0
quade

"Police Begin Clearing Zuccotti Park of Protesters" - NYT - 1:05 AM

Recommended Posts

not as pathetic as hacking into veterans and murder victims phones to get their 'news'. your blind belief in the criminal murdoch family is cute. i'm sure they'd give you a pat on the head if you ever get to meet your heroes...
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

not as pathetic as hacking into veterans and murder victims phones to get their 'news'.



This has *what* to do with Zucotti Park, again?

Quote

your blind belief in the criminal murdoch family is cute.



Speaking of blind beliefs...got any evidence on these 'manufactured riots'? And *if* those riots were 'manufactured', that Murdoch was involved?

Quote

i'm sure they'd give you a pat on the head if you ever get to meet your heroes...



Is that what you get from alter-nut for your daily regurgitations? You sell yourself cheap.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only riots are those put in your head by the criminal murdoch family...

who are busy hacking into murder victims and veterans phones to get their 'news' just for you.
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the only riots are those put in your head by the criminal murdoch family...

who are busy hacking into murder victims and veterans phones to get their 'news' just for you.



Right, because the OWS supporter who was talking to a news reporter from Oakland was really working for Murdoch when she admitted seeing people in the crowd throwing objects at the police. The video is linked in one of these threads somewhere, I forget which one though.

Throwing things at other people (be they rocks, plastic bottles, sticks, etc) and setting up barricades does not make a "peaceful assembly." It makes a "riot," and "riots" are illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a peacable assembly if it shuts down a port?
It is a peacable assembly if it blocks others from using public places?
It is a peacable assembly if it shuts down the subway?
It is a peacable assembly if it invovles rapes, fights, and shootings?
It is a peacable assembly if it invovles such disgusting conditions that it spreads disease and leaves filth strewn across the ground?
It is a peacable assembly if it forces it's way into private places where it is not welcome?
It is a peacable assembly if it refuses to leave a private place after warnings from owners and police?
It is a peacable assembly if it throws things at police?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It's not subject to time since there is no restriction on hours of access. As previously stated, it's public space.



Privately owned public space, which means that when the owners say "go", they have to go.



It's a "Privately Owned Public Space." Different rules apply. You should probably check that out.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not subject to time since there is no restriction on hours of access. As previously stated, it's public space.



Privately owned public space, which means that when the owners say "go", they have to go.



It's a "Privately Owned Public Space." Different rules apply. You should probably check that out.



If it's privately owned, the owners can tell them to leave and the First Amendment has no application.

If it's a public space, the assembly has to be peacable to be afforded protections under the First Amendment.

You should probably check that out.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While you know a great many things about guns, you appear to have a lack of knowledge about how "public space" works with regard to the First Amendment and demonstrations.

Privately owned property if designated a "public space" has completely different rules associated with in that regard. No. The "owners" simply can't tell the people to leave. It doesn't work like that. The "owners" own the land on which the property sits, but have contractually given access to the public as long as conditions are met. Those conditions in this case include an exemption in the zoning laws for the building associated with the property. As long as that exemption is in effect, the space is completely fair use by the public without any say whatsoever by the "owners."
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

While you know a great many things about guns, you appear to have a lack of knowledge about how "public space" works with regard to the First Amendment and demonstrations.

Privately owned property if designated a "public space" has completely different rules associated with in that regard. No. The "owners" simply can't tell the people to leave. It doesn't work like that. The "owners" own the land on which the property sits, but have contractually given access to the public as long as conditions are met. Those conditions in this case include an exemption in the zoning laws for the building associated with the property. As long as that exemption is in effect, the space is completely fair use by the public without any say whatsoever by the "owners."



I'm pretty sure it isn't zoned for camping indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Privately owned property if designated a "public space" has completely different rules associated with in that regard. No. The "owners" simply can't tell the people to leave. It doesn't work like that. The "owners" own the land on which the property sits, but have contractually given access to the public as long as conditions are met. Those conditions in this case include an exemption in the zoning laws for the building associated with the property. As long as that exemption is in effect, the space is completely fair use by the public without any say whatsoever by the "owners."



In which case, the "peaceable assembly" portion of the First comes into play.... so you're STILL wrong.

City is perfectly within their rights to shut it down if needful...

"All #public plazas# shall be accessible to the public at all times, except where the City Planning Commission has authorized a nighttime closing pursuant to the provisions of this section.

In all districts, the City Planning Commission may authorize the closing during certain nighttime hours of an existing or new #publicly accessible open area# if the Commission finds that:

(a) such existing #publicly accessible open area# has been open to the public a minimum of one year or there are significant operational or safety issues documented, or for new #public plazas# significant safety issues have been documented and provided as part of the application for authorization of nighttime closing;
(b) such closing is necessary for public safety within the #publicly accessible open area# and maintenance of the public open areas as documented by the applicant;"
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. So the protest, in and of itself, was perfectly legal and it was only when legitimate sanitation and health became an issue that the city could temporarily close it to clean it.

As I recall from a statement made by the Mayor yesterday, the protest is ok to resume in that space again.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Right. So the protest, in and of itself, was perfectly legal



Until they rioted, yup.

Quote

As I recall from a statement made by the Mayor yesterday, the protest is ok to resume in that space again.



Not so sure about that - the injunction from their pet judge was overturned.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Right. So the protest, in and of itself, was perfectly legal



Until they rioted, yup.

Quote

As I recall from a statement made by the Mayor yesterday, the protest is ok to resume in that space again.



Not so sure about that - the injunction from their pet judge was overturned.



Yep

They can return just no tents or tarps

An article said about a dozen stayed last night
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Occupy Seattle, while demonstrating in solidarity with the besieged protesters in New York City, faced a volley of indiscriminate police pepper spray last night. As protesters neared a busy street, police suddenly hit a large number of protesters — including an 84-year-old woman, a pregnant woman, a priest, and several teenagers — with mace. Dorli Rainey, the elderly activist stung in the face by law enforcement, was saved by a veteran who came her aid in the midst of the confusion in the crowd.

Watch a local news segment about the incident below:



http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/731525/seattle_police_pepper_spray_84-year-old_activist%2C_priest%2C_pregnant_woman%2C_among_others/#paragraph2
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike - "peaceable assembly" has very little to do with it. "Time, place and manner" is the biggie. It doesn't matter if they aren't causing violence. If they are otherwise disruptive and preventing the quiet enjoyment of others, then the government may restrict it.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mike - "peaceable assembly" has very little to do with it. "Time, place and manner" is the biggie. It doesn't matter if they aren't causing violence. If they are otherwise disruptive and preventing the quiet enjoyment of others, then the government may restrict it.



Sure... DA already spanked him on that one.

I was rebutting his fallback to the First Amendment as proof that the Obsessed With Socialism crowd could be there under any circumstances...which gets blown out of the water once their assembly is no longer peaceful.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until they defecate, urinate, rape, murder, steal, trespass, interfere with commerce, block traffic, interfere with police activity, use illegal drugs, or start an open fire.

I'm also sure I've missed a number of other acts that will surely doom the intelligence challenged group that IS the "occupy" mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

. So the protest, in and of itself, was perfectly legal and it was only when legitimate sanitation and health became an issue that the city could temporarily close it to clean it



No. The protest itself was illegal but the City generally looked the other way. Governments are fine with performing a risk/benefit analysis. While the gathering was unlawful, it really was little more than a trivial nuisance.

But once it became a cesspool and started really bothering other people, then the City decided to go do something about it, which the City had the authority to do all along.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why the hell would we want to read ANYTHING on that biased site?
:S



If you're going to exclude biased sources, you'll have to exclude anything owned by Rupert Murdoch (FOX, The WSJ...) and Newsmax too.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Why the hell would we want to read ANYTHING on that biased site?
:S



If you're going to exclude biased sources, you'll have to exclude anything owned by Rupert Murdoch (FOX, The WSJ...) and Newsmax too.


CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS.... etc, ad nauseam.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0