Activists in portland use rapid response network to try to stop eviction

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Patricia Williams and Darren Johnson, an African/Black couple in S.E. Portland, were met with multiple sheriffs' deputy cars at their home this morning in an attempt to forcibly evict them. A rapid response network was activated and about 50 concerned community members and activists showed up.



From the website for Blazing Arrow Organization ( blazing-arrow.tumblr.com/ ), one of the groups involved:

"A roving picket line in front of the house was initiated and at one point a number of us attempted to regain control of the house by pushing our way in as a collective force. We did gain entry into the house, but the sheriffs - who by this time were reinforced with Portland police personnel - responded by pepper spraying us. Several of us were hit, but everyone will be ok.


Doctors diagnosed Patricia with a pulmonary disease a few years ago, forcing her to give up her job.

The couple says they fought their bank for a modification on their mortgage with no response, until they found out about the foreclosure months later.
www.kpho.com...






storify.com...

Thanks to Occupy Portland for the link.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Just saw this as I was headed off to bed... Sorry if I offend anyone with Occupy these days but what in the heck were they thinking?

S/F on bringing the story but FAIL on these two people for bringing THAT into a Residential neighborhood. I'd have gone ballistic with Occupy STL if they even considered a thing like this while I was a member and the police were confrontational. I looked this place up of Google Earth, as other stories have the address, and there are apartment blocks on that street with a Church a block over. The whole area is Residential with play sets visible by what I could see and within range of that.

It's bad enough that people were bringing their kids into the combat camps that had confrontation as a fact of life (as opposed to the majority which didn't have any confrontations until the very end of the 2011 protest season) but this is bringing confrontation INTO other peoples front yards and where kids totally removed from Occupy live.

This IS about Occupy because that line of cops with the non-Lethal riot guns wouldn't be all set and dressed for success with ANY other protest group on the first contact. Only Occupy brings that response as a sure thing, anywhere in America now and as a 100% predictable outcome.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Just saw this as I was headed off to bed... Sorry if I offend anyone with Occupy these days but what in the heck were they thinking?

S/F on bringing the story but FAIL on these two people for bringing THAT into a Residential neighborhood. I'd have gone ballistic with Occupy STL if they even considered a thing like this while I was a member and the police were confrontational. I looked this place up of Google Earth, as other stories have the address, and there are apartment blocks on that street with a Church a block over. The whole area is Residential with play sets visible by what I could see and within range of that.

It's bad enough that people were bringing their kids into the combat camps that had confrontation as a fact of life (as opposed to the majority which didn't have any confrontations until the very end of the 2011 protest season) but this is bringing confrontation INTO other peoples front yards and where kids totally removed from Occupy live.

This IS about Occupy because that line of cops with the non-Lethal riot guns wouldn't be all set and dressed for success with ANY other protest group on the first contact. Only Occupy brings that response as a sure thing, anywhere in America now and as a 100% predictable outcome.


I think a threat assessment has to be the responsibility of the authorities. In alot of cases their procedures are to back off to avoid threats to the public, such as when someone gets lit up for a traffic violation and evades police going over a certain speed limit. They no longer chase you, at least in my state. The risk is too great.

This has to be the case, or things will get ugly. Luckily this was portland so all those hippies are not such a threat. Similar happened in LA and the family is still there. Things are only going to get worse, and if the cops want to keep the protests peaceful, then they themselves better do the same.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Patricia Williams and Darren Johnson, an African/Black couple.


Why does that matter?
edit on 31-10-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Things are only going to get worse, and if the cops want to keep the protests peaceful, then they themselves better do the same.

I can't believe you'd blame the police for the response after a confrontational protest group has chosen to 'take a stand' inside a residential neighborhood.

Overreaction to peaceful protest in a PARK is what caused me to join and support Occupy for the time I did. Oct 2011, Boston. However, this attitude of confrontational protest anywhere, for whatever the group decides it's for and with ABSOLUTELY NO responsibility taken for outcome or consequence is why I left and eventually became something of an opponent of Occupy.

Protest works. That is a protected right. However, the right to protest ENDS where it violates the rights of others. A fair argument can be made that it's not violating rights to protest commercial locations like businesses. Anyone who takes issue with protest in public and common areas of cities can just go blow it out their tanks. However, that all stops abruptly and is no longer tolerable when protest with an attitude comes into the living spaces of people who didn't ask for it, don't want it and have absolutely no connection to it. Now, it's violated other people's rights, and frankly....Occupy has become what it first formed to fight in that case. A violator of other's freedom and rights.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Patricia Williams and Darren Johnson, an African/Black couple.


Why does that matter?
edit on 31-10-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)


I thought that was odd too.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


You can't justify the taking of other's rights for the exercise of your own. Its tyranny by the many instead of tyranny from the one (Gov) we have now.

IF this had been at the bank....or anywhere but a Residential neighborhood with unrelated people, children and in this case...a Church right there as well (more people right there and unrelated to this) I'd debate the merits of the action itself...not how wrong the method was. I don't think violating others rights even really comes into it for the vast majority of what Occupy does. Other things can be said, but not taking anyone's personal rights.

I'm surprised you don't see how this is different though, when you are in and on top of other folks homes. In their yards. There isn't a way to have that little confrontation otherwise.

Now Occupy has become a confrontation group almost 100%. As much from the Law Enforcement as anything else, granted...but its still a situation everyone knows by now and ought to be planning as a factor.

Planning...like to avoid risk and danger to people unrelated to the action being taken. I mean, how would Occupy there feel if a rubber bullet from one of the Orange non-lethal shotguns hit a kid in the yard across the street from this place...on someone in the parking lot of the apartment block at the end of the street? The cop fired the round, of course....but The cop wouldn't be there TO fire a weapon if Occupy didn't choose that time and place to schedule the fight.

This is where I just can't see where it's not at least as much the burden of Occupy (If not more..they have the control of time and place) for what happens and how that goes down in the most general way?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Come on, they didn't go all IRA and blow up a cop car. They were peaceful, and if you or the cops don't think so then come to Phoenix. We will show you real dissent.

The people did not ask for rubber bullets. Im sure if you ask any of them they would rather not get shot at. So the cops have a choice as well, only a more direct choice.
Its like when my sister would call me a name as a child, and since we were close in age I would sometimes give her a smack. Everytime I got into trouble, and my grandmother would tell me "Dont give your power away, no one can make you do anything". If I as a child can understand this, why can't the 5O
edit on 31-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Patricia Williams and Darren Johnson, an African/Black couple.


Why does that matter?
edit on 31-10-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)


I thought that was odd too.


It is.

Would they have said 'a Caucasian couple' if they were? Very odd.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
No one has any compassion for white folks.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Come on, they didn't go all IRA and blow up a cop car. They were peaceful, and if you or the cops don't think so then come to Phoenix. We will show you real dissent.


Thus ends the discussion. You have a good night now.


edit on 31-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Added Emphasis for Clarity.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Objective sense, in the compassionate form is hard to handle for some.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
It's always a little ... intense? to see police literally putting peoples lives in danger to defend a banks property. Firstly, I do agree with Wrabbit .. Occupy, big fail. But still, someone easily could have been seriously hurt or killed with that many trigger happy cops (and yes, they are trigger happy because it's Portland Police. Killing citizens is what they do.) For what? Protect a banks liability? (note, not even an asset.. a liability...)

And for the Occupy idiots that don't know property law.. if you reaaaallllly want to fight an eviction.. you let the cops evict you, then move back in the next day. Then they can't do anything about it because the court order handed down ONLY applies to a singular eviction of the property. Once re-occupied a dwellings residency must then be taken up in court again.. You can do this redundantly until they arrest you for trespassing. But even then you're likely to get out before they sell your house.

Fighting with the cops? Not cool. Especially Portland Police, you have a high risk of fatality.

(and for anyone wondering those shotguns with the orange are "non-lethal" beanbags. I laughed out loud at the douche in the riot helm.... We know who the dorky outcast is in that group.)
edit on 10/31/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I actually agree with this post.
Occupy didn't necessarily take the stance that I would like, but I think thats the same with every member of Occupy. Its a massive movement against a confusing system. The anger people have is not always directed in the proper most functional way, and for good reason. The evils have done a great job of using complicated economics, internal social issues like abortion or immigration, and other diverse provocations to confuse the living day lights out of every American.

They have made sure we cannot unite under one idea, because if we could, we could bring change. So occupy was an enigma out of necessity.

You touched on what I had been arguing. The people are fighting to keep a fellow from being evicted and/or homeless. The police are fighting to secure the banks control. Whos fight is more valiant, and more worth loss of property or life? The peoples, so back the # up police. Your traitor ass mofo's. They are in the same boat as us, but for some bullyassed reason wanna be counted with the elite.*

*I cannot say with certainty why cops choose to sell out there peers, but I imagine its so they can feel they're are not part of the peasantry.
edit on 31-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


I usually disagree with nearly everything Occupy does (because they always, always, always !@$ it up and insult half the population) But at the same time seeing cops line up with smiles on their face as they kick a little ole' sick lady out of her home makes me side with the evicted. Should she lose her home? If she can't afford it... yes.. why live somewhere above your means? Should a swat team be sent in to secure a banks supposed property (I say supposed because if her mortgage is like my mortgage it's been sold 13+ times and God only knows where the documents are...) no, a swat team should not be sent in to evict her. She should go to a court, the court rules whether or not she can stay (idealy based on at least 10% LTV forces the bank to modify). The way the judicial system and banks work together and use the washed up high school jocks that are the cops as bullies is nothing short of sickening.

It's also important for those siding with the banks to remember this: Where did the banks money to finance her house even come from? It came from nowhere.... the money was "created" as a "leverage" against the banks assets.... it's not real money.. the bank lived beyond its means just as much as the homeowner. Only the bank, through foreclosure, can make a huge profit.

edit on 10/31/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


So they caused the problem. They got bailed out. Now because these people cannot afford the house their living in with the rising cost of living as high as it is, they dont deserve a bailout tho they had no choice in the matter?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

I hear this argument quite a bit and I heard it inside Occupy to no end that the money involved with a mortgage isn't real money anyway and so no one should take it seriously or honor their contract.

I'd ask then....where did the money come from that went to the seller after the last transaction closed to give them ownership of the property in the first place? I had to sell my late fathers home in the estate matters and that 6 figures in the account was absolutely real. Whatever that meant for contract terms to the buyer wasn't my concern...they got a house for it. So whats fake?
edit on 1-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Ok, those are numbers, in an account. Money is paper. You got a hard time understanding basic economics? You don't understand inflation or interest?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


In a Reserve Economy the "creation of wealth" resides in the banks, the State usually sets a predetermined rate of monetary printing, and that is called the Monetary Base.

If every asked for all the money they possess in cash, there would not be enough cash. How is that possible? Because a bank can leverage to extreme degrees their holdings vs what they "print" (or, in this case digitize).

When a home is sold, the seller get a nice stack of cash.. but the money did not exist until that money was leveraged. It's "real" in the sense that once created it's in the economy. It's fake in the sense that it was not sanctioned by anyone or anything except the whims of a bank.

If we took the leveraged assets away from a bank, you are not infact damaging the monetary system of the State because the money did not actually exist..

It's confusing.. but that's the entire point.





new topics
 
3

log in

join