• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police clear out Oakland protest camp

I doubt that. I really do. I suspect it would have run its course and the kids would eventurally just go home. you harder the conviction by overreacting.

Your doubt does not erase the potentials.
That's why the state and city has laws.

They can't afford the luxury of your doubt.
 
And what would eb the terrible consequences if they left them be?

  • Businesses shut down.
  • Employees in area inconvenienced and intimidated
  • Taxpayers rights enfringed upon.
  • Oakland resources stressed beyond breaking.
  • Cost to Oakland taxpayers over $2.4 million.
  • Property destruction.
  • Injuries
  • At least one death
  • Rapes
Other than that short list, nothing.
 
  • Businesses shut down.
  • Employees in area inconvenienced and intimidated
  • Taxpayers rights enfringed upon.
  • Oakland resources stressed beyond breaking.
  • Cost to Oakland taxpayers over $2.4 million.
  • Property destruction.
  • Injuries
  • At least one death
  • Rapes
Other than that short list, nothing.

Clearly the right of camping in a park, should be upheld over all that.
Get with the times Maggie. :2razz:
 
At night, when the OWS decided to not comply with the multiple warnings.

Yes camping can be a big deal, especially in a crime haven like Oakland.
Who should be responsible for cleaning up feces, trash, etc?

It's a public park not meant for camping at all.
They were not designed to accompany campers.

The first time they moved them out in Oakland, they did it at like 4am, after posting an eviction notice for the entire previous day.
The incident that occurred at NIGHT occurred as a result of people trying to take the camp back from the police. Thats where all the "horrible police action" we speak of comes from.

Apparently, some on here believe protesters have the right to take land physically occupied by local authorities from them.
 
I doubt that. I really do. I suspect it would have run its course and the kids would eventurally just go home. you harder the conviction by overreacting.


And when the opposite happens, people are hurt, and the park ruined, people killed, women raped, and disease rampant then what would you say? Ah, I guess I was wrong?


j-mac
 
And when the opposite happens, people are hurt, and the park ruined, people killed, women raped, and disease rampant then what would you say? Ah, I guess I was wrong?


j-mac

Unfortunately, the people would then blame the police for not shutting it down sooner.

Thats the ridiculousness of it all.
 
Unfortunately, the people would then blame the police for not shutting it down sooner.

Thats the ridiculousness of it all.


Absolutely. And in case I haven't said before, thanks for being in law enforcement. You have an impossible job, and are taken for granted much.

j-mac
 
Peacefully assemble I don't think means take over an area to the exclusion of anyone else that may want to use that park.
They are excluding people?
How are they excluding people?

Nor do I think it covers hassling people in the normal course of business of their day,
So by yelling and chanting that means they are not peaceful?

nor do I think it means that a group can infringe on the rights of others due to their assembly.

j-mac

What rights are the infringing upon?
 
Your definition of "peaceful" seems to be at odds with reality, when you have clashes with Police, and refusing to obey lawful orders of the police, it ceases to be peaceful.

j-mac


So it makes you not peaceful by refusing to obey the lawful orders of the police? So Ghandi, MLK, and others were not peaceful? I thought they were the definition of peaceful... So sit ins were not peaceful protests?:doh

And you said clashes... When did these clashes begin? After the police came in and used brute force?
 
I don't care.
A public park, is for the public at large, not for OWS people, not for vets, but for everyone.

They are not intended to, nor do they have the facilities present to be a place to camp.

News flash!: The "OWS people" are the public......
 
And you said clashes... When did these clashes begin? After the police came in and used brute force?


Wrong. It has already been shown that the police gave an order to disburse, and were not clashing, when the protesters started the violence with bottle and rock throwing, so your disinformation will not work.

j-mac
 
So it makes you not peaceful by refusing to obey the lawful orders of the police? So Ghandi, MLK, and others were not peaceful? I thought they were the definition of peaceful... So sit ins were not peaceful protests?:doh

And you said clashes... When did these clashes begin? After the police came in and used brute force?

Ghandi and MLK's civil disobedience didn't involve throwing rocks and bottles and motolov cocktails at police.

In fact... Ghandi's method of civil disobedience included not even talking hateful towards the police in performance of their duties, or holding them with ill contempt in any way.

As for the "After police came in and used brute force?" comment...

You are doing it again.........

495491-boy-with-fingers-inb-ears.jpg
 
If the protestors came out protested, left, and came back the next day, that would be finel. People have freedom to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. This does not give one a blank check to do whatever one wants under freedom to protest. I cannot not murder someone, claim I only did it to "send a message," and get off based upon my right to expression. I have freedom of speech, but my actions are harmful in a context that has nothing to do with what is being expressed. In this situation, there is a valid, unrelated purpose to kick out the protestors. They are protesting, and that is their right. However, they are also squatting, denying use of the park to other groups, and preventing maintenance. The protestors are free to assemble as much as they want, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.
 
No, um no they aren't.

They are not even a fraction of 1% of the public.


j-mac

Even if they were less than 1% of the public that still makes them the public...
 
Wrong. It has already been shown that the police gave an order to disburse, and were not clashing, when the protesters started the violence with bottle and rock throwing, so your disinformation will not work.

j-mac

No it hasnt. The only "proof" you have is that Lawrence o Donnell interview..
 
Ghandi and MLK's civil disobedience didn't involve throwing rocks and bottles and motolov cocktails at police.
I wasnt talking on that point. I was talking on the point that just because you disobey a law such as standing in front of the police lines and being told to disperse does not make you violent...


In fact... Ghandi's method of civil disobedience included not even talking hateful towards the police in performance of their duties, or holding them with ill contempt in any way.
Good for Ghandi..

As for the "After police came in and used brute force?" comment...

You are doing it again.........

495491-boy-with-fingers-inb-ears.jpg

Uhh no im not...
In a matter of fact you have been the one plugging your ears. Remember that video when the guy was walking in front of the police filming and asking if this distance was ok and then they just shot him with a rubber bullet?
Your response to that: "Well we dont know what he did before"...
Seriously would a guy that just commented a crime really be so dumb to stand right in front of the police asking if this distance was an ok distance to film them?
 
Even if they were less than 1% of the public that still makes them the public...


Still not allowed to exercise their right at the expense of others that don't agree with their message.

No it hasnt. The only "proof" you have is that Lawrence o Donnell interview..

yeah, the interview of a protester on the scene that saw what transpired first hand...Your denial is deep dude.

j-mac
 
Uhh no im not...
In a matter of fact you have been the one plugging your ears. Remember that video when the guy was walking in front of the police filming and asking if this distance was ok and then they just shot him with a rubber bullet?
Your response to that: "Well we dont know what he did before"...
Seriously would a guy that just commented a crime really be so dumb to stand right in front of the police asking if this distance was an ok distance to film them?

That was them saying no.
 
Seriously would a guy that just commented a crime really be so dumb to stand right in front of the police asking if this distance was an ok distance to film them?

Yes.
People say and do anything they can to try to get the police to react in a way that shows them in a negative light.
 
Still not allowed to exercise their right at the expense of others that don't agree with their message.
How are they exercising their rights at the expense of others?



yeah, the interview of a protester on the scene that saw what transpired first hand...Your denial is deep dude.

j-mac

No its not denial... If their is proof that this happened, and their are cameras everywhere please show that video..
You want a video that the police acted brutal first, giving right for the protesters to try to protect themselves?
 
Yes.
People say and do anything they can to try to get the police to react in a way that shows them in a negative light.

Are you claiming that he did something wrong before the video was shot?
 
Are you claiming that he did something wrong before the video was shot?

Im claiming we have no way of knowing anything except that his camera was facing a line of officers and one of them shot him with a less than lethal munition.

We don't know what was in his other hand.... what was behind him, what he had done previously, what he may have been about to do....

We also dont know why he was the only person in the street standing in front of a crowd control line....

Alot of unknown variables in that video that prevent me from making a judgement upon the matter in either direction.
 
News flash!: The "OWS people" are the public......

They are not the entirety of the public.
Will they leave if another event was scheduled, ahead of their protest, where the whole park will be in use, by the event planners?

Get this, parks are for everyone to use, for a limited time.
It's the only fair way to share public spaces, that's why them camping there is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom