Page 7 of 37 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 361

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

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Then you break the law, while claiming to support the law. In the end, you will be violating the Constitutional rights of others, because you claim to "have that right".

    Do I need to explain all the laws that pertain to safety codes, right-of-way and traffic laws, sanitation, insurance bonds ..... etc ?

    "I would stay out of the road" does not quite cover it"
    Nobody is under any risk by protesting on the courthouse lawn.

  2. #62
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,833

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    My issue is that its impossible to determine who is going to be held responsible and for what amount of the clean up they are responsible for. Its impossible for a court to get everyone who was there, who knows exactly who was there as they came and left, and say "OK we'll divide the total number of people by the cost of damages, and call it a day." Thats not how law works, you have to be found individually guilty of a specific act which violated the law, as in "You through that specific cup on the ground, that is littering on public property" and through analysis by the court and clean up workers, they'll determine what portion of the total amount that specific person owes. If it sounds crazy for one person, imagine doing it for hundreds of them. If the government actually went ahead of this they would be wasting a large amount of money in court and lawyer fees, not to mention still having to pay for the cost of the clean up. After all the city isn't going to set the garbage sit there until the case works its way through court, they'll clean it up at their own cost and then seek damages.

    I entirely agree that those who damage public property should be held accountable for it, but I disagree with the idea of punishing en-masse when a certain individuals actions cannot be proven nor can it be proven he was responsible for any damages. Individual accountability MUST be achieved before I'd support any fines being levied against protestors, it'll be a sad day in America when people can be found guilty by association.
    I agree with you.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I agree with you.
    Well now that's that, this is why I'm so adamant about civility, I actually agree more with the conservatives individuals here but I find it difficult to associate myself with them because some of the language that they use. Now I know I'm just one guy on a lonely anonymous internet forum, but it does drive a wedge in between two otherwise agreeing people. And I think in both our opinions its more important to agree on the actual issue, then agree on how to refer to the protesters. That's why I prefer a term which doesn't insult anyone like "The Occupy Movement" as opposed to "Occutards" because using the first term doesn't create a new and unnecessary obstacle towards agreement, or at least mutual understanding of two different opinions.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Well now that's that, this is why I'm so adamant about civility, I actually agree more with the conservatives individuals here but I find it difficult to associate myself with them because some of the language that they use. Now I know I'm just one guy on a lonely anonymous internet forum, but it does drive a wedge in between two otherwise agreeing people. And I think in both our opinions its more important to agree on the actual issue, then agree on how to refer to the protesters. That's why I prefer a term which doesn't insult anyone like "The Occupy Movement" as opposed to "Occutards" because using the first term doesn't create a new and unnecessary obstacle towards agreement, or at least mutual understanding of two different opinions.
    I understand. I would get those some feelings when I realized that many (O.K. I have no idea how many) that supported the OWS movement were the same ones throwing out baseless accusations and derogatory names against the Tea Party.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Nobody is under any risk by protesting on the courthouse lawn.
    You, by yourself, on the Courthouse lawn ..................... we agree, you likely are not much of a risk concern to yourself or others.

    But that is not the situation we have with the Occutards. I believe that the Occutards camped in the park in NYC thought they were exercising their Constitutional rights. And in Oakland. Etc.

    Point being, we have laws. Plenty of them, All designed such that you, the "protester", better understsand where the excercize of your Constitutional rights has boundaries, those boundaries always being the protection of the Constitutnional rights of others. Most deal with crowd size and control, safety and sanitation, hours allowed, and land usage. Permits are designed to make sure all are aware, and that potentially damaging incidents can be minimized.

    Simplest example. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and hide behind "Freedom of Speech".

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    My issue is that its impossible to determine who is going to be held responsible and for what amount of the clean up they are responsible for. Its impossible for a court to get everyone who was there, who knows exactly who was there as they came and left, and say "OK we'll divide the total number of people by the cost of damages, and call it a day." Thats not how law works, you have to be found individually guilty of a specific act which violated the law, as in "You through that specific cup on the ground, that is littering on public property" and through analysis by the court and clean up workers, they'll determine what portion of the total amount that specific person owes. If it sounds crazy for one person, imagine doing it for hundreds of them. If the government actually went ahead of this they would be wasting a large amount of money in court and lawyer fees, not to mention still having to pay for the cost of the clean up. After all the city isn't going to set the garbage sit there until the case works its way through court, they'll clean it up at their own cost and then seek damages.

    I entirely agree that those who damage public property should be held accountable for it, but I disagree with the idea of punishing en-masse when a certain individuals actions cannot be proven nor can it be proven he was responsible for any damages. Individual accountability MUST be achieved before I'd support any fines being levied against protestors, it'll be a sad day in America when people can be found guilty by association.
    Well done, but perhaps there is a solution.

    When there is a mess at one of those OWS rallies perhaps the protesters can be warned that while their protests are Constitutional, making a mess over public and private property is not. Nor it not allowing people to go about their normal course of business a valid form of protest.

    Recognizing this, the police could warn those in attendance that unless everything is kept to established levels of cleanliness, those protesters who refuse to clean up the area, or who refuse to disperse, will be charged with the city cleaning up behind them. This would appear as part of their police records until they paid their fines and for the mess they left behind.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Well done, but perhaps there is a solution.

    When there is a mess at one of those OWS rallies perhaps the protesters can be warned that while their protests are Constitutional, making a mess over public and private property is not. Nor it not allowing people to go about their normal course of business a valid form of protest.

    Recognizing this, the police could warn those in attendance that unless everything is kept to established levels of cleanliness, those protesters who refuse to clean up the area, or who refuse to disperse, will be charged with the city cleaning up behind them. This would appear as part of their police records until they paid their fines and for the mess they left behind.
    That is why we have permits. Sanitation requirements. Posting of insurance bonds. Etc. Many legitimate rallies, such as Tea Party events, were made to conform to all. Then we had Occutards who both ignored such, but almost all in towns with Democrat mayors and City Councils, who did not enforce their own statutes. Richmond is one example of the double standards.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    You, by yourself, on the Courthouse lawn ..................... we agree, you likely are not much of a risk concern to yourself or others.
    Not only do I have a right to protest, I have a right to freely associate with like minded individuals.

    But that is not the situation we have with the Occutards. I believe that the Occutards camped in the park in NYC thought they were exercising their Constitutional rights. And in Oakland. Etc.

    Point being, we have laws. Plenty of them, All designed such that you, the "protester", better understsand where the excercize of your Constitutional rights has boundaries, those boundaries always being the protection of the Constitutnional rights of others. Most deal with crowd size and control, safety and sanitation, hours allowed, and land usage. Permits are designed to make sure all are aware, and that potentially damaging incidents can be minimized.

    Simplest example. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and hide behind "Freedom of Speech".
    But you can call the president a jerk which might make many uncomfortable. I noted that I understood not being able to block emergency vehicles which would be comperable to the "fire" example.

  9. #69
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,833

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Well now that's that, this is why I'm so adamant about civility, I actually agree more with the conservatives individuals here but I find it difficult to associate myself with them because some of the language that they use. Now I know I'm just one guy on a lonely anonymous internet forum, but it does drive a wedge in between two otherwise agreeing people. And I think in both our opinions its more important to agree on the actual issue, then agree on how to refer to the protesters. That's why I prefer a term which doesn't insult anyone like "The Occupy Movement" as opposed to "Occutards" because using the first term doesn't create a new and unnecessary obstacle towards agreement, or at least mutual understanding of two different opinions.
    sigh...

    My post that you jumped on was not uncivil and wasn't even particularly obnoxious.

    The person I was responding to was attempting to deflect from the topic of OWS to the topic of Wall Street. My response was simply an attempt to illustrate this. Plus, I haven't called anyone any names.

    Look, Wiseone, if you want to play forum morality cop that's fine with me...just don't direct your blatherings toward my posts. If you think I'm breaking forum rules, report me. Otherwise, you can choose to reply on-topic and everything will be fine.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    That is why we have permits. Sanitation requirements. Posting of insurance bonds. Etc. Many legitimate rallies, such as Tea Party events, were made to conform to all. Then we had Occutards who both ignored such, but almost all in towns with Democrat mayors and City Councils, who did not enforce their own statutes. Richmond is one example of the double standards.
    Which is why these requirements should be ignored. They can and are used to stop legitimate protests by those in power because they disagree with the message.

Page 7 of 37 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •