist system,” he said. “[But] demonstrations like this are as American as apple pie. We’ve been marching up and down and demonstrating throughout our history.”
He continued, “I get a little concerned when demonstrations turn into violence or when some of the demonstrators demonstrate absolute nihilism and they’re really not interested in anything but destruction and tearing down the system.”
Powell said the biggest concern is the income gap, which needs to be addressed politically.
“Those who are not doing as well, are not seeing their lives improving…there’s angriness there and this is something I think our Wall Street friends need to think about and this is something our political friends need to think about,” he said. “It isn’t enough just to scream at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, we need our political system to start reflecting this anger back.”
Hmm when asked to disperse because they are unlawfully assembling, they cry about it? And then they whine even more when the cops try to evict them outta there? The results don't seem surprising to me. I also liked the fact that they had a title for "Edited By:" at the end. Where's the rest of the story?
US citizens are supposed to have a right to assembly.
The Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."
Unlawful assembly - a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot.
How is a college student protest a deliberate disturbance of peace?
They still need a permit from the city, which I'm willing to bet they didn't have. Otherwise they are subject to the ordinances of the city, and action can taken against them. If they did happen to have a permit, than the police made a mistake.
Edit: Grammar
Do you not find it odd that you need a government permit to be allowed to protest against the government?
Not really, as you retain the rights to assemble, but there are procedures that need to be followed, especially in the chaotic downtowns of larger cities. If they fail to provide you with public area for your assembly, you can sue them to kingdom come, and you'll win every time.
Edit: Reworded something.
Most of the Occupy groups are in violation of permits (in part or whole) but nobody cares.
You have the right to assemble, but not the right to camp. Camping means you are habitating that area, which is public property, and you will be treated like the homeless living on public property. Several people in my hometown have been arrested for breaking curfew at a local park by camping, and they argue it violates their first amendment. They have been giving the local law enforcement some bad rep for breaking them up, but the police are just enforcing the law, not picking sides. They also claim they represent the 99%, which they don't. They only represent themselves.
The rich may control the markets, but you control how you spend your money.
n the early days, we would enter the park and ask questions. We would receive answers, but they were without authority. 'Well, this is what you should know, but I am no one to tell you. We all speak for each other in this place.'
Now it's different. Occupy Wall Street now has a structure and a culture all its own, developed rapidly though the use of technology, the confrontation of adversity, and self-imposed isolation. They do, after all, live in a park on their own.
On Veteran's Day it all showed.
...
An official with the authority to speak for the movement told us how they planned their concert. Over a day and half, they got a permit from the city— their first— and used connections they'd developed through their work to draw musicians whose music spoke to the occupation; Musicians like Stephen Said, who urged listeners to "occupy music" and liberate it from "the Wall Street music companies that have kept our generations music off the air for 20 years."
On November 14 2011 03:40 Grumbels wrote: http://frankmillerink.com/ how annoying, I liked Sin City and the Batman movie.
LOL This doesn't surprise me AT ALL. The Batman movies, especially Dark Knight, had some very obvious right-wing political nuances. I once joked that Fox & Friends would use Batman to justify wiretapping and spying on US citizens after they used Jack Bauer of 24 to justify torture lol.
Seems like people have a lot of confusion regarding Occupy Oakland/wallstreet/tahrir/and beyond...
First: we don't need to be legal to be legitimate. The reason we are occupying is to reclaim public space and to provide a space for people to talk about what the hell is going on and what to do about it. Permits and laws are mostly used as a way to minimize the efficacy of protest. Generally speaking, the most effective things to do are also illegal. We shouldn't confine our strategy based on what's legal.
Second: to say police violence is an "overreaction" is a misunderstanding of the daily function of police. The violence of police is attempt to brutally force us into passivity. Always, everywhere you go, there is the implied threat of this violence. Although this violence comes to a crescendo when they brutalize us, shoot at us, tear gas us in the street, by doing this they are only expressing the nature of their daily existence. This why people hate the police.
Third: The media will always denounce us. If you don't think an argument is legitimate (for instance when police try to justify beating the shit out of us because somebody threw a bottle at them) then don't back up that argument. Constantly, there is the attempt to isolate the most militant section of the protest, or to legitimize violence used against protesters, when people separate protesters into two groups: the "good protesters" and those "bad protesters" who ruined the legitimate message of the "good protesters" through some sort of vandalism or some sort of excuse like that. This is a common tactic, it is intended to divide the movement, and it's important to recognize it and not stand for it. Ask yourself: does it make more sense to stand up for what you really believe or to stand up for what you think other people will be fooled by?
On November 14 2011 09:47 Yam483 wrote: Seems like people have a lot of confusion regarding Occupy Oakland/wallstreet/tahrir/and beyond...
First: we don't need to be legal to be legitimate. The reason we are occupying is to reclaim public space and to provide a space for people to talk about what the hell is going on and what to do about it. Permits and laws are mostly used as a way to minimize the efficacy of protest. Generally speaking, the most effective things to do are also illegal. We shouldn't confine our strategy based on what's legal.
It goes both ways. Don't expect others to restrain themselves to the law when dealing with you, nor have sympathy for you.
Second: to say police violence is an "overreaction" is a misunderstanding of the daily function of police. The violence of police is attempt to brutally force us into passivity. Always, everywhere you go, there is the implied threat of this violence. Although this violence comes to a crescendo when they brutalize us, shoot at us, tear gas us in the street, by doing this they are only expressing the nature of their daily existence. This why people hate the police.
Again, it goes both ways. Throw bottles at police, expect 'open fire' to be the response. You need to educate yourself about law enforcement's authorized use of force.
Third: The media will always denounce us. If you don't think an argument is legitimate (for instance when police try to justify beating the shit out of us because somebody threw a bottle at them) then don't back up that argument. Constantly, there is the attempt to isolate the most militant section of the protest, or to legitimize violence used against protesters, when people separate protesters into two groups: the "good protesters" and those "bad protesters" who ruined the legitimate message of the "good protesters" through some sort of vandalism or some sort of excuse like that. This is a common tactic, it is intended to divide the movement, and it's important to recognize it and not stand for it. Ask yourself: does it make more sense to stand up for what you really believe or to stand up for what you think other people will be fooled by?
Why is it that you think it's only 'other people' being fooled, and you are completely enlightened ?
America’s two-tiered justice system – specifically, the way political and financial elites are now vested with virtually absolute immunity from the rule of law even when they are caught committing egregious crimes, while ordinary Americans are subjected to the world’s largest and one of its harshest and most merciless penal states even for trivial offenses. As a result, law has been completely perverted from what it was intended to be – the guarantor of an equal playing field which would legitimize outcome inequalities – into its precise antithesis: a weapon used by the most powerful to protect their ill-gotten gains, strengthen their unearned prerogatives, and ensure ever-expanding opportunity inequality.
I got a quick look through most of the chapter. Here's a paragraph providing good framing of the book arguments. My bold.
The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force, the ultimate guardian of justice. The founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable. Some would be rich, and many would be poor. Some would acquire great power, and many would live their entire lives virtually powerless. A small number of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents, while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. Due to those unavoidable circumstances, the American conception of liberty was not only consistent with, but premised on, the inevitability of outcome inequality—the success of some people, the failure of others. One exception was the rule of law. When it came to the law, no inequality was tolerable. Law was understood to be the sine qua non ensuring fairness, a level playing field, and a universal set of rules. It was the nonnegotiable prerequisite that made all other forms of inequality acceptable. Only if everyone was bound to the same rules would outcome inequality be justifiable.
Greenwald, Glenn (2011-11-11). With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful (Kindle Locations 49-51). Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
The discussion goes into rule of law in much greater detail from there.
On November 14 2011 09:47 Yam483 wrote: Seems like people have a lot of confusion regarding Occupy Oakland/wallstreet/tahrir/and beyond...
First: we don't need to be legal to be legitimate. The reason we are occupying is to reclaim public space and to provide a space for people to talk about what the hell is going on and what to do about it. Permits and laws are mostly used as a way to minimize the efficacy of protest. Generally speaking, the most effective things to do are also illegal. We shouldn't confine our strategy based on what's legal.
It goes both ways. Don't expect others to restrain themselves to the law when dealing with you, nor have sympathy for you.
Second: to say police violence is an "overreaction" is a misunderstanding of the daily function of police. The violence of police is attempt to brutally force us into passivity. Always, everywhere you go, there is the implied threat of this violence. Although this violence comes to a crescendo when they brutalize us, shoot at us, tear gas us in the street, by doing this they are only expressing the nature of their daily existence. This why people hate the police.
Again, it goes both ways. Throw bottles at police, expect 'open fire' to be the response. You need to educate yourself about law enforcement's authorized use of force.
Third: The media will always denounce us. If you don't think an argument is legitimate (for instance when police try to justify beating the shit out of us because somebody threw a bottle at them) then don't back up that argument. Constantly, there is the attempt to isolate the most militant section of the protest, or to legitimize violence used against protesters, when people separate protesters into two groups: the "good protesters" and those "bad protesters" who ruined the legitimate message of the "good protesters" through some sort of vandalism or some sort of excuse like that. This is a common tactic, it is intended to divide the movement, and it's important to recognize it and not stand for it. Ask yourself: does it make more sense to stand up for what you really believe or to stand up for what you think other people will be fooled by?
Why is it that you think it's only 'other people' being fooled, and you are completely enlightened ?
EPT
