• 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

Kal'Stang said:
Costing taxpayers money in order to hold a peaceful protest is NOT a waste. It is supporting our first amendment rights.

Or do you consider wars that actually protect our freedoms also a waste of taxpayer money?
Click to expand...

It is when you unnecessarily damage public property.

Why is that so hard to grasp?
 
apdst said:
Damaging public property and wasting tax dollars aren't afforded protections under the Constitution.

There seem to be quite a few people missing the point. No one is questioning their right to protest.
Click to expand...

But you are putting a price on the right to protest. A right is something that the people have freely. Money is not required to exercise any right. That includes charging people for incidental damages. Putting a price on the ability of someone to protest is no different than when the Democrats tried to put requirements on the right to vote at elections in order to deter blacks from voting.
 
1Perry said:
By saying that they must apply for a permit and that there is someone who can turn down that request, yes you are.
Click to expand...

Depends on the reason that permit was declined. I'm not aware that those permits are declined, without a damn good reason. Maybe you can show us some examples of that.
 
apdst said:
If you damage public property during your protest, you're damn right you should have to pay up. It's only right. Don't you think?

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for your shanannigans?

We hear the occutards rail about banks getting bailouts, yet they don't mind blowing a million taxpayer dollars cleaning up a mess that they created. Hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...

There is a Constitutional right to protest. I've pointed out many times that our rights are not always free nor pretty. There is no Constitutional right to have your investment bank saved by the government with taxpayers money when you screw it royally up.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Other countries are not the US. And yes you can assemble and protest at 2AM if you so choose. There is no law which puts a curfew on protests. If you think that there is then I invite you to prove it via a link to the relevant law.
Click to expand...

Go violate a curfew. Have your lawyer send us a postcard.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But you are putting a price on the right to protest. A right is something that the people have freely. Money is not required to exercise any right. That includes charging people for incidental damages. Putting a price on the ability of someone to protest is no different than when the Democrats tried to put requirements on the right to vote at elections in order to deter blacks from voting.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm putting a price on damaging public property.

Show me the part of the Constitution that protects the right to damage public property.
 
1Perry said:
There is a Constitutional right to protest. I've pointed out many times that our rights are not always free nor pretty. There is no Constitutional right to have your investment bank saved by the government with taxpayers money when you screw it royally up.
Click to expand...

Right, but...Not the right to damage public property in the process!!!!!

Damn!!! Why is this so hard for some folks?!?
 
apdst said:
Depends on the reason that permit was declined. I'm not aware that those permits are declined, without a damn good reason. Maybe you can show us some examples of that.
Click to expand...

Local Tea Party organizers are threatening to sue the city of Atlanta, saying Mayor Kasim Reed has given special treatment to Occupy Atlanta protesters.

Atlanta Tea Party co-founder Julianne Thompson told Channel 2 Action News that the group, which supports limited taxes and reduced government deficits, has made a request in writing after being denied permission to hold an event downtown because city officials said there was too much red tape and cost involved.

Or in other words, because the city officials simply can not be bothered.

The Tea Party members say Reed should grant them a special executive order — as he did for Occupy Atlanta — allowing an outdoor event last past 11 p.m.

Reed gave a brief response Tuesday. “I think we’ll handle it on a case-by-case basis,” he said.


Tea Party, denied permit for “cost” & red tape, wants same treatment as OWS | Flopping Aces
 
apdst said:
If you damage public property during your protest, you're damn right you should have to pay up. It's only right. Don't you think?

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for your shanannigans?

We hear the occutards rail about banks getting bailouts, yet they don't mind blowing a million taxpayer dollars cleaning up a mess that they created. Hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...

Agreed to all. At this point, we are debating folks who are ignorant of the Law, and are espousing mob rule. It is the hypocrisy of liberalism, and it is more constant than the sun rising in the East.
 
apdst said:
Right, but...Not the right to damage public property in the process!!!!!

Damn!!! Why is this so hard for some folks?!?
Click to expand...

It's been noted over and over that if someone damaged the fountain, arrest them.
 
apdst said:
It is when you unnecessarily damage public property.

Why is that so hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

But that is not what the OP is about. The money that they want to sue for is for the cost of raiding and imprisoning etc etc. The quote in the OP says that they want to sue for what the protest cost the city which was "$2.35 million, not counting repairs to the lawn and fountain outside City Hall, according to a report issued Friday...."

Now if the damage to the lawn and the fountain was done maliciously then yes someone should be charged for destruction of property as that is not a peaceful act. However if it was done on accident or through general use then it should not be charged to anyone but the taxpayers. And those alone would not cost that much. Hell, I could do it for under $5k.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Agreed to all. At this point, we are debating folks who are ignorant of the Law, and are espousing mob rule. It is the hypocrisy of liberalism, and it is more constant than the sun rising in the East.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see you post a law which prohibits people from protesting at 2AM. If I am so "ignorant" of the law then by all means prove it to me. Show me that law.
 
1Perry said:
Local Tea Party organizers are threatening to sue the city of Atlanta, saying Mayor Kasim Reed has given special treatment to Occupy Atlanta protesters.

Atlanta Tea Party co-founder Julianne Thompson told Channel 2 Action News that the group, which supports limited taxes and reduced government deficits, has made a request in writing after being denied permission to hold an event downtown because city officials said there was too much red tape and cost involved.

Or in other words, because the city officials simply can not be bothered.

The Tea Party members say Reed should grant them a special executive order — as he did for Occupy Atlanta — allowing an outdoor event last past 11 p.m.

Reed gave a brief response Tuesday. “I think we’ll handle it on a case-by-case basis,” he said.


Tea Party, denied permit for “cost” & red tape, wants same treatment as OWS | Flopping Aces
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree that those folks had their rights violated by the permitting process.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
But that is not what the OP is about. The money that they want to sue for is for the cost of raiding and imprisoning etc etc. The quote in the OP says that they want to sue for what the protest cost the city which was "$2.35 million, not counting repairs to the lawn and fountain outside City Hall, according to a report issued Friday...."

Now if the damage to the lawn and the fountain was done maliciously then yes someone should be charged for destruction of property as that is not a peaceful act. However if it was done on accident or through general use then it should not be charged to anyone but the taxpayers. And those alone would not cost that much. Hell, I could do it for under $5k.
Click to expand...

So, now you're saying that if someone breaks the law, there shouldn't be some kind of fine to go along with it?
 
apdst said:
So, now you're saying that if someone breaks the law, there shouldn't be some kind of fine to go along with it?
Click to expand...

Wow...is that really what you got out of it? Perhaps you should re-read what I said.
 
apdst said:
So, now you're saying that if someone breaks the law, there shouldn't be some kind of fine to go along with it?
Click to expand...

what law do you think was broken?
 
winston53660 said:
Can you come up with one or not?
Click to expand...

Sure, glad to.

City officials have said that, although they respect the occupiers' constitutional right to free speech, they cannot condone taking up residence on a public right of way, which violates a city ordinance.

The measure specifies that “no person shall occupy any portion of a public way or public place so as to obstruct or interfere with the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic".

Police oust Occupiers from Riverside mall | The Desert Sun | MyDesert.com
Click to expand...

I know it rubs some folks's fur the wrong way, but there is no Constitutional amendment that protects your right to violate the rights of others.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So, city ordinances trump constitutional rights in your book?
Click to expand...

When those city ordinances protect the rights of others, you're damn right. How can you not agree with that?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
And just what do you think I was doing in the 70's while you were free-loading ?
Click to expand...

I wasn't alive in the 1970s - and what I meant was that this country "had been built" way before arrogant Conservatives like you decided to start using it as the politically masturbating slogan du jour. You've built absolutely nothing. You're just one more worker who takes his little paycheck and goes home then does nothing but get fat and watch Sunday football. The percentage of actual work you've contributed to this country is so ridiculously insignificant that there is a decimal point and then several zeros before we actually get to what you, by yourself, have contributed to this society. I'm sure your family thanks you for your work and all that, but you've really built nothing in the grand scheme of things. Quit beating your chest about how you built this country. You're just one more little worker ant in this ant colony we call the US. :)
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
So you two think that the Occutards in NYC should have been able to camp out in the park for as long as they wanted ?
Click to expand...
Yes as long as they are peaceful

In quantities that they wanted ?
Click to expand...
Yes

With whatever sanitation mechanisms they thought were OK ?
Click to expand...
Yes. The OWS'rs had sanitation comitees to pick up trash and what not and dispose of it.

The laws say otherwise. Explain that .... please ?
Click to expand...
It does? You still have yet to find those "laws"..

Secondly. Do you two think we live in a Democracy ? Or a Democratic Republic ?
Click to expand...
A democratic republic which is a form of democracy... Your point being here?

Do you know the difference ?
Click to expand...
Yes....
 
apdst said:
If you damage public property during your protest, you're damn right you should have to pay up. It's only right. Don't you think?
Click to expand...
Soo how are they gonna find out what individual within the protest "did damage"?


Why should the taxpayers have to pay for your shanannigans?
Click to expand...
Sooo your gonna sue a whole movement for the act of an individual? This is gonna get real FAR in court.


We hear the occutards rail about banks getting bailouts, yet they don't mind blowing a million taxpayer dollars cleaning up a mess that they created. Hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...
First off "occutards" isnt even catchy try to get a new one.
So what mess? The mess they left behind from the camp which they were forced out by the CITY?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom