• 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

Caine said:
Laws against Camping have nothing to do with time place and manner restrictions.

They are laws against camping........

To consistently ignore this, is mind boggling.
Click to expand...
So local camping ordinances trump constitutional protections then?
 
What if...? said:
I can't find any actual police statements in regards to these incidents, just newspaper and blog reports.

No quotes from police in the articles that I can find. I looked through three pages before I found the actual cbs article.

I'm beginning to smell a rat (not you), but I'm not all caught up on these threads, so if I'm missing something, please point me in the right direction.

Its looking more and more like a propaganda blitz designed to cast the protesters in a negative light to foster acceptance of putting an end to the protests once and for all.
Click to expand...

You are just....

noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg
 
Swit said:
So local camping ordinances trump constitutional protections then?
Click to expand...

Camping is NOT pettitioning the government.

You can't do ANYTHING you want and call it assembly and protest and be protected.

If so, You have no problem with me keying your car right?
 
Caine said:
And rape.... and beat each other.... and **** all over public lands, and piss all over the place.... leave rotten food out, refuse to allow police to investigate crimes, refuse to allow medical personnel to treat people brutally beaten by the others.....

This list goes on and on....
Click to expand...
Sure and your own logical (I am using the term loosely) progression of what would transpire should we allow these people to camp there ends up with them not being able to camp there.... looked your slippery slope post was fundamentally flawed.
 
Caine said:
It would not have occurred. But more people would be beaten, raped, it would end up in someone getting murdered in that camp.

You can't just put a group of people in a camp of lawlessness and expect everything to be hunky-dory.
Click to expand...
This is nothing more than mere speculation. You may be correct, or you might not be. In essence it is an appeal to emotion.
 
Swit said:
So local camping ordinances trump constitutional protections then?
Click to expand...
Once you start to break laws you have stepped out of the scope of your rights. That is not black and white of course but when laws have provable necessity and trust me anti-camping laws do, then yes they do trump the right to free speech and assembly. Other examples are sanitation, you may not incite a riot, obstruction, fighting words, obscenity, lewd behavior, and advocating or engaging in criminal activity.
 
Caine said:
Yes, they should.

But when violence comes from an assembly of angry people shouting obscenities at you, and it is impossible to determine who the many assailants are..... THAT constitutes an unlawful assembly... and then people are legally ordered to disburse. Failure to do so will result in MAKING them disburse. Which is what happened here.

The injury was an accidental result of an attempt to control Chaos.


Even if police WERE able to exactly pinpoint the many assailants, do you think it is wise from a standpoint of safety for officers to to INTO an angry crowd to attempt to arrest someone???


If only police were such wizards that they could shoot a lazer beam at a specific target in a giant crowd and that lazer beam them grabs them and lifts them up above the rest and then brings that person to them for arresting purposes.....

If only....

Reality is... You participate in an angry mob and refuse to leave.... You take the responsibility for what happens to you in your own hands.
Click to expand...

Maybe some kind of paintball would work?

I get where you are coming from, but you just provided whoever disagrees with any protest movement the perfect means to silence it:

Hire people to yell obscenitites and chuck **** at cops from the crowd.
 
Caine said:
Camping is NOT pettitioning the government.
Click to expand...
So you seem to be claiming that these occupy X groups are in fact not protesting what exactly is your interpretation of their continued presence then?

Caine said:
You can't do ANYTHING you want and call it assembly and protest and be protected.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on 1st amendment issues have been taken up in the courts on virtually limitless occasion. Its up to the courts to decide.

Caine said:
If so, You have no problem with me keying your car right?
Click to expand...
Well, if you get a court to agree that "keying a car" is not subject to reasonable time place and manner restrictions and some how falls under the purview of the 1st amendment protections then, no I would not be able to argue against it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Once you start to break laws you have stepped out of the scope of your rights. That is not black and white of course but when laws have provable necessity and trust me anti-camping laws do, then yes they do trump the right to free speech and assembly. Other examples are sanitation, you may not incite a riot, obstruction, fighting words, obscenity, lewd behavior, and advocating or engaging in criminal activity.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but "trust me" doesn't hold any weight with me. And the only way to determine if the trump 1st Amendment protections is to argue it in court. (And currently federal court is looking into this issue with regard to Occupy Cleveland and they have in fact ordered a temporary injunction upon the city of Cleveland restraining the city from taking restrictive action upon the protesters)
 
Swit said:
So you seem to be claiming that these occupy X groups are in fact not protesting what exactly is your interpretation of their continued presence then?
Click to expand...
To **** with the police.
Why do you think they grow every time police action occurs? Because more idiots are TRYING to have standoffs with the police.

Police are commonly called Pigs. If you look at some of the links I posted earlier, You see an image taken days before the Police Standoff in Oakland of graffiti of a Pig with an arrow through its head that says "Kill Pigs" on it.

That has nothing to do with Anti-Capitalist movement, and eveything to do with generally hating police.




Absolutely correct, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on 1st amendment issues have been taken up in the courts on virtually limitless occasion. Its up to the courts to decide.
Click to expand...
But, camping on public grounds is a violation of the law. Period. You can't suddenly say that "Oh Im camping in protest" and suddenly have it protected.

Can you go piss on public buildings in protest and it be protected?

Smoke marijuana in protest? Protected...

Your logic is ignorant.
 
Caine said:
You are just....

noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg
Click to expand...

Sorry man. I haven't been disrespectful of you at all, and I think the burden is on you to support yoir claims of lawlessness.

I simply don't believe that finding actual, official reporting on this stuff should be this difficult. I'm not making any claims that nothing of moment, even rape, has occurred. What I AM claiming is that there is a TON of noise in the conservative blogosphere aboit the horrors at OWS protests that are all based on hearsay if that.

Where are the official police statements to the media? Where are the media statements from named sources? Where are the followup articles from media outlets?

I'm still getting caught up on these threads, and will modify this statement as evidence manafests, if it does.
 
Swit said:
I am sorry but "trust me" doesn't hold any weight with me. And the only way to determine if the trump 1st Amendment protections is to argue it in court. (And currently federal court is looking into this issue with regard to Occupy Cleveland and they have in fact ordered a temporary injunction upon the city of Cleveland restraining the city from taking restrictive action upon the protesters)
Click to expand...
I know, trust me is just an emphasis not an appeal. The reason anti-camping laws exist is to prevent squatting which is a real problem in most medium to large cities. Squatting results in many public health threats such as communal disease sharing, public safety violations, fire hazards, fighting, and other crimes. I don't have the studies or statistics on hand but from my understanding these are all well known and accepted truths. I know that if I had property near a tent city that could be endangered I couldn't give a good **** what rights those endangering my property think they have. Not trying to be rude BTW just stating things in a strong manner.
 
Do people understand that sometimes descent is sometimes needed? Descent is patriotic. Its needed in democracy. Its needed for a democracy to work. This is real democracy right now. Descent is the highest form of patriotism.
 
What if...? said:
Sorry man. I haven't been disrespectful of you at all, and I think the burden is on you to support yoir claims of lawlessness.

I simply don't believe that finding actual, official reporting on this stuff should be this difficult. I'm not making any claims that nothing of moment, even rape, has occurred. What I AM claiming is that there is a TON of noise in the conservative blogosphere aboit the horrors at OWS protests that are all based on hearsay if that.

Where are the official police statements to the media? Where are the media statements from named sources? Where are the followup articles from media outlets?

I'm still getting caught up on these threads, and will modify this statement as evidence manafests, if it does.
Click to expand...

NOTHING will prove to YOU that the police were refused access to the camp by the camp members to conduct their investigations.

That in itself is enough to take the thing down.

Umm......

The Bay Citizen isn't a blog.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do people understand that sometimes descent is sometimes needed? Descent is patriotic. Its needed in democracy. Its needed for a democracy to work. This is real democracy right now. Descent is the highest form of patriotism.
Click to expand...

Thats fine....

Then put your big boy pants on, and accept that if you violate a law as a form of protest you are still subject to arrest.

If you get violent towards those who have been sent to arrest you for violating a law, then expect to be met with force....
 
Caine said:
To **** with the police.
Caine said:
Why do you think they grow every time police action occurs? Because more idiots are TRYING to have standoffs with the police.
Click to expand...
Really.... you seriously believe the motivating factor of these people has no end goal in mind except that of messing with the police? Once again this seems like a dishonest argument.

Caine said:
Police are commonly called Pigs. If you look at some of the links I posted earlier, You see an image taken days before the Police Standoff in Oakland of graffiti of a Pig with an arrow through its head that says "Kill Pigs" on it.
Click to expand...
Agreed that this kind of action should not have any place in civil debate and disrespect to the police force is definitely regrettable, however respect is earned not freely given. A scarier question is why do people have such a negative view of their local police department. They can't all be habitual criminals.

Caine said:
That has nothing to do with Anti-Capitalist movement, and eveything to do with generally hating police.
Click to expand...
Wow, so they are there in your mind for the "Anti-Capitalist" movement thus negating your 1st statement. AND thus defining it as a de facto protest of some kind which would allow for judicial review of 1st Amendment protections.




Caine said:
But, camping on public grounds is a violation of the law. Period. You can't suddenly say that "Oh Im camping in protest" and suddenly have it protected.
Click to expand...
At leat one federal appeals court would disagree with you as they are hearing the case re: Occupy Cleveland right now and have file a temporary injunction.

Caine said:
Can you go piss on public buildings in protest and it be protected?
Click to expand...
I guess if you can somehow convince a court that it is constitutionally protected speech then it would be.

Caine said:
Smoke marijuana in protest? Protected...
Click to expand...
I guess if you can somehow convince a court that it is constitutionally protected speech then it would be.

Caine said:
Your logic is ignorant.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one making the logical leaps, you are. You are the one claiming that these things would be protected, not I. So please take credit for them. I never have suggested that pissing on buildings or smoking marijuana would somehow then fall under the purview of the 1st amendment should the occupiers be allowed to stay. These are YOUR assertions. Never once had I ever said anything like this nor do I hold the view that they would be protected.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Thats fine....

Then put your big boy pants on, and accept that if you violate a law as a form of protest you are still subject to arrest.

If you get violent towards those who have been sent to arrest you for violating a law, then expect to be met with force....
Click to expand...

K, so how come they only arrested 70 out of 300 or how ever many their were? Why subject EVERYONE to tear gas and flash bang granades?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Do people understand that sometimes descent is sometimes needed? Descent is patriotic. Its needed in democracy. Its needed for a democracy to work. This is real democracy right now. Descent is the highest form of patriotism.
Click to expand...
Couple of things, descent is absolutely necessary if you want to land a plane or get off of a high elevation. Dissent is sometimes necessary in a free society, but not just because you personally don't like the way things are, dissent because the government has encroached your rights is patriotic, not because you want people to pay more taxes or you have problems with the way the country was founded. In short your dissent should have real merit and not just be a bunch of pissing and moaning. This is indeed democracy, well, democracy among the small percentage of people in the protests within that group, most of the U.S. thinks these clowns are full of ****. Finally, the United States is NOT a democracy, we are a democratic republic and this was done so that if the public got too greedy or stupid they couldn't mess the whole thing up by tipping the scales in a manner that the damage couldn't be repaired. Somehow the politicians have figured out a way to **** things up anyway and these protesters want more stupid moves......tsk tsk.
 
Swit said:
Caine said:
To **** with the police.

Really.... you seriously believe the motivating factor of these people has no end goal in mind except that of messing with the police? Once again this seems like a dishonest argument.


Agreed that this kind of action should not have any place in civil debate and disrespect to the police force is definitely regrettable, however respect is earned not freely given. A scarier question is why do people have such a negative view of their local police department. They can't all be habitual criminals.


Wow, so they are there in your mind for the "Anti-Capitalist" movement thus negating your 1st statement. AND thus defining it as a de facto protest of some kind which would allow for judicial review of 1st Amendment protections.





At leat one federal appeals court would disagree with you as they are hearing the case re: Occupy Cleveland right now and have file a temporary injunction.


I guess if you can somehow convince a court that it is constitutionally protected speech then it would be.


I guess if you can somehow convince a court that it is constitutionally protected speech then it would be.



I'm not the one making the logical leaps, you are. You are the one claiming that these things would be protected, not I. So please take credit for them. I never have suggested that pissing on buildings or smoking marijuana would somehow then fall under the purview of the 1st amendment should the occupiers be allowed to stay. These are YOUR assertions. Never once had I ever said anything like this nor do I hold the view that they would be protected.
Click to expand...

Then the police still have the right to enforce the current laws, and the COURTS can then decide ... IN COURT whether or not those laws should be ALLOWED to be violated under some faux representation of their right to assembly and protest.

Just STATING as an individual that "this is my right maaaan" isn't and shouldn't prevent the police from enforcing the law anyways.


And here is some more eye candy for you courtesy of Oakland...

04-day%20after.JPG


Take note of the big ass wooden "game" that had to take quite a while to create...
This photo was taken after the EARLY MORNING police raid (dark hours).
Which means this was created long before the police stepped in to evict the protesters.

Which means that there was already anti-police sentiment among those in the protest group............
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
I know, trust me is just an emphasis not an appeal. The reason anti-camping laws exist is to prevent squatting which is a real problem in most medium to large cities. Squatting results in many public health threats such as communal disease sharing, public safety violations, fire hazards, fighting, and other crimes. I don't have the studies or statistics on hand but from my understanding these are all well known and accepted truths. I know that if I had property near a tent city that could be endangered I couldn't give a good **** what rights those endangering my property think they have. Not trying to be rude BTW just stating things in a strong manner.
Click to expand...
Ahhh now we are finally getting to the crux of this entire thread..... there are many people out there that don't believe these people has a right to be there.... there are also those out there that believe the do. Shouldn't this be a situation for judicial review as opposed individual opinion.
 
Jryan said:
K, so how come they only arrested 70 out of 300 or how ever many their were? Why subject EVERYONE to tear gas and flash bang granades?
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief.....

NO authority can completely control chaos... to include capturing every single individual involved in a mass riot.....

:roll:

Your problem is you immediatley assume EVERYTHING is in the control of the police.


This **** happens all the time across the country, police respond to a call and find out there are MANY more people than they can physically handle, the crowd disburses and what crimes those who ran off committed get ignored...

Haven't you been to a big underage drinking party?
 
Swit said:
Ahhh now we are finally getting to the crux of this entire thread..... there are many people out there that don't believe these people has a right to be there.... there are also those out there that believe the do. Shouldn't this be a situation for judicial review as opposed individual opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course it should be under judicial review, but if we're being honest these protesters are endangering other people, violating other's rights in some cases, and otherwise stepping outside of their own individual rights because they think they can. I have no sympathy for these jackasses and it's pretty obvious they are in the wrong.
 
Caine said:
Swit said:
Then the police still have the right to enforce the current laws, and the COURTS can then decide ... IN COURT whether or not those laws should be ALLOWED to be violated under some faux representation of their right to assembly and protest.

Just STATING as an individual that "this is my right maaaan" isn't and shouldn't prevent the police from enforcing the law anyways.


And here is some more eye candy for you courtesy of Oakland...

04-day%20after.JPG


Take note of the big ass wooden "game" that had to take quite a while to create...
This photo was taken after the EARLY MORNING police raid (dark hours).
Which means this was created long before the police stepped in to evict the protesters.

Which means that there was already anti-police sentiment among those in the protest group............
Click to expand...

Funny, it doesn't look like any rocks were tossed at it.
Click to expand...
 
occupy-oakland-smash-police-car.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom