• 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

They are not the entirety of the public.
So... Do you only have the right to protest if you get 100% of the public or something?

Will they leave if another event was scheduled, ahead of their protest, where the whole park will be in use, by the event planners?
Is there an event?

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.
Can you show me that law?
 
They are excluding people?
How are they excluding people?

Can other people in those cities have a quiet day in the park at all while they are busy protesting/camping in that park? Why not? Why should other citizens of that area not be allowed to partake in the actual intended purposes of the park for 2+ months just because a small group wishes to protest against something that has zero to do with the park?

And what about the extra police/security that the city has to provide specifically for these protesters? Why should they be entitled to basically usurp a good portion of police time for their continued presence in these areas? One of the major reasons for parks being closed at night is because most cities cannot afford to provide police/security for those parks throughout the night. The city then becomes responsible for things that happen within the park, whether it be crimes against people or basic vandalism. That costs the city money.

Having rights means understanding that sometimes your rights come into conflict with other people's rights. This is when a compromise is made.

So by yelling and chanting that means they are not peaceful?

By yelling at the cops, it becomes a non-peaceful protest. By throwing things at the cops or anyone else, it becomes a non-peaceful protest.

What rights are the infringing upon?

We do not live in vacuums. Public land is supposed to be rightfully owned by all people, not just those who wish to protest or camp out there.

And public services are paid for by all citizens within an area. Those services should not be cut short so that people can protest something in a way that causes problems. And camping out for months at a time on public lands is going to cause problems. It happens. People are people.
 
Can you show me that law?

I haven't seen the law, but the Mayor seems to think it exists. He probably knows more about it then I do.

The law that created Zuccotti Park required that it be open for the public to enjoy for passive recreation 24 hours a day," Bloomberg said. "Ever since the occupation began, that law has not been complied with, as the park has been taken over by protesters, making it unavailable to anyone else."
 
Can other people in those cities have a quiet day in the park at all while they are busy protesting/camping in that park?Why not? Why should other citizens of that area not be allowed to partake in the actual intended purposes of the park for 2+ months just because a small group wishes to protest against something that has zero to do with the park?
No...
So that means people cannot peacefully assemble there?




And what about the extra police/security that the city has to provide specifically for these protesters? Why should they be entitled to basically usurp a good portion of police time for their continued presence in these areas? One of the major reasons for parks being closed at night is because most cities cannot afford to provide police/security for those parks throughout the night. The city then becomes responsible for things that happen within the park, whether it be crimes against people or basic vandalism. That costs the city money.
Sounds like that the local officials are afraid....
But why? Maybe cuz thats their job...




Having rights means understanding that sometimes your rights come into conflict with other people's rights. This is when a compromise is made.
How is this conflicting?



By yelling at the cops, it becomes a non-peaceful protest. By throwing things at the cops or anyone else, it becomes a non-peaceful protest.
I never stated yelling at the police.
I means by saying that chanting like a poular chant of "power to the people" or "this is what democracy looks like"




We do not live in vacuums. Public land is supposed to be rightfully owned by all people, not just those who wish to protest or camp out there.
They are camping their for a reason. A way to assemble and to protest...
Remember all the people in Egypt camping?


And public services are paid for by all citizens within an area. Those services should not be cut short so that people can protest something in a way that causes problems. And camping out for months at a time on public lands is going to cause problems. It happens. People are people.

So let me get this straight: "You have the right to protest as long as id doesnt mean we have to bring in extra services"? Is that correct?
 
  • 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.

Rape is a serious crime. Please arrest those who do that. How much of the distruction came as result of trying to force them out? How did the person die? It matters.

What I asked was for the consequences of letting them stay. Not in letting them destroy things or commit major crimes. Would you agre there is a difference?
 
Rape is a serious crime. Please arrest those who do that. How much of the distruction came as result of trying to force them out? How did the person die? It matters.

What I asked was for the consequences of letting them stay. Not in letting them destroy things or commit major crimes. Would you agre there is a difference?

So what do you see as "the consequences of letting them stay?" None? I made my list. All of these things have happened in spades as a direct result of these people having a slumber party. All of these things are easily foreseen and direct consequences of allowing people to camp out in a space that doesn't allow camping. Period.
 
So what do you see as "the consequences of letting them stay?" None? I made my list. All of these things have happened in spades as a direct result of these people having a slumber party. All of these things are easily foreseen and direct consequences of allowing people to camp out in a space that doesn't allow camping. Period.

I give you credit for the list. Two I think fall under laws that need to be enforced. Police arrest someone for rape or destroying property, I won't argue.

But as I know people can and have stayed without those things happening, and without any significant issues to business, I think it is a leap to suggest merely by being there such things will always happen.
 
I give you credit for the list. Two I think fall under laws that need to be enforced. Police arrest someone for rape or destroying property, I won't argue.

But as I know people can and have stayed without those things happening, and without any significant issues to business, I think it is a leap to suggest merely by being there such things will always happen.

Its not a leap when these things are happening.
 
Its not a leap when these things are happening.

Maybe. But were they happening there? Were the police trying to stop those things? Or did they create much of that by esculating what didn't need to be esculated?
 
We put the police in a position to decide when things should be escalated. The fact is these people are violating the law. Whether or not you agree with what their purpose is I don't see why it's so hard to understand that they are going about things the wrong way.
 
So what do you see as "the consequences of letting them stay?" None? I made my list. All of these things have happened in spades as a direct result of these people having a slumber party. All of these things are easily foreseen and direct consequences of allowing people to camp out in a space that doesn't allow camping. Period.

Not sure the murder and rape is "in spades". Not sure if taxpayers "rights" were infringed upon either.
 
Not sure the murder and rape is "in spades". Not sure if taxpayers "rights" were infringed upon either.

Well, we'll just have to disagree. One Occupy Oakland protestor was shot and killed:

OAKLAND, Calif. -- A man shot dead near the "Occupy Oakland" encampment last week and a suspect in the killing both were staying at the protest site, police said late Sunday.

Relatives of Kayode Ola Foster, 25, confirmed to police that he had been camping at the City Hall plaza before he was shot last Thursday afternoon, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Read more: Victim, suspect in Occupy Oakland shooting death connected to protests: cops - NYPOST.com

However, after a sexual assault at the site, as well as a possible rape attempt earlier this week, officials seem to have reached their boiling point. Frustrated occupiers commented that Bloomberg needed to “get his facts straight,” and were outraged after observing, they claimed, the sexual assault perpetrator forcibly removed from the protest and handed to the NYPD. Bloomberg said the suspect was merely kicked off the premises.

Although they "forcibly removed" the perpetrator, it happened in their encampment. Sounds like spades to me...
 
Well, we'll just have to disagree. One Occupy Oakland protestor was shot and killed:





Although they "forcibly removed" the perpetrator, it happened in their encampment. Sounds like spades to me...

But you said "in spades". I didn't say it didn't happen. But given the number of people and cities involved, the incidents have been highly isolated; not "in spades". I think you need to aggregate up before it's "in spades". One protester shot is not "in spades". Even a few are not. It would have to be well more wide spread across the OWS movement in general to be "in spades". If we are to use the term correctly that is.
 
We put the police in a position to decide when things should be escalated. The fact is these people are violating the law. Whether or not you agree with what their purpose is I don't see why it's so hard to understand that they are going about things the wrong way.

And they can be wrong. It really boils down to what is happening and how signiifcant what is actually happening is. Those who have point to specific incidents are on more solid ground IMHO than those who speak in generalities. For us to decide it shouldn't be allowed at all, anywhere, we would have to show that rape and diestruction happen in significant numbers. The rare occurance would not be justification.
 
And they can be wrong. It really boils down to what is happening and how signiifcant what is actually happening is. Those who have point to specific incidents are on more solid ground IMHO than those who speak in generalities. For us to decide it shouldn't be allowed at all, anywhere, we would have to show that rape and diestruction happen in significant numbers. The rare occurance would not be justification.

No, the only thing we have to show is that people can't camp out on public/private property. That's why they had all the problems, imo, and that's why they were ousted. There really is no grand conspiracy.

500 people camp out in your backyard...500 people set up tents on the street in front of your house...in the park where your kids play...for months. Forever? Make it personal so you "get it." There's no conspiracy.
 
No, the only thing we have to show is that people can't camp out on public/private property. That's why they had all the problems, imo, and that's why they were ousted. There really is no grand conspiracy.

500 people camp out in your backyard...500 people set up tents on the street in front of your house...in the park where your kids play...for months. Forever? Make it personal so you "get it." There's no conspiracy.

I would not risk violence for that reason. No one should be hurt due to staying in the park. Minor violations don't usually need to be addressed by use of force.

And public space is different than my yard. But, I would not get violent over people in my yard. Nor can I as I understand the law. If I can get a better result by leaving them alone, or negotiating a mutually beneficial settlement without esculating the situation, wouldn't that ebenfit all concerned?
 
No...
So that means people cannot peacefully assemble there?

It should mean that people cannot peacefully assemble there, in that one spot (especially when that spot has zero to do with what they are protesting) for extended periods of time.

And, honestly, camping out in a place is not protesting. Camping out is living in a place. If the group wants to have a 24/7 presence, then they should find some place to live that does not cause a problem (their own homes, people who volunteer to allow others to live with them for the cause, camping outside the city or someplace where it is allowed) and be protesting in shifts. Heck, even just leaving the area peacefully and working through the courts to make arrangements with the city to allow them to stay for so long, only being forced to leave for sanitation and/or security reasons (including allowing access to crime scenes) is better than just assuming that they have a right to camp on that land indefinitely without ever having to move, for any reason.

Sounds like that the local officials are afraid....
But why? Maybe cuz thats their job...

Or maybe the local officials understand that they are responsible for the maintenance/cleanup of all public areas. And that they have to be at least somewhat responsible for the safety of people in those places.

There is a limited amount of money in most public coffers. So what services/things should go unfunded/underfunded to pay for the reallocation of funds to pay for security/cleanup/maintenance of those parks due to protesters living there? If you can't think of what the city governments would likely reallocate money from, then how are they going to pay for those extra services due to those relatively few people? And be realistic please.

How is this conflicting?

Because all citizens have a right to the use of public land, not just those who are protesting. The protesters don't seem to understand this at all. With them usurping those parks, other citizens cannot use those parks for picnics, walks, playing with their kids, jogging, those normal activities that citizens use parks for. There are always going to be times when parks may temporarily not be available for those activities, but those times should not be days, let alone months in length.


I never stated yelling at the police.
I means by saying that chanting like a poular chant of "power to the people" or "this is what democracy looks like"

The protesters were not simply speaking loud or chanting. They were squatting on public property (which in itself, is still peaceful protesting). When asked to leave, so that officials could clean up after them and/or to allow others access to those spaces, the protesters yelled at the police and some even started throwing things at the police.

We are discussing the OWS protesters here, not just some generic protests.


They are camping their for a reason. A way to assemble and to protest...

Being specific, explain to me how any of the other things I suggested on ways to protest that would be honest compromises are not better overall for everyone, protesters and everyone else, than them trying to take over those parks and not allow anyone else their use or public officials access to actually do the jobs that they are responsible for?

Remember all the people in Egypt camping?

No because I really don't pay that much attention to the politics in other countries. I live in the US. I care about our politics mainly. Every now and then, I might take an interest. But Egyptians camping out in Egypt for whatever reason does not really affect me. Americans camping out in American cities does.

And, yes, one of the OWS occupations is in the city I live in.

So let me get this straight: "You have the right to protest as long as id doesnt mean we have to bring in extra services"? Is that correct?

You have a right to protest at your own expense. The other citizens within the area should not be expected to pay for the cleanup after you.

If it were up to me alone, I would charge the OWS occupiers with at the very least, whatever it costs the city to cleanup the areas they are living in. I would also charge them at least a nominal "security" fee for extra shifts the police have to man to either provide security for those camps and/or for removing them from the areas when they are asked to move to clean up those areas or allow for others to have fair access to those public areas and refuse.
 
I would not risk violence for that reason. No one should be hurt due to staying in the park. Minor violations don't usually need to be addressed by use of force.

And public space is different than my yard. But, I would not get violent over people in my yard. Nor can I as I understand the law. If I can get a better result by leaving them alone, or negotiating a mutually beneficial settlement without esculating the situation, wouldn't that ebenfit all concerned?

How long would you leave such people alone? Would you allow it to get to the point where their presence is causing your grass to die and your yard to smell like a sewer? Would you let it go beyond that if the group still refuses to actually cleanup after themselves and/or move? When exactly would you call the cops to move those people?
 
How long would you leave such people alone? Would you allow it to get to the point where their presence is causing your grass to die and your yard to smell like a sewer? Would you let it go beyond that if the group still refuses to actually cleanup after themselves and/or move? When exactly would you call the cops to move those people?

I'm a pretty patient fellow. Can't say I know for sure. But it would take a bit to make we want to use force. I might even go out and help them clean up, and provide some place for them to potty and clean up.

The point is, use of force in these situation too often makes things worse. I get upset about my yard, and esculate to using force, and in the violence my house gets destroyed, did I really save anything? I can be mad at them, but I'm still down a house. I prefer trying to reason and negotiate. I think some are too quick to go to force.

Now, if a major crime was going on, then use the force necessary to stop it. But there is a difference between major and minor.
 
I'm a pretty patient fellow. Can't say I know for sure. But it would take a bit to make we want to use force. I might even go out and help them clean up, and provide some place for them to potty and clean up.

The point is, use of force in these situation too often makes things worse. I get upset about my yard, and esculate to using force, and in the violence my house gets destroyed, did I really save anything? I can be mad at them, but I'm still down a house. I prefer trying to reason and negotiate. I think some are too quick to go to force.

Now, if a major crime was going on, then use the force necessary to stop it. But there is a difference between major and minor.

See, most people do not agree with this. Most would consider such a encampment to be wrong and harmful to them, whether the people doing it actually intend to be harmful or not. And it is reasonable to make that assumption in many cases.

I'll give you a good example of why you can never tell what may be a threat or not, and why it could be reasonable for some level of violence to be desirable to none.

The USS Cole. They were being approached by a small boat that ended up being loaded with explosives. Firing on that small boat by the watches who witnessed it come in would have been against the rules of engagement at the time. If those watches had fired upon that boat and destroyed it, killing its crew, we would not have lost 17 sailors. Those rules of engagement have changed since then, and that is a good thing. It is likely to lessen the chance of having another incident similar to what happened in that Yemen port.

I know that they are not the same thing and I am certainly not suggesting that these protesters be killed by authorities. But it is not unreasonable to expect people to be weary and try take actions to defuse a situation that has a high potential to cause incidents/unsafe conditions for them or others before the situation gets out of hand or gets people killed.
 
How long would you leave such people alone? Would you allow it to get to the point where their presence is causing your grass to die and your yard to smell like a sewer? Would you let it go beyond that if the group still refuses to actually cleanup after themselves and/or move? When exactly would you call the cops to move those people?

If Boo were being honest, and if he is a homeowner, he wouldn't leave them alone. I simply do not believe him. But how can he say anything else and hold his position?
 
If Boo were being honest, and if he is a homeowner, he wouldn't leave them alone. I simply do not believe him. But how can he say anything else and hold his position?

I am a home owner, and it would depend on the reason for it. But, I can see a case where I would leave it lay. There are very few reasons why some might take up staying in my yard. For those reasons I can think of, I would be slow to escualte to violence. I have an acre of land, an old, old house, and a barn that should fall down any day now. More trees than grass, and a good size burn pile. It's a home and not a show place.

Anyway, the point is, most things have a reasoning behind it. I can slow diown my actions based on the reasoning.
 
Ah, you don't believe eh? Well, who are you? We live in a civil society where we have elected representatives to enact laws on our behalf. One of those laws is that in order to hold a rally you must in most municipalities in this country you must obtain a permit. You don't like it, well, tough, you can't just ignore the law when it suits you.

Your right to be free, does not supersede my right to be free from you.

j-mac

And we also have a Constitution which trumps every law in the land. Last I heard the right to peaceably assemble was in the Constitution. I've never heard of requireing permits to do so was in the Constitution. Could you point it out for me please?
 
See, most people do not agree with this. Most would consider such a encampment to be wrong and harmful to them, whether the people doing it actually intend to be harmful or not. And it is reasonable to make that assumption in many cases.

I'll give you a good example of why you can never tell what may be a threat or not, and why it could be reasonable for some level of violence to be desirable to none.

The USS Cole. They were being approached by a small boat that ended up being loaded with explosives. Firing on that small boat by the watches who witnessed it come in would have been against the rules of engagement at the time. If those watches had fired upon that boat and destroyed it, killing its crew, we would not have lost 17 sailors. Those rules of engagement have changed since then, and that is a good thing. It is likely to lessen the chance of having another incident similar to what happened in that Yemen port.

I know that they are not the same thing and I am certainly not suggesting that these protesters be killed by authorities. But it is not unreasonable to expect people to be weary and try take actions to defuse a situation that has a high potential to cause incidents/unsafe conditions for them or others before the situation gets out of hand or gets people killed.

Yes, the USS Cole is a very different situation. And I have no trouble with being weary. I only ask that reason and calmer heads rule the day. The threshold for esculating to violence should be high IMHO. If you're worried about health issue, help out. Have ahelpful presence, which would also allow you to be there to control things a bit. Be seen as part of the solution and not the problem.

As I mentioned earlier, I have ehard reports of an area reporting this type of appraoch, and as best I can tell, it has been far more successful. It has even led to less turn out, less confrontation, and a better feeling by all concerned. It is true that I have not been there to see it myself, but it certainly sounds better than what I'm hearing here, which I have also not seen in person.
 
Back
Top Bottom