• 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

Wow..talk about a huge protest eh? Lets try and keep this in terms of the normal size of a protest that actually will grab the media's attention. You know...like the size of MLK's protests? Teaparty protests? OWS protests?

I don't recall seeing a specification to the size of the protest. If I missed it, I apologize. Another point could be that protests don't have to be large or long. Looking back on this, we probably should have had our entrance on tape and we should have taken pictures of college students leaving the bar. Maybe we could have plastered the info all over campus. Heeheeeeee. Protests can come in all sizes and shapes. With that, I will leave you to your fine debate. :)
 
I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but any time my county's Sheriff's department posts officers or deploys a task force to look for drunk drivers on the weekends, they never take it from the regular compliment -- they always add to it, because otherwise the guys left on patrol are at risk and the department as a whole is less effecient.

My guess is that it's the same in any department involving more than a couple of guys.

It is the same here and in any other town/city that I have lived in.
 
I can see the delima here. However, in the end since this is the exerciese of a right; namely protest and assembly that we must accept this as a consequence of freedom. I fear too many people forget consequence.

The right to protest does not mean you have the right to camp out, trash city parks,bogart public spaces, harass burger king employees and customers, harass school kids and other ****.Just like right to keep and bear arms means you do not have the right to shoot your gun off at 3am,shoot people for no reason or try to threaten people with your firearm.

How much does gun ownership cost us? We have a lot of gun crime and a lot of legal, medical, and social dynamics which feed into it and cost us all money. Certainly there would always be some amount of gun crime; but if we took very authoratative measures to remove guns physically we could decrease that number greatly. Do we sue gun owners? Do we sue gun companies?

I am pretty sure that if a gun owner shot up a city park he would criminal charged and be forced to pay for the damage. I am also sure that if someone with a gun shot someone in the leg or some other body part then that individual would be charged with a crime and possibly forced to pay for the medical bills of the person he shot. So it is acceptable to force gun owners to pay for the damage they cause but not protesters who cause damage?
 
Last edited:
I don't recall seeing a specification to the size of the protest. If I missed it, I apologize. Another point could be that protests don't have to be large or long. Looking back on this, we probably should have had our entrance on tape and we should have taken pictures of college students leaving the bar. Maybe we could have plastered the info all over campus. Heeheeeeee. Protests can come in all sizes and shapes. With that, I will leave you to your fine debate. :)

There is no spcification to the size of a protest. However we are talking about the OWS, as such we have to use other protests of reletively equal or like size or the conversation becomes meaningless and semantical. Which ruins any good debate.
 
The right to protest does not mean you have the right to camp out, trash city parks,bogart public spaces, harass burger king employees and customers, harass school kids and other ****.Just like right to keep and bear arms means you do not have the right to shoot your gun off at 3am,shoot people for no reason or try to threaten people with your firearm.

Where are you getting all this? I've never heard of this.

As for "bogarting public spaces" get real. No one was stopped from entering those spaces.

As for trash....do you really believe that no protest has not ever left trash behind? That public property was left unscathed? Now I agree that the OWS people should at least make an effort to clean up thier trash and keep the place decent. This does not mean that this isn't a natural consequence of protesting. I also agree that if they become violent like some have then they should be arrested. But not all OWS protesters do this.

I am pretty sure that if a gun owner shot up a city park he would criminal charged and be forced to pay for the damage. I am also sure that if someone with a gun shot someone in the leg or some other body then that individual would be charged with a crime and possibly forced to pay for the medical bills of the person he shot. So it is acceptable to force gun owners to pay for the damage they cause but not protesters who cause damage?

A person shooting up an area or people is a hugely bad analogy. Apples and oranges type stuff. There is a reason that the 1st amendment specifically states "the right to peaceably assemble".
 
1.)This has ZERO relevance to this conversation.
2.)Cool conservative republican talking point
3.)I'm not a liberal
4.)What the ****?


So you cant?


So you are saying that curfews, sizes of protest are laws that dont go against this here amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How is someone having a protest infringing upon your rights? I saw no one at any of the OWS protests stopping people from entering the parks that they occupied. If you didn't go because you didn't want to associate yourself with the OWS or didn't want to have to deal with the crowds that is your choice. No one stopped you or anyone else from entering the parks.

So you two think that the Occutards in NYC should have been able to camp out in the park for as long as they wanted ? In quantities that they wanted ? With whatever sanitation mechanisms they thought were OK ?

The laws say otherwise. Explain that .... please ?

Secondly. Do you two think we live in a Democracy ? Or a Democratic Republic ?

Do you know the difference ?
 
So you two think that the Occutards in NYC should have been able to camp out in the park for as long as they wanted ? In quantities that they wanted ? With whatever sanitation mechanisms they thought were OK ?

The laws say otherwise. Explain that .... please ?

As long as they stayed peaceful...yes. And all laws are trumped by the US Constitution. Sorry, thems the breaks.

Secondly. Do you two think we live in a Democracy ? Or a Democratic Republic ?

Do you know the difference ?

Do you know the difference? It is obvious that we have a Democratic Republic. Hence the reason that we have the right to peaceably protest.
 
Where are you getting all this? I've never heard of this.
Oh, Good Grief… #Occupy LA Goons Shut Down Burger King (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
'Occupy Wall Street' Protesters Chant 'Follow Those Kids!' As Small Children Try To Go To School On Wall Street « CBS New York

As for "bogarting public spaces" get real. No one was stopped from entering those spaces.

How can anyone use a park when a bunch of dirty hippies are all crowded in and camping out?

As for trash....do you really believe that no protest has not ever left trash behind?
Seeing how camping out is not a 1st amendment right I seriously doubt the other protests were as trashed.

That public property was left unscathed?


You damage public property you should pay for it.

A person shooting up an area or people is a hugely bad analogy. Apples and oranges type stuff.

No its a perfect analogy because the right to keep and bear amrs means just that the right to own and posses firearms, it does not mean I can do what ever I want with my firearms.The right to peacefully assemble and free speech means just that it does not mean you can camp out,destroy and trash property or any thing else not related to 1st amendment rights.

There is a reason that the 1st amendment specifically states "the right to peaceably assemble".

Those protesters were no peaceful.
 
As long as they stayed peaceful...yes. And all laws are trumped by the US Constitution. Sorry, thems the breaks.

We are a country of Laws. And the Constitution is not the only one. Your current argument was ripped earlier in the thread. We have Codes. Statutes. Thousands of laws that do not violate the COnstitution, but which do put some sensible limits on how you exercise your rights without violating those of others.

Do you know the difference? It is obvious that we have a Democratic Republic. Hence the reason that we have the right to peaceably protest.

LOL .... I have forgotten more about the differences than many here remember.
 

In the BK I think those people should have been arrested as despite it being open to the public it is still a privately owned property. And privacy is also protected in the Constitution.

In the second one with the exception of the one guy following the guy and his daughter yes it should be allowed until the occupiers made it impossible for the students to get to school. The one guy should have been arrested for sure as that is harrassment. The rest should have been dispersed (and if they resisted that arrested) the moment they made it impossible for the parents to get thier kids to school.

How can anyone use a park when a bunch of dirty hippies are all crowded in and camping out?

Hey, its still your choice to go or not.

Seeing how camping out is not a 1st amendment right I seriously doubt the other protests were as trashed.

Camping may not be but protesting is. And there is no limit on how long a protest may last.

You damage public property you should pay for it.

Was it damaged maliciously? If so then I agree. If it just became damaged because of protesting in a park..then no.

No its a perfect analogy because the right to keep and bear amrs means just that the right to own and posses firearms, it does not mean I can do what ever I want with my firearms.The right to peacefully assemble and free speech means just that it does not mean you can camp out,destroy and trash property or any thing else not related to 1st amendment rights.

No it is not. Our Constitution is based upon peace. Shooting up a park and people is not peaceful.

Those protesters were no peaceful.

While those in your links were not these protesters certainly are...

 
Absolutely, and because of that the line of discussion led in the direction naturally of what is legal, and what isn't, which brings us here. Now it seems, and I could be wrong about this, but now that we have arrived at the point where it is clear fact that Occupy protesters are breaking the law, which could easily part of any argument brought from a law suit toward any of them in damages, you seem to want to not delve into that aspect....Why?


j-mac

I did. If they are claiming something like damage to a fountain, arrest whoever did it, charge and fine them. If they are claiming that the protesting was illegal, **** them.
 
Start a thread about the 2nd Amendment. See who comes to your party, and address them there.

I have a policy of not discussing things with those who refuse to address questions posted to them.
 
Some of the "uninformation" here would be comical, if nto for the fact that you can vote. Folks with nary a clue citing the First Amendment.

"Right of Assembly": Yes, the government cannot prohibit you from choosing a group with which to assemble. If you want, have 25 folks over to your house, and talk about how lousy the President is. But that does not mean you 25 folks can go into a park at 2 AM and have the same meeting.

"Freedom of the Press": Sure. Publish a newsletter. But be aware that you cannot say whatever you want. We have libel laws. Redress the government, if you choose. But again not at 2 AM on property that all the public paid for, not just you.

There are countries where you cannot assemble on your own property and say bad things about the Government, much less print it or post it online. Too many of you that claim to know what you are talking about are still a bit ..... ignorant.
 
I have a policy of not discussing things with those who refuse to address questions posted to them.

See ya then. Try asking questions not so stupid next time.
 
All done with city approval. And in may cases with a part of the tab picked up by the team.

perhaps and perhaps in many many other cases it is not picked up by the team and is incurred by taxpayers - be they sports fans or not.
 
Parks that are set up for actual camping. We shouldn't be wasting excess tax dollars because the occutards un-necessarily trashed out public property. It wouldn't violate the rights of the occutards, if they left these areas is as good of shape/or better than they were when they showed up for the protest.

We do not have protest parks in this country not should we. The original Tea Party left a bit of a mess.

I don't disagree with protestors having to apply for a permit to hold a protest on public property.

But yet, you would have a problem with a requirement to get a permit for other rights? How to exercise ones religion? Their right to free speech? Or do you think this is the only right that should be regulated?

There may be a planned infrastructure improvement for that area on the day the protestors want to protest. We wouldn't want to postpone the project just because of the protest. The point is, it gives a municipality the oppurtunity to say, "you can't protest there, because there's a job going on. You're going to have to pick another spot".

That project may be what people are protesting.

Along with that, it's not a 1st Amendment right to block streets that people use to go about their daily lives. The rights of the protestors--whoever they may be--don't override the rights of everyone else to conduct their daily lives. Protestors that block streets that people use to get back and forth to work should be arrested for violating the civil rights of others.

I covered blocking streets more than once.
 
Some of the "uninformation" here would be comical, if nto for the fact that you can vote. Folks with nary a clue citing the First Amendment.

"Right of Assembly": Yes, the government cannot prohibit you from choosing a group with which to assemble. If you want, have 25 folks over to your house, and talk about how lousy the President is. But that does not mean you 25 folks can go into a park at 2 AM and have the same meeting.

"Freedom of the Press": Sure. Publish a newsletter. But be aware that you cannot say whatever you want. We have libel laws. Redress the government, if you choose. But again not at 2 AM on property that all the public paid for, not just you.

There are countries where you cannot assemble on your own property and say bad things about the Government, much less print it or post it online. Too many of you that claim to know what you are talking about are still a bit ..... ignorant.

Other countries are not the US. And yes you can assemble and protest at 2AM if you so choose. There is no law which puts a curfew on protests. If you think that there is then I invite you to prove it via a link to the relevant law.
 
So why whine? I know you don't like their stance, but they are hardly the first to protest or the first to leave a mess. I sympathize with anyone who actually had damage. But, it is helpful to recognize the limits of letigation. You will have to have someone capable of paying.

It's whining to suggest that people not waste the taxpayers's money?
 
But a peaceful protest is legal according to the US Constitution.

Damaging public property and wasting tax dollars aren't afforded protections under the Constitution.

There seem to be quite a few people missing the point. No one is questioning their right to protest.
 
Not at all unlike the bill the taxpayers pick up in city after city when professional sports teams win and there are parades and celebrations which cost the city money.

If that bill outwieghs the revenue that those events create, you're exactly right.
 
Damaging public property and wasting tax dollars aren't afforded protections under the Constitution.

There seem to be quite a few people missing the point. No one is questioning their right to protest.

By saying that they must apply for a permit and that there is someone who can turn down that request, yes you are.
 
So when you have massive worldwide protests which are protected under the Constitution and the police come over and evict you via force (when you are not ready to leave) you get stuck with the tab... Gotcha.

If you damage public property during your protest, you're damn right you should have to pay up. It's only right. Don't you think?

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for your shanannigans?

We hear the occutards rail about banks getting bailouts, yet they don't mind blowing a million taxpayer dollars cleaning up a mess that they created. Hypocrisy much?
 
Back
Top Bottom