Occupy Wall Street

[bat]

Can anyone list the objectives of the OWS movement?

Reminds me of this.

Guess which one you are!

 

[babe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5vV4zw-cus

This example of police hooliganism ought to bring thinking people to revulsion at what our police have been trained to do. Send a copy to your city fathers and ask them if the federal government's handouts for police toys and training are producing a police force that will protect human rights, or abuse them.

 

[LogGrad98]

The funny thing is that default is really the only solution . Not unilateral default, but multilateral default and multilateral debt forgiveness across the board. Every bank, every government, every private company, every individual in the entire world that has ever lent or borrowed money would have to agree to pretend those contracts never existed and start over with a clean slate. That is how absurd all this debt talk nonsense and all these different protest groups are. You cannot fix the problem unless you do what I said above and the above is never going to happen for obvious reasons.

What's OWS going to do about derivatives? They are already out there, they are already worthless, and with MF Global going bankrupt, not being able to cover even 900 million of personal accounts, and the CME refusing to provide any backup funds because they know it's just going to be one of many in they near future, they are admitting it's a ponzi scheme by their actions. They are admitting that if enough people wanted to call in their contracts, they wouldn't receive anything in return. What happens when a $1.5 Quadrillion ponzi scheme blows up? We're about to find out.

So fight club was right. Cool.

 

[LogGrad98]

This example of police hooliganism ought to bring thinking people to revulsion at what our police have been trained to do. Send a copy to your city fathers and ask them if the federal government's handouts for police toys and training are producing a police force that will protect human rights, or abuse them.

Isn't it illegal to block a public walk like that? Also it looked like he told them what he was going to do before he did it so they had a chance to move. I'm not so sure this was as far out of line as you portray it. Also from the video we get very little context. We have no idea what had happened up to that point. This may have been the exactly correct response given the circumstances. No matter what romantic ideas people may get about the inviolability of protests, there are laws governing them. Should they just not be enforced at all?

 

[bat]

Pretty much every eye witness says they'd been standing there non violently before being attacked by the police officer.

I don't buy the he showed them the pepper spray so it's okay if he uses it argument either. If he showed a stun gun or a night stick, then stunned them or whacked them over the head that is okay too because they got a warning?

That's police brutality at it's finest. Police are here to protect, that action protected nobody and was wait out of line with the offensive force being used against them which was locked arms and chanting.

Seriously this is just the police attacking our own citizens and there are still a lot of people allowing political bias to blind them from right and wrong. If the police are allowed to physically assault the citizens because of non violent protest, what can't they do?

 

[babe]

Isn't it illegal to block a public walk like that? Also it looked like he told them what he was going to do before he did it so they had a chance to move. I'm not so sure this was as far out of line as you portray it. Also from the video we get very little context. We have no idea what had happened up to that point. This may have been the exactly correct response given the circumstances. No matter what romantic ideas people may get about the inviolability of protests, there are laws governing them. Should they just not be enforced at all?

There are a lot of laws I don't think are Constitutional, including some that pertain to use of public spaces such as parks and streets, as well as university campuses. In these places the right to peaceably assemble and petition government for the redress of grievances is more important.

Police are supposedly sworn and under oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and in any case the whole strategy of shock and awe weoponry turned against ciizens in these precise circumstances is reprehensible. It is being reported in the news that the UCD chancellor authorized the use of force to remove the protestors from campus, and the faculty and many students are now calling for her resignation. Universities of all places should be bastions of human rights.

Hey, I don't like vital public spaces being taken over permanently by any mob, let along deranged misfits who are anti-social and unwashed and noncompliant and right about our cartelist banks and other businesses with inordinate access to our representatives. It's only fine upstanding hard-working taxpayers who are pleased to bail out crooks when their frauds need public support who should have the right to speak or express any sentiments in regard to our public policies. It would be a tragic derparture from the norms of established civilization to let noncompliants express opinions in places our impressionable youth might be able to see or hear. It is dangerous especially when our youth are not trained to reliably think right.

In regard to the groundskeeping budget, it obviously did not provide for the wear and tear due to the Occupy crowd. But it's still probably less than the cost of cleaning up the campus theatre/music hall/museum/library/sports arenas after the public comes on campus to use them. So shouldn't the campus ticket office just start selling tickets to see the Occupy play?

 

[LogGrad98]

Pretty much every eye witness says they'd been standing there non violently before being attacked by the police officer.

I don't buy the he showed them the pepper spray so it's okay if he uses it argument either. If he showed a stun gun or a night stick, then stunned them or whacked them over the head that is okay too because they got a warning?

That's police brutality at it's finest. Police are here to protect, that action protected nobody and was wait out of line with the offensive force being used against them which was locked arms and chanting.

Seriously this is just the police attacking our own citizens and there are still a lot of people allowing political bias to blind them from right and wrong. If the police are allowed to physically assault the citizens because of non violent protest, what can't they do?

They are not standing, they are sitting. In my opinion the police were not claiming it was a violent protest. There are laws governing protests, even peaceful demonstrations. One of them states that you cannot impeded pedestrians or traffic in the course of the protest. It looked to me that police were trying to get them to clear the walkway, as would be required by law. You fall into the same logical fallacy (is it confirmation bias? I forget), that as long as the protest is "valid" and "peaceful" it is automatically "legal". That is not necessarily the case.

It strikes me that pepper spray would be preferable to nightsticks or stun guns. Don't you think so? They are not equal in force. Pepper spray would be used first to disperse the protesters illegally blocking a public walkway. If that doesn't work, then they resort to other methods to enforce the law. Again, what makes the laws invalid? If you disagree with the law or agree with the protesters then the law is wrong? Also, what method should the police have used to get them to move other than pepper spray?

Not much of what they did actually looked all that brutal actually. If that is your idea of police brutality then I am not sure how the police would ever be able to enforce any laws at all when perpetrators resist.

https://pittnews.com/newsstory/laws-govern-restrict-peaceful-protests/

In the 1989 court case Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court found that “the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/...-the-state-restrict-a-peaceful-protest/single

But what constitutes a reasonable time, place and manner restriction? "It depends on the context and circumstances," said Geoffrey Stone, a professor specializing in constitutional law at the University of Chicago. "Things like noise, blockage of ordinary uses of the place, blockage of traffic and destruction of property allow the government to regulate speakers."

 

[LogGrad98]

There are a lot of laws I don't think are Constitutional, including some that pertain to use of public spaces such as parks and streets, as well as university campuses. In these places the right to peaceably assemble and petition government for the redress of grievances is more important.

That is fine, you and every american have the right to disagree. But do you have the right to dictate which laws the police are supposed to enforce? I thought that was up to the supreme court. Do you think that protesters should be allowed to block whatever they want whenever they want regardless of the circumstances? Or does it depend on who is protesting what? That is why there are laws that govern those circumstances. The police need to follow some guideline. Otherwise, how do they enforce anything?

And these issues have come before the supreme court and have had an impact on the way the police plan for this type of thing, so it isn't like it has never been considered by the supreme court, or that the laws were drawn up in a vaccuum.

I am sure more will surface about this particular incident over the next weeks. It will be interesting to read details of the situation and see how it plays out in court. At this point I have a hard time saying if the force the police used (pepper spray) was extreme or not. Again, to me pepper spray seems like a first line of force or low level of force considering the other tools at the officer's disposal (night stick, taser, fists, gun, etc.)

It is interesting though how many people think that just because someone is protesting they are automatically within their rights no matter what they do, as long as they don't get "violent".

I wonder, would those of you being so vocal about automatically condemning the police be exactly so vocal in exactly the same way if you disagreed with the protest itself?

 

[babe]

They are not standing, they are sitting. In my opinion the police were not claiming it was a violent protest. There are laws governing protests, even peaceful demonstrations. One of them states that you cannot impeded pedestrians or traffic in the course of the protest. It looked to me that police were trying to get them to clear the walkway, as would be required by law. You fall into the same logical fallacy (is it confirmation bias? I forget), that as long as the protest is "valid" and "peaceful" it is automatically "legal". That is not necessarily the case.

It strikes me that pepper spray would be preferable to nightsticks or stun guns. Don't you think so? They are not equal in force. Pepper spray would be used first to disperse the protesters illegally blocking a public walkway. If that doesn't work, then they resort to other methods to enforce the law. Again, what makes the laws invalid? If you disagree with the law or agree with the protesters then the law is wrong? Also, what method should the police have used to get them to move other than pepper spray?

Not much of what they did actually looked all that brutal actually. If that is your idea of police brutality then I am not sure how the police would ever be able to enforce any laws at all when perpetrators resist.

https://pittnews.com/newsstory/laws-govern-restrict-peaceful-protests/



https://www.propublica.org/article/...-the-state-restrict-a-peaceful-protest/single

I am particularly indignant about police or any government authorities using chemicals on humans. Or water hoses, or water boards, or bamboo shavings, or shock-and-awe armaments. Public policies that require such methods are inherently flawed. I get peeved when no-knock search warrants result in property damage landlords have to repair out of their own pockets. I think the whole freakshow of SWAT team operations is nonsense. Government is just getting inhumane.

Oh, I notice you responded to me while I was editing, adding more to the fire. Well, it's a good thing we can have a place like this to exchange views, isn't it.

 

[babe]

That is fine, you and every american have the right to disagree. But do you have the right to dictate which laws the police are supposed to enforce? I thought that was up to the supreme court. Do you think that protesters should be allowed to block whatever they want whenever they want regardless of the circumstances? Or does it depend on who is protesting what? That is why there are laws that govern those circumstances. The police need to follow some guideline. Otherwise, how do they enforce anything?

And these issues have come before the supreme court and have had an impact on the way the police plan for this type of thing, so it isn't like it has never been considered by the supreme court, or that the laws were drawn up in a vaccuum.

I am sure more will surface about this particular incident over the next weeks. It will be interesting to read details of the situation and see how it plays out in court. At this point I have a hard time saying if the force the police used (pepper spray) was extreme or not. Again, to me pepper spray seems like a first line of force or low level of force considering the other tools at the officer's disposal (night stick, taser, fists, gun, etc.)

It is interesting though how many people think that just because someone is protesting they are automatically within their rights no matter what they do, as long as they don't get "violent".

I wonder, would those of you being so vocal about automatically condemning the police be exactly so vocal in exactly the same way if you disagreed with the protest itself?

As a matter of fact, I happen to hate seeing my favorite issues co-opted by a mob led by paid agitators who are so repugnant to common sensibilities that they make it hard for me to make the case on Constitutional grounds that our political system is corrupted by the big money.

I see otherwise decent and intelligent folks repulsed by these mobs and clamoring for even more police-state jackbooted thugs who will then deploy against me chatting on the internet, or carrying a sign on a sidewalk. You should think it through with less smug self-assurance that our fine public managers are only doing their duty to sweep the streets of people we don't like. I believe that it is exactly this sort of public law, policy, and enforcement that constitutes impairment of human rights by the most rightly-feared tyrants of all---- the majority.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I'm not a big fan of OWS. Get a job! I mean, quit laying on the lawn and work for your living like the rest of us! Whining won't solve your problems, getting a job and working a 9-5 will, especially being given the very things you're fighting against! Maybe then you'll find out that those things matter, but are hard to get, so why even try.

- Craig

 

[Gameface]

Reminds me of this.

Guess which one you are!

So can you answer my question then? I am asking because the media sure hasn't enlightened me. And the question isn't why, it is what they hope to accomplish.

 

[babe]

So can you answer my question then? I am asking because the media sure hasn't enlightened me. And the question isn't why, it is what they hope to accomplish.

What worries me about the OWS folks is I think it sounds like they don't understand that the remedy to all the ills they see is a return to principled adherence to the Constitution as it was intended by our founders. . . . by putting statesmen in office who understand the importance of integrity to our system.

There was no intention to empower courts to legislate or re-interpret the laws or underlying Constitution. The legislature had significant power to limit the Supreme Court and in fact to determine the scope of jurisdiction of all federal courts. The President did not have the power to legislate by "executive order", there was no provision for various "agencies" to make rules or hold administrative courts or send out cops to enforce their bureaucratic policies. And even the Legislative power was supposed to be restricted by Presidents who might veto a law, and a Supreme Court that could limit the powers of both the Executive and Legislative. The whole system was designed to limit the accumulation or concentration of power. But that has broken down because it has developed into a culture of crooks who all are making huge power grabs, and nobody is standing against it.

That is why we have bankers owning the Fed and cartelists writing the legislation that affects them to ensure their market share, or even a share of the tax receipts. The politicians have been corrupted by the lobbyists/money and nobody is looking out for us.

But the OWS folks seem to be talking about a govenment by the 99, for the 99. . . . mobocracy. And that's no improvement.

 

[LogGrad98]

As a matter of fact, I happen to hate seeing my favorite issues co-opted by a mob led by paid agitators who are so repugnant to common sensibilities that they make it hard for me to make the case on Constitutional grounds that our political system is corrupted by the big money.

I see otherwise decent and intelligent folks repulsed by these mobs and clamoring for even more police-state jackbooted thugs who will then deploy against me chatting on the internet, or carrying a sign on a sidewalk. You should think it through with less smug self-assurance that our fine public managers are only doing their duty to sweep the streets of people we don't like. I believe that it is exactly this sort of public law, policy, and enforcement that constitutes impairment of human rights by the most rightly-feared tyrants of all---- the majority.

Cute rhetoric that said nothing.

Do you think protesters should be allowed to be as disruptive as they choose or should there be laws governing what they are allowed to do in disrupting the lives of others (blocking public walkways, drives, streets, buildings, etc.)? If there should be laws governing this, how do you suggest these jack-booted thugs (nice stereotype there by the way) should enforce those laws? Is enforcing our laws always equal to "sweeping the streets of people we don't like" or is it ever valid to enforce the laws of our society? Or does it depend on whether babe agrees with it or not?

Also, nice attempt at a straw man. If you want to draw parallels between police performing their duties per the laws that govern our society and "jack-booted thugs" chasing you down on the internet (no idea where that came from, hence, straw man) that is your choice. It has absolutely no bearing on this discussion or the issue of these police officers using pepper spray on this group of protesters, but you can surely make that comparison if you so choose.

 

[LogGrad98]

What worries me about the OWS folks is I think it sounds like they don't understand that the remedy to all the ills they see is a return to principled adherence to the Constitution as it was intended by our founders. . . . by putting statesmen in office who understand the importance of integrity to our system.

There was no intention to empower courts to legislate or re-interpret the laws or underlying Constitution. The legislature had significant power to limit the Supreme Court and in fact to determine the scope of jurisdiction of all federal courts. The President did not have the power to legislate by "executive order", there was no provision for various "agencies" to make rules or hold administrative courts or send out cops to enforce their bureaucratic policies. And even the Legislative power was supposed to be restricted by Presidents who might veto a law, and a Supreme Court that could limit the powers of both the Executive and Legislative. The whole system was designed to limit the accumulation or concentration of power. But that has broken down because it has developed into a culture of crooks who all are making huge power grabs, and nobody is standing against it.

That is why we have bankers owning the Fed and cartelists writing the legislation that affects them to ensure their market share, or even a share of the tax receipts. The politicians have been corrupted by the lobbyists/money and nobody is looking out for us.

But the OWS folks seem to be talking about a govenment by the 99, for the 99. . . . mobocracy. And that's no improvement.

I agree with that assessment, and I think that is exactly what GF is getting at. Their message and objectives are so muddled it has devolved into just that, a mob approach rather than a protest with something to accomplish. And flaunting reasonable laws regarding assembly on private property and public ingress and egress to public places just pisses people off, causes the police to get involved needlessly and it does nothing to make their point.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

I'm not a big fan of OWS. Get a job! I mean, quit laying on the lawn and work for your living like the rest of us! Whining won't solve your problems, getting a job and working a 9-5 will, especially being given the very things you're fighting against! Maybe then you'll find out that those things matter, but are hard to get, so why even try.

- Craig

Lots of them have jobs. And how will working 9 to 5 help this country out if the haves are not hiring the have nots. Plus, you are old get out of you job that you are holding onto we don't need the grandpas keeping all the jobs from the youth. You voted for and sat back and watched these atrocities and I bet now you are calling for a balance budget and rising the age of retirement for everyone after you.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

So can you answer my question then? I am asking because the media sure hasn't enlightened me. And the question isn't why, it is what they hope to accomplish.

Exactly

 

[Mission Accomplished]

https://i.huffpost.com/gen/411593/LIZ-NICHOLS-OCCUPY-PORTLAND-PEPPER-SPRAY.jpg

 

[Mission Accomplished]

I don't know how to make the image above larger

 

[LogGrad98]

That is a very good shot by that photographer. A split second later and I am sure her head moves and mouth closes. Could be a screen cap from video I guess. Still, crazy shot.