OCCUPY DC : Cops attack McPherson Park! Multiple Updates,

you seem to view these people as domestic terrorists,
when they intended to exercise their rights, the made a mistake of where those rights would be upheld, i can garentee that a sign to the effect of explaining why you may not protest and how the laws differ,
the protestors would read it and repect the law.
give them a chance to comply by physical notice showing restrictions and implications.

Actually all you are doing is giving your opinion in lieu of actual law and making excuses for the actions of the protesters.

when put into correct context now laws need to be enforced,
a simple sign would surfice, anyone going beyond that point would be "KNOWINGLY" doing something illegal, and then yes would be a criminal.
how can you rely on the public to be "informed" without notice?
in my country there are signs up all over the place saying what is acceptable and what is prohibited and what the fine or charge would be

IT WORKS VERY VERY WELL

I have 10 years of law enforcement experience so yes, i'm willing to tell you that you are wrong in your understanding of how our laws work and apply. and what constitutes a crime and what doesn't.

Whats your background?

to be clear i am not formally trained in law or enforcement, and hold no credentials of any sort in reference to criminal civil or national or international law or demstic law in my country new zealand.

i would like to ask you a direct question as a law enforcement personal,
is having the protestors in the public parks so bad?
when stupid stuff like this can happen?
IMHO
the public parks are the place to protest, piecefully non violently assemble on public parks,
would it be less likely for problems if they were just in parks?
not on streets not in businesses, not INSIDE any building at all
just in parks

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

Nice to run into you again, mind if I butt in?

The United States was proud, at one time, of the idea we were a nation of laws, not men. That reality has crumbled significantly, but we are not yet at the point of authoritarianism or dictatorship. Our laws, and our police are pretty much all that keep order. Citizens are discouraged from carrying weapons, or getting involved in any way, and conscience and civility have been eaten away in large segments of our society.

So, no surprise that laws are important to us.

We expect everyone to know basic rules underlying our laws, human rights, property rights, etc. We are not required to put up signs outside our houses saying "Uninvited guests, stay out or you are violating a law!" It's assumed everyone knows that.

We, in the vast majority of cases, expect our laws to be enforced. So, when a law says "Doing XYZ is a bad thing," we expect some punishment for people doing XYZ. We don't stop to ask, "Is doing XYZ really a bad thing?" That question has been debated in our legislature and decided.

We also believe that property rights are human rights and should be protected. So yes, the protesters are violating laws and should be punished.

HOWEVER, the tradition of dissent has been powerful in the United States and has many admirers. The Supreme Court has ruled some laws restricting dissent to be unconstitutional, but not all. The government may, constitutionally put some limits on protest. People are free to ignore those limits, but then they should expect to be punished.

So either obey the laws with your protest or not. If you don't you'll be punished (possibly) and that's the price you pay. Some people think it's worth it, others don't.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Dear XPLodER,

Nice to run into you again, mind if I butt in?

i enjoy our debates

The United States was proud, at one time, of the idea we were a nation of laws, not men. That reality has crumbled significantly, but we are not yet at the point of authoritarianism or dictatorship. Our laws, and our police are pretty much all that keep order. Citizens are discouraged from carrying weapons, or getting involved in any way, and conscience and civility have been eaten away in large segments of our society.

So, no surprise that laws are important to us.

We expect everyone to know basic rules underlying our laws, human rights, property rights, etc. We are not required to put up signs outside our houses saying "Uninvited guests, stay out or you are violating a law!" It's assumed everyone knows that.

the difference lies between the distinction of "private property" someones house, and an embasy (forign soil)
so different laws and customs must be observed in each differentr place.

We, in the vast majority of cases, expect our laws to be enforced. So, when a law says "Doing XYZ is a bad thing," we expect some punishment for people doing XYZ. We don't stop to ask, "Is doing XYZ really a bad thing?" That question has been debated in our legislature and decided.

We also believe that property rights are human rights and should be protected. So yes, the protesters are violating laws and should be punished.

i disagree with violating laws to get a point across,
but i also disagree with the non "camping laws"

HOWEVER, the tradition of dissent has been powerful in the United States and has many admirers. The Supreme Court has ruled some laws restricting dissent to be unconstitutional, but not all. The government may, constitutionally put some limits on protest. People are free to ignore those limits, but then they should expect to be punished.

i agree with this statement
but is "camping" really a bad thing when the right to protest piecefully and lawfully is at stake?

So either obey the laws with your protest or not. If you don't you'll be punished (possibly) and that's the price you pay. Some people think it's worth it, others don't.

in my personal opinon some one would have to be "charged" with camping for the court to "hear" the case,
for the purpose of clarifying the protestors rights by lawfully challenging the arrest in court.

i am not suggesting anyone camps to get arrested,
i am suggesting anyone who has been already been "charged" for "camping" argue the case in front of a judge in court

with piece and light
xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Dear XPLodER,

I would enjoy debating with you but it seems I always end up agreeing with you, as I do here.

the difference lies between the distinction of "private property" someones house, and an embasy (forign soil)
so different laws and customs must be observed in each differentr place.

I agree completely that different rules apply, but certainly the underlying principles are the same. Don't interfere with someone who wants to use their property. Leave if you're asked to. Behave yourself. That sort of thing.

Disagreeing with the "non camping laws" is certainly a legitimate position to take. I'm not surprised that OWS feels they should be changed. Laws get changed by persuading legislators to vote for new ones. That can be done by public pressure, sometimes by protests, and sometimes by a court finding the old laws to be unconstitutional.

I agree with you also, that protesters who have been charged should take the case to the courts. Go to the Supreme Court so we know what is allowed and what isn't. We have to balance the right to protest with the enforcement of laws. That balancing is the Supreme Court's job.

With respect,
Charles1952