Occupy Wall Street

[chunkymonster]

I've lived in three of the cities on the list and look forward to moving to another.

Not sure what your point is because I live outside of Philly and my work routinely takes me into Trenton and Jersey City. Recently, my company has send out an internal memo to all field personnel to work in those areas in at least two man teams and only go into the protest areas with a police escort. This is in contrast to the standard company policy for the known high crime cities like Camden, Newark, etc. It's not a knock against these cities but a knock against the rabble that the wall street mob is proving themselves to be.

 

[kajabla]

^I think that's ridiculous. OWS protesters are way too moralistic to...what? Assault members of your company at random? They're not criminals, unless you count blocking traffic.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I wonder about this
If you appear to be working for the devil, they may tie you to a stake
Most wouldnt dream about this, but some are, well you know, like the TEA party

 

[chunkymonster]

^I think that's ridiculous. OWS protesters are way too moralistic to...what? Assault members of your company at random? They're not criminals, unless you count blocking traffic.

Ridiculous or not the company is looking out for the safety of their employees.

On the whole, no they are not criminals, but the reports of mass arrests, public intoxication, public fornication, and illegal drug use do not exactly paint a picture of moral virtue.

 

[kajabla]

OK. I know a classmate who got arrested. He was at the protest, carrying a sign. He and other protesters were walking away from the main protest, going home. They were on the sidewalk, not chanting, not blocking traffic, and were rounded up and arrested. A mass arrest, yes. A bunch of criminals, no.
http://stuyspectator.com/2011/10/08/the-crime-of-peacefully-protesting/

Another person, a friend of a friend, was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. The police allowed hundreds of people to walk onto the main highway, where they were blocking traffic. The leaders knew they were breaking the law, but all that the hundreds that followed them saw was a mass of people led calmly by police, who walked at the head of the column for minutes before arresting everyone on the roadway.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-arresting-protesters-on-brooklyn-bridge/?scp=1&sq=brooklyn%20bridge%20arrest&st=cse

Intoxication, maybe. There are certainly a few deadbeats there for the fun of it. That's still not grounds for alarm. Fornication? I don't know. Do you have evidence for that?

By "moralistic" I meant that they're there for a cause. If a protester isn't reasonably well-mannered, they're surrounded at all times by hundreds of other passionate people who are their for moral reasons and probably wouldn't let a mugging go by.
There's a difference, in the minds of many of the type of people that camp out at a protest for days, between illegal drug use (marijuana) and illegal violence. They see one as harmless and the other as immoral.

 

[chunkymonster]

OK. I know a classmate who got arrested. He was at the protest, carrying a sign. He and other protesters were walking away from the main protest, going home. They were on the sidewalk, not chanting, not blocking traffic, and were rounded up and arrested. A mass arrest, yes. A bunch of criminals, no.
I]http://stuyspectator.com/2011/10/08/the-crime-of-peacefully-protesting/

I feel for your friend, and if that's your friend in the article and the events were as he described, then he was innocent and certainly in the wrong place at the wrong time. I sympathize with him. As far as getting arrested, par for the course. Not to seem uncaring, and as innocent as he was, he couldn't have been totally unaware of the consequences of being part of a mob chanting in downtown NYC. Hopefully, being a young man, one of the lessons he learns from this is to be more thoughtful on the outcome of good intentions.

Another person, a friend of a friend, was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. The police allowed hundreds of people to walk onto the main highway, where they were blocking traffic. The leaders knew they were breaking the law, but all that the hundreds that followed them saw was a mass of people led calmly by police, who walked at the head of the column for minutes before arresting everyone on the roadway.
I]http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-arresting-protesters-on-brooklyn-bridge/?scp=1&sq=brooklyn%20bridge%20arrest&st=cse

I have no sympathy for anyone arrested in this article...

None of the protesters interviewed knew if the bridge march was planned or a spontaneous decision by the crowd. But all insisted that the police had made no mention that the roadway was off limits.

...c'mon, really, a group of adults NEED the police to tell them TO NOT WALK IN THE ROADWAY while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. DUH! Lack of common sense is not an excuse. Any implication that it was a set up by the police is only further proof of their stupidity.

Intoxication, maybe. There are certainly a few deadbeats there for the fun of it. That's still not grounds for alarm. Fornication? I don't know. Do you have evidence for that?

Even this apologetic piece fails to deny the shenanigans.

Don't get me wrong, there is middle ground for us here. It's ignorant to think that there are not moralistic people there for honest and real reasons; there are causes I am also passionate about. However, the lack of media coverage is not helping their case. The lack of any cohesive or singular mission statement, purpose, or stated goals is not helping their case. The inability to follow the law is not helping their case. The seemingly unorganized manner and circumstances in which this OWS group leaders have brought people together is not helping their case. Being on the outside looking in and trying to understand what the whole OWS thing is about, it seems to be nothing more than a mob set on causing civil unrest.

 

[kajabla]

I have no sympathy for anyone arrested in this article...

None of the protesters interviewed knew if the bridge march was planned or a spontaneous decision by the crowd. But all insisted that the police had made no mention that the roadway was off limits.

...c'mon, really, a group of adults NEED the police to tell them TO NOT WALK IN THE ROADWAY while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. DUH! Lack of common sense is not an excuse. Any implication that it was a set up by the police is only further proof of their stupidity. .

Stupidity?
They saw a march going on, across the bridge. There were lots of people; the possibility of a roadway march wouldn't have been too far-fetched (regardless of the police's actual stance, which they had no way of knowing). They saw the police, and they saw the police not intervening, so they continued to follow the crowd, and then were arrested. Is following the crowd stupidity when the protesters (excluding those at the front) could see that no consequences were forthcoming, that the police were, by all appearances, not against the march?
How could the marchers (still not talking about those in the front, who did proceed illegally and with warnings) have done better? How could they have known that they were in the wrong?

 

[chunkymonster]

Stupidity?
They saw a march going on, across the bridge. There were lots of people; the possibility of a roadway march wouldn't have been too far-fetched (regardless of the police's actual stance, which they had no way of knowing). They saw the police, and they saw the police not intervening, so they continued to follow the crowd, and then were arrested. Is following the crowd stupidity when the protesters (excluding those at the front) could see that no consequences were forthcoming, that the police were, by all appearances, not against the march?
How could the marchers (still not talking about those in the front, who did proceed illegally and with warnings) have done bettr? How could they have known that they were in the wrong?

OMG! Dude! Really? What about not walking in the street across the Brooklyn Bridge is difficult to understand? Yes! Following the crowd is stupidity! The mob does not preclude the individual from thinking for themselves. I'm aghast that you actually are defending a mob of people walking across the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge! At four o'clock in the afternoon, nonetheless!

But about 20 others headed for the Brooklyn-bound roadway, said Christopher T. Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union, who accompanied the march. Some of them chanted “take the bridge.” They were met by a handful of high-level police supervisors, who blocked the way and announced repeatedly through bullhorns that the marchers were blocking the roadway and that if they continued to do so, they would be subject to arrest.

YES! STUPIDITY!

 

[kajabla]

Those 20 (probably many more, really, within earshot) were the people in the front, whom I specified as at fault. They were warned, and they were wrong. 20 people weren't arrested, though; 700 were. 700 people, most of whom followed a march (a march, not a mob) with no knowledge or warning that they were doing something illegal, were suddenly rounded up.
If the police had wanted to stop them, they could have simply blocked them from entering the bridge. They could certainly have continued warning the crowd as it moved "a third of the way to Brooklyn" (Times) instead of leaving it to march on, ignorant of the danger of arrest.
Yes, it's obviously common sense not to walk on a roadway under normal circumstances. These were not normal circumstances. Marches in New York often use roadways; they just usually have permits. I wouldn't be at all surprised (as in I think this is probably true, but have no evidence) if many of those in the ignorant crowd assumed that the protest was permitted and legitimate, especially when they saw police members standing by. Many marches take place in broad daylight, around four o'clock in the afternoon, with police present and standing by just in case. To those who joined in, who weren't the leaders, participating in legal marches and going along in this illegal one probably felt just the same.

On another note, this is probably the longest logical discussion I've had on this forum that hasn't disintegrated into name-calling. Let's keep it up, though we don't see eye-to-eye yet.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Again, the wrong people leading some good people with a decent reason.
The backers, the leaders, theyre most likely zealots, and to give them power is wrong.
Let them go home, write their congressman, if they dont get an answer, then go to the press, then if nothing happens, start again, but this time, without zealots

 

[kajabla]

But what do you do with them? Your way may be the best way to get things done, but zealots don't like to be told to go home.

 

[wanamingo]

Bill Clinton had some well thought out ideas for the OWS protesters

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

IMO, zealots of any type should rarely be heard
Now isnt the time for them, its the wrong message, too strong for what to me needs to be finely tuned
The current admin has left alot of people and companies with uncertainty, you cant start rowing together, all of us, til we right the boat, and some of those leaders there, thats all they want to do, its easier for them to do what they want, gain the power they crave

 

[kajabla]

What's all the want to do?

The issue is that passionate people ARE the ones that speak up, and you can't go around judging people as zealots and somehow limiting their protesting.

 

[knarl]

Ahhh... warms the heart to see so many disenfranchised youth gathered to protest the evils of the silver spoon they've suckled on their entire short lives.

Joined by multi-millionaires like Russell Simmons, Kayne West, Susan Sarandon, etc... these "poor third-world children" with their coddled upbringings having every want/need taken care of, massive school tuition probably completely paid for by parents, designer clothes, best of the best expensive electronics like smart phones Ipads Laptops - all gathered in protest of those dirty rich people!!!

Oh wait... we didn't mean THOSE rich people... not the rich celebrities that we like, or that will come out to see us. Not those rich people that funnel money into the support mechanisms that organized all of this in the first place. Not those rich parents that supported us our entire lives. We meant all the OTHER rich people, duh!


I am still missing something about the hypocrisy of people that think the way these types do. If they say things like they want to end the Fed, and stop wasting money on Wars, then they are going to all vote for the only candidate that will/is running on fixing those two issues: Ron Paul. None of them are gonna vote Democrat, because there is no Dem running in this next election that will do those two things, so solely on principle they will all HAVE to vote Ron Paul, am I right?? Rofl.. of course they won't, they will vote for Obama, who has proven he not only didn't pull us out of the wars like he said he would before elected, but actually engaged us in even more conflict (Libya). And he has exactly no intention of touching the Fed, which is what gives the bankers so much power/riches in the first place.

Their hypocrisy is foul, and yet they expect the rest of the nation to give a rat's arse about their stinky little gathering? Let them wallow in their own filth until winter when they'll go running back to mommy and daddy's mansion.

 

[wanamingo]

lol You don't know how to protest therefor all of your arguments are invalid......

 

[dogman_1234]

mingo: "My peeps are brawling. Your argument is invalid."

gamer: "LOL /trollface"

 

[dogman_1234]

I am starting to hear word there will be a rally near my town. Can't wait to see the local news.

 

[chunkymonster]

Those 20 (probably many more, really, within earshot) were the people in the front, whom I specified as at fault. They were warned, and they were wrong. 20 people weren't arrested, though; 700 were. 700 people, most of whom followed a march (a march, not a mob) with no knowledge or warning that they were doing something illegal, were suddenly rounded up.
If the police had wanted to stop them, they could have simply blocked them from entering the bridge. They could certainly have continued warning the crowd as it moved "a third of the way to Brooklyn" (Times) instead of leaving it to march on, ignorant of the danger of arrest.

Ok, wow! Just because the 680 people who followed the first 20 may not have heard the police announcement does not preclude them from thinking for themselves, taking individual responsibility, and remaining cognizant of the law. Maybe those 700 people will learn to think for themselves and not be a bunch of followers.

First, let's establish the series of events...
1) the protesters left Zucotti Park and began to march through the streets of NYC,
2) the mob approached the Brooklyn Bridge and the police announce through bullhorns that the mob was not permitted to cross the bridge,
3) the police blocked the roadway to prevent the mob from crossing,
4) the police walked across 1/3 of the bridge with the mob following,
5) the police arrested only those walking in the roadway across the Brooklyn Bridge.

If we agree on that, let's break this down...
1) As soon as the protesters left the area in which they were permitted (as in having a permit to protest) to protest, they ceased being protesters and became a mob. Yes a mob, as the crowd fit the literal definition of a mob.
2) The police announced through bullhorns that the mob was not allowed to cross the bridge. They were warned. Ignorance of the police announcement is not an excuse. Ignorance of jaywalking laws is not an excuse. And ignorance of their own actions is not an excuse. The fact remains the mob was warned and made aware of the consequences of what would happen if they proceeded to walk in the roadway across the Brooklyn Bridge.
3) The police attempted to block the mob from crossing the bridge but needed to back across the bridge in the face of 700 people coming at them. From the police's perspective, they were outnumbered and any attempt to stop the mob at the foot of the bridge would have escalated into chaos.
4) Given the police warned the mob, the police walking across the bridge WAS NOT THE POLICE LEADING THE MOB but was the police establishing INTENT to break the law and PROOF of breaking the law. This is basic police procedure. Again, ignorance of civil procedure and being uninformed of the law is not an excuse.
5) Those in the mob that used the walkway were not arrested, only those that broke the law and ignored the police warning and continued to use the roadway were arrested.

Yes, it's obviously common sense not to walk on a roadway under normal circumstances. These were not normal circumstances. Marches in New York often use roadways; they just usually have permits.

Ok, so you agree that the mob did not have permit to march through the streets and did not have a permit to block traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge, but yet you continue to sympathize with them even though they willingly ignored and broke the law. This is also in light of the fact that the article you link plainly states...

In their march north from Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan — headquarters for the last two weeks of a protest movement against what demonstrators call inequities in the economic system — they had stayed on the sidewalks, forming a long column of humanity penned in by officers on scooters.

What about reaching the Brooklyn Bridge changed the way the mob decided to march through the streets? Again, any implication that this was a set up by Police is a further display of the ignorance and stupidity of the mob. You lose me here, I fail to understand your support and issue against them being arrested.

I wouldn't be at all surprised (as in I think this is probably true, but have no evidence) if many of those in the ignorant crowd assumed that the protest was permitted and legitimate, especially when they saw police members standing by.

Ah yes, assumption and ignorance. The forever excuse of victim-hood.

Many marches take place in broad daylight, around four o'clock in the afternoon, with police present and standing by just in case. To those who joined in, who weren't the leaders, participating in legal marches and going along in this illegal one probably felt just the same.

If any marches take place at 4 o'clock they most likely have a permit to march and the police are there to ensure the protesters rights to protest are protected. You admit this mob did not have a permit. As your parents probably told you when you were a child, "Would you jump off a cliff if Johnny did it too?" Again, their assumption and ignorance lead to their obvious consequences.

On another note, this is probably the longest logical discussion I've had on this forum that hasn't disintegrated into name-calling. Let's keep it up, though we don't see eye-to-eye yet.

Agreed. Logical discourse can be a rare occurrence in these forums. Most likely, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[chunkymonster]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20116707-503544.html

After reading this ^^ reynod, in your opinion, do the President's words discourage or encourage these protests?

Given Obama's dubious youthful associations it is no surprise that he empathizes with the OWS mob. The assertion that he learned about it on the news displays his continued ignorance, especially when the OWS protests were announced back in July 2011. I fail to believe that Obama did not know these protests were going to take place BEFORE they actually happened.

But then again, this is the same Administration who denies any knowledge of Fast and Furious.

Plausible deniability, indeed!

 

[chunkymonster]

Tomorrow is the day. Worldwide occupy rallys.

I fail to believe that there is not a concerted centralized effort to organize these protests; the cynic in me and the study of human nature won't let me believe otherwise. Logic dictates that a central authority or organizational structure is the only mechanism capable of promoting these worldwide protests. I can not think of any time throughout all of human history where this has spontaneously occurred solely out of the concern for the good of humanity. Stopping short of conspiracy theories, it would be an AMAZING, MONUMENTAL, and UNPRECEDENTED show of worldwide community if these are not centrally planned and organized. As a cynic, I believe that time and arrogance will show who and what organization or group(s) are behind this.

I hope I am wrong and my faith in humanity is renewed.

 

[wanamingo]

I know most of you are older and im curious about how some of you felt during other large protests (Vietnam, Cold War, Desert Storm, etc).

Is it just younger people who are pissed off and want someone held accountable?

Are the old folks too set in their ways?

 

[dogman_1234]

It is well documented that the Vietnam war protests were, for the most part, funded and organized by the KGB. It's called internal subversion and is a very old tactic/weapon.

Also mingo, the modern impression of the Vietnam era, from movies/media, is of the entire populace being against it and the government disregarding the populace. In fact it was minority that were anti-Vietnam war. They were just very vocal and with a willing media/press they looked bigger than they really were.

Desert Storm: Many say this was the 1st Bush's war for oil and in some respects that is correct. Saddam's actions was making Saudi Arabia (OIL Kings) extremely nervous so we pretty much acted on their behalf. However, Saddam didn't make the Saudis as nervous as Iran which is why we left Saddam in power at the end of the first Gulf war; to keep Iran in check. I was in high school during this time and the majority of my peers supported the war, except for a handful dirty hippies.

I thought my grandfather was a conspiracy theory nut. Oh, well...

Question: Do you believe the Military/Industrial Complex assassinated JFK with LHO as a pawn?

 

[dogman_1234]

I did not say you were a nut, just the fact you pay close attention to government conspiracies.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

My way earlier point goes like this.
First off, no ones putting words in my mouth any more than all of them are zealots
Secindly, we, all of us need to work together, but , going back to my analogy, when theres rough seas ahead, we need to all pull together to right the boat, but the zealots truly dont want this, as anarchy is their only way, and they lose power and credibility when things are going well
Now, if we see a terrible leader, then is time for a zealot, for one purpose, and only one, ala George Washington, who turned down being something akin to a king, and drove democracy ahead by then being elected, and limiting the presidential powers