Occupy Movement and Tahir Square [Archive]

San Onofre Guy

11-23-11, 11:33am

I work in Municipal Government and am a supporter and actually a defender of police in a professional manner. I am becoming increasingly disturbed over the parallels I see concerning the manner in which police treat the occupy movement and how the security folks treat those in Tahir Square. I think the only difference is that we have recourse in the civil courts against the jack booted police here in the US.

What really got me going is what occurred at UC Davis. Why do college campuses need a separate fully sworn police department when the crime that occurs on campuses differs greatly from the off-campus community. Police Officers who hire onto college police force do so generally because they cannot for various reasons get hired by municipal police forces.

What occurred at Davis does not differ in large part from what occurred at Penn State. Davis initially thought the issue was contained on campus and the head of the campus supported the chief. Penn State kept the Sandusky issue on campus and did not go the the District Attorney.

The Occupy Movement is years overdue in this country. I am apalled by the government trying to stifle free speech, espcially on college campuses. When private property is involved such as at the private park on Wall Street then it is a diffrent story, but limiting speech in a public space? C'mon!

I am circling back to Tahir Square as people think that Egypt should be at peace now that Mubarak has been thrown out. May I remind everyone how long the US Revolutionary War lasted? It was not a peaceful overthrow of the crown. The British in control stifled free speech and the Occupy Movement for over twenty years prior to the battle of Lexington and Concord.

The strife in Tahir Square and the Occupy Movement will be with us for a very long time.

peggy

11-23-11, 12:48pm

Alan

11-23-11, 1:26pm

bae

11-23-11, 1:59pm

I think people who believe Tahir Square will lead to a progressive democracy in Egypt anytime soon are going to be gravely disappointed with how things turn out. Now would probably not be the best of times to be an educated, independent young woman in Egypt, for instance...

LDAHL

11-23-11, 2:04pm

Shared dissatisfaction with the status quo is about the only common ground I can see. I suppose you could say both groups took issue with the bank bailouts, albeit for different reasons. The Tea Partiers objected to paying for them, the OWS objected to the primary beneficiaries. Apart from that, they seem pretty much in opposition; at least as far as OWS takes any positions at all. The demand for smaller government by the one would seem to conflict with the demand for more entitlement spending and redistributive policies by the other.

Based on courage demonstrated, principles honored and risks taken, I wouldn't rank OWS as even close to the Egyptian or Chinese dissidents. Nor would I see them as politically effective as the Tea Party, which appeared to have a significant impact on the 2010 election cycle (although some of their more radicalized candidates performed pretty poorly), mostly through traditional political organizing.

ApatheticNoMore

11-23-11, 2:17pm

Based on courage demonstrated, principles honored and risks taken, I wouldn't rank OWS as even close to the Egyptian or Chinese dissidents.

On the other hand, compared to sitting around posting on an internet discussion board, the courage it takes to get sprayed with pepper spray is vast. :~)

bae

11-23-11, 2:18pm

...the courage it takes to get sprayed with pepper spray is vast. :~)

Not really, it's no big deal.

flowerseverywhere

11-23-11, 2:51pm

I think you're right. I do wish they could get a coherent message and a short list of things they want to accomplish. Real things and not just free food for all and debt forgiveness for everybody.
I think a good one would be, now I'm just pulling something out so maybe I'm not right about this, wasn't there a bill somewhere that put limits on congress like they were subject to all laws they enact, had to live by the health care everyone else does, got very small pensions, if any at all and had to make do with SS like everyone else, stuff like that? Does that ring a bell for anyone? If such a bill does exist, then this would be a good place to start. And it could involve OWS and tea partiers. Now that's something I'd like to see. These groups, who actually are closer together in desires than they know, should get together and compare notes.

I think you are referencing an e-mail that occasionally gets around that is mostly false. It includes claims that you can retire from congress after one session with full pay and congressmen are exempt from the healthcare law and don't pay into SS. Occasionally they find a congressman getting a huge pension but that is after an entire life in public service.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

I really hate it when this stuff is spread around. You don't have to make stuff up to point out the ills of our political system, there are plenty of true things to get upset about yet people continue to forward these hateful and incorrect e-mails.

back to the original post, what examples do you have of people trying to limit free speech? I am not sure my interpretation is the same as yours- between Twitter, the Internet, TV and Radio it seems anyone can say whatever they want. The Davis example is one where the protesters did not seem to be doing anything but I was not there, but from what I have read most of the problems have arisen from people trying to slow down subways (which can be difficult at the very least in the best of times if you need to take them to work), block streets or people from getting into workplaces or camping out in public spots without the benefit of proper sanitation or heat. Even if you have a valid protest, which I think many of the OWS protesters do it does not give you the right to infringe on other peoples right to get to work, or live without filth or noise at night.

ApatheticNoMore

11-23-11, 3:22pm

bae

11-23-11, 3:37pm

Has there ever a protest movement in history that acheived anything that didn't cause some level of inconvience? By inconvenience I mean things like blocking a street (of course when the President decides to visit town they block off whole major throughfares).

Our local OWS affiliate decided to have a demonstration the other day. They'd been holding quite successful gatherings on the village green, and at the county courthouse. However, on "The Day Of Action", they announced they'd be gathering on the grounds of our public school, to show their solidarity with the underfunded schools of America.

Their plan was to gather and demonstrate at school pickup time, at the school yard where the elementary and middle school kids gather to be picked up by their parents or board the buses. Cars coming and going, parents, children milling around, schoolbuses, on one narrow road and small park/yard. And they wanted to show up with non-parents, not signed in to the school office, to mill around with the children awaiting their parents.

That was inappropriate, and unsafe. More than "inconvenient".

Zoebird

11-23-11, 3:38pm

Pepper Spray Toxicity (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/21/about-pepper-spray/) (Scientific American blog)

creaker

11-23-11, 3:39pm

I read the other day that Michael Moore is comparing the Occupy Movement at Davis to Tiananmen Square. I'm sorry, but without a better organization and some clear goals, this whole thing seems a little juvenile and self absorbed to me.

I give it down twinkles.

I'd like to see the folks in Washington come up with better organization and some clear goals. And they seem a more than a little juvenile and self absorbed as well.

I think it's really a catch-22. If OWS was more structured like that they would just be co-opted by more established groups.

Zoebird

11-23-11, 3:43pm

I wouldn't compare it to Tianamen Square, for certain.

and I agree, breaker.

bae

11-23-11, 4:13pm

Pepper Spray Toxicity (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/21/about-pepper-spray/) (Scientific American blog)

I've been zapped with the stuff half a dozen times in training, and spray it on my popcorn.

Like any substance, I suspect over-use will have issues. Perhaps arranging one's life so as not to be continually sprayed with tear gas or pepper spray would be prudent.

loosechickens

11-23-11, 8:33pm

well, the Tea Party protesters started out without a whole lot of coherence, or goals other than "government is the problem", in the same way that the Occupy Wall Street folks have not a lot of coherence, other than "Wall Street and the top 1% who have bought our government are the problem".

What gave the Tea Party coherence was the influx of literally billions of dollars worth of advertising by coverage and support by Fox News and the rightwing blogosphere, as well as such spokesmen as Rush Limbaugh. That, with the astro-turfed addition of the Koch Brothers and other extremely wealthy rightwingers underwriting the costs of gatherings, etc., lifted them into more coherence, a tighter message, and got rid of some of the lunatic fringe waving pictures of the President dressed as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose.

Perhaps if some powerful voices and money on the left steps up and gives the same kind of help, assistance with huge amounts of money and lots and lots of good publicity, Occupy Wall Street will become more coherent and organized as well.

It remains to be seen. As the corporate media seems more interested in seeking out the oddest of odd balls in the group, and ignoring the numbers of respectable, working and retired people who are also there. (We have friends at Occupy Wall Street who have been there for weeks, educated, financially secure retired professionals, and they've never been interviewed, spoken to by newspeople or photographed, even though they have tried to position themselves to be heard. The media has been far more interested in photographing oddballs, or folks with ****amamie ideas of free everything, which is nowhere near what the mass of people participating or sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street movement are like).

We'll have to see. The pepper spraying of college students sitting on a sidewalk has sobered some, and we may find that the excesses of our increasingly militarized police forces in riot gear, will sober many average citizens and make them pay more attention to what is going on.

And, as I've said before, the genuine Tea Partiers and the genuine Occupy Wall Street folks have a whole lot more in common than they have differences. One may believe government to be the problem and the other believe that an unholy alliance between large corporations, banking and the wealthiest of Americans to bring us the "best government money can buy......for the richest among us", is the problem......in reality they are affected by the same forces, have slipped in the same ways from a secure middle class, and if they ever make common cause, we may actually get our government back.....you know, the one that started with......We the People........

I'm not holding my breath, though......the powerful and their media interests are doing a wonderful job of demonizing each group to the other, so...................................

peggy

11-23-11, 8:43pm

I read the other day that Michael Moore is comparing the Occupy Movement at Davis to Tiananmen Square. I'm sorry, but without a better organization and some clear goals, this whole thing seems a little juvenile and self absorbed to me.

I give it down twinkles.

Yea, it's so much better if you're packing heat, isn't it. That way people really know you're serious. Gee, I wonder what would happen if the police were to pepper spray tea baggers? I'm guessing full 'lamestream' coverage with a continuous expose from Fox news.

Yossarian

11-23-11, 8:49pm

And, as I've said before, the genuine Tea Partiers and the genuine Occupy Wall Street folks have a whole lot more in common than they have differences.

I think you are wrong on this. It's like saying Grover Norquist and Bernie Sanders have a lot in common because they are both focused on taxes. There is a schism in the American zeitgeist. Hard decisions have to be made and there are two very divergent solutions presented to the current political impasse. But mutually wanting to change the status quo doesn't make the two groups simpatico. Au contraire, they are antithetical.

Alan

11-23-11, 8:53pm

Yea, it's so much better if you're packing heat, isn't it. That way people really know you're serious. Gee, I wonder what would happen if the police were to pepper spray tea baggers? I'm guessing full 'lamestream' coverage with a continuous expose from Fox news.
Don't be silly. Tea Party members get permits for their gatherings, which includes renting porta-potties, putting up insurance bonds to cover any damages that may be incurred and pay the localities for the cost of police coverage of the event, then they spend an afternoon speaking before cleaning up their refuse and going home. They don't block sidewalks, roads, bridges or access to businesses in violation of local laws or ordinances and then refuse to leave when asked.

I'm guessing that's why they don't get pepper sprayed very often.

peggy

11-23-11, 9:12pm

Don't be silly. Tea Party members get permits for their gatherings, which includes renting porta-potties, putting up insurance bonds to cover any damages that may be incurred and pay the localities for the cost of police coverage of the event, then they spend an afternoon speaking before cleaning up their refuse and going home. They don't block sidewalks, roads, bridges or access to businesses in violation of local laws or ordinances and then refuse to leave when asked.

I'm guessing that's why they don't get pepper sprayed very often.

no, they just show up at political rallies with f'___n GUNS strapped to their sides! And no one bothers them...Gee, I wonder why?! Don't
try to spin it Alan. We've all seen the videos of them disrupting town hall meetings, shouting down legitimate discussion, carrying signs that display a..well, shall we say, not the brightest grasp of the issues. But it's the gun really isn't it. It's that implied threat of violence that protects them.
so, are you saying that Americans don't have the right to peacefully gather and protest? or maybe it's just liberal Americans (who we know aren't really Americans but America hating commies) who don't have the right to protest. Ahh, the thin hypocritical veneer is rubbed off the tea baggers when they are faced with real grass roots protesters. They don't want freedom of speech, but rather the freedom to promote their own kind of speech.

Alan

11-23-11, 9:16pm

no, they just show up at political rallies with f'___n GUNS strapped to their sides! And no one bothers them...Gee, I wonder why?! Don't
try to spin it Alan. We've all seen the videos of them disrupting town hall meetings, shouting down legitimate discussion, carrying signs that display a..well, shall we say, not the brightest grasp of the issues. But it's the gun really isn't it. It's that implied threat of violence that protects them.
so, are you saying that Americans don't have the right to peacefully gather and protest? or maybe it's just liberal Americans (who we know aren't really Americans but America hating commies) who don't have the right to protest. Ahh, the thin hypocritical veneer is rubbed off the tea baggers when they are faced with real grass roots protesters. They don't want freedom of speech, but rather the freedom to promote their own kind of speech.

I think you're confused. Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to disrupt the lives and livelihoods of others, nor does it usurp local laws. Good try though.

peggy

11-23-11, 9:17pm

I've been zapped with the stuff half a dozen times in training, and spray it on my popcorn.

Like any substance, I suspect over-use will have issues. Perhaps arranging one's life so as not to be continually sprayed with tear gas or pepper spray would be prudent.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/megyn-kelly-pepper-spray-comments-spark-backlash-222658156.html

Apparently Fox news agrees with you. How lovely.
I wonder if your constituents know you view pepper spray as nothing more than a condiment? Is that going to be in your next political ad? I'm sure that will go over at the food kitchen on movie night.

peggy

11-23-11, 9:20pm

I think you're confused. Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to disrupt the lives and livelihoods of others, nor does it usurp local laws. Good try though.

But freedom of speech includes the threat of violence with guns? I'd rather have someone peaceably block my sidewalk than demand to speak while fingering the trigger of his gun...but that's just me.

Alan

11-23-11, 9:22pm

Alan

11-23-11, 9:27pm

But freedom of speech includes the threat of violence with guns? I'd rather have someone peaceably block my sidewalk than demand to speak while fingering the trigger of his gun...but that's just me.

Now, now. I'd like to see a citation showing anyone with their finger on the trigger of their gun at a Tea Party event. Are you speaking metaphorically or just exaggerating?

bae

11-23-11, 9:37pm

But freedom of speech includes the threat of violence with guns? I'd rather have someone peaceably block my sidewalk than demand to speak while fingering the trigger of his gun...but that's just me.

A sensible person uses a holster that covers the trigger, this helps avoid negligent discharges. I can point you at some quality training in your area if you have a need.

jp1

11-23-11, 10:11pm

I've been zapped with the stuff half a dozen times in training, and spray it on my popcorn.

Like any substance, I suspect over-use will have issues. Perhaps arranging one's life so as not to be continually sprayed with tear gas or pepper spray would be prudent.

One would have to suspect that officer pike didn't pay attention in the training sessions on its use to details like how long to spray people since two of the protesters he sprayed wound up in the hospital. Of course I'd also be surprised if he's been trained that he should use it in situations where he's obviously not being threatened or intimidated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/megyn-kellys-minimizes-pepper-spray-should-she-test-it-out/2011/11/22/gIQAXQyEoN_blog.html

If Megyn Kelly doesn't man up and eat some pepper spray on tv perhaps you can volunteer to go eat some popcorn on fox news for her.

Zoebird

11-23-11, 11:34pm

I will assert that while I have seen images of Tea Party protesters with weapons, I have not seen them with "fingers on triggers." But, the issue does beg a number of questions.

The first issue that seems to be raised is about assembly and permits. There is a lot of law around this, and it should be noted that there is a lot of criticism as to how this permitting process negatively affects first amendment rights. Leaving that aside, lets talk about police involvement.

There are two areas where I find this involvement interesting: 1. the charges brought against arrested occupiers; 2. the use of force in the process.

There is one very easy law broken in this process -- protesting without a permit. Martin Luther King, Jr was arrested for protesting without a permit. OWS legal advisors have encouraged occupiers to protest without permits, which includes protesting against permits (i consider permits to have good uses, but i also consider the criticism against this permitting, which is becoming stricter and stricter, asserting that it inhibits freedom of speech/assembly). Yet, as far as I can tell, no one has been arrested for this.

IN the news reports, and various individual films online, I have noted that the police announce that the occupiers must disperse or will be under arrest for X. So far, I've heard: trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and unlawful assembly. I have not yet heard anyone being arrested for protesting without a permit.

Trespass is easily managed; unless a park has specific ordinances, or is not public land (or on public charter), then it isn't trespass and dispersal isn't required. Most of the charges are dropped.

Disorderly conduct is vague, but usually refers to public drunkenness and trying to start a fight. Interestingly enough, it includes that disorderly conduct occurs if a person is preventing peaceful assembly (protest), as well as general use of a space by the populace as a whole. The law is also clear that it cannot be used to clear a peaceful assembly.

Disturbing the peace is also vague, but usually has to do with loud noise or abusive language. The jurisprudence is also clear that a protest that is disturbing the peace is actually pretty much exempt from falling under this law.

The last one is most interesting, which is unlawful assembly. Unlawful assembly has two forms: Rout and Riot. A rout is when 3 or more people intend to start a riot, even if they don't achieve those ends, and a riot is when a large group enacts violence against an authority, property, or person.

What is most interesting about this is that -- with the exception of Oakland -- the movements and protests have been peaceful according to all of the common practices and definitions of peaceful protest. This includes, btw, the incidents that we are speaking of -- the pepper spraying of UC Davis students, and I'll also include the baton use at the UC Berkley campus. There has been no evidence of rout or riotous behavior such that unlawful assembly would stick as a charge. And, those -- as with the others -- have often been dismissed by the judges.

In the second instance, the real question is about when police use the various tools at their disposal. To be sure, there have been very limited uses of pepper spray and batoning. But in order for these levels of force to be used, there needs to be a threat of danger to the police and/or the public (or a third innocent party), or their needs to be cause such as preventing a riot.

In the cases of UC Davis and Berkley, I don't see any imminent danger for the police, nor do i see rout or riot conditions. What i DO see is students following common non-violent, civil disobedience tactics AND peaceful protest procedures.

There is ore, but I have to teach now!

Zoebird

11-24-11, 12:30am

ore should be more. :)

So, to continue from "In the cases of UC Davis and Berkley, I don't see any imminent danger for the police, nor do i see rout or riot conditions.", I posit that the police used excessive force in these instances.

The next question that is raised, then, is why it is being used in these conditions, but not against Tea Party Protesters. I think the question leads to wild speculation, but here is my question about it:

Is the Tea Party, at it's demonstrations, not seeing the incidence of arrests and excessive force due to:

A. the fact that they have permits;
B. the fact that they are of a different demographic (largely white and over 40);
C. the fact that they have the support of a major political party and a major news network;
D. the fact that they are openly carrying weapons to some of their events?

As I said, it is largely speculation. Another might be that the Tea Party events are not as loud or large as the ows occupations. it may also be that they are not as long in duration, as the permits do often include a time limit for the protest.

I wonder, though, is the expectation that if a Tea Party protest were to be considered heading toward rout or riot behavior, would they use pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, those noise-things, and such on that crowd, knowing that they had firearms, or would the situation be vastly different?

Zoebird

11-24-11, 12:33am

accidental double

bae

11-24-11, 12:37am

Does anyone have a compare-and-contrast of the number and types of incidents of violence and illegal behaviour at Tea Party vs. OWS gatherings? Sexual assaults, public sex, vandalism, homicide, theft, robbery, that sort of thing?

iris lily

11-24-11, 12:42am

...
Is the Tea Party, at it's demonstrations, not seeing the incidence of arrests and excessive force due to:

A. the fact that they have permits;
B. the fact that they are of a different demographic (largely white and over 40);
C. the fact that they have the support of a major political party and a major news network;
D. the fact that they are openly carrying weapons to some of their events?

As I said, it is largely speculation. Another might be that the Tea Party events are not as loud or large as the ows occupations. it may also be that they are not as long in duration, as the permits do often include a time limit for the protest. ...

I will speak to both events in St.Louis. The tea partiers did not camp, they did not "occupy"-- they came, met for a while, and left.

Here the OWS/OSTL group set up camps and had tents and accoutrements of living on the downtown plaza, and then the homeless started wandering over and staying there. Events that normally take place in that plaza, holiday events, were moved even though the mayor had moved off the occupiers. Some of them are back. The alderman are considering designating one city park that will have no curfew (all others do have curfew) so that occupiers can do their thing of occupying. The homeless will be joining them if that happens.

Zoebird

11-24-11, 1:23am

I know of one assault at OWS that has been reported (and it's been widely discussed), but not much else by way of crime.

But, those individual crimes still do not give rise to the standard of rout or rioting, nor do they give rise to the group being cleared for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, or unlawful assembly. They would give rise to individual arrests, but wouldn't be grounds for pepper spraying a group of kids sitting on the lawn -- a standard practice of nonviolent civil disobedience.

Zoebird

11-24-11, 1:40am

a quick google search came up with: two more rapes reported (http://urbangrounds.com/2011/11/rapes-at-ows/) (which i think takes it up to 3 or 4) and this (http://wherearemykeys.typepad.com/where_are_my_keys/2011/10/is-ows-causing-higher-crime-in-nyc.html) about crime rates in NYC in general, and OWS taking cops away from their normal jobs.

but, i also think comparing short-lived rallies and protests (that last no longer than a full day) with a 2-3 month occupation as being very different animals, as well as an open park where people can come and go with ease -- including criminal elements that may not actually be part of the movement -- and also the numbers are vastly different for given protest sites (several hundred per several thousand, etc).

Zoebird

11-24-11, 1:47am

Iris Lily,

You are absolutely right -- and it is the case with many encampments already. It is also the situation with the encampments that they are struggling with mentally ill folks (who may or may not be homeless) and also the 'criminal element.'

If anything, it might even have taught some people about some of the intense realities about homelessness in the US.

---

And fwiw, I was on the planning and permitting committee for the quaker meeting that I went to. We planned and held several protests (predominantly pro-peace, pro-geneva convention, i.e., against torture) within the city of philadelphia. None were large enough to warrant porto-potties (by our estimates), and we bypassed having to pay the added fees for closing roads by choosing to march on sidewalks, rather than roads. We did have to submit detailed plans of our intended routes.

Pretty much they all went off without much of a hitch. Our biggest issues were people who supported these elements throwing broken bits of bottles at us. They were usually arrested.

Zoebird

11-24-11, 2:02am

I thought this was a nifty little editing job (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRXXZyx65U&feature=player_embedded#!) -- a friend shared it on FB. warning, pro-ows slant.

I think it's worth watching, and it's relevant to the issues raised here (about criminality, orderliness in protest, etc).

Zoebird

11-24-11, 2:05am

also, it's worth noting that the amendment says nothing about how protests must exist. that law (or rather, laws and ordinances) came well after (and is largely a 20th century animal), and always defer to the first amendment (i.e., under review, the first amendment trumps those laws).

So, the occupation -- and for that matter, tea party protests or any other -- do not require permits, nor do they require time limits under the actual writing of the first amendment.

this is why legal advisors to the movement suggest that no occupation seek any permits at all, and simply function under their inalienable constitutional rights.

bae

11-24-11, 2:35am

I agree Zoe, I think the whole "need a permit" business is contrary to the First Amendment, as are those "designated free speech zones".

I can understand wanting to manage large-scale protests so that they don't interfere with other people, and I suppose permits are a method of doing so, and perhaps even preferable to citing large numbers of folks for blocking doorways and streets, but still...

Around here, both the Tea Party and the OWS folks are generally careful to not interfere with people going about their own lawful business, except in the case I mentioned previously where one of the groups wanted to set up right in the middle of the public school pickup space, and mingle with the children, which I think they just hadn't thought through.

Zoebird

11-24-11, 4:02am

There was a similar incident over at PSU back when I was there. There is this group of pro-lifers with *very* graphic signs. The signs show old-school animal experimentation on monkeys (from, say the 1950s?) and it is UGLY. And then also images of african americans hanging on trees ("strange fruit" -- lynchings). And then bodies of aborted fetuses. It was GRAPHIC.

Now, on the one hand, I'm all for free speech, but I just about LOST it when they were at the school. One of their go-to places was the local elementary school, setting up their signs in the grassy area in the center of the U_shaped drive leading up to the school. The whole area would be covered in these MASSIVE banners. Where babies -- you know, 5-10 yr olds -- were being picked up by their parents.

At the time, as a 18-22 yr old woman, i found those images horrifying and deeply disturbing. I would *NOT* want my son exposed to that, regardless of "freedom of speech." There is also something about common decency, and I think that it's possible to find a balance.

The public outcry was SO huge, that a group of citizens came and stood in front of the banners with white sheets, or other banners, and since everything was permitted properly, we were able to block most of th eimages. The kids must of thought that all of us were nuts.

I went to the organizer personally and BEGGED them (they were brought there by the pro-life/animal rights group at the uni) to NOT go to the local elementary school, but they were going on and on about "free speech." What more could I do but organize a counterprotest that would cover their banners?

These were not good images for young children. I think it's fine to go out and protest on the college campus, or even on the main square of the down town. THe parents can avoid it (you could see these banners well before a kid could) if they need to, or make sure that their kids don't go there or whatever. But at their school?!

I think that, in general, schools need to be very safe zones for children and families. NOt that there can't be any manner of political action taking place in and around schools (such as public meetings, even protests), but that it has to be *appropriate* for the space, and take into consideration the NEEDS of the children there.

It can't just be a stunt.

ApatheticNoMore

11-24-11, 4:19am

Perhaps if some powerful voices and money on the left steps up and gives the same kind of help, assistance with huge amounts of money and lots and lots of good publicity, Occupy Wall Street will become more coherent and organized as well.

But what will this be then? OWS will be new branding of plenty of other organizations that already exist out there. Move On and the like already basically destroyed the anti-war movement (and that was a movement with a clear as day purpose), by chanelling it all into voting for yet another warmonger. And in addition it will be ever more beholden to the money that funds it. How much independence is lost in taking such funding? Buying out a grass roots organization: priceless! And will it still be based on discussion and consensus as it is now? Or does organization demand top down heirarchy? Meet the new boss.

And, as I've said before, the genuine Tea Partiers and the genuine Occupy Wall Street folks have a whole lot more in common than they have differences. One may believe government to be the problem and the other believe that an unholy alliance between large corporations, banking and the wealthiest of Americans to bring us the "best government money can buy......for the richest among us", is the problem......

There may be widespread agreement in seeing CORRUPTION, which is not an incidental issue by the way, but a fundemental one (although not perhaps the most fundemental one - the most fundemental issues are things like how does the human race continue to survive on earth and stuff). Anyway the government has been near entirely bought out by corporations. And so any anti-corruption movement has wings and real populist potential I think. Anyone who doesn't like that the government is in the back pocket of corrupt financial firms, polluting industries etc.. And I think that's a wide constituency. Beyond that I think things start to break down on ideological lines. Even say an unemployed person that can't find work may unite in wanting an extension of unemployment now but beyond that might blame the recession on the financial firms having wrecked the economy or might blame it entirely on obama etc.. That is the power of ideology. And the country is divided.

in reality they are affected by the same forces, have slipped in the same ways from a secure middle class, and if they ever make common cause, we may actually get our government back.....you know, the one that started with......We the People........

Yea, I must be hopelessly middle class, but I never see it purely as reaction to what happens in one's own life. So I am aware of the news - years and years of it - not all of it because I don't spend 24/7 keeping on news but ... aware of course of many of the bailouts (and not just TARP), aware of the oil spill in the gulf, aware that the Obama administration was likely lacksidasical in it's regulation of drilling in the gulf and that better regulation may well have prevented the spill (these are all of our oceans not BPs oceans!), aware that the Obama administration even did some image control on the spill (preventing people filming etc.), aware of all the nonesense that went on years after 2008 to keep housing prices up, just etc. etc. etc. What is the common thread? Government is in the corporate back pocket. Years and years, and OWS is just despair suddenly breaking out into action.

Can one's own experiences sensitize one to certain issues? Sure. But a movement is really a reaction to both what one experiences and what one knows is going on in the larger world, isn't it? Just experience isn't going to lead one anywhere much in terms of the larger picture (it may just disillusion one a little and convince one that a particular law or policy is bad or something).

ApatheticNoMore

11-24-11, 4:22am

The people protesting at the school just sound clueless. Unaware of the social climate (and people's paranoia over pedophilia and the like these days). Unaware they are alienating their main supporters (hint the main supporters for school funding aren't singles, childless couples, and retired people but are yep parents). Ah well if the protestors are really young I guess I know where the cluelessness comes from, but they really need at least a smarter more worldy advisor :)

jp1

11-24-11, 9:52am

(these are all of our oceans not BPs oceans!)

Or, as the Occupy protesters would say: WHOSE OCEANS??? OUR OCEANS!!!

Zoebird

11-24-11, 1:40pm

ANM: in the instance i mentioned over 15 years ago now (lol! omg!), the organizers were the students, but the organization that brought banners, told them where they would protest, etc were people all over 40 who had families and did this as their 'outreach.' To me, the fact that people with kids thought it was appropriate to do that with kids was. . . appalling.

the thing that was funny was the permit itself. they got a permit for the grassy area, so *I* got us a permit for the gravel area around the grassy area. this meant that they could get upset, but couldn't remove us from our counter protest. I did this because I wanted to see what their permit said, and then snake them. LOL

the permitting office there in happy valley thought i was hilarious. the police officers got a HUGE giggle. and they brought both permits with them to the protest (we had three police officers there because they expected there to be friction between us and the pro-life group.

When we got there to set up, initially they thought we were 'with' them, but then they saw our 'banners' which were largely blank, they started to get pretty aggressive. the police officers went over to them and said 'everyone has a right to protest and free speech, and they applied for a permit to set up on this perimeter boundary. Your permit means you have to set up inside the boundary. I'm sorry, but that is what I have to enforce. You don't have to like what they are doing, but if you become aggressive or violent towards them -- including yelling, tearing down signs, etc, it is no longer a peaceful demonstration, and I would have to arrest you. We really don't' want that.'

hee hee. i love winning.

Zoebird

11-24-11, 2:03pm

Speaking of Tahir Square: Christians protect Muslims at Prayer (http://www.myweku.com/2011/02/photo-of-the-week-christians-protecting-muslims-during-their-prayers-in-egypt/) (photo).

loosechickens

11-24-11, 3:26pm

Very good points, ApatheticNoMore........maybe I just have too much faith in the fact that both groups are in the 99%, and too little understanding of just how deep and wide that ideological rift is.

And perhaps we should be glad that the OWS haven't been co-opted by big money folks like the Koch Brothers, and astroturfed by Fox News, as happened to the Tea Party. Many of the original Tea Party people feel very much as though their movement has been taken over and taken from them, for the profit and benefit of those folks.

While the OWS actual occupations may wither with the cold, wintry winds and snow of winter, I suspect that the feelings exposed and the grievances felt will continue, and will spread. Especially if we don't see some turnaround in the fortunes of the lower middle class and middle class folks in this country.

loosechickens

11-24-11, 4:15pm

Here is really the crux of the situation, and as long as most Americans do not really understand this reality, it will continue.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The above is well worth reading, no matter what your politics. It's reality, and the reality in which we are living. If we want it to change, we're going to have to work together, we 99%, to change it. Otherwise, it continues.

excerpt, just a taste.......

"This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is. "

and, just a taste......read the whole thing.....lots and lots of eyeopening facts in this:

"In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America."

Yossarian

11-24-11, 7:31pm

If we want it to change, we're going to have to work together, we 99%, to change it.

Perhaps we should have a national vote. We can have a European system with less disparity but where the average family makes 1/3 less (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income) or a US system where there is more disparity but the middle class have more nominal income. My guess is far less than your 99% want to take a 1/3 cut in income.

loosechickens

11-25-11, 12:12am

Personally, I think that most of that 99% would be happy to have less of an income, yet the security of knowing that they had full acess to health care, didn't have to worry that medical bills would bankrupt them at some point, could look toward a secure retirement, and lived with excellent public transportation, good schools, less industrialized food, and less of a materialistic worship of greed as a societal value.

As our friends in Germany have often said.......we don't have a lot of need to back up huge amounts of retirement savings, because we have a security and lack of worry and anxiety about our lives that we see so much of in your country.

Personally, I don't like living in a society that has so little care for the poor, elderly, sick and disabled, and is willing to see so many people fall through the cracks, as we have in the U.S. I would feel better about living in a more civilized and caring society, even if it meant paying more taxes, or having less income. One would NEED less income under a European system, because one is not thrown out there in the cold with no one to depend on but themselves. I realize that is a foreign concept to many of you individualist conservative types, but.............

The periods of American life where we have had much less disparity in wealth, such as the post WWII period, up until the Reagan years and the blossoming of the conservative view as the norm, were really times of prosperity, we had a healthy and vibrant middle class, where the CEO of your company made perhaps 40 times what you as an average worker made, instead of 400+ times your salary, and much progress was made toward an equitable society. Since the Reagan years, the playing field has become progressively tilted ever more slanted in the favor of the very richest among us, who have become exponentially richer in those decades, while most people struggled to stay even, if not finding themselves slipping behind and out of the middle class.

You might be surprised, were people to actually have an opportunity to understand and experience the differences in the societies, rather than be constantly propagandized to fear "socialism", when most of them don't even recognize such things as public schools, public libraries, our roads and bridges, not to mention such things as Social Security and Medicare AS "socialism", and ignorance abounds.

We're not talking communism here, or the former Soviet Union. Canada and Western European countries are capitalist countries, with plenty of profit making corporations and businesses, but with a far more humane and community and societal centered population than the "every man for himself" attitude that takes precedence in this country so often. JMHO

Zoebird

11-25-11, 12:20am

i live in a nation where we earn less and are taxed more, and the quality of life is very high. higher than in the US, which is why i moved here (that, an the opportunity to succeed existed here better than in the US).

peggy

11-25-11, 8:47am

ApatheticNoMore

11-25-11, 12:12pm

Well, I might take 1/3 less pay if I could work 1/3 less :) Really I have made that choice at times but of course it is not so readily available. Money can buy everything but time.

peggy

11-25-11, 2:05pm

peggy

11-25-11, 2:13pm

Well, I might take 1/3 less pay if I could work 1/3 less :) Really I have made that choice at times but of course it is not so readily available. Money can buy everything but time.

then you would love the European way. Americans work more hours than any one else. In Europe, when it's closing time, it's closing time, and you best get out of the store! And they get generous vacation time, plus sick days and time off for both mom and dad new parents.

(veering off topic just a bit) We were sitting with the local representative of Deutsche telecom trying for the umteenth time to get our phone serviced (anyone living in Germany understands!) when quitting time came round and the person at the parent company simply hung up on their own representative! Just said it's quitting time and hung up!

bae

11-25-11, 2:17pm

Most notable, in the very first paragraph the author says that 'even those who are on hard times have access to abundant food and clothes and leisure opportunities'
uh, no, no they don't.

Use of our local food bank has almost doubled over the past several years.

The number of children in the local schools participating in subsidized meal programs has also shot up sharply. And I know that for some of these kids, that's the only hot meal they get during the day. The school sends home food for weekends and holidays for them.

Every kid here has warm clothes. Because the local hardware store owner has an entire room full of free kids-sized jackets and such, which he buys out of his own pocket and distributes quietly to those who need it.

Use of our local family resources center has increased so much over the past two years that we've needed to relocated the facility to handle the load.

Etc.

Zoebird

11-25-11, 3:38pm

bae:

here's what I don't get about the language.

there's "access" and then there is "access."

poor people are supposed to take responsibility, and not utilize government services, not utilize charitable services, and become responsible, productive citizens. ANd thus, have access to the goods and services for sale, building the economy, etc.

but when that language is turned around "poor people have access" -- it is refering now to charitable access? Access to food banks? access to government food programs? welfare services? access to a generous man's coats-for-kids?

are they not also maligned for "choosing" to utilize these things? for "choosing" to utilize that "access?"

I get truly confused by the double speak.

There's shaming for being poor, for not taking responsibility; and then there is the assertion that "there's plenty of access to these things, so why are they upset?"

I think most people DO want responsibility. I think a lot of people find dignity in jobs, in being able to support themselves and their families. I think that they have a preference to not *need* to "access" food via charity or government programs.

bae

11-25-11, 4:57pm

bae:

here's what I don't get about the language.

there's "access" and then there is "access."

I think it's meant to have a variety of connotations, to slant and divide us all.

I however was simply providing a local datapoint that need, or use of services, seems to have climbed sharply the past two years. It also seems to correlate to a drop in local sales tax revenues, and an increase in local unemployment. People seem to be hurting.

I don't think it's because most of the 1% stole their share of the pie, though.

rosebud

11-25-11, 5:51pm

bae

11-25-11, 5:54pm

I never took you to be one to identify with an abuse of authority.

Feel free to burn your strawmen.

rosebud

11-25-11, 5:59pm

Did you know that all police officers are sprayed with pepper spray as part of their training with the substance? Most of them get lit up with tasers too.

Back in the old days when I carried government issued mace, their cannisters were just about guaranteed to leak causing me to mace myself on a semi-regular basis. These non-lethal irritants are pretty much just that, irritating.

Hmmm....where have I heard this line of argument before....
Oh, yeah, Navy Seals get waterboarded, so it's no big deal.

Let me tell you something Alan, if you or someone you agreed with was engaged in an act of civil disobedience and you or someone you agreed with got pepper sprayed full on in the face as they sat on the ground, you wouldn't be treating it very cavelierly.

Once again, you FAIL pathetically at the shoe on the other foot game. Hypocrite.

Alan

11-25-11, 6:13pm

Once again, you FAIL pathetically at the shoe on the other foot game. Hypocrite.

Reason doesn't necessarily equate to shoe on the other foot. Actually, reason doesn't have an agenda.
Name calling on the other hand....

rosebud

11-25-11, 6:23pm

Feel free to burn your strawmen.

Always the same retort. Year after year, post after post, the same exact retort.

Strawman: This is the logical fallacy of distorting or exaggerating your opponent's point and then destroying it.

You can't get away with accusing me of setting up a "strawman" argument here because you have specifically defended the actions of the campus police in pepper spraying non violent protestors.

You did that in two main ways: You said that being pepper sprayed is no big deal. The implication of this statement is that the use of pepper spray in any law enforcement action is no big deal. Hence, the proper conclusion to draw is that you do not believe that is was of any consequence in the UC Davis incident being discussed.

Then you said if one doesn't want to be pepper sprayed, one should stay out of situations where one could be pepper sprayed. Again, the implication is that the protesters were at fault because they put themselves in a situation where they were basically asking for it.

On Fox News Megyn Kelly said that pepper spray is not an extreme method of getting people to comply with police orders. "Pepper is just a vegetable!" she chirped.

No. Pepper spray is not just getting tabasco sauce thrown in your face. It is off the charts on the heat scale and can cause long term damage to its victims.

You are flat out wrong. You are wrong to brand my response to your response as "a strawman" , you are on the absolute wrong side of the law, the ethics, the facts, and the constitution. Two years ago campus police engaged in the same behavior and the victims, after two years in court, just won a money damages award. I don't just make ##)) up, BAE. There is a logical and legal basis for calling this an abuse of power.

I am not burning any strawman BAE, I am engaged in a conversation. You hold yourself out to be some sort of libertarian, non-partisan, rationalist, and yet over and over again you demonstrate a blame the victim mentality, which smacks of authoritarianism.

I feel sorry for your constitutents if this is the way you respond to their concerns.

rosebud

11-25-11, 6:37pm

Reason doesn't necessarily equate to shoe on the other foot. Actually, reason doesn't have an agenda.
Name calling on the other hand....

Reason doesn't defend pepper spraying young people in the face just for sitting on the ground.

bae

11-25-11, 6:40pm

You are putting words in my mouth I did not say, attributing positions to me that are not mine, and once again, engaging in personal attacks. It is quite uncivil of you.

So, have a nice day.

Alan

11-25-11, 6:50pm

Reason doesn't defend pepper spraying young people in the face just for sitting on the ground.
You are also attributing positions to me that are not necessarily mine, and violating forum guidelines with personal attacks.

It would be a shame to have to implement vBulletin's "ignore" feature.

Zoebird

11-25-11, 11:25pm

I feel blessed that I am able to give back, that i'm not in need of government services (though we do use educational services for our son AND we wouldn't hesitate to use the medical services should it arise) and that we haven't been in need of them, and i certainly strive to do my part along the board.

Zoebird

11-25-11, 11:28pm

I think you did, bae, say something like "they shouldn't do things that would put them in the position to get pepper sprayed" and i pointed out that these students (in the Pike/UC Davis incident) didn't DO anything that WOULD put them in that position, unless people really, truly believe that those officers "felt threatened."

Can you really buy that argument? That the situation was "so tense" and "so extreme" that they were concerned about rout or riot, or concerned for their own safety or that of other citizens not involved that pepper spray was called for?

And with this, you make light of what pepper spray is, and to counter it, I asserted the information from scientific american -- it's not a harmless condiment.

bae

11-26-11, 1:40am

Read my words, not the voices in your head.

Zoebird

11-26-11, 2:55am

now, that is a personal attack. And i didn't attack you. :) here you go though.

Zoebird

11-26-11, 2:57am

Zoebird

11-26-11, 3:09am

What really got me going is what occurred at UC Davis.

From the original post.

So, we are -- in specific -- talking about a group of people who were doing nothing wrong, nothing criminal, nothing that would have encouraged the need for excessive use of pepper spray.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WmJmmnMkuEM) is the video, in case you missed it.

---

I'm sorry, but this is not "voices in my head." This is called "logical inference."

First, there is a post directly referencing the incident at UC Davis.

Then, you post that it is no big deal to be sprayed, that it is a mere condiment (whether this is real or hyperbole is not relevant; though i suspect hyperbole because using tabasco would be cheaper than using this chemical device).

You admit that over exposure would have it's issues (likely in response to the Scientific American evidence), but that people should not put themselves into positions of over exposure.

The video is widely available, 2 students hospitalized due to their exposure in this incident. Images show their faces and torsos drenched in orange, and statements that the police felt "threatened." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063706/UC-Davis-pepper-spray-video-Two-officers-suspended.html)

Sorry, Bae, but you lost this one. If you meant for there to be another logical inference from your statements, then state them.

bae

11-26-11, 3:23am

Pepper spray is a condiment.

I speak truth, from experience. I have been sprayed before during training. And I quite commonly used the food-safe-propellant versions on popcorn. Pepper spray is a legitimate tool on the force continuum, and very rarely produces long-term troublesome side effects, especially when compared to other actions police can also elect to use at that point in the continuum. I'd rather be sprayed than most of those options, any day. That's truth, also from experience.

The real questions here are were the police trained properly, is their department's force continuum policy in line with the law, and were the people being sprayed engaged in actions that would cause force at that level to be appropriate and lawful. Those questions, in my experience, are difficult to judge at a distance, from media accounts. So I tend to suspend judgement on specific cases until the hearing/inquest/trial, when facts and evidence come out. If you note carefully what I wrote, I spoke to no specifics of any specific case, even though you apparently think I am referring to some particular incident.

The pepper spray itself is a red herring.

Arranging one's life so as not to be continually pepper sprayed.

Something you can do in a variety of ways. Participating in the civilian oversight role for your local law enforcement. Electing officials who will arrange for proper instruction, training, and accountability in the actions of your law enforcement. Not engaging in activities which call for the use of force on that level in lawful response. Following up if an unlawful amount of force is used against you while you are engaged in a lawful activity. Not taking a job at a pepper spray plant. Those sorts of things...

Zoebird

11-26-11, 3:46am

bae,

I never said it wasn't your experience or the truth, but simply that it is making light of a chemical that is utilized and legimate "tool on the force continuum."

Also, the SA article asserts a difference between food grade, the common pepper spray that can be purchased and the common ones used on police forces -- and their relative differences in intensity.

In this instance, pepper spray is not a red herring. The pepper spray was the means of force -- and it is part of what answers the three questions that you put forth. Similarly, batons come into question in the situation at UC Berkley. It is important that these elements are considered.

And I grant you, I would probably prefer one level of force over another (eg, pepper spray vs taser), but what I prefer is not relevant to the questions at hand. Nor, dare I say, is what you prefer. This concept *is* a red herring.

Certainly, where the situation of occupiers lies is in the "following up if an unlawful amount of force is used against you. . .." This is the core of the issue here. In the UC Davis incident, students are suing. And, there is similar follow-up via legal advisors in many of the occupy and related cases. So, that will happen over time, i'm sure.

I think, though, that your initial statements shouldn't require "careful reading." They are so obtuse as to leave such a wide amount of space for interpretation. And then, you attack someone when they "misinterpret" your very wide-open statements.

If you mean to be clear, be clear. If you mean to be obtuse, then please, continue. (in this case, for clarity, use of obtuse not meaning "lack of intelligence" but rather "lack of clarity" in the statements.

rosebud

11-26-11, 3:53am

You are putting words in my mouth I did not say, attributing positions to me that are not mine, and once again, engaging in personal attacks. It is quite uncivil of you.

So, have a nice day.

What is your exact position then? If I failed to accurately deduce your position on the issue of whether it was reasonable and proper for campus police to direct pepper spray at close range into the eyes of non-violent demonstrators on a college campus you have a very strange way of correcting the record.

Justified and proper, yes or no? Easy to answer. If you answer yes, we have your implicit reasons before us. Pepper spray is no big deal, they're just dfh who inconvenience everyone anyway and if they didn't want to get pepper sprayed, well then they shouldn't have placed themselves there. Thematically it all tends to fit together in the ongoing narrative to make OWS seem as unsympathetic as possible. I know this because the EXACT same narrative is being spewed out daily by Fox News. Wow, big, big shock...they didn't think pepper spray was any big deal! So, maybe they have an agenda! And maybe YOU have a similar agenda, particularly when it comes to OWS. And maybe that agenda is NOT always consistent with truth, liberty and the American way.

But hey, why should I take YOUR word for whether or not pepper spray is a big deal when the very same person who developed it as a weapon is absolutely appalled at the actions of the cops at UC Davis: Lookee here for yourselves folks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/pepper-sprays-fallout-from-crowd-control-to-mocking-images.html?_r=1

When police forces use excessive force to make people compliant, this is a problem, no matter what the context. When it is used in the context of squashing political speech, it becomes even more troublesome. Those are mainstream, constitutionally and legally based points.

I think it's so funny how you and Alan are so upset about how uncivil my words are and don't think the act of pepper spraying non violent demonstrators is uncivil!

bae

11-26-11, 4:02am

If you mean to be clear, be clear.

I think I was perfectly clear. If you look back, you provided a link to "Pepper spray toxicity".

I responded back with my direct personal experiences with pepper spray, and a suggestion that if concerned, you should arrange to avoid it. I spoke to *nothing* else in that post.

And from that, you, and rosebud here, have generated some entire legendary backstory.

Have fun with that.

Zoebird

11-26-11, 2:03pm

Great blog (http://tom-atlee.posterous.com/ows-new-forms-of-nonviolence-and-leadership-e) about OWS and new forms of nonviolent protest and leadership. It includes a video of what happened following the pepperspray incident ("immediately following" or shortly after, i would say), which demonstrates this new form of nonviolent protest and leadership. Very good read.

Zoebird

11-26-11, 2:20pm

Bae,

Sorry, but I do not accept your two ad hominems. The logical fallacies that I have voices in my head or that i'm making up a backstory.

What you are considering "voices in my head" or "making up back story" is actually a common practice. In courts of law, logical inference is used all the time with evidence presented and then the lawyer connects that evidence in such a way to aid the judge and jury in creating the logical inferences that s/he desires to create the best outcome for their client.

While there are many logical inferences that a person CAN take, it is up to the lawyer to present the evidences in such a way as the jury would naturally infer one argument over another.

In online communications, it is up to each of us to present our arguments clearly. You were not clear. You were vague. If you intended for those statements to mean how you explained them in your later post, then why not say so from the outset? Your statements -- in their contexts -- left more than ample space for logical inference and interpretation by your statements.

I have outlined the perfectly reasonable, rational logical inferences based on the statements that you provided. Those statements are vague (intentionally or not is not relevant), and open to interpretation. If you *meant* for them to refer to what you say in later post, then it is your responsibility to assert that from the outset, not attack someone for making a perfectly logical inference because your statements were obtuse.

In addition, you will note that it wasn't until you were attacking rosebud that i outlined this inference. It is not because I necessarily believed this inference to be true or factual, but rather because the real issue isn't rosebud's logical inference (and your subsequent ad hominem attacks), but your lack of clarity.

I liked the fact that you clarified your position after I positioned this argument, but it also wasn't relevant.

What is relevant to me is 1. that forums, in general, are low on the ad hominem attacks, and 2. that people feel that their positions are heard/understood.

Because I didn't know what your position was -- precisely -- I didn't want to assume either way. This is why I never attacked you with an ad hominem (as you did to me, and an apology would be accepted if you could deign to give one), but rather focused on the form of the argument itself.

So long as you choose to continue with unclear or open-ended communications from which the logical inferences could go directions that you do not prefer, then you're going to continue to come "under fire" for things that you didn't state, or didn't intend to state.

flowerseverywhere

11-26-11, 5:12pm

Maybe he was hungry (you know how men are, one tract mind and all!)

I am not sure what planet you made this comment from but it sure offends me here on earth. Some men and some women have one track minds.

HKPassey

11-26-11, 5:27pm

I've lived in Europe and I would take that life in a heart beat. Loose is right. It's not just a matter of making 1/3 less and all else the same. You make 1/3 less but your quality of life actually goes up. And in fact, many would make 1/3 more because over there everyone makes a living wage. Even the workers at McDonalds. The peace of mind that comes with the security of knowing your medical is taken care of, not to mention you won't be tossed out when you become too old to work, is way more important than that 1/3 income. Actually, most elderly in Europe either live in their own home or with their kids, just like here. But for those who can't, for whatever reason, don't have to choose between food and medicine and a roof over their heads. You know, we keep saying that, choosing between food and medicine, and I think for most they don't really think about it or believe it, but for many it is a daily reality. Really. And not just old people. For those of you who have to take meds everyday, try going a week without either your food or your meds, or even a day really.

I currently (at 55) have to ration some of my medications because I simply can't afford them after 2 1/2 years on unemployment. If you're on unemployment you are by definition "healthy" and do not qualify for any sort of medical help. I even have to pay almost full price at the subsidized community health clinics, and I simply can't get anything other than basic treatment and emergency dental extractions (fixing a tooth is usually out). I have numerous chronic health conditions and my health (and employability) are eroding because I simply can't afford even routine care. My choices include "do I skip the blood pressure medications or the pain relievers this month?" and I often have to wait several weeks to pick up a prescription until the money is available. It's pretty scary.

HKPassey

11-26-11, 5:40pm

http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/11/23/opinion-lets-give-thanks-one-percent

Most notable, in the very first paragraph the author says that 'even those who are on hard times have access to abundant food and clothes and leisure opportunities'
uh, no, no they don't. Some people just don't get it.

"Because we live in America, even those of us who are going through hard times have access to abundant food, racks of clothing, secure shelter, heating and air-conditioning, and an amazing array of learning and leisure activities."

Depends on what you mean by access. I'm completely free to walk through any mall or department store and look at the "racks of clothing" for hours on end. I just can't take any of it home. Ditto for Goodwill, much of the time. I can wander the aisles of the supermarket and enjoy visions of abundant food, as well. As long as I can pay my internet bill, or keep my car running so I can get to the library, I can enjoy quite a number of learning and leisure activities, but I've seen far too many hate-filled comments on the web lately railing against us poor lazy slobs who lost our jobs and still won't "give up" our internet. (Er, my only hope of working hinges on having full internet available in my home, folks).

I'm not against the 1%, bless them. I've never had any particular envy of wealthy people, and I do believe that those who take the risks ought to enjoy the gains. It's the ongoing concentration of wealth, the predatory actions driving some of the wealth, and the corruption of our political process stemming from the increasing concentration of wealth that concerns me. If the 1% really were job-creating machines, I don't think I'd worry too much about their being the 1%, but the data show the concentration of wealth is stifling rather than driving jobs. Actually, it's the .5% and the .01% who really concern me.

HKPassey

11-26-11, 5:46pm

Use of our local food bank has almost doubled over the past several years.

The number of children in the local schools participating in subsidized meal programs has also shot up sharply. And I know that for some of these kids, that's the only hot meal they get during the day. The school sends home food for weekends and holidays for them.

Every kid here has warm clothes. Because the local hardware store owner has an entire room full of free kids-sized jackets and such, which he buys out of his own pocket and distributes quietly to those who need it.

Use of our local family resources center has increased so much over the past two years that we've needed to relocated the facility to handle the load.

Etc.

And if you have no children and are under 65, forget about it. You don't qualify for most public or private programs. Naturally we have a strong desire to protect and support children, as we should, so they get priority. But adults are pretty much on their own (especially if English is their primary language), and if they're in an age group that's having trouble finding work, oh well, try harder. If you've kept your clothes clean and in good repair, or you wear the ring your grandmother gave you for graduation decades ago, or you have even a cheapo cell phone, you also get dirty looks. It's ugly out there right now.

bae

11-26-11, 5:50pm

And if you have no children and are under 65, forget about it. You don't qualify for most public or private programs.

Well, around here, anyone can walk into our Food Bank.

lhamo

11-26-11, 5:59pm

[moderator hat on]

I have not been following this thread, but it was brought to my attention as one that might need some moderation. I realize this is a sensitive topic that many people feel strongly about, no matter what their perspective. Please keep the discussion civil and avoid commenting on the personality or mental capacity of individual posters, which is neither appropriate nor helpful if you wish to engage in constructive conversation about this topic. And if you find yourself being upset by something someone has said or done on the forums, maybe it is time to take a break and get some perspective. As one of our members pointed out above:

Really, sometimes it's more useful to just ignore it.

lhamo

[moderator hat off]

jp1

11-26-11, 6:17pm

I responded back with my direct personal experiences with pepper spray, and a suggestion that if concerned, you should arrange to avoid it. I spoke to *nothing* else in that post.

Personally, I'd assume that the UC Davis students had a reasonable assumption that their activity would not engender being attacked by cops with pepper spray considering that the 9th circuit court has, on more than one occasion, made decisions that pretty clearly concluded that it would not be warranted in the situation that occurred.

bae, if you didn't intend for us to infer that the UC Davis students were deserving of being pepper sprayed please explain to what or whom you were referring when you advised that people arrange to avoid being sprayed. I believe that is the statement to which zoe has tried several times to get you to complete. (since apparently several of us have reached the, in your mind, inaccurate conclusion that you were referring to the UC Davis students.)

Zoebird

11-26-11, 6:22pm

jp1:

bae did clarify his position.

Pepper spray is a condiment was intended to mean --

The real questions here are were the police trained properly, is their department's force continuum policy in line with the law, and were the people being sprayed engaged in actions that would cause force at that level to be appropriate and lawful. Those questions, in my experience, are difficult to judge at a distance, from media accounts. So I tend to suspend judgement on specific cases until the hearing/inquest/trial, when facts and evidence come out. If you note carefully what I wrote, I spoke to no specifics of any specific case, even though you apparently think I am referring to some particular incident.

Arranging your life as not to be pepper sprayed is intended to mean --

Something you can do in a variety of ways. Participating in the civilian oversight role for your local law enforcement. Electing officials who will arrange for proper instruction, training, and accountability in the actions of your law enforcement. Not engaging in activities which call for the use of force on that level in lawful response. Following up if an unlawful amount of force is used against you while you are engaged in a lawful activity. Not taking a job at a pepper spray plant. Those sorts of things...

Thus, bae appears to assert that the logical inference we should have made from his statements were these -- his intentions -- and not the inferences that we made based on the statements themselves and the context within the thread.

bae

11-26-11, 6:28pm

Again, you misrepresent me, so that is the end between us.

Zoebird

11-26-11, 7:22pm

Bae,

Please, are you simply misrepresenting yourself?

Here is the entire post from page 7. I added my quotes back in, because when you hit "reply with quotes" it doesn't bring in quoted quotes. :) So, I took that liberty, but you can check to see if i copied it exactly, as it is post number 70.

Pepper spray is a condiment.

I speak truth, from experience. I have been sprayed before during training. And I quite commonly used the food-safe-propellant versions on popcorn. Pepper spray is a legitimate tool on the force continuum, and very rarely produces long-term troublesome side effects, especially when compared to other actions police can also elect to use at that point in the continuum. I'd rather be sprayed than most of those options, any day. That's truth, also from experience.

The real questions here are were the police trained properly, is their department's force continuum policy in line with the law, and were the people being sprayed engaged in actions that would cause force at that level to be appropriate and lawful. Those questions, in my experience, are difficult to judge at a distance, from media accounts. So I tend to suspend judgement on specific cases until the hearing/inquest/trial, when facts and evidence come out. If you note carefully what I wrote, I spoke to no specifics of any specific case, even though you apparently think I am referring to some particular incident.

The pepper spray itself is a red herring.

Arranging one's life so as not to be continually pepper sprayed.

Something you can do in a variety of ways. Participating in the civilian oversight role for your local law enforcement. Electing officials who will arrange for proper instruction, training, and accountability in the actions of your law enforcement. Not engaging in activities which call for the use of force on that level in lawful response. Following up if an unlawful amount of force is used against you while you are engaged in a lawful activity. Not taking a job at a pepper spray plant. Those sorts of things...

I responded in post 71, that the real 'red herring' was your expression over preferring one form of force over another -- how it was not relevant to the discussion, although it might be an interesting fact about you. What is relevant is the quoted elements above.

Clearly, you simply misrepresent yourself -- first with obtuse, unclear statements, then with ad hominem fallacies.

Zoebird

11-26-11, 7:31pm

Also, you apparently can't figure out when someone is defending you -- as the post is informing JP that you *did* clarify your position.

flowerseverywhere

11-26-11, 8:00pm

And if you have no children and are under 65, forget about it. You don't qualify for most public or private programs. Naturally we have a strong desire to protect and support children, as we should, so they get priority. But adults are pretty much on their own (especially if English is their primary language), and if they're in an age group that's having trouble finding work, oh well, try harder. If you've kept your clothes clean and in good repair, or you wear the ring your grandmother gave you for graduation decades ago, or you have even a cheapo cell phone, you also get dirty looks. It's ugly out there right now.

well there is a lot of prejudice against the poor, or those who are on welfare etc. as the media will latch onto the sensational and fraudulent. Almost every week around here someone is in the news for cheating welfare or food stamps. They even found someone getting benefits who had an arrest warrant from another state for terrorist suspicion. A small fraction of people who receive help.
Here is an excerpt from a popular Judge Judy show. (this was sent in an e-mail to me)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDrwskLYCrY

I volunteer in the city soup kitchen weekly and for everyone who has an attitude there are 25 who are thankful, clean and polite. There are also some mentally ill, people who have been released from jail, single mothers with kids, people who have drinking problems and many who I have no idea how they got in the situation because they are clean, speak logical English, and seem the kind of people who would work if they could. People help clean the tables and sweep afterwards.

We have two food pantries in town, a local organization I am involved in collected food for them and since we have a Truck I volunteered to drop the food off. Several people who were in line for food stepped out of line to help me empty the truck and helped the workers in the pantry put the food in the right areas. The workers were so nice, and the people were so nice and thankful.

So unfortunately the message is displayed loud and clear that some people cheat. The true picture of most of the unemployed is never portrayed because it isn't sensational enough. But in every town people are falling through the cracks and I don't know where they will turn.
And even those over 65 will have a tough time of it, as Medicare only pays a percentage of most things, and has a monthly premium. If you had a bad fall (not uncommon in that age group) for example it could cost you thousands.

flowerseverywhere

11-26-11, 8:05pm

Well, around here, anyone can walk into our Food Bank.
that's wonderful. Some food banks have rules about how often you can frequent them as there just isn't enough food to go around.

bae

11-26-11, 8:13pm

that's wonderful. Some food banks have rules about how often you can frequent them as there just isn't enough food to go around.

Our problems here were/are:

- not enough space for food storage, solved by some folks raising money to put up a proper structure
- Food Bank was in too public a location, some folks were put off from using the service because of social issues, this problem also has been reduced signficantly due to the improved location of the new structure
- poor hours, finding volunteers to staff regular, reliable hours is still a problem
- people unaware of the service, we have a significant transient population, and without continuing outreach, newcomers don't find out about the facility easily
- people unable to cook the available food, which is largely produce, meat, grains, fruits, not pre-prepared items, because of lack of equipment, cooking facilities, cooking skills, or time. The Family Resource Center has worked with the food bank and some educators to address some of this, providing training in cooking and meal planning and how to use non-convenience foods

That is, we'd like people to use the resource more, there's plenty of food.

Zoebird

11-26-11, 8:38pm

The real issue that we've run into at the various food banks that we've been a part of is distribution issues -- people not knowing we were there, or what they could arrange to receive from us, etc.

The other issue that we faced was over-donation for our region as compared to other areas -- and so we were frequently redistributing our donations to other food banks and related organizations so that all of the goods were appropriately used.

San Onofre Guy

11-28-11, 10:37am

Wow! I go off the boards for a few days and look what happens. Discourse is great when done in a courteous manner. Change is constant and the more things change the more they seem to stay the same.

rosebud

11-28-11, 1:57pm

that's wonderful. Some food banks have rules about how often you can frequent them as there just isn't enough food to go around.

Foodbanks are a bandaid solution to the real problems in our society. Folks just want to work and make a decent enough living to buy their own food. Those who cannot work because of disability or some other impediment just want to live a dignified life. Nobody wants to have to resort to scrounging around for food and other necessities. Foodbanks are serving folks now who have never asked for any kind of charity in their lives before.

Foodbanks around the country, from what I have read, are running out of stock, not overstocked, so I would tend to view BAE's experience with abundant food supplies as atypical. See, e.g.:

http://suncoastpinellas.tbo.com/content/2009/nov/14/pi-area-food-banks-running-out-of-rations/

However, all that said, and despite my previous salvos, I do commend BAE for working with his local foodbank program to solve its problems and offer better services and outreach. I am sure that the problems he identifies and the solutions he delineates could be helpful to other foodbanks.

Spartana

11-30-11, 3:57pm

In the cases of UC Davis and Berkley, I don't see any imminent danger for the police, nor do i see rout or riot conditions. What i DO see is students following common non-violent, civil disobedience tactics AND peaceful protest procedures.

The tactical use of pepper spray and tear gas by law enforcement is not to protect the police from potential dangers to themselves by the protestors, but to protect the protestors themselves. Even in a peaceful protest, there is greater potential to harm people if the police need to use physical means to disband/disperse people as required by law. Broken fingers, hands, & arms are common when having to seperate and remove people who are interlocked together. Abrasions and other head and body injuries can happen when the protestors have to be dragged off one another, handcuffed, or carried away when they are laying prone. So using pepper spray is seen as a way to create crowd dispersal with minimal harm to the protestors. So whether you think that the protesters should have the legal right to encamp on public property 24/7 for months at a time or not, the law says they don't and they need to be removed in the least harmful way to themselves if they choose not to disperse on their own. And this doesn't mean they lose the legal right to protest during the allowed times (usually 5 am to 10 pm in most public places) just that they can't stay there all night long forever. And remember, the police aren't the ones making the decsion to kick people out of public places. They are just enforcing already established law and city ordinances in an approved way to cause the least amount of harm to the public.

Zoebird

11-30-11, 4:28pm

Spartana:

Can you please site for me which laws say that people do not have the right to peacefully assemble for the purpose of protest 24/7 in public spaces?

In reply, I reference my own post from this stream, #27, emphasis added:

The first issue that seems to be raised is about assembly and permits. There is a lot of law around this, and it should be noted that there is a lot of criticism as to how this permitting process negatively affects first amendment rights. Leaving that aside, lets talk about police involvement.

There are two areas where I find this involvement interesting: 1. the charges brought against arrested occupiers; 2. the use of force in the process.

There is one very easy law broken in this process -- protesting without a permit. Martin Luther King, Jr was arrested for protesting without a permit. OWS legal advisors have encouraged occupiers to protest without permits, which includes protesting against permits (i consider permits to have good uses, but i also consider the criticism against this permitting, which is becoming stricter and stricter, asserting that it inhibits freedom of speech/assembly). Yet, as far as I can tell, no one has been arrested for this.

IN the news reports, and various individual films online, I have noted that the police announce that the occupiers must disperse or will be under arrest for X. So far, I've heard: trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and unlawful assembly. I have not yet heard anyone being arrested for protesting without a permit.

Trespass is easily managed; unless a park has specific ordinances, or is not public land (or on public charter), then it isn't trespass and dispersal isn't required. Most of the charges are dropped.

Disorderly conduct is vague, but usually refers to public drunkenness and trying to start a fight. Interestingly enough, it includes that disorderly conduct occurs if a person is preventing peaceful assembly (protest), as well as general use of a space by the populace as a whole. The law is also clear that it cannot be used to clear a peaceful assembly.

Disturbing the peace is also vague, but usually has to do with loud noise or abusive language. The jurisprudence is also clear that a protest that is disturbing the peace is actually pretty much exempt from falling under this law.

The last one is most interesting, which is unlawful assembly. Unlawful assembly has two forms: Rout and Riot. A rout is when 3 or more people intend to start a riot, even if they don't achieve those ends, and a riot is when a large group enacts violence against an authority, property, or person.

What is most interesting about this is that -- with the exception of Oakland -- the movements and protests have been peaceful according to all of the common practices and definitions of peaceful protest. This includes, btw, the incidents that we are speaking of -- the pepper spraying of UC Davis students, and I'll also include the baton use at the UC Berkley campus. There has been no evidence of rout or riotous behavior such that unlawful assembly would stick as a charge. And, those -- as with the others -- have often been dismissed by the judges.

In the second instance, the real question is about when police use the various tools at their disposal. To be sure, there have been very limited uses of pepper spray and batoning. But in order for these levels of force to be used, there needs to be a threat of danger to the police and/or the public (or a third innocent party), or their needs to be cause such as preventing a riot.

In the cases of UC Davis and Berkley, I don't see any imminent danger for the police, nor do i see rout or riot conditions. What i DO see is students following common non-violent, civil disobedience tactics AND peaceful protest procedures.

Spartana

11-30-11, 4:44pm

It wasn't the law (if one exists) about protesting per se, but in the states most public places have city or county (or state on state property) ordinances that deal with curfew/camping times. Those times are posted on a sign out side the area - and have the legal code/statute numbers along side them. For instance I'm in a public libray now which is in a city park. Outside the library and the park there is a sign which says that the area is closed to the public between 10 pm and 5 am. Same with city and state beaches, etc... The sign also says that no overnight camping is allowed in either the park or the parking lot. Most public places (as well as private places like businesses) have similair regulations. This is why homeless people, people living in RVs or tents, or protesters aren't allowed to overnight on publc property - city/county/state laws.

ETA: I don't personally condone what police did in UC Davis - or the use of pepper spray in peaceful protests unless absolutely needed to disperse a crowd, even a peaceful crowd. Just wanted to clarify the notion that they (police) did it because they felt threatened by the protestors. It wasn't for that reason. I worked in law enforcement and when you have to enforce an order, you have to enforce an order. Choosing to do it in the least harmful way (i.e. using pepper spray) to the civilian public doesn't mean it isn't a potentially harmful thing. I stayed up all night to watch the police actions to disperse the Occupy LA protestors. Went well because of the large police force (costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars from the city coffers) but mostly because the protestors left by choice. The approx. 200 who where arrested, complied peacefully for the most part. And the ONLY reason that the protesters where legally allowed to camp there overnight for so long in the first place was that the mayor of LA recinded the ordinance that was in place to prevent overnight camping - temporarily. After 2 months he chose to reinstate that ordinance and evict the protesters.

Yossarian

11-30-11, 5:28pm

Can you please site for me which laws say that people do not have the right to peacefully assemble for the purpose of protest 24/7 in public spaces?

Is that the right question? They only acted toward the ones blocking the sidewalk. I don't know the answer but would not be surprised if your right to protest has to be exercised in a way that doesn't interfere with public mobility.

Yossarian

11-30-11, 5:40pm

Spartana

11-30-11, 6:10pm

From the ACLU:

A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit.

http://acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/protester_eng3b.pdf
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/right_to_protest_brochure.pdf

Yeah, that too. I knew I left out something about blocking public access/traffic in my above post.

jp1

11-30-11, 9:18pm

Is that the right question? They only acted toward the ones blocking the sidewalk. I don't know the answer but would not be surprised if your right to protest has to be exercised in a way that doesn't interfere with public mobility.

While I agree that the police likely had every right to remove the protesters that still doesn't justify the pepper spray. The 9th circuit has decided on 2 occasions regarding it's use and the Legal and Liability Risk Management Institute, a law enforcement risk management organization, has written about it fairly clearly for their members: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/pepperspray.shtml Based on this article interpreting the decisions and on what I saw in the video I'd say that the pepper-sprayed protesters likely have a good case for a civil suit against the UC Davis police force.

Yossarian

11-30-11, 9:42pm

While I agree that the police likely had every right to remove the protesters that still doesn't justify the pepper spray. The 9th circuit has decided on 2 occasions regarding it's use

Not saying it did. I don't know enough to have a view on that, just thought it was a mischaracterization to portray it as an attempt to assail people who were just exercising their speech rights. The only ones they applied force to were the ones who were blocking the sidewalk. Personally I think it is silly to say you can use a baton to clear an illegal roadblock but not a potentially less injurious method, but hey, those wacky 9th circuit guys make the rules for the Land of Fruits and Nuts.

Zoebird

11-30-11, 10:58pm

jp1:

and they are suing.

the issue is that you can *arrest* someone and a group of someone's for protesting without a permit, but protesting without a permit doesn't lead to the level of force heading toward pepper spray as far as I can tell in any of the reading materials that i've been able to find thus far.

Zoebird

11-30-11, 11:28pm

Spartana

12-1-11, 2:12pm

The question also still remains, though, whether the ordinance violates the first amendment in this instance. There's a big difference between 'camping' due to homelessness, or for some other reason, vs a 24/7 protest that might have certain requirements.

If you are being a strict constitionalist, then yes, any ordinance will violate the "Right to Assemble" amendment. Meaning that you can assemble any time, any place, under any circumstances, for any cause, for as long as you want irregardless of local ordinances, codes or laws even if it is disruptive or potenially harmful to the public. Of course if you are a constitutionalist, that means you must hold the other amendments as written - such as "The Right to Bear Arms" and "The Right to Free Speech" - and allow those to take place any time, any place, under any circumstances, for any cause as well, irregardless of if they are disruptive or potentially harmful to the public. So with no laws or regulations infringing on any ammendent, that means I can walk into your kids pre-school with a fully loaded M-16 in one arm and a bazooka in the other. That I can enter that same school and spew profanities and show porn because there is no law that regulates that behavior - or even a law that interperates that behavior - because it is my constitutional right to do those things. I personally don't want to live in that world - one without local laws and ordinances to protect people and property FROM certain constitutional amendment. I feel the same way about the laws and ordinances that govern right to assemble. They should be in place - and enforced - to protect people and property. That does not mean denying anyone their constitutional rights, it just means regulation them to a level which protects all.

As far as use of pepper spray...well... again, it is a currently approved law enforcement tactical method that is seen as the lessor evil, least harmful, way to enforce the law. Should it be banned as a law enforcement tool? Maybe. But then that means physical altercations and the possibility of greater physical harm to the protesters.

Zoebird

12-1-11, 4:53pm

Spartana,

Foremost, you put forth a slippery-slope fallacy. The philosophy, nor application thereof, does not apply in the way you suggest.

First, it is important to note that strict constructionism is most commonly associated with the opinions of Justice Scalia, who himself says he is not a strict constructionist. To quote him: "text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

I am a big fan of Scalia, and of course, in this conservative but reasonable approach to jurisprudence. This is why I use the term "strict constructionist" even though it can be taken to -- as you point out -- the principle of "absurdity." People will often misconstrue it in BOTH directions -- that it means "reasonable to whatever you can rationalize" and also "so strict that no laws could exist besides the constitution."

So, as a term, "strict constructionism" isn't that functional, but since this is a most commonly used catch phrase to refer to Scalia-like approaches to the documents, it is what I use.

But, to clarify -- the standard of the philosophy itself is that which is reasonable containing all that it can fairly mean.

Second, it is reasonable to balance public rights and public responsibilities -- and the jurisprudence bears this out, even in -- and you might say particularly in -- Scalia's opinions.

With this, it is also important to note the process of law. In general, a law or ordinance is basically going to be considered constitutional until that law is tested in court -- that is, the legality of it questioned. This is why we have supreme courts at state and federal levels. When a decision is appealed, it is appealed on the grounds that the law itself was not appropriately applied in this instance or that the law itself is per se unconstitutional. And then, the law goes before the court, and the court balances it against the constitution.

Thus, it is the court's responsibility to interpret the facts in light of the law (which facts the laws apply to), and also whether the laws themselves are constitutional.

So, a law untested is not necessarily constitutional.

The value of knowing this process is that it goes to the questions of both obscenity and weapons-related laws (your slippery slope). It is important to note that cases that go to the supreme court on this issue consistently come down on the side of the laws that protect the public interest and policy. Thus, it is "reasonable" to construe the rights in light of public interest as having reasonable constraints to protect citizenry, and in particular, vulnerable citizenry (in particular -- schools and such, also your example), while still also maintaining the right to -- as an example -- own weapons or pornography.

In regards to first amendment assembly rights, there have been several cases tested that have supported things such as permitting, which has a long history. It might also be noted that things like disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace -- mentioned above -- have also had their day at the supreme court, or the laws wouldn't have been drafted (or in many cases redrafted) to specifically exclude peaceful assembly. They did not specifically exclude speech, btw, in those decisions, as disturbing the peace includes vulgar and language that incites others. Thus, the first amendment was parsed into two constructs -- one supporting the legality of free, peaceful assembly but NOT the ability to utilize profanities and inciting language on school grounds (to continue with your example).

Likewise, it should also be noted that the first amendment right of assembly includes "free and peaceable" -- thus unlawful assembly (rout and riot) are specifically not allowed, and the laws regarding unlawful assembly are reasonably upheld in the public interest.

But, here, we are speaking about the ordinances against camping. The history of these ordinances are based in health and public safety, as well as public access.

When these ordinances were passed, I doubt that "extended occupation peaceful assembly" was considered in the process of passing these ordinances. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a protest of this sort to date. Most of them -- as mentioned many times before -- exist in a specific time as the permits designate, and people assemble, protest, and go home. Then, they might meet the next day, assemble, protest, and go home. I would not say that this is "the first time in history!" that occupation-protest has existed -- seeing as I don't know the history in specifics -- but to my knowledge, this is the first time in recent years where protest has taken this formation.

It might be fair to say that this is the first time since the passing of these sorts of ordinances that peaceful assembly has come into conflict with them.

As such, it is the first time that camping ordinances might go before the supreme court as inhibiting the first amendment right to assembly.

The question that arises out of this is thus: will the ordinance stand as a matter of public health and safety the way that weapons and obscenity ordinances do, or will the ordinance fall under the same constraints as disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace wherein the right to free, peaceful assembly is particularly excepted?

bae

12-1-11, 5:19pm

A previous Occupy movement - the Bonus Army.

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/jpg/bonus3.jpg

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bonus-army.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWvCCxOUsM8

It did not end well. MacArthur in command of infantry and calvalry, and Patton in command of tanks, crushed them. Eisenhower was there under MacArthur.

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/jpg/bonus1.jpg

bae

12-1-11, 6:33pm

Here's the Occupy LA site after the folks were evacuated. I'm thinking some littering citations should have been handed out.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2011/12/1/10/enhanced-buzz-wide-9563-1322753971-30.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2011/12/1/10/enhanced-buzz-wide-23596-1322753982-4.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2011/12/1/10/enhanced-buzz-wide-17529-1322753989-37.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2011/12/1/10/enhanced-buzz-wide-23605-1322754181-8.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2011/12/1/10/enhanced-buzz-wide-9489-1322754237-26.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2011/12/1/10/enhanced-buzz-wide-17593-1322754530-32.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2011/12/1/10/enhanced-buzz-wide-9563-1322754539-37.jpg

Lainey

12-1-11, 7:46pm

And of course when you roust people in the middle of the night and demand they leave immediately, that's what happens and that's what it's going to look like.

ApatheticNoMore

12-1-11, 8:12pm

True Lainey but also what is the date the photos were taken? Not today or late yesterday I hope (because everywhere looks like that now - 80mph winds will do that).

Zoebird

12-1-11, 11:18pm

Bae,

Thank you for the bonus army occupation video. I did a quick read on wikipedia (just ask an intro). What i found interesting is that one president took a military tactic, while the next president provided a camp, provided them with meals, and allowed them into the civilian conservation corps (which pretty much pulled the country out of the depression). What is really interesting is that the economic times of both groups is similar, but that one group was more specifically organized (and only allowed certain people in their encampments -- veterans who could demonstrate that they were honorably discharged) than the current group.

To the second set of photos, I defer to Lainey's post, as it certainly says what needs to be said. Living encampments look different than evicted ones some hours after the eviction when the clean up is underway but unfinished. I would provide images, but they are only available through my friend's FB, and I can't figure out how to link them.

To redirect, the public interest is important -- as is public sanitation and public use.

The question still remains though whether these "sanitation" issues and "use" issues are great enough to allow for a constraining of the rights of the first amendment.

The jurisprudence says that certain forms of obscenity cannot be created or distributed, because the public interest in this matter is greater than the absolute protection of free speech. The jurisprudence says that certain forms of gun controls are constitutional because the public interest in this matter is greater than the absolute protection of the right to bear arms.

The question is whether these issues of "sanitation" or "public use" in regards to camping, in specific for the purpose of assembly, if the public interest is greater than the right to assemble.

I would say that if the encampments are causing an actual, identifiable sanitation issue -- such as the spread of extreme communicable disease such as would come without adequate disposal of human waste and/or food waste (not just litter), or such that it was encouraging infestation (rats, insects etc) that would carry disease -- then whether or not they were exercising free speech, this would be at issue. That is, these would be highly relevant facts in the decision.

But, that doesn't mean that the laws themselves would -- and the public interest they protect -- be great enough to contain the right to assembly.

Zoebird

12-1-11, 11:31pm

In other news, there's another arrest to look at: Loitering.

292 protesters at Occupy LA were arrested for loitering. So, we should probably look at that one too.

Loitering is -- in general -- refers to remaining in a place for a protracted amount of time with no lawful purpose. I think the relevance here is whether or not the protest has a lawful purpose. I assume that, in general, it is, and that loitering will come under the same standard as disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct.

It might also be noted that loitering is classified as disorderly conduct (ca penal code 647 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html)). And, the jurisprudence around disorderly conduct has already been discussed -- that peaceful assembly is excepted.

It might be noted that the assembly was declared "unlawful."

What I think is increasingly fascinating about this is that these encampments are peaceful assemblies not heading into rout or riot, so how they are "magically" becoming unlawful is truly confusing to me.

While the charge was loitering, a misdemeanor, the bail was set under CA penal code for "failure to disperse" -- at least a $5k bail. For resisting arrest, bail is set at $10k. I'm not sure how many people have bail set that high, if any, but the article (linked below) asserts that some have bail set from $5-20k.

(source (http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/01/30153/hundreds-remain-jailed-after-occupy-la-raid/))

Gregg

12-2-11, 11:13am

"Our little country store with a sign tacked to the side
Said, 'No L-O- I- T- E- R- I- N- G allowed'
Underneath that sign congregated quite a crowd..."

(Sorry, its Friday, all roads lead to music from here.)

Spartana

12-2-11, 1:43pm

[QUOTE=Zoebird;54595]Spartana,

Foremost, you put forth a slippery-slope fallacy. The philosophy, nor application thereof, does not apply in the way you suggest.

QUOTE]

I don't see it as a slippery slope fallacy at all - just showing what a "strict" literal version, rather than an intent version, of constitutional law looks like across the amendment board - using hyperbole of course :-)! If you want to apply a literal iinterpertation to the constitution for some things, then you should for the rest. JMHO. Nor do I consider Scalia to be a strict constructionist. He, like most - and from what I can tell you and I both - generally takes the framers intent into consideration and rules accordingly based on each amendment. So of course, with each person holding a different view on what "intent" means, you will have many varied interpertation of the constitution. But I think it just boils down to a general disagreement about the nature (i.e. intent) of the "Right to Assemble" - i.e. protest. We both take the intent side, but you take a more literal interpertation side than I do, when defining what (if any) limits should be placed on any protest in terms of when, where, how long, whether violations of legal ordinances, laws and code should be taken into consideration, etc... But I do really enjoy reading your posts! I love the well written and thought out agruements (co0mpared to some in the political boards which get mega-snarky) and really learn alot from then. But I realize I can't argue with a lawyer (you) as I'll always lose :-)! Doesn't help that I kin't spel nither.

Bae - I watched the live coverage (at 2 am - UGH) of the eviction of occupy LA and those photos you posted don't do it justice. They had clean-up crews go in with the police officers and started tearing everything down at 2 am - right behind the protestors. So by the time your photos where taken (daytime) much of it had already been torn down and removed. It was MUCH MUCH worse. Not because the people weren't given notice to leave (given 3 days notice after the day the mayor's original court order to allow camping on public property expired) but because they were living in filth and squalor. It is estimated to cost over a million bucks in the clean up alone (and many millions more just to cover the costs of the eviction) and take over 2 months. All at taxpayers expense in a time with LA is billions in deficeit. Would have been nice if that money could have been used to hire more teachers and public employees rather than clean up/enforce something that, IMHO, shouldn't have happened - talking about the overnight camping/permenent residence, not about the right to protests each and every day, all day long - that should have been allowed.

bae

12-2-11, 3:39pm

Our local Occupy demonstrators simply show up for a few hours, do their thing, then go home. They don't set up encampments. They typically use the village green here, which is fine, and a wonderful place for political speech.

If they set up a camp, or turned out in larger numbers and milled around all day, they'd damage the grass and other landscaping. The landscaping is maintained by the county parks department, which has precious little budget, and the parks department charges a fee for organized use of the green above a certain impact level, to fund the maintenance and restoration of the green. Furthermore, setting up an enduring encampment would deny the use of the public space to other people, which doesn't seem reasonable, since it is a shared resource - it seems sort of rude.

If they wanted to use the bandstand on the green for more than something very casual, the same rules apply - you have to book your use, and pay a small fee to cover maintenance and power.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-CMIvzz3uP08/TArF-Fn2TTI/AAAAAAAAA6Y/S1hfJPXYCMA/s576/img_0179.jpg

Grazing on the green is free though, it's considered contributing to the maintenance.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-maYUKDyacy0/TArGJaPPo1I/AAAAAAAAA6s/xYQg7i9eWR8/s720/img_0185.jpg

Zoebird

12-2-11, 4:52pm

Spartana,

are you arguing the definition of slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) or the definition of strict constructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism)? :)

It seems to me that you are redefining the term "strict constructionist" against common use, and then utilizing that definition in a logical way which still creates a slippery slope fallacy (the argument can be logical, but still fallacious).

But really, the whole argument is technically illogical because it is not utilizing the common use/definition of the term (in modern context), and therefore it doesn't logically follow, and therefore is really a pure slippery slope fallacy.

It just makes for a not great argument. Certainly, there are issues inherent -- but using fallacious arguments doesn't meet to those issues. :)

I take it that you support the idea that the public health situation was so great -- or is so high -- that assembly shouldn't be excepted?

Yossarian

12-2-11, 6:36pm

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-CMIvzz3uP08/TArF-Fn2TTI/AAAAAAAAA6Y/S1hfJPXYCMA/s576/img_0179.jpg

Someone needs to donate a statute of Thor or Odin for this place.

Spartana

12-4-11, 10:49am

Spartana,

I take it that you support the idea that the public health situation was so great -- or is so high -- that assembly shouldn't be excepted?

That wasn't what I meant. I believe everyone has the full and complete right to protest. I just feel that they should abide by the same laws and regulations that every other member of the public is required to follow - be they loteriering, littering, health and sanitation, no parking or camping, curfew laws, blocking public access, or the myriad of other regulations that exist. I don't consider it unconstitutional to make everyone adhere to those laws equally -especially since it does not hinder their right to assemble/protest. The LA gruop are still protesting. They haven't been hindered from that in any way, shape or form - only from camping out over night on public property. As far as arguments about constitional law, well... I figure if the Justices and most legal schlors (sp?)can't agree, then for mere mortals such as ourselves it's OK to disagree :-)! Althought now I'll have to brush on my constitutional law - haven't had a class since back in the mid-80's when I got a Criminal Justice degree. I'm sure definitions have changed since then :-)!