Oakland Police raid "occupy" encampment. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Oakland Police raid "occupy" encampment.


Meat-Hook
10-25-2011, 09:23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q80b-8GSwAI

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19188593

OAKLAND -- Before dawn Tuesday, at least 200 police, many in riot gear, tore down the Occupy Oakland encampment in front of City Hall and arrested dozens of people. A smaller camp near Lake Merritt was also dismantled.

Morris
10-25-2011, 11:11
Better check for fleas and ticks . . .

RetailNinja
10-25-2011, 12:04
Probably just did it so the next time they arrest a group of minorities they can point to this...

RocPO
10-25-2011, 14:36
"Press guy" and "blogger". When will these dopes realize that simply having a camera doesn't make them the press?

Meat-Hook
10-25-2011, 22:52
They claim they used tear gas, flash bangs & rubber bullets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bytMNoKNeRA

"C'Mon back Document", :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZubytrF9WM

Meat-Hook
10-25-2011, 23:41
Update: the videos I posted above I thought were from the action at 7am this morning.

wrong.

Im watching it on the news at the time of this post. It appears these protesters returned by the hundreds and that the street battles with the protesters have been going on most of the night. It looks like Oakland did a mutual-aid call out from agencies across the Bay Area.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/29586433/detail.html

Between 400 and 500 "Occupy Oakland" protesters began the march at around 5:20 p.m. at the main branch of the Oakland Public Library heading to Frank Ogawa Plaza with the aim of retaking the space they were evicted from early Tuesday morning.

Brucev
10-26-2011, 04:43
Hum... Storm Troopers one and all "Sieg Heil!" and follow orders. No surprise. No surprise at all.

cowboywannabe
10-26-2011, 05:02
They claim they used tear gas, flash bangs & rubber bullets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bytMNoKNeRA

"C'Mon back Document", :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZubytrF9WM

maybe they should have used mustard gas, gang bangs, and rubber mallets.

OLY-M4gery
10-26-2011, 05:05
Hum... Storm Troopers one and all "Sieg Heil!" and follow orders. No surprise. No surprise at all.

One of the funny gags Bugs bunny did, was to hold up a picture of a screw, then a picture of a baseball.

Wonder why I thought of that when I read the quoted post?

You have a Right to Freedom of Speech.

You don't have a Right to interfere with other people's freedom of movement, like the occupy protesters in Oakland did yesterday, when they started blocking the doors of office buildings.

Brucev
10-26-2011, 06:25
"You don't have a Right to interfere with other people's freedom of movement, like the occupy protesters in Oakland did yesterday, when they started blocking the doors of office buildings." Hum... so you identify and arrest those who are blocking the doors of office buildings if that is actually against the law. Does that mean then that you arrest those who are not blocking the doors of those office buildings? Does that mean you confiscate and destroy private property (ala New Orleans with its confiscation of private firearms all in the name of "public safety?"). Wonder what threat computers, tents, etc. posed to public safety? Any explanation? Please do be specific as to what was the threat posed. Maybe cites some examples of how computers and tents have been weaponized and used to threaten anyone as a individual or a group.

x_out86
10-26-2011, 06:30
Glad to see that Oakland has decided to take their city back, and to stop treating these dopes with kid gloves. I happened to come across these columns the other day in the news paper and cant help but love them. For your reading pleasure:

"Oh very young, what will you leave us this time?" asked Cat Stevens in 1974. I find myself humming that song every time I read something about the Occupy Wall Street protests. Another generation of young Americans has discovered inequality and thinks it can be fixed by chanting, carrying signs, baiting the police and sleeping on the ground.

and

The hordes of so-called "protesters" now polluting the streets of several U.S. cities, including New York, are sending confused messages about their grievances.

The unemployed among them complain that the jobs available to them are beneath them. I guess that cancels out the old concept of starting in the mailroom and advancing step-by-step to the boardroom. It used to be the norm that one started at the bottom and worked their way up. This bunch seems to be living under the delusion that simply by virtue of having been born they are entitled to immediate arrival at the boardroom level with appropriate compensation.

Viewing these unruly mob scenes, featuring numerous public sexual activities posing as protests, I am reminded of the manner in which my Dad dealt with such malcontents. If they were government employees he simply fired them. It worked. The remaining ones slinked back to work.

And I recall how he dealt with his son (me) back in 1965 when I dropped out of Arizona State University and thought that I was simply going home to live with - and off - either my Mom or Dad, who were then divorced. When I got home I found that their doors were locked to college dropouts.

Nancy, my ever-loving stepmom, was busy calling all branches of the military to let them know I was a college dropout and thus now eligible to be drafted.

When I finally was able to speak to my parents they simply told me to find another place to live and to get a job. I did both. I moved in with some friends and got a job working at Asbury Transportation Co. in Los Angeles loading oil-well freight from 5 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., Monday through Friday. That's where I was working when my father was elected governor of California.

Did I complain that my lowly job was beneath my new station in life as the son of the governor of California? How could I? I was the one who set that bar low when I dropped out of college. So to all you spoiled brats marching and wanting better pay or bigger allowances, take a good, long look in the mirror, not at Wall Street, and if you want to blame something blame Obamacare! Your employers or parents have to spend the money you might have received in raises to pay for that socialist monstrosity.

I am still amazed that these kids can find time to congregate in city streets, which are in many cases far from their hometowns. Somebody has to be paying their way; in most cases their beleaguered parents are stuck with the bill for their latest adventure, which has nothing to do with education and a lot to do with left-wing politics and public lovemaking, if that's what it's called.

And the media willingly - indeed, eagerly - give the protesters lots of free publicity. Media outlets should start ignoring them and we'll see how fast they disband and slink back home. They thrive on the publicity the media provide.

Finally, the long-suffering parents ought to close their pockets and deny their wayward brats the money that allows them to travel to the big city to make pests of themselves.

Go home. Now. But before you do, clean up the messes you have made.

OLY-M4gery
10-26-2011, 06:40
"You don't have a Right to interfere with other people's freedom of movement, like the occupy protesters in Oakland did yesterday, when they started blocking the doors of office buildings." Hum... so you identify and arrest those who are blocking the doors of office buildings if that is actually against the law. Does that mean then that you arrest those who are not blocking the doors of those office buildings? Does that mean you confiscate and destroy private property (ala New Orleans with its confiscation of private firearms all in the name of "public safety?"). Wonder what threat computers, tents, etc. posed to public safety? Any explanation? Please do be specific as to what was the threat posed. Maybe cites some examples of how computers and tents have been weaponized and used to threaten anyone as a individual or a group.

Yeah, why don't you go to the beach, and find one particular grain of sand in amongst all the other sand. That is what you are asking.

When a group of people get together, and start committing crimes, they are also known as a "mob" or "riotous gathering". Since the larger group's presence makes it impossible to identify those committing crimes, and/or will make it impossible for the police to approach those committing crimes, without surrounding the police trying to make an arrest, the group as a whole has to be "moved on".

The police surely gave multiple orders to disperse. The cops on ADAM-12 in the 60's-70's had pretyped disperese orders that they would read when ordering a crowd to disperse. Surely, that happened, probably several times, before the police took any action.

They were given fair warning, and decided the course of action they wanted to take.

------------------------------------------------------------

It's also more than a little hypcritical for you, or the OWS protesters, to complain about not respecting private property rights, when the protesters are blocking access to other people's property, NOT RESPECTING THEIR RIGHTS, and "camping" on other people's property without permission.

Gear
10-26-2011, 08:05
Hum... Storm Troopers one and all "Sieg Heil!" and follow orders. No surprise. No surprise at all.

I could have sworn this was Cop Talk! :whistling:

Kadetklapp
10-26-2011, 08:12
I could have sworn this was Cop Talk! :whistling:

Brucev is the new resident sovereign citizen...

Gear
10-26-2011, 08:49
Brucev is the new resident sovereign citizen...

Lovely. :cool:

Brucev
10-26-2011, 09:31
“Yeah, why don’t you go...” etc. Doubtless you are very familiar with whatever is the applicable law for that particular city. Your excuse of arresting any and everyone rather than the actual persons “blocking entrance” to a building is without merit. It is the same sort of excuse Bull O’Conner used. The only thing missing is the fire hoses, dogs, etc.

As to hypocrisy, it is aptly demonstrated when those charged with upholding the law spring into action at the behest of those who own them and command their services, then proceed to call what they do upholding the law. And it is demonstrated when one excuses the theft and destruction of private property under color of law. Complaints as to public space being occupied are without merit. It is the same approach that has been repeatedly utilized to seek to silence political opposition to those who hold political power and those who pay for it.

Sam Spade
10-26-2011, 09:39
http://reason.com/assets/mc/mwelch/2010_08/Daffy_Screwball.gif


Someone looking for this?

Morris
10-26-2011, 10:00
How did I miss someone getting sand in their vajayjay?

Hey Bruce! Still mad at the world via Cop Talk?

razdog76
10-26-2011, 10:38
I put Brucev on ignore, and I still get to read his posts, thanks guys.:upeyes:

They should be able to protest, as long as they aren't camping on his front yard, destroying his property, and planting dog logs in his rose garden.

Brucev
10-26-2011, 12:39
"...Still mad at the world...?" Odd. Don't recall being the one who was so "incensed."

Public space is public space. It is for the use of the "public." Public space is not for the use of just certain members of the public, this to be determined by those who want to control access to public space. Nor is seeking to silence political/social speech to which one takes objection a legitimate rational for limiting or screening access to public space. The protesters were not standing in someone's front yard. They were in an area that by any definition was "public" space. The characterizations of the actions of the police officers and the descriptions of those who assume that they have the right to determine who will or will not have access to public space also stand.

Kadetklapp
10-26-2011, 12:44
this message is hidden because brucev is on your ignore list.

lololol.

DVeng
10-26-2011, 15:01
"...Still mad at the world...?" Odd. Don't recall being the one who was so "incensed."

Public space is public space. It is for the use of the "public." Public space is not for the use of just certain members of the public, this to be determined by those who want to control access to public space. Nor is seeking to silence political/social speech to which one takes objection a legitimate rational for limiting or screening access to public space. The protesters were not standing in someone's front yard. They were in an area that by any definition was "public" space. The characterizations of the actions of the police officers and the descriptions of those who assume that they have the right to determine who will or will not have access to public space also stand.

I probably shouldn't waste my time, but here goes...

Public space is what is commonly referred to as a "public good." That is, it is something that everyone is free to use and that is paid for by everyone in return. The problem with a public good is that it is relatively easy for a small portion of the population to use that good in a manner that is inconsistent with the needs of the population as a whole.

I think we can both agree that it would be wrong for anyone to decide they really like a spot in the middle of the park and to thus build a permanent house there with a high fence to keep people out of "their house." If we can agree on that, then our disagreement simply becomes one of degree. That is, at what point does behavior cross the line at which it is no longer a legitimate use of a public good because of the effect it has on others wishing to use that space.

In this case, the protestors have essentially trashed the public parks they are inhabiting. Sanitation is becoming a problem, substantial police resources are being expended in order to keep the peace, and the overall effect is that the public as a whole is harmed by the actions of a few. As such, it is a legitimate use of police power to limit the usage of that public good in order to preserve its usefulness for society as a whole.

Notice I said that it is legitimate for police to limit the use of the public good, not that it is legitimate for police to limit speech. These individuals have every right to say whatever they want; they just can't turn a public good into their private property in the process.

Even the name of these protests, "Occupy...", indicates a desire to refuse to vacate a premises one does not have a right to be at.

mj9mm
10-26-2011, 15:14
parks are for picnics, streets are for driving, get a life bruce!

Nick.45
10-26-2011, 15:20
"...Still mad at the world...?" Odd. Don't recall being the one who was so "incensed."

Public space is public space. It is for the use of the "public." Public space is not for the use of just certain members of the public, this to be determined by those who want to control access to public space. Nor is seeking to silence political/social speech to which one takes objection a legitimate rational for limiting or screening access to public space. The protesters were not standing in someone's front yard. They were in an area that by any definition was "public" space. The characterizations of the actions of the police officers and the descriptions of those who assume that they have the right to determine who will or will not have access to public space also stand.

You are correct that public space is not just for certain member of the public. Yet these protesters that you are protecting are doing the same thing. They throw a fit and complain when they aren't allowed to stay at the State Capitol past closing time, yet when they relocated to a city park with a permit, they try to stop other people from entering the park "past closing time." Is this not the same thing they were doing the week before? Oh yeah, only they are allowed to break the rules, no one else can. And when otehr people do, who do they go call first? The police. Here is an article backing up my statement from just one of the many cities that are dealing with protesters.

http://www.kcci.com/news/29499831/detail.html

You can't fix stupid.

Morris
10-26-2011, 15:41
Lord. It's like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a drunk. Serves no purpose other than to amuse.

In other words Bruce, you amuse me with your thoughts. Praytell, do prattle on, will ya? I need another chuckle today. :)

Brucev
10-26-2011, 22:12
"I probably shouldn't waste my time, but here goes..." etc. Thank you for your response.

razdog76
10-27-2011, 05:45
Lord. It's like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a drunk. Serves no purpose other than to amuse.

In other words Bruce, you amuse me with your thoughts. Praytell, do prattle on, will ya? I need another chuckle today. :)

Ask, and you shall receive...


Brucev
This message is hidden because Brucev is on your ignore list.

Gear
10-27-2011, 05:59
Ask, and you shall receive...

I just got off a twelve. To be honest I have zero patience for his ignorance today. Welcome to ignore Bruce. And get out of Cop talk and Glock talk for that matter; you are clearly to much of a hippie to be trusted with even a squirt gun. :wavey:

DVeng
10-27-2011, 07:39
"I probably shouldn't waste my time, but here goes..." etc. Thank you for your response.

Any response to the actual content of my post?

Brucev
10-27-2011, 07:55
Any response to the actual content of my post?

I recognize that in the ongoing protest news reports are not definitive. I also recognize that bias in reporting, either from city administration, LE or those occupying the public space reflects their own POV and agenda. I read your post and appreciate the perspective you bring to this discussion. Again, thank you for your response to the concerns expressed. I appreciate what you said and how you said it.

I agree with you that public space is for the public good. I remember the Rodney King riots, especially in Atlanta. A family member was severely injured by a brick. I understand the need for safety, etc.

I am aware of how communities have used the law to force people out of public space so as to limit/restrict the efforts of those persons to speak, i.e., protest, demonstrate, parade, etc. I recognize that in public space, there must be a balance of those who wish to use the space. What I do not agree with is that those who oppose the statements being made or who wish to be insulated from the presence of those making those statements should be allowed to use the law as a tool by which to force those with whom they disagree to be excluded. I do not agree with the judicial process/law enforcement being used by those with power/authority as a weapon against those with whom they disagree, etc. The simple fact is that there is no Constitutional right to be protected from speech with which one disagrees or which says something one finds objectionable, etc.

If the parks have been trashed, etc., that is at best a misdemeanor. The destruction of private personal property is in no way at all legitimate or legal. What happened in Oakland is no different than what happened when the Bonus Army was ejected from public space because what they were saying and how they were saying it was unsettling to those who held political office. The extreme measures used were then as lacking in justification as are the extreme measures being used now. Justification by appeal to preservation of public order is without merit. It only serves to excuse the privileging of one group over another simply because those protesting speak and call attention to issues that others find uncomfortable and politically threatening.

Use of the name, “Occupy...” is not problematic. To occupy means to be present... to not be absent or disengaged... to not be excluded. In the current application, it is entirely appropriate.

Brucev
10-27-2011, 08:01
I just got off a twelve. To be honest I have zero patience for his ignorance today. Welcome to ignore Bruce. And get out of Cop talk and Glock talk for that matter; you are clearly to much of a hippie to be trusted with even a squirt gun. :wavey:

Many people work 12 hour shifts. Patience? Learn it. Excuses are thin and inadequate. Hippie? Gee... your opinion is as poorly formed as some folks noses. For them of course their is hope in rhinoplasty. For your option ... well like someone once said, "You don't know me very well."

Now as to "get out.." ... No. Since 1979 I have known a lot of folks in law enforcement at the city and county level. Most have been very fine people. Some of them are acquaintances. A few of them are my friends. One is an immediate family member. One is a deceased family member. A very few have been the sorts of folks who would be problematic regardless of where or how they were employed. Public service concerns the community whole and entire without exception of those individuals or groups who one person or another might discount or wish to disregard, etc. Matters of public interest are not reserved to the opinion of only a select few. If one would serve the public one must learn to engage effectively so as to gain the support, etc. of those who are the "public." That is the reason why law enforcement, etc., is described as "public" service. Cool.

Vigilant
10-27-2011, 08:25
Russ?

DVeng
10-27-2011, 11:32
What I do not agree with is that those who oppose the statements being made or who wish to be insulated from the presence of those making those statements should be allowed to use the law as a tool by which to force those with whom they disagree to be excluded.

I agree completely. However, that isn't the issue here. The very fact that we are discussing these protests on this board indicates that the protestors are having their message heard. The issue at hand isn't free speech, but flagrant monopolization and misuse of a public space. Framing the issue in that context, I stand by my original contention that the use of police power to end the occupation was appropriate.


If the parks have been trashed, etc., that is at best a misdemeanor. The destruction of private personal property is in no way at all legitimate or legal. What happened in Oakland is no different than what happened when the Bonus Army was ejected from public space because what they were saying and how they were saying it was unsettling to those who held political office. The extreme measures used were then as lacking in justification as are the extreme measures being used now. Justification by appeal to preservation of public order is without merit. It only serves to excuse the privileging of one group over another simply because those protesting speak and call attention to issues that others find uncomfortable and politically threatening.

If I understand correctly, you appear to be attributing police action to a desire to silence the protestors. I haven't seen any evidence at all to indicate that such motivations exist. The protestors can continue to say whatever they want, they just can't abuse a public good to do so.

As to the destruction of personal property: My understanding is that the protestors were notified repeatedly, loudly, and clearly that they were being lawfully ordered to vacate the park. By choosing to ignore that lawful order rather than pack up and leave, the protestors made a choice to abandon their personal property. To be very clear: Only property that was abandoned in a public park was destroyed and only after substantial efforts to get the protestors to remove (and retain) the property themselves. At some point, their unwillingness to clean up after themselves requires intervention and it is simply impractical for that intervention to attempt to return the abandoned property to the owners who chose to abandon it.

Brucev
10-27-2011, 12:20
[QUOTE=DVeng;18090932]I agree completely. However, that isn't the issue here. The very fact that we are discussing these protests on this board indicates that the protestors are having their message heard. The issue at hand isn't free speech, but flagrant monopolization and misuse of a public space. Framing the issue in that context, I stand by my original contention that the use of police power to end the occupation was appropriate. Without equivocation I am saying precisely that efforts to remove the protesters from the public space reflect the interest and intent of those who are uncomfortable with or targeted by the protest. It is no coincidence that those who are so displeased with the protest are the very persons who own and operate the legislators who write the laws to serve their clients. As long as such people get to write the laws to serve themselves, then the law and those who enforce the law will serve them. It is no different than when "Whites Only" regulations in Southern states were used as legal weapons against minorities... all enforced by law officers "following the law."

If I understand correctly, you appear to be attributing police action to a desire to silence the protestors. I haven't seen any evidence at all to indicate that such motivations exist. The protestors can continue to say whatever they want, they just can't abuse a public good to do so. I attribute the police action to simply following the will of those who wrote the laws in the first place, to serve themselves and their interest. They do not want to hear what is being said. They do not want to have to deal with those who object to their actions, etc. To say the protesters have other recourse is irrelevant. The COTUS does not give govt. the power to determine the place, time, etc. for political speech. This is no different than when someone in a private meeting will seek to use parlimentary procedures to restrict, exclude, silence debate, etc. Except in this instance, it is not a private organization. Here the COTUS applies.

As to the destruction of personal property: My understanding is that the protestors were notified repeatedly, loudly, and clearly that they were being lawfully ordered to vacate the park. By choosing to ignore that lawful order rather than pack up and leave, the protestors made a choice to abandon their personal property. To be very clear: Only property that was abandoned in a public park was destroyed and only after substantial efforts to get the protestors to remove (and retain) the property themselves. At some point, their unwillingness to clean up after themselves requires intervention and it is simply impractical for that intervention to attempt to return the abandoned property to the owners who chose to abandon it. That argument is specious. The property confiscated, and the property that was damaged or destroyed was not abandoned, etc.

Mayhem like Me
10-27-2011, 12:53
I can't understand the above please redo..

but some points...The "free speech" does not require them to squat on public property and deprive others of it's enjoyment. You have not addressed this issue to my satisfaction whatsoever.

A lawfull order not followed is grounds for arrest ... if they don't understand that maybe they should go back to night school.

Just because you don't agree with these points or the tin absorbtion from your daily headgear has dulled your perception, does not make your position defendable.

glock192327
10-27-2011, 12:54
I am aware of how communities have used the law to force people out of public space so as to limit/restrict the efforts of those persons to speak, i.e., protest, demonstrate, parade, etc. I recognize that in public space, there must be a balance of those who wish to use the space. What I do not agree with is that those who oppose the statements being made or who wish to be insulated from the presence of those making those statements should be allowed to use the law as a tool by which to force those with whom they disagree to be excluded. I do not agree with the judicial process/law enforcement being used by those with power/authority as a weapon against those with whom they disagree, etc. The simple fact is that there is no Constitutional right to be protected from speech with which one disagrees or which says something one finds objectionable, etc.

If the parks have been trashed, etc., that is at best a misdemeanor.....


I haven't been on this site much in months. And it hasn't taken me long to see that some still find it easy to explain away what is simply bad behavior, by insisting some ulterior motive just has to be in play. Any civilized society has to have laws and regulations, mainly because some ignorant folks, by their actions, ruin things for everyone. Protest all you wish, freely exchange your opinion on a subject, disagree to your hearts content.....those are guaranteed rights that exist. But when your actions in the process of protest cause unhealthy conditions for the whole, whether it be discarded trash, unsanitary human waste, etc., it becomes everyone's problem. And when your actions create the necessity for increased security, extra manpower for refuse disposal, etc., it again is everyone's problem. In short, it increases cost for the whole. These folks have every right to use the public space. But many are completely ignorant of the fact that they also have the duty to protect the public space of which they "occupy". So to show the ignorant the error of their ways, it becomes necessary to enlist the aid of the folks that daily work to ensure the protection of the whole, from the ignorant. The ignorant, that regardless of their motives cannot seem to understand correct behavior in a society. Their right to protest ends when their lack of maturity in understanding their responsibility, causes me to have to pay for the cost of their protest. It is really that simple, unless one is always trying to find that "magic bullet" of conspiracy.

Hack
10-27-2011, 13:42
Brucev
This message is hidden because Brucev is on your ignore list.

Ahh, relief. Now quit posting his messages.

Kadetklapp
10-27-2011, 14:26
An interesting article on the Blaze about NYPD union threatening to sue individual protesters-

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nypd-police-union-warns-protesters-well-sue-you-if-you-injure-officers/

I say go get em. But I don't think it should take a union to have to do it...

Hack
10-27-2011, 14:45
An interesting article on the Blaze about NYPD union threatening to sue individual protesters-

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nypd-police-union-warns-protesters-well-sue-you-if-you-injure-officers/

I say go get em. But I don't think it should take a union to have to do it...

Aren't some unions actually backing the protesters?

CAcop
10-27-2011, 15:08
Glad to see that Oakland has decided to take their city back, and to stop treating these dopes with kid gloves. I happened to come across these columns the other day in the news paper and cant help but love them. For your reading pleasure:



and

You got me with that last one. I was reading along, "...my stepmom Nancy....then my dad was elected governor of California...." Wait. What?

Ron (Liberal) Reagan writing like his dad. Holy crap! I guess he is coming around.

Brucev
10-27-2011, 15:58
I can't understand the above please redo..

but some points...The "free speech" does not require them to squat on public property and deprive others of it's enjoyment. You have not addressed this issue to my satisfaction whatsoever.

A lawfull order not followed is grounds for arrest ... if they don't understand that maybe they should go back to night school.

Just because you don't agree with these points or the tin absorbtion from your daily headgear has dulled your perception, does not make your position defendable.

Like a song used to say... "You'll understand it better, by and by." As to the lawful order bit... it's about the same as went once upon a time soldiers wearing combat uniforms consisting of red coats, etc. once squared off with some protesters at Lexington. The walk home was long and hot. It was made worse by the bug bites. Years later... soldiers wearing the same little outfit walked out to their waiting ships to go home to merry old England. The band played a tune... "The World Turned Upside Down." At present those currently protesting probably have the same attitude toward the police as did those protesters of a earlier era, when those enforcing "lawful orders" were seen as nothing more than individuals acting on behalf of those who wanted to protect their own power and authority. Now as to hats, caps, etc., I don't wear them. I never have. They get in my way. And... they mess up my hair. I've never appreciated the "hat head" look.

Mayhem like Me
10-27-2011, 16:49
Like a song used to say... "You'll understand it better, by and by." As to the lawful order bit... it's about the same as went once upon a time soldiers wearing combat uniforms consisting of red coats, etc. once squared off with some protesters at Lexington. The walk home was long and hot. It was made worse by the bug bites. Years later... soldiers wearing the same little outfit walked out to their waiting ships to go home to merry old England. The band played a tune... "The World Turned Upside Down." At present those currently protesting probably have the same attitude toward the police as did those protesters of a earlier era, when those enforcing "lawful orders" were seen as nothing more than individuals acting on behalf of those who wanted to protect their own power and authority. Now as to hats, caps, etc., I don't wear them. I never have. They get in my way. And... they mess up my hair. I've never appreciated the "hat head" look.


put down the bong and read a book or two.


those cops are enforcing laws enacted"by the people" through a representative republic.

the squatters are practicing anarchy....

razdog76
10-27-2011, 16:59
I may have to reiterate my spiel about civil disobedience, and having to accept the consequences of it, for the act to have any purpose? :supergrin:

OLY-M4gery
10-27-2011, 17:15
put down the bong and read a book or two.


those cops are enforcing laws enacted"by the people" through a representative republic.

the squatters are practicing anarchy....

The Founding Fathers wanted democracy, not mob rule.

Occupy mobs are trying for mob rule.

I reject their strategy.

Jud325
10-27-2011, 18:43
The Founding Fathers wanted democracy, not mob rule.

Occupy mobs are trying for mob rule.

I reject their strategy.

The Founding Fathers formed a constitutional republic. Democracy is mob(majority) rule.

msu_grad_121
10-27-2011, 20:44
The Founding Fathers formed a constitutional republic. Democracy is mob(majority) rule.

1) We do NOT live in a true Democracy, we live in a Republic. 2) A mob, according to Websters is: "A large disorderly crowd or throng." 3) Majority rule is not mob justice, as one still depends on orderly implementation of rules, and the other is an absolute free-for-all. 4) I find your "logic" insulting on it's face, comparing a group of men who put forth a carefully constructed set of rights and well thought out means of representation to a disorderly group of molly-coddled, entitled, tough-talking kids who attempt to use intimidation and completely unrelated, tired rhetoric, and are unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences of their poorly thought out actions. You truly need to re-examine your understanding of the Constitution, it's meaning and it's application within the context of today's society.

What else ya got?

Mayhem like Me
10-27-2011, 20:55
The Founding Fathers wanted democracy, not mob rule.

Occupy mobs are trying for mob rule.

I reject their strategy.

A popular misconception the founding fathers did NOT want a democracy which is in fact mob rule. The wanted and enacted a representative republic which is what we have.

A true democracy is a dangerous thing our two house congress and executive branch need to jump through just enough hoops to enact laws that it keeps us from being taxed and regulated into oblivion...so far

http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm

BORNGEARHEAD
10-27-2011, 21:05
As this protest builds, peace officers will come to a crossroads in their lives. Being one of those 99%ers and their union losing more and more of their benefits, officers will have to decide which fight they truly believe is the more noble fight. Everybody knows how corrupt and bought our current government is...and everybody knows that the banks are ruling the world. Be safe out there.

msu_grad_121
10-27-2011, 21:14
As this protest builds, peace officers will come to a crossroads in their lives. Being one of those 99%ers and their union losing more and more of their benefits, officers will have to decide which fight they truly believe is the more noble fight. Everybody knows how corrupt and bought our current government is...and everybody knows that the banks are ruling the world. Be safe out there.

But, Obama is in office, it's all okay now, right? :upeyes:

There's a difference between an organized protest, even one involving civil disobedience and what these spoiled punks are doing. Do I think the job I'm working now is beneath me? Yeah. What am I doing about it? Trying to get a better job. If they truly think the system is flawed, there are mechanisms in place to change it. However, it's more melodramatic and exciting to compare yourself to Jews in Germany and Poland or Dr. King and scream and holler to your heart's content about how unfair it all is, than to take the issue up with your elected representatives, or work to oust those representatives you feel don't have your interests in mind, isn't it?

eb31
10-27-2011, 21:26
This just the beginning. A major revolution of peope vs government is coming. I for one can't. The people WILL take back their freedom and their government.

msu_grad_121
10-27-2011, 21:37
This just the beginning. A major revolution of peope vs government is coming.

I have to disagree, based on the fact that the points of contention aren't God-given rights (a la the Bill of Rights), but rather that some overly educated windbag can't get the CEO-level job he or she feels they are entitled to, and therefore, can't afford their double non-fat soy latte or the next higher speed internet (I realize how ironic it is that I love lattes and am currently ON the internet).

Make no mistake, there are people in this country going to bed hungry every night, and some who can't find any work no matter where they look, but those people aren't the ones that are by and large participating in these protests. Why? Because they're out there, pounding the pavement looking for work and a way to feed their families.

I've been wrong before, but from what I've seen, these "protestors" don't have the gall to pull off a violent revolution, because their faith in their cause doesn't extend to the level necessary for honest-to-God rebellion. But I guess in the long run, we'll all find out, won't we?

Sgt127
10-27-2011, 22:51
Apparently a moot point...

Quan Pulls 180, Allows Occupy Oakland to Stay

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Quan-Pulls-180-Allows-Occupy-Oakland-to-Stay-132726453.html

Perhaps orders were given from a higher authority to allow the protests to continue?

OLY-M4gery
10-28-2011, 03:15
A popular misconception the founding fathers did NOT want a democracy which is in fact mob rule. The wanted and enacted a representative republic which is what we have.

A true democracy is a dangerous thing our two house congress and executive branch need to jump through just enough hoops to enact laws that it keeps us from being taxed and regulated into oblivion...so far

http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm

de·moc·ra·cy   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -cies.

1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4.political or social equality; democraticspirit.

5.the common people of a communityas distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

You, and the other posters, Democracy, is the form of Government we have.

The SPECIFIC sub-type is a Republic or Representative DEMOCRACY.

What you are complaining about is another subtype, a Direct Democracy.

Mayhem like Me
10-28-2011, 07:23
de·moc·ra·cy   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -cies.

1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4.political or social equality; democraticspirit.

5.the common people of a communityas distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

You, and the other posters, Democracy, is the form of Government we have.

The SPECIFIC sub-type is a Republic or Representative DEMOCRACY.

What you are complaining about is another subtype, a Direct Democracy.

I respectfully disagree, we are a Republic because we are based on the Constitution "set of laws" that cannot be undone by popular vote.

Republics are close to a Democracy but are not the same.

Kadetklapp
10-28-2011, 11:13
While this was found in AZ, this document shows just how far these Communist turd sacks are willing to go-

When is it "OK" to murder a police officer?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alleged-flyer-at-occupy-phoenix-ponders-when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

I'll bet BruceV has this on his bedroom wall.

BamaTrooper
10-28-2011, 14:18
... It is the same sort of excuse Bull O’Conner used. The only thing missing is the fire hoses, dogs, etc.

As to hypocrisy, it is aptly demonstrated when those charged with upholding the law spring into action at the behest of those who own them and command their services, then proceed to call what they do upholding the law. And it is demonstrated when one excuses the theft and destruction of private property under color of law. Complaints as to public space being occupied are without merit. It is the same approach that has been repeatedly utilized to seek to silence political opposition to those who hold political power and those who pay for it.

Bruce, c'mon man, if you are gonna drag up stuff to make a point, get it right.
You can find this stuff wikiquick.

If the public space complaint comes from the public, would it then have merit? Aren't nonprotestors allowed to use the space? Is their quality of liffe important? What if officers, off duty, went to the same parks and held counter protests and wouldn't yield use of the space to the Occupy folks?

dano1427
10-28-2011, 16:08
The bay area "protesters" are 99%-ers...99% professional bums. The actual reasons are gone. Now, they just squat in their tents, piss and crap into buckets, run from sewer rats and meander about without any cause or goal.

When I was baby sitting a bunch of them, a few complained about the "real" street urchins that have invaded their camp site. Unfortunately, the occupy people didn't like my answer when I said that if I remove the homeless bums, I'll have to remove everybody. That wasn't the answer they wanted, so they complained about how this "movement" is their movement, and the real bums should not be in their camp, etc, etc.

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Hack
10-28-2011, 16:10
The bay area "protesters" are 99%-ers...99% professional bums. The actual reasons are gone. Now, they just squat in their tents, piss and crap into buckets, run from sewer rats and meander about without any cause or goal.

When I was baby sitting a bunch of them, a few complained about the "real" street urchins that have invaded their camp site. Unfortunately, the occupy people didn't like my answer when I said that if I remove the homeless bums, I'll have to remove everybody. That wasn't the answer they wanted, so they complained about how this "movement" is their movement, and the real bums should not be in their camp, etc, etc.

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Ask them how that redistribution of wealth thing is going for them.

dano1427
10-28-2011, 17:00
Ask them how that redistribution of wealth thing is going for them.

Yup...Another thought I've had: I've never seen so many ipads, iphones, professional camcorders, very high end DSLR's, etc in the hands of people who (supposedly) can't find jobs, can't repay student loans or mortgages, can't afford healthcare, food or housing. Yet, their little protest area looks like Best Buy...

Anti-big corporations, yea...right....

Foxtrotx1
10-28-2011, 17:06
****ing Hippies.

Morris
10-28-2011, 18:09
Yup...Another thought I've had: I've never seen so many ipads, iphones, professional camcorders, very high end DSLR's, etc in the hands of people who (supposedly) can't find jobs, can't repay student loans or mortgages, can't afford healthcare, food or housing. Yet, their little protest area looks like Best Buy...

Much cooler stuff than this copper with a family and a small business can buy . . .

BORNGEARHEAD
10-28-2011, 20:15
Don't worry, the 1% are right now changing the laws so that parks won't be open 24hrs so that this cannot happen again. Freedom is going bye bye.

LawScholar
10-28-2011, 20:18
Don't worry, the 1% are right now changing the laws so that parks won't be open 24hrs so that this cannot happen again. Freedom is going bye bye.

Can't tell if serious...

Parks have had curfews for countless ages, to promote safety and quiet at night. Such policies predate America.

msu_grad_121
10-28-2011, 21:18
Don't worry, the 1% are right now changing the laws so that parks won't be open 24hrs so that this cannot happen again. Freedom is going bye bye.

Wait, you mean the laws that are enacted are in fact for those few members of society that require them (like those who would squat in a park non designed to accomidate people living there for days, weeks, months on end), and not for the vast majority of people out there who aren't total jerks? Weird...

On a related note, while grocery shopping last night, I saw a tool wearing a trench coat and a red arm band that said "OCCUPY DETROIT" on his left arm, so they're here too. The irony is, they haven't got the guts to occupy anywhere acutally in the city. More like "OCCUPY WARREN" or "OCCUPY WESTLAND."

Morris
10-29-2011, 06:54
trench coat and a red arm band

Channeling Che?

Freedom is going bye bye

Because you, as a citizen of our great republic, allowed it, participated in it and I daresay, benefitted from it in some small way.

CAcop
10-29-2011, 14:38
Don't worry, the 1% are right now changing the laws so that parks won't be open 24hrs so that this cannot happen again. Freedom is going bye bye.

We have had curfew laws in our parks and no camping ordinances in our town for almost 50 years.

Oh, and your sigline kills me. You are effectively shouting by making it bold.

Mattz
10-29-2011, 14:54
You have to love the about face departments and cities do... now you have the Police Chief at the hospital checking on the kid from the Marine Corp who was discharged early, for unknown reasons, and also had a website he made hating the Marine corp

Kahr_Glockman
10-30-2011, 14:14
The Austin Police Department arrested 38 protesters last night/ early this morning for Criminal Trespass.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/dozens-arrested-at-occupy-austin

Kahr_Glockman
10-30-2011, 15:15
Here is another story. Sounds like it's all heating up.

http://www.kvue.com/home/Unrest-in-Occuppy-Movements-across-the-nation-132885253.html

Morris
10-30-2011, 15:36
In San Francisco, director Michael Moore joined in on the protest.

"This is the most-organized movement growing," said Moore. "It's just a large, upset group that wants the things promised to us."

Really? This from a multi-millionaire who can't pass a buffet without stopping?

msu_grad_121
10-30-2011, 16:37
Really? This from a multi-millionaire who can't pass a buffet without stopping?

Epic win!

jenrick
10-30-2011, 19:12
I've had fun explaining to people several times that so long as someone is not going to

a) make me do paperwork
b) make me miss lunch
c) make me get off late

I really don't give a ******* what the heck the person is up to. You can sit on the steps or in the park, or whatever and chant whatever you want. Just don't invoke a, b, or c and we'll get along fine. If the boss man tells me to move people along and they don't, we're starting to get into a, b, or c territory. You don't complicate my life, and I certainly wont try and complicate yours.

-Jenrick

Vigilant
10-30-2011, 19:51
I've had fun explaining to people several times that so long as someone is not going to

a) make me do paperwork
b) make me miss lunch
c) make me get off late

I really don't give a ******* what the heck the person is up to. You can sit on the steps or in the park, or whatever and chant whatever you want. Just don't invoke a, b, or c and we'll get along fine. If the boss man tells me to move people along and they don't, we're starting to get into a, b, or c territory. You don't complicate my life, and I certainly wont try and complicate yours.

-Jenrick

There is an ancient Chinese proverb that says, in so many words, "I no poop on you, if you no poop on me". For the most part, I live by those words.

Outdoor yada yada, the thing the thing

packsaddle
10-30-2011, 20:03
just wait until you see the mayhem that breaks out nationwide as we get closer to the elections in 2012 (you know, the one where obama is certain to lose).

this "occupy" crap will seem like a sock hop in comparison.

msu_grad_121
10-30-2011, 21:41
There is an ancient Chinese proverb that says, in so many words, "I no poop on you, if you no poop on me". For the most part, I live by those words.

Outdoor yada yada, the thing the thing

Or the ancient Tibetan philosophy which states, "Don't start none, won't be none." :wavey:

Bren
10-31-2011, 04:34
Hum... Storm Troopers one and all "Sieg Heil!" and follow orders. No surprise. No surprise at all.

Do you mean the protestors?

No, you probably mean the guys the citizens of Oakland hired to enforce the laws the citizens of Oakland made through their elected representatives. That whole democracy thing sucks when it doesn't favor the left-wing ntus, I guess.:upeyes:

Bren
10-31-2011, 04:48
I may have to reiterate my spiel about civil disobedience, and having to accept the consequences of it, for the act to have any purpose? :supergrin:

Some left-winger brought up the civil rights movement and police fire-hosing protestors. I'll point out that the whole point of the protest WAS to accept the consequences and, in that case, it caused people to sympathize with the protestors.

In the present case, spoiled rich kids who are protesting having every advantage, may not swing the same sympathy. As evidence, you'll notice how they have all jumped on the former Marine who was hit with the gas grenade, since he is the first figure in the protest who had any potential to get a positive reaction from regular people. Him getting hit was lucky for them, since the news about being lead by paid protestors, funded by the ACORN successsor, complaining about the homeless trying to get their trendy food, etc., made it look like a breakdown was close, before that guy was injured.

Personally, I can only reiterate that I'd like to see them cleared out with machineguns and the firehoses could be used to clean up, later.

Vigilant
10-31-2011, 05:17
Personally, I can only reiterate that I'd like to see them cleared out with machineguns and the firehoses could be used to clean up, later.

Exactly.

Mow the bastards down. I suspect this little trend will continue for some time, in one form or another, until they are properly motivated to stand down.

Vigilant
10-31-2011, 05:22
Or the ancient Tibetan philosophy which states, "Don't start none, won't be none." :wavey:

I heard that one came from out of the woods in North Carolina. :dunno:

msu_grad_121
10-31-2011, 05:41
I heard that one came from out of the woods in North Carolina. :dunno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3niiTcVqTI&feature=related

Enjoy! :supergrin:

Vigilant
10-31-2011, 09:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3niiTcVqTI&feature=related

Enjoy! :supergrin:

Classic. :thumbsup: