Forum Post: Does OWS have lawyers available on hand.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 12:37 a.m. EST by OWSForObama
(151)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
When we do things like hold up traffic and block businesses, is that illegal? If so, are their lawyers on call for the cause?
OWS is a banker plot full details with supporting evidence links is here. This was planned since at least 87... http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/operation-occupy-communications-center
Remember not to long ago there were laws against Black people riding in the front of the bus (and much worse.) Clearly, some laws are unjust, and need to be broken. Some laws are there only to keep certain people in power. Verily, breaking laws part of the business. Breaking laws is essential for making change. If becomes only a matter of being careful as to who you piss off.
Good post.
Or you could follow the Tea Party's lead and be responsible, clean and respectful citizens. It's your country to protect, not just to vandalize.
Yes, the Tea Party is actually a very good example to follow.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/vote-or-else-this-will-all-be-a-pointless-exercise/
Yes it is illegal. Because when we do that, we are infringing upon someone else, and causing them harm. It might not be much harm, (like we're only making a guy late for his mother's operation which she will die during) but it could be really serious like making a small mom and pop business totally destroy because we don't let customers in and now they will be homeless. Non violence people. we have a right to protest, but not when it harms anyone else's rights or property.
Do you think there is another way to have mass assembly gatherings to work for change that will not effect local businesses and still make progress in creating change?
(I'm not defending allowing small businesses and people who work in them to lose their jobs because other people are disrupting their stores, I think that is wrong to hurt the little guy. Where I have worked we always supported the local stores. It's the right thing to do).
I do, and cities have them in place (areas set aside, pick a day, get a permit, so they can provide traffic redirection, security, notify businesses etc.) Dont get me wrong, I agree with OWS and Im here to support and I take shifts in our local camp (we go home periodically and shower and take care of families or go to work). But just so we don't pretend we aren't breaking the laws. We are.
Excellent points.
Do you think one of the reasons this isn't done in certain places is to try to have a show of strength, to show up and just surprise them with a huge crowd as a show of unity and force (we are the people you can't stop us concept, we can take over and occupy anywhere...)
yes. tea party (im a member of that too, i came here from them) does it all legal with the permits and trash cans and paying for porta potties. OWS wants to be seen different (though the basic about government corruption from the businesses that own the politicians is shared by both) and the occupy is a statement. We are here, we are here, we are here. But it is tiresome to have anarchists and angry-ists maintaining we have a right to occupy and being mad at cities and cops when we are breaking laws and taking other peoples rights. we have the right to peaceably assemble. We dont have the right to forcefully occupy. That's the point, we're going to do it anyway to get people to listen. But there is a line...we need majority to support us or we will (i dont know the exact english) get smaller. So we violate some other people's rights..but we can't do that too much or too hard or too long..or the rest of all the people will just get mad at us for taking their parks so they can't jog in them, or blocking their roads or beating on their cars or keeping them from going to work.
You nailed it right there, peaceful assembly vs forceful occupation.
The encampment at the park has been a peaceful occupation which is almost a contradiction, but they want to change the way people think about occupation and redefine it. Incidents that require the lawyers to be involved succeed in getting media attention and public awareness, but fail in changing the definition of occupation.
yeah, and sometimes we're walking right up to the line on forceful occupation. taking over and closing oakland port is forceful occupation. so far most cities letting us occupy with continued good behavior. Im for staying on their good sides so we can keep delivering the message.
I know about a week ago the Occupy Cincinatti group were being arrested and asking people to call the National Lawyers Guild in NYC to get some help, they were worried with how they were being treated and arrested. The group in Minnesota uses some of their budget to bail people out. I loved the spirit in Sacramento when they arrested 2 of them, the rest of the group (small but dedicated) went and stayed outside the jail till their brothers were released. They decided, well if we can't occupy the park, we'll occupy the space outside the jail, we're not giving up.
That Port of Oakland shutdown will affect how other cities handle Occupy-related protests.
tech, you're a thinker and Ive respect for you. I think you are thinking along the same way I am thinking. That the port of oakland was too forceful an occupation, an attack really, and other cities are saying 'well, if that's what is going to come of a 'peaceful assembly' we should not let it get to that point.'
Thanks! Yes, for a while the movement seemed a little silly and harmless, like the unstoppable hippie drum circle from South Park. Now it's starting to seem a lot more ominous, like the WTO riots in Seattle, or the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver. Which is way harder to support.
Caint make an oqmelette withou u break some eggs, right!?
True, but the stakes are so high, if this gets screwed up, we will be paying for it for a long time to come. So long that our children and even their children will suffer because of it. It's a heavy responsibility.
Yeah so fuk mom and pop store! It's for the children!
I never said that Joe. I'd rather go to the bodega than Starbucks, where I can get a nice breakfast type of meal lovingly made by a human who is happy I come in.
So we shouldnt fuck up peoples lives for our self indulgent protests?
Now u have me all confused
The protests aren't for the purpose of self indulgence. The goal is to effect change for the greatest amount of people, for the greater good. When the protests hurt people, they need to be done in a better manner.
U mean the hurts need to be done in a better way? wTF?
No hurts for anybody Joe.
So protesters should respect private property rights of all, including perhaps Brookfield properties and the neighbors of Zuccoti Park?
Or should we trash them. For the Children?
Yes respect property rights of all.
OWS have agreed in general assemblies to proceed with civil disobedience. They know they are doing illegal activities. It is part of their plan. They do not believe in law as they are anarchists.
No, "they" do believe in laws that are responsive to the people, just not laws that aren't, and no, they are not anarchists. You are Thrasymachus. Guess what, some people do read Plato.
They agreed to sleep in a park even though it is illegal. They agreed to create roadblocks even though it is illegal. This is what I mean by civil disobedience.
Then you deny the existance of unjust laws?
No. Why would you assume I deny the existence of unjust laws?
Because you are smearing the movement with the charge of anarchy, without allowing for the concept of laws that are either just, or unjust. Those against unjust laws are not necessarily, of course, anarchists.
Why do you assume I disagree with the effectiveness of civil disobedience?