• 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

Hell of a lot more humane than attack dogs and firehoses.
 
You make it sound like the protesters are innocent victims....
 
You make it sound like the protesters are innocent victims....

If they had had rubber bullets and tasers back in the day, Ghandi would have gotten nowhere.
 
If they had had rubber bullets and tasers back in the day, Ghandi would have gotten nowhere.

If you break the law and refuse to leave a place you're no longer allowed, then this is going to happen to you. You can't just make up your own rules here. The police had every right to do what they did.
 
Last edited:
If you break the law and refuse to leave a place you're no longer allowed, then this is going to happen to you. You can't just make up your own rules here. The police had every right to do what they did.

People in this country have a right to peaceably assemble, which they did.
 
People in this country have a right to peaceably assemble, which they did.

Yes, but they also must obey the laws. If a park closes at a certain time, you have to leave or you are breaking the law. If the property owners say they no longer want you at their house, you have to leave. You can't just assemble wherever you want, however long you want and doing whatever you want.
 
Freedom of Speech and the Right to Assemble are sacrosanct in the United States of America.

So are the laws of the land.

The video you posted is garbage. Shows absolutely nothing.
 
Yes, but they also must obey the laws. If a park closes at a certain time, you have to leave or you are breaking the law. If the property owners say they no longer want you at their house, you have to leave. You can't just assemble wherever you want, however long you want and doing whatever you want.

I agree, but thats not what the issue here is and you know it.

The issue is that once again our country attacks its own citizens because they are scared of freedom of speech. The police say rocks were thrown but they can't prove it and nobody ever will.
 
Last edited:
Yes, most of us do. We know that one can't tell jack **** from that video. And you know it.

Language.

If the video isn't suitable to your tastes, do a search for occupy oakland. You will find plenty of information.
 
Last edited:
Language.

If the video isn't suitable to your tastes, do a search for occupy oakland. You will find plenty of information.

Yep. Pictures of police officers with paint all over their helmets as they get hit with paint cans...orders to disperse...dispersed then decided to re-occupy anyway...given a 5-minute warning to move off...then, the coppers do what we pay them to do. Enforce the law. Grow up. Or get on a bus a join them. I hear ACORN's paying $10/hour.
 
You have about 200 protestors. You have about 20 cops. The city has asked the police department to evacuate the area because of safety and sanitation concerns (trash cans filled with fire, anyone?). The police told the protesters to leave that specific area. They told them again. And again. Then the protesters decided to move in closer to the police. Police throw tear gas. Peg a few idiots with beanbags. End up arresting some idiots. Nobody dies. Area is still dirty, occupied, and trash cans are still roasting.

Sounds to me like they didn't go far enough. The right to assemble does not trump all existing laws. If you are asked to move (not disband and go home, but move) there is nothing illegal or inappropriate about that demand....especially if your presence threatens the condition of the property on which you're standing, and more particularly when your continued encampment costs the people working 9-5 every day even more of their tax dollars (which you are obviously not paying if you're camped out for 6 weeks on a corner).
 
I think I know conservative's least favorite amendment. lol.
 
Yes, but they also must obey the laws. If a park closes at a certain time, you have to leave or you are breaking the law. If the property owners say they no longer want you at their house, you have to leave. You can't just assemble wherever you want, however long you want and doing whatever you want.

Actually, you very much can assemble where and when you want. The constitutional right to assemble and protest trumps any law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. All others are subordinate to it. Now, in order for the first amendment to apply, you'd have to show that your protest had to happen there, but only if there's a conflict with something else, like personal property rights. If a more suitable location is available, you can be forced to move there. In the case of a public park or other location that is open for public use... there's certainly no location that is vastly more suited to host a protest, and something MUST be made available. To prevent the protest by disallowing it from having a location is infringing on that first amendment guarantee.

Would the middle of the street be better? Of course not, there are lots of safety issues. A public park is the most suitable forum for this demonstration to take place. A law that closes the park could not interfere with the right to assemble and protest. Under the constitution, the protesters have the right to be there, regardless of any laws that would ordinarily kick people out.
 
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving group.... Well, maybe the NYC or Boston groups would be more deserving, but the cops in those cities don't have the balls to do what these cops did.... their job.
 
Actually, you very much can assemble where and when you want. The constitutional right to assemble and protest trumps any law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. All others are subordinate to it. Now, in order for the first amendment to apply, you'd have to show that your protest had to happen there, but only if there's a conflict with something else, like personal property rights. If a more suitable location is available, you can be forced to move there. In the case of a public park or other location that is open for public use... there's certainly no location that is vastly more suited to host a protest, and something MUST be made available. To prevent the protest by disallowing it from having a location is infringing on that first amendment guarantee.

Would the middle of the street be better? Of course not, there are lots of safety issues. A public park is the most suitable forum for this demonstration to take place. A law that closes the park could not interfere with the right to assemble and protest. Under the constitution, the protesters have the right to be there, regardless of any laws that would ordinarily kick people out.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you.
 
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Hague v. C.I.O. (1939)
The high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.

Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)
The Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of the issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
A unanimous Supreme Court upheld a local (Manchester) ordinance that required every parade or procession on a public street to obtain a license for a fee. Jehovah's Witnesses had brought the suit alleging that the city of Manchester had denied their religious freedom. The court was clear that ordinance had to be reasonable and designed for the safe and orderly use of the streets.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
In an 8-to-1 decision the high court overturned the breach of the peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally overbroad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.
Amalgamated Food Employee's Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968)
Concerning the legality of peaceful picketing on privately owned grounds.

Seems the SCOTUS would agree... Only once did they disagree.

Source:

First Amendment Court Cases Right to Peaceably Assemble
 
Hague v. C.I.O. (1939)
The high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.

Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)
The Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of the issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
A unanimous Supreme Court upheld a local (Manchester) ordinance that required every parade or procession on a public street to obtain a license for a fee. Jehovah's Witnesses had brought the suit alleging that the city of Manchester had denied their religious freedom. The court was clear that ordinance had to be reasonable and designed for the safe and orderly use of the streets.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
In an 8-to-1 decision the high court overturned the breach of the peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally overbroad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.
Amalgamated Food Employee's Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968)
Concerning the legality of peaceful picketing on privately owned grounds.

Seems the SCOTUS would agree... Only once did they disagree.

Source:

First Amendment Court Cases Right to Peaceably Assemble

None of those decisions address whether or not assembly trumps existing law regarding access to land (i.e. the park closes at 9, GTFO). On that issue, which is what I refered to, the SCOTUS has ruled that laws applicable without assembly are also applicable with assembly, so long as those laws are reasonable.
 
Actually, you very much can assemble where and when you want. The constitutional right to assemble and protest trumps any law.

That is not true. In fact, it's utter nonsense. The right to assemble does not exempt one from the laws of the land. It does not exempt one from having to respect private property. Good God.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This provision applies to state government entities through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though neither the federal Constitution nor any state constitution specifically protects rights of association, the United States Supreme Court and other courts have extended assembly rights to include rights of association.

Rights to free speech and assembly are not absolute under the relevant jurisprudence. Government entities may restrict many types of speech without violating First Amendment protections. Many of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases focus on two main questions: first, whether the restriction on speech was based on the content of the speech; and second, whether the speech was given in a traditional public forum or elsewhere. Some questions focus exclusively on the actual speech, rather than on aspects of the right to assembly. Other questions contain aspects of both the right to free speech and the right to assemble peacefully. Cases addressing free speech plus some conduct in the exercise of assembly rights often pose complex questions, since either the speech rights or the assembly rights may not protect the parties in these types of cases.

Since the courts take into consideration such a variety of factors when determining whether a particular speech or whether a particular assemblage is protected by the First Amendment, it is difficult to provide a concise definition of rights of assembly. Even in areas where a government entity may restrict speech or assembly rights, courts are more likely to find a violation of the First Amendment if speech or assembly is banned completely. Some restrictions merely involve the application for a permit or license to assemble, such as obtaining a license to hold a parade in a public street. Other time, place, and/or manner restrictions may also apply.

Right to Assemble - Civil Rights
 
None of those decisions address whether or not assembly trumps existing law regarding access to land (i.e. the park closes at 9, GTFO). On that issue, which is what I refered to, the SCOTUS has ruled that laws applicable without assembly are also applicable with assembly, so long as those laws are reasonable.

Read the above post...
 
Last edited:
Yep. Pictures of police officers with paint all over their helmets as they get hit with paint cans...orders to disperse...dispersed then decided to re-occupy anyway...given a 5-minute warning to move off...then, the coppers do what we pay them to do. Enforce the law. Grow up. Or get on a bus a join them. I hear ACORN's paying $10/hour.

I have seen no proof that Acorn is paying people to protest.

What has been posted here thus far is nothing more than a standard "activist jobs" ad from craigslist. Almost identical to those from any other non profit activism group.

The "acorn is paying people to protest" meme is completely unsupported by any real evidence.
 
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

It actually very much does not, but if you have a specific case in mind that you think supports your position, feel free to bring it up and we can talk about that. I recommend looking at Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), and Shuttlesworth v. City of Burmingham, Alabama (1969) to see the Supreme Court holding exactly what I said.
 
Back
Top Bottom