• 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

1Perry said:
So, I'll simply not assume and come to the conclusion that you would rather not answer.
Click to expand...

I attempted to be nice. I found your tact ignorant, and disappointing.

That is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

Far from it. It is about where they violated statutes.

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.

Sorry though, City Hall, not courthouse.
Click to expand...

Damages. Whether there are actually any or not, I do not know. However, her lawsuit will have to be based on statutes.

It was a question. The way to get rid of any doubt is to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Again, your query was ignorant and disappointing. If you cannot avoid such ad hominems, maybe quit the thread.

Napolis. About 8 months. The rest of the employee's.
Click to expand...

US Army. 82 Abn and 5th SF. 7 years.

Get back to me when you have some credibility actually defended the rights of others. ;)
 
j-mac said:
Since this is about L.A. Here is their law.




Check it out people....it is AGAINST the law.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Nobody has argued that violence is lawful.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I attempted to be nice. I found your tact ignorant, and disappointing.
Click to expand...

Then just answer the questions. The arguement is that allowing protest can cost society money. As can gun ownership. Do you support the same restrictions on gun ownership?

Far from it. It is about where they violated statutes.
Click to expand...

The city is not aresting anyone for violating statutes.

Damages. Whether there are actually any or not, I do not know. However, her lawsuit will have to be based on statutes.
Click to expand...

If a fountain was damaged, that would be criminal. If there was damage to the lawn because of people protesting, let them try and sue. I'm betting they don't and if they did, they would lose.

US Army. 82 Abn and 5th SF. 7 years.

Get back to me when you have some credibility actually defended the rights of others. ;)
Click to expand...

I appreciate ones military service but Timothy McVeigh served also. It does not give you a lifetime pass.
 
1Perry said:
The article is about wanting to sue, not arrest.
Click to expand...

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
 
1Perry said:
Then just answer the questions. The arguement is that allowing protest can cost society money. As can gun ownership. Do you support the same restrictions on gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Start a thread about the 2nd Amendment. See who comes to your party, and address them there.

The city is not aresting anyone for violating statutes.
Click to expand...

But the propiety of statutes has certainly been an issue in the thread.

If a fountain was damaged, that would be criminal. If there was damage to the lawn because of people protesting, let them try and sue. I'm betting they don't and if they did, they would lose.
Click to expand...

Again, the conversation has long gone beyond such. For all I know the dumbass mayor is trying to save some political face, but otherwise has little chance of recovering either damages, or saving face.

I appreciate ones military service but Timothy McVeigh served also. It does not give you a lifetime pass.
Click to expand...

Point is, you lack the credibility to raise the issue, or assume anything about me regards such, in this thread with me. When you rate such, then I might give you the time of day on it. Won't be tomorrow though.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

What an absoluely idiotic view. They will start by suing the 300 arrested and they would lose for what reason? And counter sue? People like you are a huge disgrace to America and how we are viewed world wide with our sue happy culture.
 
1Perry said:
We pay out a good bit for people to camp out in parks all around the country. Nobody complains. Allowing people to exercise their rights is one of the few things we all should support. To argue that it costs too much for us to maintain our rights is an absolutely horrible arguement.
Click to expand...

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.

This goes both ways. Many (again I have no idea exactly how many) that would have a fit over the idea that one should have to get a permit to own a gun is fine with requiring one to exercise other rights (and visa versa). One position is no better than the other. There are large costs associated with our rights to own guns. That's a part of not being a country that throws people in jail because they use "ugly words".
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The city government made certain decisions on how to handle the Occupy protesters, and it incurred expenses as a direct result of those decisions. A decision to sue would be akin to buyer's remorse, and the people of LA shouldn't tolerate it -- they should instead hold their government responsible for the choices that led to this situation.
Click to expand...

That's right on!

I thnk the money should come out of the paychecks of the city officials who chose to sit back and let these clowns run amuck.
 
1Perry said:
Which is the same arguements those who wish to curtail the right to own guns use. Can I assume you agree with them also? I have never seen a court house lawn with an occupancy code.

I also can only assume that based upon the use of a smiley that you do not take our rights as a serious thing.
Click to expand...

The difference being, my private ownership of a gun doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. But as they say, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
Click to expand...

Which is why the occutards need to do the right thing, by raising the money to reimburse the tax payers.
 
They are suing people because they protested?
 
apdst said:
I already know it's not going to happen. The occutards are obviously content with ****ing over the taxpayers. No surprise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
No, they're sueing people because they trashed out public property and stuck the taxpayers with the tab.
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
No, they're sueing people because they trashed out public property and stuck the taxpayers with the tab.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. But as they say, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
Click to expand...

We kind of agree on this point, and I believe I have alluded to a similar conclusion. You do have to identify a responsible party before you can try to collect damages. And then, once identified, there has to be a reasonable expectation that the effort needed to collect is essentiallly worth it. For instance, idfentifiying obe person who may have kicked up a divet is not going to return much in terms of a recovery.

But this gets us to the other point about permits, etc. With many organized rallies, where permits are granted, municipalities also require an insurance bond be posted, exactly to cover such costs. And if you have a rally, and it requires a certain permit, and you don't have it, then you are all subject to arrest and fine. Which also pays the bills ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom