• 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!

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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:
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.... :2razz:

Congratulations on one, large, cohesive, personal attack. Now -- do you have a rational argument to present?

Pot... meet kettle.....
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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)
 
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.

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".

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.

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.

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.
 
So, if there are restrictions on protesting, shouldn't there be restrictions on guns?
 
So, if there are restrictions on protesting, shouldn't there be restrictions on guns?

Dude.... there have been restrictions on guns for a huge amount of time.......

Crawl out of that rock recently?
 
Dude.... there have been restrictions on guns for a huge amount of time.......

Crawl out of that rock recently?

Yup, restrictions on guns. "Hey, you can't buy this gun", Buyer, "What?", Seller, "Here have this instead", Buyer, "OMG, not the eyes." See the correlation now?
 
So, if there are restrictions on protesting, shouldn't there be restrictions on guns?
I have the right to own guns, I don't have the right to just pop off a couple of rounds wherever I feel like it. As well as Caine said guns are heavily regulated, there are currently over 10k national regulations alone and over 25 thousand total. You don't have to wait to shout things in the public square, in some places you have to wait seven days or more to purchase a firearm, under 21 year old citizens may not own a handgun, and select fire guns and full autos are license only with full autos after 1986 banned. So excuse us if we don't cry because a handful of lawbreakers inconvenienced people trying to speak because they ****ed around and created a public hazard.
 
Yup, restrictions on guns. "Hey, you can't buy this gun", Buyer, "What?", Seller, "Here have this instead", Buyer, "OMG, not the eyes." See the correlation now?

There is no real correlation there.
 
And the thread has been derailed again. Really? gun control?!?!? How does this relate to the eviction of Oakland occupiers?
 
And the thread has been derailed again. Really? gun control?!?!? How does this relate to the eviction of Oakland occupiers?
I think the poster is trying to make a point that it's hypocritical for gun rights opponents to be against the protest. The logical fallacy though is that it's not that simple, most people I think you will find are against endangerment and legal violations, not the speech itself even though there is severe disagreement. Most gun owners are fine with laws that have a provable affect on safety like not being able to fire in city limits or making sure pyschotics have to pass a sanity test to have that right restored.
 
I think the poster is trying to make a point that it's hypocritical for gun rights opponents to be against the protest. The logical fallacy though is that it's not that simple, most people I think you will find are against endangerment and legal violations, not the speech itself even though there is severe disagreement. Most gun owners are fine with laws that have a provable affect on safety like not being able to fire in city limits or making sure pyschotics have to pass a sanity test to have that right restored.
It's just a false analogy... I don't believe the two can be compared side by side. There are completely different concerns involved... But if this is the course of the discussion I am more than willing to abide. Although I believe those that may have once considered me an ally won't anymore. :(

Nor do I believe it has any real bearing on the topic of this thread.
 
It's just a false analogy... I don't believe the two can be compared side by side. There are completely different concerns involved... But if this is the course of the discussion I am more than willing to abide. Although I believe those that may have once considered me an ally won't anymore. :(

Nor do I believe it has any real bearing on the topic of this thread.
I agree with this. I don't know why people think the gun issue can be substituted in any topic for actual facts of the case. It's just a tactic of throwing out a strawman and hoping someone will shut down for fear of being a hypocrite. It's quite possible to agree with a basic right and understand it has limits.
 
I agree with this. I don't know why people think the gun issue can be substituted in any topic for actual facts of the case. It's just a tactic of throwing out a strawman and hoping someone will shut down for fear of being a hypocrite. It's quite possible to agree with a basic right and understand it has limits.
Well, it's not just the gun issue and its not just by people that I tend to side with, politically speaking. can we at least agree that these distractions tend to happen often, and from both sides?

Why are people so concerned with "winning the argument" as opposed to "figuring out the solution"?

EDIT: Nevermind... I will start another thread, I just now attempted to start a conversation here that has nothing to do with the thread.... please disregard.... my apologies.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's not just the gun issue and its not just by people that I tend to side with, politically speaking. can we at least agree that these distractions tend to happen often, and from both sides?

Why are people so concerned with "winning the argument" as opposed to "figuring out the solution"?

EDIT: Nevermind... I will start another thread, I just now attempted to start a conversation here that has nothing to do with the thread.... please disregard.... my apologies.
No worries. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to go point/counterpoint without all the red herrings, strawmen, and diversion tactics and can therefore have a debate instead of a screaming match. I don't care about winning the argument because nobody actually learns anything, but it is impossible under circumstances when someone just has to prove their case rather then debate to keep from trying to defeat bad points rather than discuss at times.
 
No worries. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to go point/counterpoint without all the red herrings, strawmen, and diversion tactics and can therefore have a debate instead of a screaming match. I don't care about winning the argument because nobody actually learns anything, but it is impossible under circumstances when someone just has to prove their case rather then debate to keep from trying to defeat bad points rather than discuss at times.
Well if nothing else you and I at least know where each other stand with this issue, while we may disagree on some of the finer points, it occurred to me that you understood where I was coming from, and I believe that in general I believe that I understand where you are coming from. I am curious though, given our two differing viewpoints, and from a selfish perspective could you ever, in your own mind, see a situation where these people could remain in the park (relatively indefinitely, i.e. until they themselves chose to disperse) or is this an unacceptable situation?

Just an academic question.

EDIT: In other words, what would it take for you, personally, to support the protesters right to remain and try and perpetuate their message?
 
Last edited:
So...after several days we have an interview on MSNBC where an Occupy Oakland protester ADMITS that the protesters started the conflict with the police by throwing rocks and bottles at the bolice. So...like the other...this thread I assume is now finished...right?
 
Well if nothing else you and I at least know where each other stand with this issue, while we may disagree on some of the finer points, it occurred to me that you understood where I was coming from, and I believe that in general I believe that I understand where you are coming from. I am curious though, given our two differing viewpoints, and from a selfish perspective could you ever, in your own mind, see a situation where these people could remain in the park (relatively indefinitely, i.e. until they themselves chose to disperse) or is this an unacceptable situation?

Just an academic question.

EDIT: In other words, what would it take for you, personally, to support the protesters right to remain and try and perpetuate their message?
I could support them if they did a few things: 1) Tone down the rhetoric a little bit, or at least control the ones in the crowd who are out of line 2) Show proof of an effort to keep public sanitation and safety upheld to the highest standard possible under the circumstances. 3) Petition the city to suspend the camping ordinance based on 1 and 2.
 
And the thread has been derailed again. Really? gun control?!?!? How does this relate to the eviction of Oakland occupiers?

well, I guess it could lead to a discussion of the proper utilization of force by the state during the exercising of ones right...

while keeping and bearing arms, are there times when state can utilize force to make you cease and desist?.... sure there are.
before being able to keep and bear arms, are there limits, such as time , place, or manner?... sure there are.

there are no civil rights enumerated in the Constitution that are limitless.
people will forever disagree on what those limits can or should be, but the limits are there nonetheless..... the OWS crowd would be do themselves to clue themselves into this fact.

I'm a rabid defender of 2nd amendment rights, but even I don't pretend there are no limits.


as far as protesting rights go , they are not limitless ... there can be reasonable limits put on protests/gatherings.
these limits cannot be designed to quell the speech, but must be designed to further legitimate regulatory objectives.. like ensuring traffic is not messed with, or nearby activities, or for public health reasons .. etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom