BREAKING: Judge says NO to Occupy Wall Street

Originally posted by thejlxc
reply to post by jibeho

 

Watch which public safety measures you support. Most of them are not there to help the average joe. Many of them are outright constitutional violations. Watch what you allow for "public safety".

So drug dealing, rape, sexual assault, theft, public defecation and urination are ok? We are a civilized society that last time I checked. You want to live without guidelines form a commune. You want to poop and take a whiz wherever and whenever you want? Move to a zoo or mark your territory on your own property, if you own any.

That public safety sure is evil... So evil, the women of Zuccotti park needed a special safe haven to get away from the derelicts. Some of these women even had the gall to blame the police for not doing enough to protect the park. Whatever?

Originally posted by SavedOne

It is not private property, is is a privately-owned public park. It is subject to the laws and local codes and ordinances that address public places including sanitary requirements, food preparation, prohibition of temporary housing, etc.

Wait a minute. In one breathe the detractors say "Protesting in that park is private property and the owners don't want them there", yet when informed that the owners DO in fact want them there the story suddenly changes to "It's privately-owned public property and its not up to the owners to decide".

So which is it? You cannot just cherrypick to suit your arguments.

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by thejlxc
reply to post by jibeho

 

Watch which public safety measures you support. Most of them are not there to help the average joe. Many of them are outright constitutional violations. Watch what you allow for "public safety".

So drug dealing, rape, sexual assault, theft, public defecation and urination are ok? We are a civilized society that last time I checked. You want to live without guidelines form a commune. You want to poop and take a whiz wherever and whenever you want? Move to a zoo or mark your territory on your own property, if you own any.

That public safety sure is evil...

So evil, the women of Zuccotti park needed a special safe haven to get away from the derelicts. Some of these women even had the gall to blame the police for not doing enough to protect the park. Whatever?

edit on 16-11-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

If we were such a "civilized society" we wouldn't have to deal with drug dealing, rape, sexual assault, theft, public defecation, and urination - obviously.

The rate at which crimes take place in this country, on both a public and government level PROVE that this isn't a "civilized society".

And please, PLEASE show me these women you're talking about..

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

Sidenote worth mentioning: The owners of Zuccotti park have no problem with tents being there. The city of New York has interfered with affairs on private property. This is a repeat of the siege on MOVE in Philadelphia in 1978 and 1985. Give us out RIGHTS BACK.

If the OWS gang stays within the boundaries of the park, then there's nothing the city can do. But seeing as they're making a health and nuisance risk of themselves upon the general population of New York City, then the mayor has the right to do what he's doing.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


So basically you are saying it's OK for them to protest as long as they do it out of sight and where nobody can see them? The whole point of protesting in the first place is to get attention, disrupt lives and get action.

By your rationale you may as well storm that building you keep that piece of paper in called the Constitution and tear it up into small pieces, maybe giving it to the protesters to use for fire fuel to keep themselves warm in their dark corner away from everybody??

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

So basically you are saying it's OK for them to protest as long as they do it out of sight and where nobody can see them? The whole point of protesting in the first place is to get attention, disrupt lives and get action.

By your rationale you may as well storm that building you keep that piece of paper in called the Constitution and tear it up into small pieces, maybe giving it to the protesters to use for fire fuel to keep themselves warm in their dark corner away from everybody??

What I see here is that in the face of a large scale protest, TPTB have granted their "own personal rights" upon the average citizen. That is: your constitutional rights are yours until I feel like infringing upon them. Now left and right we see people totally disregarding the constitution.

Now, according to people like ferris, you can only protest during daylight, and quietly so he only notices you when he pleases.

reply to post by Kryties

From a statement released by Brookfield yesterday it seems they did not support the tent city/occupation.

Brookfield appreciates the peaceful and professional response of the NYPD, the FDNY, and the Department of Sanitation, and thanks Mayor Bloomberg for his leadership. As had been widely reported, conditions in Zuccotti Park had become dangerous, unhealthy and unsafe. In our view, these risks were unacceptable and it would have been irresponsible to not request that the City take action. Further, we have a legal obligation to the City and to this neighborhood to keep the Park accessible to all who wish to enjoy it, which had become impossible.

As previously stated, Brookfield supports all citizens’ rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. Source

reply to post by OneisOne


Actually, what that is saying is that as long as the protesters don't mess the place up again then they have full rights to protest and occupy the property. The only reason they were cleared out, according to that statement, was to allow for cleaning - they seemed to have every intention of allowing them back in, tents and all.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

So basically you are saying it's OK for them to protest as long as they do it out of sight and where nobody can see them? The whole point of protesting in the first place is to get attention, disrupt lives and get action.

By your rationale you may as well storm that building you keep that piece of paper in called the Constitution and tear it up into small pieces, maybe giving it to the protesters to use for fire fuel to keep themselves warm in their dark corner away from everybody??

No, that's not what I said, and not what the judge ruled either. This "With us or against us." rhetoric does not work, Kryties. The judge ruled the protesters can't camp in the park, he didn't rule the protesters can't protest. In fact the protesters are back protesting this morning, so your Chicken Little response holds no merit.

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Return to NY Park

Occupy Wall Street protesters have been allowed to return to a New York park from where they were evicted earlier Tuesday, but will not be able to set up camp overnight.

Zuccotti Park was re-opened late Tuesday after a New York State Supreme Court judge ruled the city was justified in enforcing a ban against sleeping in the park.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by OneisOne

 

Actually, what that is saying is that as long as the protesters don't mess the place up again then they have full rights to protest and occupy the property. The only reason they were cleared out, according to that statement, was to allow for cleaning - they seemed to have every intention of allowing them back in, tents and all.

Wrong. Read article above.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by OneisOne

 

Actually, what that is saying is that as long as the protesters don't mess the place up again then they have full rights to protest and occupy the property. The only reason they were cleared out, according to that statement, was to allow for cleaning - they seemed to have every intention of allowing them back in, tents and all.

What about the last line of the statement, from the same link:

Our hope is to reopen the Park as soon as possible for the enjoyment of all members of the community in accord with the rules of the Park.

(I only posted part of the statement per ATS's rules)


I think the fact that the rules (for zuccotti park) where put into place after the occupation began is one of the bases of argument to allow them to stay.

OiO

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


So yes, you are saying they are allowed to protest - but only in the way TPTB want them to protest?

Back we go to tearing up the Constitution.......

Originally posted by OneisOne

Brookfield appreciates the peaceful and professional response of the NYPD, the FDNY, and the Department of Sanitation, and thanks Mayor Bloomberg for his leadership. As had been widely reported, conditions in Zuccotti Park had become dangerous, unhealthy and unsafe. In our view, these risks were unacceptable and it would have been irresponsible to not request that the City take action. Further, we have a legal obligation to the City and to this neighborhood to keep the Park accessible to all who wish to enjoy it, which had become impossible.

As previously stated, Brookfield supports all citizens’ rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. Source

I am glad that Brookfield had came out in the open to admit that they support peaceful assembly and freedom of speech.

The park is open to ALL. Now, that park certainly CANNOT hold ALL 300 million citizens at the same time. What happens when it is crowded? Can citizens whom cant enter that crowded place sue Brookfield for that claim?

Arent the protestors part of the 'ALL' too, are they aliens, to be evicted out? Was there a time frame limitation for 'ALL' to be there? NONE.

As it is a park which Brookfield claims is for 'ALL', then can Brookfield deny the 'ALL' to have refreshments and rest? IT CANNOT!

Was the premise as 'dangerous, unhealthy and unsafe' as it claimed? By what standards or whose mouth was it judged upon?. Was it even based upon facts on the ground and not 1 or 2 odd cases? NOPE!

What it amounts to is AN ILLEGAL AND ILL CONCEIVED ATTEMPT TO CURTAIL THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF AMERICANS by none lesser than the Supreme Court, Brookfields and the gov representatives through the personification of the police and the Mayor!!!

In the days of yore, such transgressions are deemed as treachery and transgressors hanged as traitors. Fortunately, today We the People, are more advanced and patient, BUT patience do have limits......

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

So yes, you are saying they are allowed to protest - but only in the way TPTB want them to protest?

Back we go to tearing up the Constitution.......

So, you're saying the protesters should be allowed to endanger the health and safety of all New Yorkers? Wrong. The protesters right to protest stops where their actions encroach upon others' rights to not be endangered by their actions.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Why couldn't there have just been an order to clean up the park? If TPTB had have just come out and said "Guys, this place is filthy. Could we get a band of volunteers to clean the place up please?" Had this have taken place, the park would be spit-polished and the protesters would still be there Occupying - according to the rights set out for them in your Constitution. But no, instead they had to send in the riot squad, escalating the situation and forcing violence upon them.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

Why couldn't there have just been an order to clean up the park? If TPTB had have just come out and said "Guys, this place is filthy. Could we get a band of volunteers to clean the place up please?" Had this have taken place, the park would be spit-polished and the protesters would still be there Occupying - according to the rights set out for them in your Constitution. But no, instead they had to send in the riot squad, escalating the situation and forcing violence upon them.

Because the protesters camping in the park proved that they were not willing to keep the park clean and safe through their actions prior to the judge's ruling. Now if the protesters from the get go had kept the park clean and safe, then things might've turned out differently.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Name one public event where many people congregate that doesn't become messy? Sports games, parties, demonstrations of all sorts - they all produce mess. To use this as a reasoning to get rid of the OWSers is ridiculous - you might as well ban all of the above as well by that rationale.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

Name one public event where many people congregate that doesn't become messy? Sports games, parties, demonstrations of all sorts - they all produce mess. To use this as a reasoning to get rid of the OWSers is ridiculous - you might as well ban all of the above as well by that rationale.

I have never attended a public event where buckets of human waste were present, and personally I hope I never do. They either had restrooms or porta-potties for those in attendance. Organizers for public events are responsible for the sanitation of their events. Why didn't the Occupy General Assembly use the money, hundreds of thousands the last I heard, for sanitation of their event? These Chicken Little responses are getting to be amusing.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

Name one public event where many people congregate that doesn't become messy? Sports games, parties, demonstrations of all sorts - they all produce mess. To use this as a reasoning to get rid of the OWSers is ridiculous - you might as well ban all of the above as well by that rationale.

I have never attended a public event where buckets of human waste were present, and personally I hope I never do. They either had restrooms or porta-potties for those in attendance. Organizers for public events are responsible for the sanitation of their events. Why didn't the Occupy General Assembly use the money, hundreds of thousands the last I heard, for sanitation of their event? These Chicken Little responses are getting to be amusing.

Obviously it wasn't planned out terribly well, something that - by the looks of what I've been seeing tonight, is being sorted out quick-smart.

But yeah, just because they didn't plan it out well enough that's reason enough to vilify and remove them from the public eye. God forbid Joe the Dog-Walker can't take Poochy for a walk.....

Seriously? Why don't you just come out and say it - you hate OWS and what it stands for, you enjoy living in tyranny (for all I know you are a part of it) and salivate over the thought of a global elite enslaving the lot of us. That's the jist of what I'm getting from you.

reply to post by Kryties


OK Kryties. I've read enough of your mindless ranting on this subject matter. You're sounding like a 2 year old who can't get her way. You have a good one, and good luck on your endeavors.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Uhuh. 2 year old eh? Just what I would expect from somebody who is reaching desperation point - First they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Never were wiser words spoken.