• 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!

L.A. might sue Occupy L.A. protestors for financial damages

Call it "civil". Call it "passive". Neither is "peaceful". which is what I addressed. When a cop tells you to move, and you do not, it is no longer peaceful, as some force now must be applied to move you.

What is not peaceful is how the cops reacted.

I'm glad you think Rosa Parks should have just shut up and done what the cops told her to. Afterall, the cops told her what to do too.
 
What is not peaceful is how the cops reacted.

I'm glad you think Rosa Parks should have just shut up and done what the cops told her to. Afterall, the cops told her what to do too.

I have not mentioned >Rosa Parks< until right there.

But it ought to be a crime to compare Rosa Parks to anything Occutard.
 
I have not mentioned >Rosa Parks< until right there.

But it ought to be a crime to compare Rosa Parks to anything Occutard.

You're the one that thinks people should just do what the cops tell them to. Therefore, it applies to Rosa Parks as well. Unless of course you're being hypocritical. You wouldn't be that would you?
 
I have not mentioned >Rosa Parks< until right there.

But it ought to be a crime to compare Rosa Parks to anything Occutard.

Ohhh soo being peaceful just depends on what your protesting and if YOU agree with the message or not.. Gotcha...
 
You're the one that thinks people should just do what the cops tell them to. Therefore, it applies to Rosa Parks as well. Unless of course you're being hypocritical. You wouldn't be that would you?

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the ancient Chinese proverb:

"If one stops to argue with an idiot, all a passerby will see is two idiots arguing". :roll:
 
What is not peaceful is how the cops reacted.

I'm glad you think Rosa Parks should have just shut up and done what the cops told her to. Afterall, the cops told her what to do too.


It is utterly ignorant to compare the OWS goofs to Rosa Parks....

The Occupy Wall Street movement, for all its merits and its nobility, is plagued with unthinking propagandists. It is plagued by those with romanticized notions of being a freedom fighter, and testosterone fueled youth who view revolution (as if any such thing is happening) as a recreational sport.

Occupy Wall Street; adversity and historical comparissons. | GroundReport

j-mac
 
It is utterly ignorant to compare the OWS goofs to Rosa Parks....



j-mac

Your partisan hackery keeps blinding you as usual. Carry on CON.
 
I have not mentioned >Rosa Parks< until right there.

But it ought to be a crime to compare Rosa Parks to anything Occutard.

Why? You said that not obeying the police when they tell you to move is not a passive/peaceful act but is instead an act of provocation. How is it peaceful for Rosa Parks to ignore a cops orders but not peaceful when the OWS protesters do the same thing? What is the difference?
 
Why? You said that not obeying the police when they tell you to move is not a passive/peaceful act but is instead an act of provocation. How is it peaceful for Rosa Parks to ignore a cops orders but not peaceful when the OWS protesters do the same thing? What is the difference?

Did Rosa Parks take a dump on the seat in the bus ...... who knew !!!!!

tumblr_lss7nmEUkf1qcbo9lo1_500.jpg

Rosa must be proud ;)
 
Perhaps it should be evenly apportioned among all of those who were arrested or who can be identified in the surveillance videos.

This has been mentioned before...I would think there would be problems with this possible solution.

1. Would this be some kind of class action lawsuit? Or would they take each individual person to court? How much would such litigation cost the city?

2. Does the city have to power to bill a person being arrested for the cost of that arrest? Can the city make that person pay for costs that are not related to the arrest?


I really don't think the city will be able to get a dime out of anyone related to the protesters. I also think they know this.
 
It is utterly ignorant to compare the OWS goofs to Rosa Parks....



j-mac

You (and the other) argueing this are simply being dishonest. The arguement was you need to do what you are told when police officers tell you what to do. Not that you need to do it when the protest is agreeable.

It has nothing to do with the two being comparable. You either believe you do what the police tell you to do or you don't.
 
You (and the other) argueing this are simply being dishonest. The arguement was you need to do what you are told when police officers tell you what to do. Not that you need to do it when the protest is agreeable.

It has nothing to do with the two being comparable. You either believe you do what the police tell you to do or you don't.

If the police officers are enforcing a statute, then you do need to do what they say, or they will escalate the issue, to include physically subduing you if need be.

The comparison to Ms Parks was begun here by idiots. Not Conservatives ;)
 
This has been mentioned before...I would think there would be problems with this possible solution.

1. Would this be some kind of class action lawsuit? Or would they take each individual person to court? How much would such litigation cost the city?

2. Does the city have to power to bill a person being arrested for the cost of that arrest? Can the city make that person pay for costs that are not related to the arrest?


I really don't think the city will be able to get a dime out of anyone related to the protesters. I also think they know this.

Of course there would be problems. But it would be very satisfying nonetheless.

Take them all to court. Every one of them. Let's have some real justice against the occupiers. Bankrupt them. Let them pay the costs resulting from their damage.
 
Of course there would be problems. But it would be very satisfying nonetheless.

Take them all to court. Every one of them. Let's have some real justice against the occupiers. Bankrupt them. Let them pay the costs resulting from their damage.

You would bankrupt the city first. You cannot successfully sue someone with damage that you cannot prove they did. Simply being arrrested for violating park curfew is not the same as causing damage in the park. the burden of proof would be on the city.

Now if there is a video of someone taking a dump on the bus, or a video of someone breaking something, hell yes charge them. But in this case, the city simply will not win. It will only cost the city even more money and most likely extra if there is a countersuit against the city. Good luck.
 
Did Rosa Parks take a dump on the seat in the bus ...... who knew !!!!!
Rosa must be proud ;)

The comparison was made because YOU claimed that people should just listen to the cops. That logic applies to Rosa Parks as well. The only thing idiotic, is your hypocrisy.
 
You would bankrupt the city first. You cannot successfully sue someone with damage that you cannot prove they did. Simply being arrrested for violating park curfew is not the same as causing damage in the park. the burden of proof would be on the city.

Now if there is a video of someone taking a dump on the bus, or a video of someone breaking something, hell yes charge them. But in this case, the city simply will not win. It will only cost the city even more money and most likely extra if there is a countersuit against the city. Good luck.
It is already bankrupt. No big deal. Fine them many thousands of dollars each and I think that might be the end of the movement. Lawlessness should not be allowed. Nor should the lawless be coddled.
 
The comparison was made because YOU claimed that people should just listen to the cops. That logic applies to Rosa Parks as well. The only thing idiotic, is your hypocrisy.

Why not compare them to the mafia, or any other hoodlum, if you want an analogy with lawbreakers.

To even remotely suggest that a heroic woman like Rosa Parks should be included with the OWS crowd does a huge disservice to her memory and highlights once again the ignorance of those who participate and support mob rule, versus courageous people like Rosa Parks who act on their own to see justice served.
 
Why not compare them to the mafia, or any other hoodlum, if you want an analogy with lawbreakers.

To even remotely suggest that a heroic woman like Rosa Parks should be included with the OWS crowd does a huge disservice to her memory and highlights once again the ignorance of those who participate and support mob rule, versus courageous people like Rosa Parks who act on their own to see justice served.

I think it ranks up there with Time's "Person of the Year" being the 'Protester', which was noble with those who fomented the "Arab Spring", but an absolute joke to include the Occutard largesse in with.

Bottom line: Can't make chicken salad out of chicken ****.
 
Why not compare them to the mafia, or any other hoodlum, if you want an analogy with lawbreakers.

To even remotely suggest that a heroic woman like Rosa Parks should be included with the OWS crowd does a huge disservice to her memory and highlights once again the ignorance of those who participate and support mob rule, versus courageous people like Rosa Parks who act on their own to see justice served.

And you totally ignore the fact that both Rosa Parks AND the OWS broke city ordinances and ignored cops commands.

The only difference between Rosa Parks and the OWS is that you support what Rosa protested against. You don't support the OWS. The hypocrisy here is astounding.
 
It is already bankrupt. No big deal. Fine them many thousands of dollars each and I think that might be the end of the movement. Lawlessness should not be allowed. Nor should the lawless be coddled.

At this point, your solution would pre-suppose that:

1. There are already laws on the books to provide for such fines.

2. Such laws are able to be applied retroactively.

If neither of these are true, then that is no solution for what has already occurred. Now...I suppose it's possible that these two conditions could become reality in the future, but that means that the liberal government of LA would have to change. Not likely, imo.


I do agree with you that lawlessness should not be allowed, but that position should have been taken by LA from day one. I'm afraid that now...the City of LA is SOL.
 
Back
Top Bottom