| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
This post was unneccessarily hostile, but damn this is a good quote. <3 Lenny Briscoe OWS people can be aggressive - and are - as they want talking shit on opposition because who knows why, they have all the answers of course. What I've said about them is not half as bad as what they've been saying about the "1%" and anyone who even disagrees in any way whatsoever with their message or their tactics. Bloomberg on the operation. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:A judge can issue a bullshit injunction because he's little OWSer at heart all he wants, injunctions can be challenged or demanded to be clarified and they don't go into effect until the dispute is resolved after a hearing. Injunctions go into effect imeddiately. That's the point of injunctive relief. Challenging it requires appealing to a higher court and winning, and the injunction prevails until then. On November 16 2011 06:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:It only takes one side going and filing for an injunction for a judge to see it and grant it (or not), the other side still has its right to argue against it. This is a politically motivated ruling by a judge who cares more about his politics than the law. Of course, any judge that agrees with your ideology is an upstanding lawyer who adheres to the law, and any judge that disagrees is a biased activist judge who cares more about politics than the law.  On November 16 2011 06:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:It is over. Someone sounds scared. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
edit: Also, in my book at least, shitting on the sidewalk is forfeiture of rights against an ass-beating. If I'm on a jury of someone being tried for assault on someone shitting on the sidewalk, they don't get convicted. | ||
|
dolvlo
United States99 Posts
| ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: OWS people can be aggressive - and are - as they want talking shit on opposition because who knows why, they have all the answers of course. What I've said about them is not half as bad as what they've been saying about the "1%" and anyone who even disagrees in any way whatsoever with their message or their tactics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KqfSdXaQTlY Bloomberg on the operation. I love it. He said himself he wanted to wait, since... winter is coming.  | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:20 Kaitlin wrote: For the record, the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel kicks in at 1) indictment, 2) information, or 3) initial appearance. None of these generally occur within your 12 hours of being arrested. I'm pretty sure the earliest (initial appearance) has about a 3 day window. The system is not built to cater to these punks, thank God. edit: Also, in my book at least, shitting on the sidewalk is forfeiture of rights against an ass-beating. If I'm on a jury of someone being tried for assault on someone shitting on the sidewalk, they don't get convicted. Really that's your morality? you would violently beat a defecator on public land rather then reprimand and rehabilitate them? How does that further prevent them from continually shitting on your land and becoming violent themselves. Violence incites violence and using that as a solution to a problem is lazy and crude the law is not mean to be the inciter of violence it's mean to be the end of violence. On November 16 2011 06:22 dolvlo wrote: I really don't see a problem with interrogating the protesters before their lawyers can get there. If they committed any crimes, they *should* be subject to long hours of interrogation without some liberal lawyer telling them what they should say. If they didn't commit any crimes, then they have nothing to fear (and don't even need a lawyer in the first place). that's illegal, if a person does not know their right it's an uneven playing field between a seasoned interrogator and a random person. If you hold a person and interrogate them and they ask for counsel they will get it as a police officer is allowed to lie during an interrogation. Or perhaps you don't understand what the Miranda warnings came about, although people confused those warning for when you are arrested it's actually only has to be said before interrogation, it's not an uncommon technique to just sit a person down while the officer does paper work and wait for them to say something allowing them to get information without reading those warnings, as you're not cross examining them. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:22 dolvlo wrote: I really don't see a problem with interrogating the protesters before their lawyers can get there. If they committed any crimes, they *should* be subject to long hours of interrogation without some liberal lawyer telling them what they should say. If they didn't commit any crimes, then they have nothing to fear (and don't even need a lawyer in the first place). Nobody said anything about interrogating without their lawyers. Simply that they can sit in the holding cells. Law enforcement can't question them if they've invoked their right to an attorney. Law enforcement, however, is under no obligation to run around granting every request on the spot. They've been arrested. They sit their ass in jail until they're processed. | ||
|
ElJefe
United States42 Posts
For the record, the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel kicks in at 1) indictment, 2) information, or 3) initial appearance. None of these generally occur within your 12 hours of being arrested. I'm pretty sure the earliest (initial appearance) has about a 3 day window. Actually you always have your 6th amendment right. You have the right to counsel even if you are being questioned in a crime you are not even a suspect of. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:26 semantics wrote: Really that's your morality? you would violently beat a defecator on public land rather then reprimand and rehabilitate them? How does that further prevent them from continually shitting on your land and becoming violent themselves. Violence incites violence and using that as a solution to a problem is lazy and crude the law is not mean to be the inciter of violence it's mean to be the end of violence. I didn't say I would be the one to beat them. I'm just saying they lose my sympathy as a victim of crime and I would not hold the ass-beater responsible. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:30 ElJefe wrote: Actually you always have your 6th amendment right. You have the right to counsel even if you are being questioned in a crime you are not even a suspect of. I said the "6th Amendment" right to counsel. The "6th Amendment" right to counsel kicks in when I said it does. Before that, one's right to counsel falls under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Of course, any judge that agrees with your ideology is an upstanding lawyer who adheres to the law, and any judge that disagrees is a biased activist judge who cares more about politics than the law. No, that's stupid. Your sarcasm = bad. A judge granting an injunction halting all abortions in City X because he's a pro-life Republican would be just as bad. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-lucy-billings-signed-occupy-wall-street-order-aclu-veteran-article-1.977725 Yeah, the judge is a 25 year member of a leftwing political organization, she was first on their list. The court has removed her name from the list of judges for hearing an appeal of the injunction. Maybe they think she isn't impartial? You don't know how getting an injunction works do you? You can pick any judge you want, present your argument, and get a decision right there. The other side doesn't even have to be there to have an opportunity to defend itself. They picked a judge they knew would grant their request regardless of its merits or lack thereof. This is common when people who are connected want an injunction. They pick the judge they know will say yes and ask them to say yes. \\ Injunctions go into effect imeddiately. That's the point of injunctive relief. Challenging it requires appealing to a higher court and winning, and the injunction prevails until then. Hahahaha no. The injunction is meaningless if disobeyed while being contested. If you lose your appeal you get in big trouble, but not following injunctions while they are in dispute is itself a cause many times of spin-off courtroom disputes regarding should they be punished for disregarding the injunction and depending on the issues, usually nothing happens. As it will here. The injunction is politically motivated garbage, the city won't follow it and they won't get in trouble. Someone sounds scared. Oh please. No one is scared of you. Statements like this just make us laugh. You look like fools when you say that. You remind me of George Bush, "Bring em on." Okay we get it you have tough words. They are devoid of meaning. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Also charging protesters goes against the usual which is to cite and release, it also opens the department up to protests inciting them to arrest more people the old fill up the jails and bring the system to a halt when the system is keeping you down. On November 16 2011 06:30 Kaitlin wrote: I didn't say I would be the one to beat them. I'm just saying they lose my sympathy as a victim of crime and I would not hold the ass-beater responsible. Then your a bad juror you're suppose to interpret what's given to you as law not say ya or na on an action based on your own morality, that's just leads to you being kicked on the jury. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
Also, to whoever said something about being interrogated for hours without a lawyer you're being pretty naive. Fact, the police and prosecutors are just as human as anyone, they have bosses to please. There are a raft of cases in which bad judgements and sentencing occurred due to overly long interrogations which "broke" people to "admit" to crimes they did not commit. If you ever get arrested, even if you didn't do anything, always ask for a lawyer before talking to the police. Especially if they want to interrogate you. If you've got nothing to hide having a lawyer isn't going to change anything and it'll prevent some cop from trying to trick you into a question that makes you sound like a suspect. | ||
|
LarJarsE
United States1378 Posts
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-lucy-billings-signed-occupy-wall-street-order-aclu-veteran-article-1.977725 http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.977964.1321391928!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_240/image.jpg you have GOT to be kidding me | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:39 overt wrote: If you ever get arrested, even if you didn't do anything, always ask for a lawyer before talking to the police. Especially if they want to interrogate you. If you've got nothing to hide having a lawyer isn't going to change anything and it'll prevent some cop from trying to trick you into a question that makes you sound like a suspect. Never ever talk to the police, it's not even about being intentionally tricked really. | ||
|
RoyGBiv_13
United States1275 Posts
The same political stunts are being played around the country to make people stop protesting... This isn't the America I grew up in... | ||
|
dolvlo
United States99 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:36 DeepElemBlues wrote: Oh please. No one is scared of you. Statements like this just make us laugh. You look like fools when you say that. You remind me of George Bush, "Bring em on." Okay we get it you have tough words. They are devoid of meaning. This is not a fair statement. George Bush's words were not devoid of meaning; he commanded more power than any other president in modern history. What he said, he meant, and had the actions to back it up. Don't you dare compare the hippy liberal garbage that is OWS to George Bush. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On November 16 2011 06:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:The injunction is meaningless if disobeyed while being contested. If you lose your appeal you get in big trouble, but not following injunctions while they are in dispute is itself a cause many times of spin-off courtroom disputes regarding should they be punished for disregarding the injunction and depending on the issues, usually nothing happens. As it will here. The injunction is politically motivated garbage, the city won't follow it and they won't get in trouble. That's one of the stupidest things I ever heard. What would be the point of injunctions if they could be randomly disregarded? Oh, you have a restraining order against me? Too bad, it's being contested! Outside of your fantasy world, violating an injunction places you in contempt of court. On November 16 2011 06:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:No one is scared of you. Statements like this just make us laugh. You look like fools when you say that. You remind me of George Bush, "Bring em on." Okay we get it you have tough words. They are devoid of meaning. I'm neither a member nor a supporter of the Occupy movement. I just find it hilarious that you insist that the movement is over as if saying it would make it true. It's quite reminiscent of Gaddafi insisting numerous imes that the rebels have lost. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
OWS has lost their injunction fight. Update: AP bulletin at 4:48 ET: The court rules for NYC against OWS. I'm trying to find the bulletin itself now. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-backs-city-ban-occupy-wall-street-protesters-tents-zuccotti-article-1.977674 | ||
|
dolvlo
United States99 Posts
On November 16 2011 07:04 DeepElemBlues wrote: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/15/court-ruling-on-occupy-wall-street-eviction-imminent/ OWS has lost their injunction fight. I'm trying to find the bulletin itself now. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-backs-city-ban-occupy-wall-street-protesters-tents-zuccotti-article-1.977674 Thank God, finally business can start up again. I wonder how much economic damage these protesters alone have caused. Bloomberg is a hero today | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
n0maD vs perroflaco
TerrOr vs ZZZero
MadiNho vs WolFix
DragOn vs LancerX
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
