Occupy Wall Street

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Oakland will now pay the price for operating as a police state:

6:40 p.m. ACLU and National Lawyers Guild file suit against Oakland Police Department

Earlier today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the National Lawyers' Guild filed a federal lawsuit against the Oakland Police Department seeking an emergency temporary restraining order to stop police violence against the protesters, according to a news release.

The suit was urgent because another police encounter was imminent, following the removal of the Occupy Oakland camp this morning, the news release stated.

"Excessive police force is never acceptable, especially when it's in response to political protest," said Linda Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, a prepared statement.

The city must respond by 5 p.m. Tuesday, according to an order issued by United States District Court Judge Richard Seeborg.

If police use excessive force, the city would need to justify those actions to the court, the news release states.

The suit was brought on behalf of videographer Timothy Scott Campbell, who was shot with a bean bag projectile while filming police Nov. 2-3, according to the release. Additional plaintiffs are Kerie Campbell, Marc McKinnie, Michael Siegel and guild Legal Observer Marcus Kryshka.

"I was filming police activity at Occupy Oakland because police should be accountable," Campbell said in a prepared statement. "Now I'm worried about my safety from police violence and about retaliation because I've been outspoken."

Guild attorney Rachel Lederman called the police department's actions "wholesale and flagrant violations of Oakland's own Crowd Control Policy," in a prepared statement.

The suit alleges that Oakland police and officers from other agencies "attacked" peaceful Occupy Oakland protesters on Oct. 25 and Nov. 2, indiscriminately shooting flash bang grenades, projectiles and excessive amounts of tear gas into crowds of people who were exercising their First Amendment rights, including some who were filming police. The suit alleges police violated the Fourth Amendment rights of protesters by using excessive force and violated their First Amendment rights to assemble and demonstrate.

The suit also alleges that the recent actions violated the Oakland Police Department's Crowd Control Policy, which was adopted as part of a lawsuit settlement that resulted from a large 2003 protest.


http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy-oakland/ci_19331752
 
I love the notion that the police would have to justify excessive force to the court. Thank goodness the suit was filed!

Ed O.
 
I love the notion that the police would have to justify excessive force to the court. Thank goodness the suit was filed!

Ed O.

Isn't excessive force, by definition, excessive?

barfo
 
Isn't excessive force, by definition, excessive?

barfo

Excessive is in the eye of the beholder. Tear gas, bean bags, rubber bullets, etc., are not extraordinary means of crowd control. There's a lot of precedence to their use.

I have no beef with people protesting. It's also in the eye of the beholder that sufficient time has passed that they're no longer protesters but squatters.

Your kind has already eroded 1st amendment to the point people need to buy permits to exercise free speech in only a designated time and place. It may suck, but the police are in the right to chase squatters off the peoples' land.
 
Your kind has already eroded 1st amendment to the point people need to buy permits to exercise free speech in only a designated time and place. It may suck, but the police are in the right to chase squatters off the peoples' land.

What you mean to say is his kind should have known their places and kept their mouths shut.

You seem very confused about who is trampling on Free Speech and who is speaking freely.

The 1st Amendment can only be "eroded" by non-use.
 
Watch the documentary "Inside Job" to get an understanding of why they are angry at Wall Street.
 
What you mean to say is his kind should have known their places and kept their mouths shut.

You seem very confused about who is trampling on Free Speech and who is speaking freely.

The 1st Amendment can only be "eroded" by non-use.

I mean to say no such thing.

You don't have the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Obviously your right to do anything is abused when you are harming someone else.

You can't display the ten commandments on public property because it might offend some small minority of people. What does that say about the 1st amendment?

Like i said, I have no problem with people assembling to protest the state of things. When it is no longer an actual protest, no coherent message, it sure looks like people squatting on public land.

When even the most left leaning of mayors call out the police to send people home, it says something.
 
Like i said, I have no problem with people assembling to protest the state of things. When it is no longer an actual protest, no coherent message, it sure looks like people squatting on public land.

When even the most left leaning of mayors call out the police to send people home, it says something.

Amen.
 
You don't have the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Of course you do. You're confusing rights with laws.

You can't display the ten commandments on public property because it might offend some small minority of people. What does that say about the 1st amendment?

Nothing at all. Totally off-topic.

Like i said, I have no problem with people assembling to protest the state of things. When it is no longer an actual protest, no coherent message, it sure looks like people squatting on public land.

Just because a few people claim to not hear the message in no way suggests that it is incoherrent. You should see your doctor, might be a brain tumor or alzheimers coming on.

When even the most left leaning of mayors call out the police to send people home, it says something.

Yeah, it says the 99% are correct when they charge the government is run by the 1%.
 
"Sam Adams, champion/lackey of the greedy corporate 1%!"

Keep Portland Weird.
 
Of course you do. You're confusing rights with laws.

Then you have the right to murder someone, anyone.

I'm staying away from you, pal.
 
1st amendment is in the Bill of RIGHTS. I am not the one who's confused.
 
Jeff sounds like a cybersquatter who was trying to play the system by hiring a series of attorneys, playing dumb, and hiding behind limited liability protection.

I guess we'll see how it turns out.

Ed O.
 
1st amendment is in the Bill of RIGHTS.

Yes it is.

But Freedom Of Speech is an absolute right you are born with, no matter when or where you are born.

As with most rights, it's as old as the human race. And much, much older than law.

Legislating to restrict it, limit it, or abolish it has effect only on those who willingly surrender their right.

I do not.

I am aware of no law (to this point) that adds conditions of personal hygiene or leave-no-trace camping in order to "be allowed" to speak.
 
You've got quite the hard-on for Willy Whittle.

The bottom line is, without a reduction in government spending, all the taxing/punishing the rich, or whatever, isn't gonna help one iota. Whomever gets elected better that at the top of his agenda, or we're in for a nightmare....Willy Whittle, or not.
 
The bottom line is, without a reduction in government spending, all the taxing/punishing the rich, or whatever, isn't gonna help one iota. Whomever gets elected better that at the top of his agenda, or we're in for a nightmare....Willy Whittle, or not.

True, and in my lifetime Republican Presidents have spent and borrowed far more than Democratic Presidents.

But I'll not vote for either party this time around. I'd shoot myself before voting for anyone from the pathetic field the Republicans are presenting, and the Democrats are refusing to even give me a choice at all, so I'll cast my vote for President to someone outside those parties.
 
But Freedom Of Speech is an absolute right you are born with, no matter when or where you are born.

According to whom?

Where do "absolute rights" come from?

Ed O.
 
Yes it is.

But Freedom Of Speech is an absolute right you are born with, no matter when or where you are born.

As with most rights, it's as old as the human race. And much, much older than law.

Legislating to restrict it, limit it, or abolish it has effect only on those who willingly surrender their right.

I do not.

I am aware of no law (to this point) that adds conditions of personal hygiene or leave-no-trace camping in order to "be allowed" to speak.

Nobody has squelched their speech. They can say what they want to say. They've said what they wanted to say, which isn't much.

And you're still confused. They've exercised their right to assembly. Maybe they should "assemble" on your front lawn and at your office.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-protesters-arrested-nyc-finance-district-142625784.html

NEW YORK (AP) — Police arrested protesters who sat on the ground and blocked traffic into New York City's financial district on Thursday, part of a day of mass gatherings in response to efforts to break up Occupy Wall Street camps nationwide.

Police in riot helmets hauled several protesters to their feet and handcuffed them at an intersection one block from Wall Street.
"All day, all week, shut down Wall Street!" the crowd chanted.

Hundreds of protesters thronged intersections around the financial district, an area of narrow, crooked streets running between stately sandstone buildings housing banks, brokerage houses and the New York Stock Exchange.

After several arrests along one street, protesters retreated. A line of riot police followed them and set up metal barricades.

"You do not have a parade permit! You are blocking the street!" a police officer told protesters through a bullhorn.

A few blocks away, a separate group of about 50 protesters sat in a circle on the ground and said they would not budge.

The congestion brought taxis and delivery trucks to a halt. Police were allowing Wall Street workers through the barricades, but only after checking their IDs.

The protest marked two months since the Occupy Wall Street Movement sprang to life on Sept. 17 with a failed attempt to pitch a protest camp in front of the New York Stock Exchange. After police kept them out of Wall Street, the protesters pitched a camp in nearby Zuccotti Park, across from the World Trade Center site.

On Tuesday police raided Zuccotti Park and cleared out dozens of tents, tarps and sleeping bags.

"This is a critical moment for the movement given what happened the other night," Paul Knick, 44, a software engineer from Montclair, N.J., said as he marched through the financial district with other protesters on Thursday. "It seems like there's a concerted effort to stop the movement and I'm here to make sure that doesn't happen."

Similar protests were planned around the county.

In Dallas, police evicted dozens of protesters from their campsite near City Hall citing public safety and hygiene issues. They arrested 18 protesters who refused to leave.

Organizers in New York said protesters would fan out across Manhattan later on Thursday and head to subways, then gather downtown and march over the Brooklyn bridge.

Passer-by Gene Williams, a 57-year-old bond trader, joked that he was "one of the bad guys" but that he empathized with the demonstrators.
"They have a point in a lot of ways," he said. "The fact of the matter is, there is a schism between the rich and the poor and it's getting wider."
New York City officials said they had not spoken to demonstrators but were aware of the plans.

"The protesters are calling for a massive event aimed at disrupting major parts of the city," Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said. "We will be prepared for that."
 
FWIW, I always thought things like parade permits are questionable. Those do give govt. the ability to pick and choose who may assemble and when.

On the other hand, something like the Macy's parade, where they orderly block off the streets to facilitate assembly makes sense.
 
According to whom?

Where do "absolute rights" come from?

Ed O.

According to me.

They don't "come", they simply exist as a part of life.

Better to ask "where have they gone?".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top