Page 51 of 57 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 562

Thread: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

  1. #501
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Again though, with that sheer number you are guaranteed to have idiots amongst them, not everyone is a well adjusted individual or has common sense.
    It appears I may not be completely understanding your argument.... Are you arguing more on the side that the due to the magnitude of population in the park vs. space available there is an increased risk of fire. Or that these people are somewhat less responsible or intelligent than the average person and thus the extra risk of fire is present? In the first situation, I haven't seen enough evidence of out of the ordinary rubbish lying around to support this claim.... but admittedly I just cannot find evidence, that doesn't mean that situation was not present. To the second situation, overly broad claims that these particular people are less intelligent, less responsible, less clean... etc.... just cannot be measured by any rational means and merely seems to boil down to name calling with absolutely no ability to gather any evidence to back it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Correct, but there is an implied right to commerce within the ninth, transit is required to fullfill commerce so therefore it is a violation of the right of commerce to stop someone from engaging in their job. As well there is a property rights clause within the fourth and fifth amendments respectively, to destroy or risk my property is to violate my rights.
    And while i have not seen the opinions re: Ninth amendment with respect to the right to commerce, my initial reaction is that the argument is sound. But by your own logic then, if commerce is protected, and therefore by extension so is travel as it would be a necessary condition, so then would shelter as it is a basic human need and food for that matter. Now having said that these kinds of protests where people have actively prevented people from "commerce" have always (as far as I know, feel free to show educate me otherwise) been under the guise of reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions never under the guise of a ninth amendment violation of others "right to commerce". In general the constitution provides limits on Government action not the actions of its citizens.
    Also I don't see the connection here to the fourth and especially the Fifth amendments. The fourth prohibits the state from (in general) illegal searches and seizure on behalf of the government without warrant. And the fifth is about due process of law which is the general basis by which I claim that the government must first seek court, approval, before taking action against said protesters.

    (side note having not seen the case law or decisions re: 9th and commerce, it interests me, any chance you could steer me in the right direction (case title, etc...) if not no worries I can look it up, I'm just trying to avoid sifting through a potential mountain of 9th amendment case law. This is not a "show proof" request. its a help me look in the right direction request. The assertion that 9th implicitly protects commerce between citizens seems reasonable, in my opinion.)

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    People can camp all they want, but not on city/state/private property.
    Can you give me an example of any space in the United States that does not fall under the category of City owned, State owned, or privately owned? This sounds like you can camp "all you want", just nowhere in the united states. But I digress, The issue here, seems to be whether this is a valid form of the exercise of the people's first amendment rights. If it is determined to be then I don't understand how anyone can argue it trumps camping ordinances. On, the flip side if the courts determine that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions apply then these people are in fact in violation. In essence The question of whether or not some action is Constitutionally Protected would take precedence over the decision of whether or not it was legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I agree, but it should not be court shopped as many of these issues tend to be.
    True, the presence of court shopping aside (as I think we both agree there is no realistic way to prevent it), happens on both sides. I will say this however, court shopping, I wouldn't believe, to be that much of an issue in this situation as the people in each U.S. District must first petition their own district. I.E. those in Oakland can only petition their own district court they cannot go to say Cleveland and petition that U.S. Court of Appeals to hear their case in regard to Oakland just because those judges might have a propensity to decide in their behalf.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Even though I am not a fan of appeals to the court for the reasons of judicial prejudices it's the best way to solve these issues. I just hope the courts render proper decisions and not some of the contorted crap that fed courts are famous for.
    I generally agree, albeit from probably the opposite side of the fence. However whatever decision the courts come up with, while I may disagree, I must also hold as legitimate and legally binding until an overriding entity (higher court) states otherwise.
    Last edited by Swit; 10-31-11 at 06:57 PM.

  2. #502
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post

    While that may work well in elementary school, some of us have indeed attained an age greater than 12. Mentally, as well as physically. Should I mention IQ points? No, that would be overkill....
    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Congratulations on one, large, cohesive, personal attack. Now -- do you have a rational argument to present?
    Pot... meet kettle.....
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  3. #503
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post

    Graffiti bad!!!
    I partake in this action...
    So you have no problem with having your car keyed then right?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  4. #504
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    I could read the sign just fine
    The picture was taken while the property was still being defaced...............

    Do I have to hold your hand?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  5. #505
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    The people "trying to restore order" were the ones who created the situation for chaos to occur.
    The ones trying to re-take a park from the local officials were the ones who created chaos.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  6. #506
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Swit View Post
    It appears I may not be completely understanding your argument.... Are you arguing more on the side that the due to the magnitude of population in the park vs. space available there is an increased risk of fire. Or that these people are somewhat less responsible or intelligent than the average person and thus the extra risk of fire is present? In the first situation, I haven't seen enough evidence of out of the ordinary rubbish lying around to support this claim.... but admittedly I just cannot find evidence, that doesn't mean that situation was not present. To the second situation, overly broad claims that these particular people are less intelligent, less responsible, less clean... etc.... just cannot be measured by any rational means and merely seems to boil down to name calling with absolutely no ability to gather any evidence to back it up.
    What the argument boils down to is that the area is insufficient to support the campers, as well while not everyone in the crowd is going to be oblivious to the dangers of starting a heat fire or otherwise dangerous activities the odds go up that someone will be dumb enough to create some kind of hazard.


    And while i have not seen the opinions re: Ninth amendment with respect to the right to commerce, my initial reaction is that the argument is sound. But by your own logic then, if commerce is protected, and therefore by extension so is travel as it would be a necessary condition, so then would shelter as it is a basic human need and food for that matter. Now having said that these kinds of protests where people have actively prevented people from "commerce" have always (as far as I know, feel free to show educate me otherwise) been under the guise of reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions never under the guise of a ninth amendment violation of others "right to commerce". In general the constitution provides limits on Government action not the actions of its citizens.
    Here's the crux, in some locations there have been arrests due to blocking traffic at minimum, and likewise there have been incidents stemming from private property violations. While I don't know of it occuring at the location of these particular protests my hunch is that the city planners were well aware of the other incidents and did not want that to happen in their city. It's speculation but would make sense to me.
    Also I don't see the connection here to the fourth and especially the Fifth amendments. The fourth prohibits the state from (in general) illegal searches and seizure on behalf of the government without warrant. And the fifth is about due process of law which is the general basis by which I claim that the government must first seek court, approval, before taking action against said protesters.
    Property owners are upheld by due process, while the parks are public properties they still have owners, that is the city itself and if they have set laws prohibiting camping or closing the parks at a time certain then it would follow that the protesters rights are not protected by time(after hours), place(can be in park but cannot camp), or manner(any acts in retaliation to warnings resulting in violence is not peaceable assembly).
    (side note having not seen the case law or decisions re: 9th and commerce, it interests me, any chance you could steer me in the right direction (case title, etc...) if not no worries I can look it up, I'm just trying to avoid sifting through a potential mountain of 9th amendment case law. This is not a "show proof" request. its a help me look in the right direction request. The assertion that 9th implicitly protects commerce between citizens seems reasonable, in my opinion.)
    I unfortunately don't have any of that case law on me, got rid of all of those notes after graduation. To be honest I'm going on the wording of the U.S.C. and the founders statements for this and case law may or may not agree with me.

    Can you give me an example of any space in the United States that does not fall under the category of City owned, State owned, or privately owned? This sounds like you can camp "all you want", just nowhere in the united states.
    Those places don't exist, but there are unincorporated county/parish(La.) areas that are very lenient about camping, hunting, etc. There are public/private camping and hunting areas, and national public parks tend to be conducive to doing so. Basically unincorporated areas are owned but loosely by city or state governments so their regulations are much more lax.
    But I digress, The issue here, seems to be whether this is a valid form of the exercise of the people's first amendment rights. If it is determined to be then I don't understand how anyone can argue it trumps camping ordinances. On, the flip side if the courts determine that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions apply then these people are in fact in violation. In essence The question of whether or not some action is Constitutionally Protected would take precedence over the decision of whether or not it was legal.
    I think the issue is exactly where the right trumps the law, in this particular case I may have been more inclined to side with the protesters had they petitioned the city for a stay of the law, they took the low road and assaulted officers who were doing their assigned task and there is little excuse for that IMO.

    True, the presence of court shopping aside (as I think we both agree there is no realistic way to prevent it), happens on both sides. I will say this however, court shopping, I wouldn't believe, to be that much of an issue in this situation as the people in each U.S. District must first petition their own district. I.E. those in Oakland can only petition their own district court they cannot go to say Cleveland and petition that U.S. Court of Appeals to hear their case in regard to Oakland just because those judges might have a propensity to decide in their behalf.
    I completely agree.

    I generally agree, albeit from probably the opposite side of the fence. However whatever decision the courts come up with, while I may disagree, I must also hold as legitimate and legally binding until an overriding entity (higher court) states otherwise.
    No argument here.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 10-31-11 at 07:18 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #507
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    The picture was taken while the property was still being defaced...............

    Do I have to hold your hand?
    And as such you have no basis to claim that it was completely obscured.

    Regardless, can you show me where I stated that this type of behavior should be constitutionally protected?

    Find these particular individuals and hold them accountable. Let them go and try to argue re: a first amendment right to deface property. I put place good money on the wager that no court would even agree to hear the case.

    Listen, I know you are trying to paint all the protesters as these kinds of people. However, they do naught but provide fuel for those opposed to the occupy x protests, and in fact there are numerous statements and reports (admittedly from Zucotti park in New York, I could find none from Oakland) where the "active leadership" (loosely defined) of the occupiers has publicly denounced such behavior. Interestingly, there are also numerous reports of the police (in New York) steering criminal activity into the park. But you already stated the existence of these lawless zones so I am sure you probably read the same pieces that I have.

    (NOTE: my reference to "reports" in this post is in reference to journalistic pieces NOT official communication)

  8. #508
    Advisor Swit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-13-16 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    390

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    What the argument boils down to is that the area is insufficient to support the campers, as well while not everyone in the crowd is going to be oblivious to the dangers of starting a heat fire or otherwise dangerous activities the odds go up that someone will be dumb enough to create some kind of hazard.
    Fair enough. seems like a reasonable assumption. I just still must espouse I don't believe that eviction is the only remedy here.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Here's the crux, in some locations there have been arrests due to blocking traffic at minimum, and likewise there have been incidents stemming from private property violations. While I don't know of it occuring at the location of these particular protests my hunch is that the city planners were well aware of the other incidents and did not want that to happen in their city. It's speculation but would make sense to me.
    Once again seems reasonable, however I happen to hold the opinion that actions taken by the state based on speculation should always, at a minimum "raise an eyebrow" but in general be "actively and adequately explained to the public EXACTLY why (citing specifics if possible) before any action take place".

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Property owners are upheld by due process, while the parks are public properties they still have owners, that is the city itself and if they have set laws prohibiting camping or closing the parks at a time certain then it would follow that the protesters rights are not protected by time(after hours), place(can be in park but cannot camp), or manner(any acts in retaliation to warnings resulting in violence is not peaceable assembly).
    It still appears to me you are applying law before addressing potential Constitutionality issues. Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting that all state action be forgone until some judge gives the yea or nay regarding the constitutionality of any particular action. Merely suggesting that in this instance, with reference to the "Occupy" protests in particular, the time has come for judicial review to take place as this is not a single individual screaming but (in my opinion) a large enough body of the electorate to demand such investigation. As such, cities across the nation should be actively seeking judicial opinion on the matter, as well as the protesters.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I unfortunately don't have any of that case law on me, got rid of all of those notes after graduation. To be honest I'm going on the wording of the U.S.C. and the founders statements for this and case law may or may not agree with me.
    Oh no worries... was just curious, to be honest I have never really looked at any case law that applies to the ninth, it occurs to me that the overly vague language of it (the ninth) has lead to many diverse and interesting cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Those places don't exist, but there are unincorporated county/parish(La.) areas that are very lenient about camping, hunting, etc. There are public/private camping and hunting areas, and national public parks tend to be conducive to doing so. Basically unincorporated areas are owned but loosely by city or state governments so their regulations are much more lax. I think the issue is exactly where the right trumps the law, in this particular case I may have been more inclined to side with the protesters had they petitioned the city for a stay of the law, they took the low road and assaulted officers who were doing their assigned task and there is little excuse for that IMO.
    I agree completely. While we may disagree as to the spark, this is clearly a situation that should never have occurred. The fact that I still see no filings in the news re: Oakland occupiers, and yet they re-occupied (regardless the mayor publicly stating she will leave them alone "for now") seems extremely short sighted if not blatantly irresponsible on the behalf of the protesters. In essence the ball is now in their court (no pun intended) to attempt to prove they have the right to be there, the city has already shown its shown their opinion, and without a decision from a higher authority, the protesters are just asking for more of the same.

  9. #509
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    So you have no problem with having your car keyed then right?
    would the keying represent art?


  10. #510
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Occupy Oakland Attacked By Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets, and Flash Grenades

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    would the keying represent art?
    To the person responsible it would definitely represent art.....

    To you, probably not.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Page 51 of 57 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... 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
  •