Occupy movement magnet for violence.

I am not responsible for all men. Just myself. Your issues with the men in your life are between you and them.

BTW There is nothing better than chatting with me. I'm just that great!

Have a great day!

 

That is absolutely the reverse of the question. OWS is repressing my rights to use public property or in many cases private property. What part of the constitution gives them the right to prohibit me from using my property or the public property? Oh! I get it. You favor their side. Therefore, they can break any law in your sides name.

 

Protesting at a location doesn't stop you from going there at all. From most of the evidence I have seen it is not the OWS people putting up barricades. If you want to join them at Zucotti park do you think they are going to stop you.
At public places their right to protests over rides your right to private enjoyment of public property.
No, they cannot violate any law and be OK. The use of violence as a tool is anathema to me and those that use violence should be arrested for violence. The majority of the protesters aren't using violent means and advocating the use of violence against them to stop their protests IS the act of tyrants and dictators. If you support the use of violence to override civil rights then you are supporting tyranny. You just don't want to admit it.

You do realize that the same method they are using are the same methods we have openly advocated other countries using to address governmental abuse and tyranny.
If not you might want to learn a little about Gene Sharp.

 

You need to come back to earth. Zucotti park is PRIVATE property. Absolutely, my right of public enjoyment (let alone public health) overrides the right(?) to protest. And they have, and continue to, violate the law. That is exactly why they were handled as they were. Because you do not agree with the law does not invalidate it.

 

You do realize the Zuccotti part gave them permission to use the park in the beginning.

Just because something is a law doesn't make it moral and worth upholding either. There are laws across the country forbidding gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. I don't support them either. Sometimes the moral choice is not the legal choice. Once again I will ask you the question. The protests in Syria are against the law. Do you support the use of force against peaceful protesters everywhere or just in the United States? To support it over here and not support it over there is hypocrisy. You are either for or against the use of violence against protesters. You can't have it both ways and be ethically consistent.

 

Zuccotti Park, formerly called Liberty Plaza Park, is a 33,000-square-foot (3,100 m2) publicly accessible park in Lower Manhattan, New York City. It is a Privately-Owned-Public-Space (POPS) controlled by Brookfield Properties. The park was created in 1968 by Pittsburgh-based United States Steel, after the property owners negotiated its creation with city officials, and named Liberty Plaza Park and situated beside One Liberty Plaza. It is located between Broadway, Trinity Place, Liberty Street and Cedar Street. The park's northwest corner is across the street from Four World Trade Center. It has been popular with local tourists and financial workers. Privately-owned-public space.

Which law exactly are they violating? I mean specifically.

 

In the beginning, but that was revoked.

"Just because something is a law doesn't make it moral and worth upholding either." So you get to pick and choose which laws you feel ought to be obeyed. Interesting situation you have there. Most people call it anarchy. Curious, but just where has that ever worked?

 

I needn't go any further than trespassing, but resisting arrest, drug laws, rape, public nudity, etc.

 

I know that you'll ignore this because it puts our side in some pretty good company but remember, you asked.

· The Boston Tea Party was one of the most famous acts of civil disobedience in American history.
· Susan B. Anthony was arrested for illegally voting in the United States House of Representatives elections, 1872 in order to protest female disenfranchisement.
· Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Rosa Parks, James Bevel and other activists in the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s often used civil disobedience techniques. Among the most notable civil disobedience events in the U.S. occurred when Rosa Parks refused to move on the bus when a white man tried to take her seat. This led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
· A more common act of civil disobedience (in opposition to Jim Crow laws) during the Civil Rights Movement would be a "colored" person (i.e. an African American) sitting at a "white only" lunch counter.
· In addition, other Civil Rights movements of the era include the Sit-in movements of 1958 and '60, the 1961 Freedom Rides, the 1963 Birmingham campaign, the 1965 Selma Voting Rights Movement and the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement.
· These forms of civil disobedience were effective in promoting the eventual passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Antiwar activists both during and after the Vietnam War have done likewise.

All these people ignored unjust laws and we, or should I say YOU, take their efforts for granted even though you benefit from them today. You live in a more just country thanks to the efforts of these law breakers.

 

Two wrongs make it right? Cute!

BTW, Did any one of those NOT suffer the inconvenience of the law?

 

Uh, no. You'd better re-think that one. I have just as much right to assemble as they have. And vice versa. Their "right to protest" (as you put it, but I think you mean the "right to peaceably assemble") does not outweigh any of my rights.

 

Really, moen? Really? Honestly.....

 

So, you will follow whatever order you are given as long as there is a law to back it up. If they passed a law tomorrow that said it was OK to shoot every illegal immigrant in the country would you obey? If they ordered people to turn in all their firearms would you obey? The law must be tempered with justice or its just repression.

Just say it. The First Amendment doesn't mean anything to you. It is easy. Just say it. Gain some respect and be honest. You don't like what the OWS movement is trying to say and your willing to throw away the Constitution to stop them. It is what you are saying. Your just unwilling to admit it. It is the first step down the road to tyranny.

 

Once again. They are not stopping you from going to any of the places they are protesting. You are deciding you don't like what they are doing and have to say. You are allowing your dislike of the situation to make the decision for you. If you want to assemble at Zuccotti Park they won't stop you. However, the police may since they have shut down assemblies at the park. The protesters didn't tell you that you can't visit. You are making that decision based on your opinion of the protest and allowing your decision to justify repression.

 

They suffered the inconvenience of the law and the people back then justified the repression just like you are trying to do. They even used the same reasoning to justify. Those uppity black people are violating the laws and they deserve whatever they get.

 

Back to earth, please. You analogies are so absurd as to be ridiculous. Commenting on the unbelievable is not practical. Hense HollysMom's comment;

 

...not this American's! Blind-obeisance is un-American to me... I'd say it's our duty to protest unjust things!

 

Protesting is essential for a democracy to exist. It does not always have to be peaceful assembly for if it was the child labor laws, shorten work day laws, etc would have never been passed. With that said, if someone is destorying personal property they better make sure that the cause is just enough and the property is not from the just.

 

You might want to check her comment after that. According to her she wasn't referring to me.

According to a lot of people they are not absurd at all. The NRA makes a big fit over people making guns illegal. Evidently, they think it is a possibility.

Yes, I used a couple of extreme examples. However, if all you care about is the rule of law then they are perfectly acceptable scenarios. You are just avoiding the question. Hitler, Ceauşescu's, Lenin, Stalin and many other dictators have taken advantage of people's willingness to follow the word of law instead of the spirit of the law. I was just following orders (laws) is a horrible excuse. If someone tells me to do something unethical I don't care if what they tell me is legal. I will not do it.

However, you can take comfort in the idea that you are just like between 65-76% of the American population in your willingness to do unethical things when backed up by authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Doesn't make it right.

 

Anyway, the thread topic is that the OWS protests are a magnet for crime if I remember right. As it turns out, the L.A. police seem to have this well-documented practice of dumping drug addicts, criminals, mental patients, and any other low-life they release from jail...now guess where....right outside the medical tent at the OWS protest at L.A. City Hall. Now why would they do that? That seems like an odd practice doesn't it? Oh yeah, so that they then have a reason to crack down on the "criminal elements" within the OWS movement or in other words, the whole movement. The police in N.Y. have been doing exactly the same thing to the people in Zucotti Park. Oddly enough, they did the same thing to the protesters during the Anti-war protests in the 60's. Some things never change.