It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

L.A. might sue Occupy L.A. protesters for financial damages

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

L.A. might sue Occupy L.A. protesters for financial damages


latimesblogs.latimes.com

Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich is considering a lawsuit against Occupy L.A. protesters to reimburse the city for damage caused during the occupation of the CIty Hall lawn.

"The city is contemplating any and all of its options," said William Carter, Trutanich's chief deputy.

The two-month encampment cost the city at least $2.35 million, not counting repairs to the lawn and fountain outside City Hall, according to a report issued Friday.

Much of that cost -- more than $1.7 million -- will be added to the growing pool of red ink in this year's city budget. The Occupy bills w
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I know California is broke, which includes L.A., but come on. Protesting is a right each citizen possesses. Sure there were a lot of homeless making a mess of the encampments, but tax dollars pay for this clean up.

This lawsuit has no merit and will not accomplish anything other than to show the citizens of L.A. that their elected officials are puppets for the corporate elite.

It's pretty pathetic when you bill the public for their right to peaceful protest.

latimesblogs.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The people of Wisconsin may be required to pay in advance for future protests:

Proposed New Policies Require Future Protesters to Pay in Advance to Stage an Event in Wisconsin

Next thing will be the citizens being obligated to pay parking tickets for the elite.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Protesting is a right each citizen possesses. Sure there were a lot of homeless making a mess of the encampments,but tax dollars pay for this clean up.





It's pretty pathetic when you bill the public for their right to peaceful protest



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Care to elaborate, your lazy attempt at sarcasm wasn't very clear.

Make it simple for us regular folk



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
"The two-month encampment cost the city at least $2.35 million, not counting repairs to the lawn and fountain outside City Hall, according to a report issued Friday"


lol what ! 2.35 million? Please show m how we got to that number.


as for protestors , when you camp out and live there , you do deserve to fork out the bill.


Or should the tax payers fork over that too ?

What did occupy actually do beside hit us with more bills ? a broken messege , nd hippies with drums disturbing local businessmen ?


Peaceful protests is one thing. Camping out on city grounds and destroying property is another game.


But L.A should NOT sue them.

Or else we will have hippies crying about making them pay.

Np hippies. We the tax payers will AGAIN pay for your mistakes in the name of "peaceful protests" a.k.a camping out nd partying.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
So...they are going to sue peaceful protesters?? Why aren't more Americans upset about the multi-million dollar/17 day Hawaiian vacation that Obama & his family are on that tax payers paid for?!?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



I have a set budget.

With it I take care of my property. Which has a set amount for yard work. Now, If a bunch of people decide one day to camp out in my yard and destroy it [according to your logic] that is ok because I do yard work anyways not considering the extra amount I will have to now put out above and beyond the normal maintenance.

RIGHT?


People have paid their taxes but not everybody wants their tax money to be used for the extra expense of repairing the damage caused by a vocal minority. They'd rather it be used for other badly needed projects.

edit on 24-12-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I can agree with that, the amount of money spent on policing and cleaning the OWS camps does add up and can be spent on much better things.

I still don't think suing the protesters is the proper way of dealing with the problem though. It would be nice if we could address the root cause of the problem and make it so people did not feel the need to protest, that would be the most cost effective way in the long run, in my opinion of course.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Having read the article and the posts that are presented the following can be stated:

While protesting is acceptable, and when it is peaceful, it gets and deserves the support of the population. It is a right that is supported by law and precedence. However, the occupy movement was not just a protest, and there in lies the problem.

The occupy movement, where they sat and camped out for days on end, did not just protest, they set up camp and remained, thus there is the costs for what was done. The question was asked, and should be answered, who is to pay for the mess that was created by both sides of the Occupy movement?

The tax payers would not and should not be burdened by the costs created by the Occupy movement, nor should they. And the government, while the use of force is questionable, should bear part of the costs, while the Occupy movement should bear the rest of the costs. It is only fair that if they are going to damage the property that they occupied, they should at least be financially responsible for the clean up and the repair of any damages that was done while they were there.

This movement, the occupy movement, was not like any other protests that have occurred in the past. It erupted as a leaderless movement, with fuzzy goals, that leave many either confused or not wanting to deal with it. They placed a burden on the various governments, and agencies that were not fair either, and when asked who was the leader, the main spokesman, they produced no one, or a animal. It was insulting to the very people who they were trying to help, and ultimately that led to their downfall. They lost the protest and the PR war that was waged against them, and now, like all good battles, the losers have to foot the bill.

The bills have to be paid, and ultimately, and the final quest who should pay? To ask the tax payers to pay is an insult, and would force them away from the occupy movement, would that be wise to do? To alienate the public, or would it be better that a compromise be made, where part of the bill is paid by the protestors and the other part by the governments?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I think it’s a wonderful idea but I’m not sure what they are going to get? Squeezing money out of OWS will be like squeezing blood out of a rock!


Besides, last I heard OWS’ers were fighting about whether to take the money people donated to their cause and split it up equally amongst the protesters. I’m sure that’s what the people who donated had in mind!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I wonder exactly WHO they will sue ?

Is Occupy LA a corporation ?

Is it a sole proprietorship ?

Do they sue individuals who were arrested ?

Do they sue anybody who may have provided financial assistance ?

A lawsuit like this could expose a few things.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Protesting is a right each citizen possesses. Sure there were a lot of homeless making a mess of the encampments,but tax dollars pay for this clean up.





It's pretty pathetic when you bill the public for their right to peaceful protest


I'm against the government.

Go government Go!



Oh wait..




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
I wonder exactly WHO they will sue ?

Is Occupy LA a corporation ?

Is it a sole proprietorship ?

Do they sue individuals who were arrested ?

Do they sue anybody who may have provided financial assistance ?

A lawsuit like this could expose a few things.



Those are some very good questions you pose.

Are you a liar I mean lawyer ?



I don't believe this will actually go through.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Care to elaborate, your lazy attempt at sarcasm wasn't very clear.

Make it simple for us regular folk


Who do you think should pay for it?

1. The people who did it.

2. Everyone else (the taxpayers who had no part in it).

Really, what do you think? Either way, someone has to pay for it. It doesn't pay for itself.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Yeah, someone needs to pay for all those cops. They go on over time when they have to beat more than one hippy in any given day.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I'd tend to want to see a balanced approach to this in L.A. and around the nation. If the Occupy group in L.A. or anywhere else is broke, it's adding insult to injury and doing nothing but hammering the point home about how broke the people are by attempting such a thing.

If however, the Occupy group is sitting on measurable money from donations and direct support as we know OWS is and several others around nation (Oakland and SF come to mind as well) have announced in establishing bank accounts then why shouldn't the cities get some of that money back??

Cities aren't Congress. They can't print money and spend into endless pits of debt....despite the honest effort at times.
No, it's a zero sum game at the city level, so every dollar Occupy cost was a dollar drawn from somewhere else it had been intended to go. It's only fair to make that right...IF there are Occupy funds to do it with.

$1 dollar beyond that, and it's a shake down and punitive robbery... No fines for protesting! ...but direct costs really are another matter.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   


The tax payers would not and should not be burdened by the costs created by the Occupy movement, nor should they. And the government, while the use of force is questionable, should bear part of the costs, while the Occupy movement should bear the rest of the costs.
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


The government *is* the taxpayers. So if you are saying the government should bear part of the costs, you are saying the taxpayers should bear part of the costs.

But you just said the taxpayers should not be burdened by the costs.

Guys....when did people stop understanding that the government has no money of its own??? EVERY CENT is from taxpayers. (Unless they print it...which is another issue...and not the case with the LA government in this situation.)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
If los Angeles doesn't like the law of the land and the right to protest maybe they need to leave America and go back to north Korea where they came from
edit on 24-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by xuenchen
I wonder exactly WHO they will sue ?

Is Occupy LA a corporation ?

Is it a sole proprietorship ?

Do they sue individuals who were arrested ?

Do they sue anybody who may have provided financial assistance ?

A lawsuit like this could expose a few things.



Those are some very good questions you pose.

Are you a liar I mean lawyer ?



I don't believe this will actually go through.




No, not a lawyer.

The article seems to be more of a rant on the part of the broke L.A. government.

Maybe they're trying to pacify the public.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join