• 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!

Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Not really.
If you let some people get away with breaking the law, then others may jump on the bandwagon.
Not a very good image to project.

They had their chance to camp and protest, they were asked to leave and they should of acted reasonable and left.



See your acting as if the police were the problem.
The police don't come into this, until someone breaks the law.

They shouldn't compromise with people breaking the law, that's not their job.

I once read an article that stated that there are so many active laws in the US today that there isn't a single adult person in the US that hasn't broken the law.
 
And what happens when you have 2 or more people wanting to use that same space of public land?
First come, first serve?

That would also be the same as silencing the 2nd person's right to assemble, at least from what you've said here

Actually when it comes to public parks and such, yes, first come first served is the basis. You cannot enter any park and tell a person having a picnic that they have to leave. You have to find somewhere else to go.
 
So... Do you only have the right to protest if you get 100% of the public or something?

Nope but you have to share public spaces, with other members of the public.

Is there an event?

Most likely there is, at some point or another.
If the OWS don't clear out, the event could be moved, costing the city more revenue.

Can you show me that law?

Typically, the law allows someone to camp out, in wooded parks for a maximum of two weeks.
You then have to move, although this is for forest areas and not city parks.
 
Yes, the USS Cole is a very different situation. And I have no trouble with being weary. I only ask that reason and calmer heads rule the day. The threshold for esculating to violence should be high IMHO. If you're worried about health issue, help out. Have ahelpful presence, which would also allow you to be there to control things a bit. Be seen as part of the solution and not the problem.

As I mentioned earlier, I have ehard reports of an area reporting this type of appraoch, and as best I can tell, it has been far more successful. It has even led to less turn out, less confrontation, and a better feeling by all concerned. It is true that I have not been there to see it myself, but it certainly sounds better than what I'm hearing here, which I have also not seen in person.

Why should I help them clean up their mess if I don't want them there to begin with? I am not going to allow anyone to walk all over me and expect me to clean up after them and continually clean up after them for being on my property. That is beyond being reasonable, that is foolish.
 
I once read an article that stated that there are so many active laws in the US today that there isn't a single adult person in the US that hasn't broken the law.

While that may be true, we're really discussing something that is reasonable here.
The law says you can't camp in city parks, that makes sense as that is not there intended purpose.

Actually when it comes to public parks and such, yes, first come first served is the basis. You cannot enter any park and tell a person having a picnic that they have to leave. You have to find somewhere else to go.

Yes but a picnic /= camping for a couple of months.
A picnic is a temporary use, camping for time on end, is an indefinite use.
The latter is unreasonable.
 
Why should I help them clean up their mess if I don't want them there to begin with? I am not going to allow anyone to walk all over me and expect me to clean up after them and continually clean up after them for being on my property. That is beyond being reasonable, that is foolish.

I guess I don't look at it that way. I had to do some thinking about when would it be possible for any group to be on my yard, and in doing so I firgure there would be a reason, likely one I would possibily accept, so I would see making a compromise in my best interest. Remember, these things are rarely just without reason.
 
I guess I don't look at it that way. I had to do some thinking about when would it be possible for any group to be on my yard, and in doing so I firgure there would be a reason, likely one I would possibily accept, so I would see making a compromise in my best interest. Remember, these things are rarely just without reason.

Not everyone is Boo Radley.
Other people have legitimate gripes about OWS camping in a public park.
Just because you aren't bothered by doesn't mean they shouldn't leave.

Again a compromise was made, they could protest, they just couldn't camp.
Not a huge deal here.
 
I guess I don't look at it that way. I had to do some thinking about when would it be possible for any group to be on my yard, and in doing so I firgure there would be a reason, likely one I would possibily accept, so I would see making a compromise in my best interest. Remember, these things are rarely just without reason.

I might have sympathy for them, depending on their reasons, just as I do have some sympathy for those who are occupying these cities who honestly have nowhere else to go, but it would not be enough for me to just allow them to reside on my property without cleaning up after themselves and doing something actually productive while they are there.

My mother camped out in WA state for over 2 months til she could earn enough money working to get a deposit to rent a house. But she was being productive during that time. She was also in a place that allowed her to camp there.

The OWS occupiers' reason for camping where they are has very little to do with what they are purportedly protesting, which is corporate greed and its connection to American governments (which I honestly understand). Protesting these things does not require in any way creating tent cities within public parks, especially parks that are closed at night. And a rational person knows that corporate greed and corruption cannot be dealt with in any time that reasonable to allow a large group of people to camp in city parks for without causing major issues. It just isn't going to happen.
 
I might have sympathy for them, depending on their reasons, just as I do have some sympathy for those who are occupying these cities who honestly have nowhere else to go, but it would not be enough for me to just allow them to reside on my property without cleaning up after themselves and doing something actually productive while they are there.

My mother camped out in WA state for over 2 months til she could earn enough money working to get a deposit to rent a house. But she was being productive during that time. She was also in a place that allowed her to camp there.

The OWS occupiers' reason for camping where they are has very little to do with what they are purportedly protesting, which is corporate greed and its connection to American governments (which I honestly understand). Protesting these things does not require in any way creating tent cities within public parks, especially parks that are closed at night. And a rational person knows that corporate greed and corruption cannot be dealt with in any time that reasonable to allow a large group of people to camp in city parks for without causing major issues. It just isn't going to happen.

Which is why I said I'm help them clean up, and provide options for them to care for themselves. They'd take that much better than just trying to throw them out.
 
I guess I don't look at it that way. I had to do some thinking about when would it be possible for any group to be on my yard, and in doing so I firgure there would be a reason, likely one I would possibily accept, so I would see making a compromise in my best interest. Remember, these things are rarely just without reason.

Follow with me here: Zuccotti Park is only 3,300 square feet; you own an acre; let's change the 500 people on your property to 2,600 people. (Before you gasp, I found one site that mentioned 200 people -- I think that's low because they talked about hundreds and thousands of people...an acre is 43,560 s.f. divided by 3,300 s.f. = 13.2. Now, 13.2 x 200 people = 2,640.) Then there's their sleeping bags, their sleeping tents, their generators, their food tents and all the paraphenalia people need to camp out for months at a time. Oh, and they're using the ground as a toilet. Oh, and when guests try to come to your home, they block their way and intimidate them because they want your town to acquiesce to their demands. Your attorney tells you that you may be responsible for their injuries on your property. And you've got a few hundred thousand dollars in the bank you'd rather not spend on lawsuits. That vegetable garden you've got around back? They trampled that. They've scared your livestock. There's been a few sexual attacks, a shooting, stealing and more. Some of the rowdies are just troublemakers. They break all the windows in your home. Scare your wife and kids. You ask them, "What do I have to do to get you to leave?" Everyone answers that question differently. And many are asking for things you know damn well sure the town is never going to agree to no matter how long they stay. They've been there two months -- and you've been patient for two months. Now what?

Okay, Boo. That's the reality of Zuccotti Park. If you tell me that, "I'm a patient man, I'd find a way to compromise," you're just telling a fib.

Edit: And you'll never be mayor. :rofl
 
Last edited:
Follow with me here: Zuccotti Park is only 3,300 square feet; you own an acre; let's change the 500 people on your property to 2,600 people. (Before you gasp, I found one site that mentioned 200 people -- I think that's low because they talked about hundreds and thousands of people...an acre is 43,560 s.f. divided by 3,300 s.f. = 13.2. Now, 13.2 x 200 people = 2,640.) Then there's their sleeping bags, their sleeping tents, their generators, their food tents and all the paraphenalia people need to camp out for months at a time. Oh, and they're using the ground as a toilet. Oh, and when guests try to come to your home, they block their way and intimidate them because they want your town to acquiesce to their demands. Your attorney tells you that you may be responsible for their injuries on your property. And you've got a few hundred thousand dollars in the bank you'd rather not spend on lawsuits. That vegetable garden you've got around back? They trampled that. They've scared your livestock. There's been a few sexual attacks, a shooting, stealing and more. Some of the rowdies are just troublemakers. They break all the windows in your home. Scare your wife and kids. You ask them, "What do I have to do to get you to leave?" Everyone answers that question differently. And many are asking for things you know damn well sure the town is never going to agree to no matter how long they stay. They've been there two months -- and you've been patient for two months. Now what?

Okay, Boo. That's the reality of Zuccotti Park. If you tell me that, "I'm a patient man, I'd find a way to compromise," you're just telling a fib.

Edit: And you'll never be mayor. :rofl

The city has more resources than I do, but yes, I'd find a way to compromise. I'd work out having some toliets available. And they would be quite uncomfortable on my yard. As I'm cose to the river, we have some huge rats to contend with. I wish them luck.

But the point is, what would likely be on my yard would be less than the park. And I think I could handle what I would see, and that the city could handle what they see. The point is, do you try to handle it, or do you act in ways that esculate it. I bet my yard and home would be less damaged my way than yours.
 
The city has more resources than I do, but yes, I'd find a way to compromise. I'd work out having some toliets available. And they would be quite uncomfortable on my yard. As I'm cose to the river, we have some huge rats to contend with. I wish them luck.

But the point is, what would likely be on my yard would be less than the park. And I think I could handle what I would see, and that the city could handle what they see. The point is, do you try to handle it, or do you act in ways that esculate it. I bet my yard and home would be less damaged my way than yours.

OK, Boo. I give up. You win. :rofl
 
OK, Boo. I give up. You win. :rofl

It's not about winning. I'm just trying to say that it is often counter productive to escualte the violence. It doesn't matter what I would or wouldn't do. The escualting to force often ends up costing everyone more in the end. And I think that is what happened. SO perhaps we should save the use of force for when it is really needed. I don't think this is really all that controvesial.
 
It's not about winning. I'm just trying to say that it is often counter productive to escualte the violence. It doesn't matter what I would or wouldn't do. The escualting to force often ends up costing everyone more in the end. And I think that is what happened. SO perhaps we should save the use of force for when it is really needed. I don't think this is really all that controvesial.

So, if folks are willing to go that far we should let them?

Is that what you are saying?
 
So, if folks are willing to go that far we should let them?

Is that what you are saying?
Depends on wht you mean by that far. Just staying in the park? Sure. let them. Maybe help them be clearer. Stay close. Worry more about safety than minor things.
 
While that may be true, we're really discussing something that is reasonable here.
The law says you can't camp in city parks, that makes sense as that is not there intended purpose.

Why not camp at a park? I've done it before. Its a great place to take kids camping when you live in a city and don't have the money to spend to go out into the country.

Yes but a picnic /= camping for a couple of months.
A picnic is a temporary use, camping for time on end, is an indefinite use.
The latter is unreasonable.

The picnic was just an example. You could have just as easily used "camping" in its place. The point was that parks are based on a first come first serve basis. It matters not how long a person stays in that park. They were there first, they get to use it for as long as they like. You don't have a right to limit how much they can use it.
 
Last edited:
Why not camp at a park? I've done it before. Its a great place to take kids camping when you live in a city and don't have the money to spend to go out into the country.

The picnic was just an example. You could have just as easily used "camping" in its place. The point was that parks are based on a first come first serve basis. It matters not how long a person stays in that park. They were there first, they get to use it for as long as they like. You don't have a right to limit how much they can use it.

On the contrary, there is the right to limit how long a person/group of people are allowed to use public land. It is a fairness issue.
 
On the contrary, there is the right to limit how long a person/group of people are allowed to use public land. It is a fairness issue.

Life isn't about fairness. Its about rights. If life was fair then there would be no reason for the OWS, Teaparty, Republican, Democrats, <insert whatever party here> to even exist. There would not be alot of things in this world if it was all about fairness.
 
Life isn't about fairness. Its about rights. If life was fair then there would be no reason for the OWS, Teaparty, Republican, Democrats, <insert whatever party here> to even exist. There would not be alot of things in this world if it was all about fairness.

yea but 'Rights' are all about fairness. Hence "Equal Rights" . "right to medical care" And "right to a fair trial" both demand fairness. Property rights demand that the owner to be recognized as the deed holder which is only fair. But fairness is not the end all definition of rights. Many other factors make up our Rights as citizens.
 
Life isn't about fairness. Its about rights. If life was fair then there would be no reason for the OWS, Teaparty, Republican, Democrats, <insert whatever party here> to even exist. There would not be alot of things in this world if it was all about fairness.

But municipalities/localities try to be fair to as many people as they can when it comes to allowing use of public lands. This includes time limits for camping out on those public lands. I found many states that have time limits for camping in public/state parks that are generally around 7 - 14 consecutive days or 14 days out of a month total. The time limits are in place for a variety of reasons I'm sure, but include fairness to other citizens and ensuring officials have a chance to clean up that site.
 
But municipalities/localities try to be fair to as many people as they can when it comes to allowing use of public lands. This includes time limits for camping out on those public lands. I found many states that have time limits for camping in public/state parks that are generally around 7 - 14 consecutive days or 14 days out of a month total. The time limits are in place for a variety of reasons I'm sure, but include fairness to other citizens and ensuring officials have a chance to clean up that site.

Yes and those "fairness" laws are usually local/state laws. The right to protest trumps both those laws and "fairness". Where would we be now if MLK had not held protests that most whites at the time considered "unfair". After all...those protests disrupted buisness, traffic, made a mess...all kinds of things.

I really wonder if there is anyone now adays that truely understands what it means to protest and all that it entails.
 
But municipalities/localities try to be fair to as many people as they can when it comes to allowing use of public lands. This includes time limits for camping out on those public lands. I found many states that have time limits for camping in public/state parks that are generally around 7 - 14 consecutive days or 14 days out of a month total. The time limits are in place for a variety of reasons I'm sure, but include fairness to other citizens and ensuring officials have a chance to clean up that site.

I don't get it? what does someone paying to camp at a park have to do with people assembling, did OWS forget to pay the poor tax on the use of the constitution?
 
Yes and those "fairness" laws are usually local/state laws. The right to protest trumps both those laws and "fairness". Where would we be now if MLK had not held protests that most whites at the time considered "unfair". After all...those protests disrupted buisness, traffic, made a mess...all kinds of things.

I really wonder if there is anyone now adays that truely understands what it means to protest and all that it entails.

Where does it say that protests rights trump fairness? I'm pretty sure that is not a part of the Constitution. The right to protest is not the end all, be all right.

It can certainly clash with other people's rights, and if there is a viable alternative that still allows the protesters to protest, do so legally, and allow others a little fairness, then that is what should happen. And I have already suggested viable alternatives in other posts that the protesters could partake of besides usurping public land that is really not in connection to their purported protests.

It is up to the courts, ultimately, to decide, but they have upheld protests limitations in the past, at least to a point, so I really don't see them overturning time and other limitations on public access to parks just for protesters. It is possible, just not likely since many of those limitations are in place for good reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom