• 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

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,399
Reaction score
39,740
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich is considering a lawsuit against Occupy L.A. protesters to reimburse the city for damage caused during the occupation of the City Hall lawn.

"The city is contemplating any and all of its options," said William Carter, Trutanich's chief deputy.


The two-month encampment cost the city at least $2.35 million, not counting repairs to the lawn and fountain outside City Hall, according to a report issued Friday....

The Los Angeles Police Department, which raided the camp Nov. 30 and arrested nearly 300 people, spent an estimated $1.2 million on overtime pay as a result of the demonstration and subsequent sweep, Santana said in his preliminary report. The General Services Department's police force, which patrols city parks and buildings, racked up an additional $335,000 of overtime. Carlos Marroquin, a representative of Occupy L.A., called the figures "outrageous" and argued that the city should have set aside money for special events and protests....

well that's typical. "it's your fault that we cost you money".
 
I think that absolutely they should charge whom ever they can go after with the pockets to effect the charges on that are involved with this circus.

The Tea Parties obtained the needed permits, did their thing peacefully, and then left the grounds in most cases in better shape than before they were there. I find it disgusting not that the Occupy people have a message, (or no message at all) that they want to get out, but rather that they are really the epitome of selfishness. They took over parks and other places that are supposed to be open to everyone, harassed people, (including children) trashed, broke, and **** on whatever they could, and we are supposed to have sympathy for them?

Some leftest organization like, the Ford foundation, or Soros' Tides foundation, or maybe even some union will step in and pay for these damages allowing these children to prolong their temper tantrum instead of getting a job.

j-mac
 
Part of me feels that they should charge the protests for financial damages but the same time I do not think the cities have any right to charge the protesters for financial damages.The reason for feeling that the cities shouldn't charge the protests is because the cities let the protesters make camps and basically do what ever they wanted until the protesters started becoming a problem for the cities. The cities could have said no tents periods. The cities could have said no permits, you will just have to go home at COB and come back the next day to protest in the parks.
 
Last edited:
Ummm...

Exactly who would they send the bill to?
 
well that's typical. "it's your fault that we cost you money".

That's fine.

Have the businesses in L.A. give them jobs, without firing anyone currently employed, and have it garnished in wages.

That way everyone's happy.
 
That's fine.

Have the businesses in L.A. give them jobs, without firing anyone currently employed, and have it garnished in wages.

That way everyone's happy.

Yeah, go ahead and break the law. Awesome idea! :rofl
 
Exactly which person(s) are they going to try to sue and exactly how is the city going to prove those people were anywhere responsible for the actions of the other protestors?

The city is acting moronic on this one. The city will lose easily in court, and hopefully hose they try to sue will countersue the city and win.
 
If there is any damage to a fountain it seems to me that would be a criminal charge. As far as damage goes concerning protesting on the city hall lawn, I'd say that they have absolutely no chance of winning.
 
Exactly which person(s) are they going to try to sue and exactly how is the city going to prove those people were anywhere responsible for the actions of the other protestors?

That should be quite simple. Most large cities have security cameras in the more popular areas that do a pretty good job. They would not have much trouble satisfying question of proof.

The city is acting moronic on this one. The city will lose easily in court, and hopefully hose they try to sue will countersue the city and win.

They probably will lose and spend a bunch MORE money doing it. Part of having law enforecment is to police actions like OWS/OLA and hopefully prevent it from becoming full blown anarchy. It is this law enforcement that we pay taxes for...IMHO
 
I'm going off topic a bit but I have to ask this question, if the City already has a 72million dollar shortfall this fiscal year, why does the City Hall lawn cost 2.35 million dollars?? I agree that those who cause damage to public property should be held accountable for the cost of repairs, but the fact that it would be next to impossible to prove certain people were responsible for X% of that 2.35, why aren't the conservatives here asking why a city is spending 2.35 on a lawn? I get that its a great chance to bash the Occupy Movement, so excessive gov't spending can be ignored for that, but I think you could do both.

On top of that I agree with the Occupy LA representative that police services are the responsibility of the city, it was the city who decided upon their use and how to use them. On top of that it would set a horrible precedence for denying free speech by requiring any movement to shell out millions to pay for the cost of the police which they have no power to decide how they are employed. I could see abuses now of someone creating a massive police presence for no other reason than billing the protestors to shut them up.
 
I'm going off topic a bit but I have to ask this question, if the City already has a 72million dollar shortfall this fiscal year, why does the City Hall lawn cost 2.35 million dollars?? I agree that those who cause damage to public property should be held accountable for the cost of repairs, but the fact that it would be next to impossible to prove certain people were responsible for X% of that 2.35, why aren't the conservatives here asking why a city is spending 2.35 on a lawn?

Please re-read the article. The 2.35million does NOT include the lawn or fountain repairs.
 
Thats didn't catch that part, but it adds to my point.


Actually your point is quite obtuse if you ask me....You say "the city" is responsible for dispatching police...What the hell are they supposed to do? Ignore the mob and hope that all turns out well?


j-mac
 
On top of that I agree with the Occupy LA representative that police services are the responsibility of the city, it was the city who decided upon their use and how to use them. On top of that it would set a horrible precedence for denying free speech by requiring any movement to shell out millions to pay for the cost of the police which they have no power to decide how they are employed. I could see abuses now of someone creating a massive police presence for no other reason than billing the protestors to shut them up.

This is exactly what I am thinking.
 
Actually your point is quite obtuse if you ask me....You say "the city" is responsible for dispatching police...What the hell are they supposed to do? Ignore the mob and hope that all turns out well?

I'd hardly call it a mob I'd prefer a less derogatory term but whatever. Anyway, no the City obviously would have to dispatch some extra police to keep law and order but thats the price of freedom of speech. Also while its obvious that some police would need to be dispatched, there's never agreement on how many, so you basically have the government dictating to the people what the cost of their rally or protest is going to be. Picture a situation where this happens, a Representative from a protest states everything is peaceful and there's no need for cops to work over time, a city rep disagrees and states the police will work over time at a cost of 10 million dollars then insists the protest rep pay for it. When the Rep is unable, not unwilling buy financially unable, to pay he either has to allow his freedom of speech to be trampled on or be thrown into prison for failure to pay fees to the government.

Basically what I see you advocating is a tax on 1st amendment rights.
 
The occu-tards should take up a collection to reimburse the city for the expense of cleaning up their mess.
 
The occu-tards should take up a collection to reimburse the city for the expense of cleaning up their mess.

The occupiers can take up a collection to reimburse the city for the expense of clearing up their mess when the executives in Wall Street responsible for the financial meltdown reimburse the American people for the damage they did to the country's economy.
 
The occupiers can take up a collection to reimburse the city for the expense of clearing up their mess when the executives in Wall Street responsible for the financial meltdown reimburse the American people for the damage they did to the country's economy.

Nice hypocrisy!!!!!!!
 
IMO, damage to property caused by the protestors might be something that LA could successfully litigate. Suing for overtime is probably not. Indeed, if it were, citing overtime expenses could be used as a grounds to deny First Amendment rights.
 
You can't charge people money for exercising their First Amendment rights. Also, how are they going to sue "Occupy Protesters". They don't have an established leadership or anyone to pin this on.

If a lawsuit is attempted it should be tossed out as it would set a dangerous precedent where city halls could financially attack people for protesting.
 
You can't charge people money for exercising their First Amendment rights. Also, how are they going to sue "Occupy Protesters". They don't have an established leadership or anyone to pin this on.

If a lawsuit is attempted it should be tossed out as it would set a dangerous precedent where city halls could financially attack people for protesting.

No, but you can charge them for destroying public property.
 
Indeed.

Occupy L.A. isn't getting a bailout for what they did to the country.

They're getting away with wasting millions of dollars to clean up their mess.

See the hypocrisy of your comment?
 
The occupiers can take up a collection to reimburse the city for the expense of clearing up their mess when the executives in Wall Street responsible for the financial meltdown reimburse the American people for the damage they did to the country's economy.

Government was responsible for the meltdown. Government enabled the Occutards.
 
Back
Top Bottom