Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Learning from Oakland (they were teargassed)

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 26, 2011, 12:12 a.m. EST by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bytMNoKNeRA

So, I'm wondering if it might be possible to perform a citizen's arrest if these kind of events happen in the future.

Some quick research on Wiki says that any citizen (in most states) can arrest someone for committing a felony.

Is a felony occurring during these break ups? How do we enforce or leverage a citizen's arrest?

Also, is this a nuke that we shouldn't be using? Can you ruin a police officer's career by arresting them for a felony?

136 Comments

136 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

If you try to arrest a police officer, you will simultaneously get charged with assaulting an officer (a felony itself) and get the shit beaten out of you.

[-] 2 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

I'm not understanding you properly. Are you saying that attempting to arrest a police officer is legally considered assault? Or are you saying that that's what they'll charge you with?

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 8 years ago

I like the idea, but trying a stunt like that when the cops have decided that a riot is in progress is for masochists only.

[-] 0 points by Sellerman (139) 8 years ago

@deaconsyre: If you're that ignorant of the law:

A) You shouldn't be allowed to vote, and;

B) You deserve what you get for aggressively placing your hands on an officer of the law!

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

@Sellerman,

A) Knowledge is the only cure for ignorance and is what I am gaining here.

B) I never advocated assaulting a police officer, that was your own inference.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

We're saying that the law does not allow for the citizen, or even non-citizen, arrest of a police officer. It's not considered assault; it's considered a threat on his life. And you'd be very lucky if you got off with a simple assault charge.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

Probably both, definitely the charge though. And you will also definitely get the shit beaten out of you. They have guns, tear gas, and night sticks. What does OWS have? Drumsticks?

[-] -1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

The naive assumption here is that law applies to cops. They are the law in fact.

[-] 2 points by Owlet (99) 8 years ago

What don't you understand about them having weapons and trained men and you not having any? Sheesh.

In 1871, leftists took over Paris for 2 months. They could only do this because they had cannons left over from a war. In the end, better trained soldiers with more weapons showed up and ended their occupation. It was called the Paris Commune. Look it up sometime and learn the facts of life.

[-] 1 points by demonspawn79 (186) 8 years ago

And 22 poorly trained, poorly armed men took Cuba in 1959. Look it up some time and learn the facts of life.

[-] 1 points by Owlet (99) 8 years ago

From Wikipedia:

"The Cuban revolution began when well armed rebels attacked the Moncada Barracks in Santiago and the barracks in Bayamo on 26 July 1953. The exact number of rebels killed is debatable; however, in his autobiography, Fidel Castro claims that five were killed in the fighting, and an additional fifty-six were killed later by the Batista regime."

That's at least 61 by my count. How many other Cuban revolutionaries are you hiding? (Oh, I forgot, you think the Cuban Revolution started and ended in 1959.)

[-] 1 points by demonspawn79 (186) 8 years ago

"After arriving and exiting the ship, the band of rebels began to make their way into the Sierra Maestra mountains, a range in southeastern Cuba. Three days after the trek began, Batista's army attacked and killed most of the Granma participants - while the exact number is disputed, no more than twenty of the original eighty-two men survived the initial bloody encounters with the Cuban army and escaped into the Sierra Maestra mountains."

If you're going to quote a wiki article, you should at least read the whole thing first.

[-] 1 points by Owlet (99) 8 years ago

Yes, but you're saying it took was 22 men to "liberate" Cuba. Read the whole effing article! A lot more people than that fought and died.

[-] 1 points by demonspawn79 (186) 8 years ago

It only took 22 men to start the revolution. As they traveled through Cuba they enlisted more supporters.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

This is so. 22 men all quite ready to die, undergo imprisonment and torture, also to kill began a revolution. They also did have a few weapons and the support of much of the population among whom they could hide at times. This is not the same thing as a naif thinking that the law will back him up in this time and place if he sees a cop misbehaving and decides to arrest that cop. Try that and one could end up dead.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

If you place hands on a person, by definition of the law, that is assault. There are different levels of assault, but the simplest form can be commited by doing nothing more than poking your finger into someones chest.

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

Yea but there's nothing in the definition of arrest that requires physical contact is there?

[-] 1 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

Arresting, detaining or apprehending is restraining. If you can restrain a person in public without putting hands on them, I would be impressed.

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

Well in theory you can tell them they're being lawfully detained and to not move until a police officer can arrive to arrest them. Then if they don't stay put they're resisting arrest (I don't know if that's true for citizen's arrests). Then you just have to prove it happened (tape the whole thing).

It's kinda a pain but it would present a risk to the police (forcing them to question the validity of their orders). But I don't want to destroy some spineless or ignorant police officer's life by having them arrested. I think that does bad things to their career.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

A citizen's arrest is a formal arrest by a citizen has no official government authority to make such an arrest as an agent of the government. The California Penal Code gives any citizen the right to make a citizen's arrest of another citizen in three alternative situations:

A public offense was committed or attempted in the citizen's presence.

The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the citizen's presence.

A felony has been in fact committed and the citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested has committed it. 

Why do we need a statute like this? Why do we need a "citizen's arrest"? Well, as the crime rate goes up, it becomes more and more important that good citizens come to the aid of one another in distress. Without such a statute, only government agents, such as police, would have the authority to stop a felon in progress. By creating the "citizen's arrest" statute we give ordinary citizens the authority to hold another citizen without fear of being sued for false imprisonment. Without the statute, the citizen who interfered in criminal activity would risk such a lawsuit.

Even with such a statute, the citizen still risks being sued if he/she is wrong on his assessment of the situation. Notice that the statute requires that the "public offense" be in the citizen's presence, or that the person arrested have committed a "felony," that is, a crime punishable by one year or more in state prison. Do you know which crimes are punishable by one or more years in state prison? Can you be absolutely sure the person you are arresting is the one who committed the offense? What if there were three people involved? Can you be sure which one is the one you should arrest? At the very least, a defense lawyer is going to argue that the requirements for citizen's arrest were not met and that the arrest, and any consequent seizure of contraband, were illegal.

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/citarr.htm

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

Eck, that's a double edged sword if I've ever seen one.

Nevermind, I withdraw.

[-] -2 points by Sellerman (139) 8 years ago

Amen. Nice thing, they have free showers in jail, stinky hippie rejects!

[-] 2 points by LazioGiggaloII (1) 8 years ago

Article 42 under the U.S. Constitution! It's a Federal Offence! Police are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution not violate it! The police across the country are abusing their authority like in no other time in history! They are not being held accountable for their actions. Therefore the pandora box has been opened! Police are now shooting and killing unarmed people just because they were in fear of their lives! Example 65% of officer involved fatality shootings the person was unarmed! No accountability by the public, the media, or the ACLU as a matter of fact! Citizens must insist the act of Contempt of Cop must stop today not tomorrow! Tomorrow is to late! Police should be put on notice to obey the law and Constitional Rights that are guaranteed for every U.S. Citizen! The Constitutional Rights of individuals don't have a Two Year Warrenty which City Officials across the Country seem to think! Police are not above the law! Call the U.S. Marshal and have them make the arrest for you!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

The US is a virtual war zone, in large part to the proliferation of drugs in our society, which has not only had the effect of dumbing down an entire population but also, quite literally, decimated its minority subcultures.

We have empowered the police officer to risk the loss of life in the defense of life just as we have empowered the surgeon to risk life in the defense of life. It seems we always disregard the human element, such things as the rush of adrenalin in face of the fierce, because law is not possessed of compassion, nor should it be.

A US Marshal does not outrank the police officer; only the law itself outranks the police officer because the police officer is the vehicle of law in fact.

[-] 1 points by slinkeey (244) 8 years ago

I applaud the police dept for doing something to keep the idiots from ruining the city.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 8 years ago

What about if everyone SAT DOWN in the street, park, or where ever they are saying they must leave?

I saw a protest in Africa where the women did this because they wanted some kind of conflict or war to stop. It was extremely effective.

It is much harder to attack peaceful unarmed people who are SITTING DOWN, and it looks very, very bad when it goes viral on YouTube.

Also do the lame paper masks work with the tear gas (I suspect not very well, anyhow)?

Have they used any sound weapons yet? I know they have this technology. '

Can we 'arm' ourselves with masks, earplugs, and have a true SIT-IN?

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 8 years ago

Oakland has a sorry history.

[-] 1 points by pinkydinkyroo (2) 8 years ago

People who marched for civil rights, did sit ins, and rode in the front of the bus were breaking the law too. So who was right? The ones breaking the law or the ones upholding the law?

[-] 1 points by bethlany88 (134) from Vancouver, WA 8 years ago

I say Flood CA's Governor with emails about the denial of our first amendment right to peaceably assemble and on the outrage over those sworn to protects us citizens viciously attacking them in oakland... email him at this link... http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

[-] 1 points by bethlany88 (134) from Vancouver, WA 8 years ago

I say Flood CA's Governor with emails about the denial of our first amendment right to peaceably assemble and on the outrage over those sworn to protects us citizens viciously attacking them in oakland... email him at this link... http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

[-] 1 points by bethlany88 (134) from Vancouver, WA 8 years ago

I say flood the Governors mail box with the outrage this is stirring in American citizens being denied their first amendment right while being viciously attacked by those sworn to protect us... email the CA's governor at this link... http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 8 years ago

All it takes for inequality to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.

[-] 1 points by Fredone (234) 8 years ago

You are right to consider this, but you'd have to ask a lawyer if it would work.

Frankly it seems highly unlikely - it is a common idea of course and they probably sealed off any possibility of it working a long time ago.

Secondly there is too much discretion built into the law - it is like the bible, you can successfully defend or prosecute for nearly anything you want if the judge is sympathetic and you have the money to buy lawyers. Find me a judge that does not squirm at the thought of saying this would be legal.

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

I agree, Fredone. And in fact it seems to have the ability to backfire horribly as well.

But now we know.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 8 years ago

One possible lesson here might be that when cops show up in riot gear, you shouldn't just stand around and wait to get shot at. Too simple?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 8 years ago

Not much you can do when police violate the law. But, that is the point, to get arrested for peaceful protest. Then demand your right to a jury trial. Also sue city for unlawful arrest, unlawful prosecution. The point being, by cops breaking up peaceful protest and unlawful acts, you gain moral high ground, and public sympathy. Watch old civil rights marches, it was after they let loose the dogs and teargas, that the public turned, and civil rights were won.

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

Yea, I was just trying to see if there was a way for people to not get hurt. I don't enjoy pain really.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

If you want your demands to be met, you gotta take some pot shots. America would not have ever been created if the colonists didn't get down and dirty.

[-] 1 points by OccupyDC (153) 8 years ago

You can't "arrest" a police officer doing his duty. The police are doing what they are doing because that is what they were ordered to do.

The civilian leadership of the city had to have told the Police Commissioner to clear the park and authorized the use of force.

Police don't show up wearing riot gear because they are making a "fashion statement". They are there dressed like that because the orders came down from above.

If you try your silly idea of "arresting" a police officer, you will be slapped with multiple charges ranging from assault on a peace officer to obstruction of governmental administration to obstruction of justice ... and basically anything else they can think of to charge you ... and it will be deserved.

If the police in your city show up in riot gear ... it is because that is how the Mayor wanted it.

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

Aren't there policies in place to stop people from using the "I was following orders" defense?

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

Yes, the policy is that you have to gain power to the point that you are in control, then you can arrest someone for "just following orders". Look at the Nazis. Had they won the war, no soldier would have been tried for war crimes, but they did not win. For that reason, the soldiers were tried for war crimes. When the soldiers stated, "We were just following orders." the winners of the war, stated this was not a valid excuse and sentenced them to prison anyway.

Like it or not, the law favors those in power, even when those in power are breaking the law.

Now, in the case of the police officers. I don't really know what to say about that. I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I don't know if there is need to defend a point of fact.

[-] 0 points by OccupyDC (153) 8 years ago

You seem to think this is a one sided issue.

If police tell you to vacate an area, you better fucking vacate. Especially if they are dressed in riot gear.

The people in that park already knew they were violating the law. They don't seem to care.

You as a citizen are supposed to follow direct orders given to you by a police officer. That is life. In a society that values law and order, you do not have the luxury to say "no" when given a direct order from the police. Especially cops dressed in riot gear.

If you see police dressed in riot gear, that means force was already previously authorized. If a cop beats your ass, you have no one to blame but yourself.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

The people involved in the Boston Tea Party broke the law too, but we consider them honorable patriots.

Strange huh? America was created by criminals. Whodathunkit.

[-] 1 points by Owlet (99) 8 years ago

The Boston Tea Party was over 200 years ago. Since then, we have put together a civil society and power structure that has served (many of) us pretty well until fairly recently. You know, instead of trying to go back to fucking square one and pretending it's 1776, and arguing about amendments and what they meant in 1776 (what are you, a Tea Partier?) how about working within the system that has been developed and creating some real change.

A bunch of showoffs getting teargassed in Oakland does not help.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

Because it all starts and ends with square-one. It all starts and ends with the Constitution and if you feel any different, then there is no point in this country continuing to exist because without that Constitution, without "square one", there is no foundation on who has the authority to do what.

[-] 1 points by Owlet (99) 8 years ago

So how do you propose to "take over the country" and "start at square one" without throwing out the Constitution? (never mind the military logistics of that...)

Internet chatroom-based pipe dreaming.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

Enforce it.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 8 years ago

If police are dressed in riot gear, while you are exersizing your right to peaceably assemble, then you are in the right, they are in the wrong. And if they beat you, then the video of it needs to get out in the public domain. This is how you win the hearts and minds folks.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

But this not a peaceful assembly - your intent is to disturb the peace. And you don't have the right to occupy a space unless a) you are expressly invited, and b) you conduct yourself in such a manner so to not create a public disturbance. I think you've pretty much violated these rules of civil society.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

wow.. its incredible how misguided and lost so many have become.. you have the wool completely pulled over your eyes.. and you seem to like it

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Perhaps if you actually read the city ordinances, you might gain some insight?

And again, this is not an assembly...

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 8 years ago

No, the civil society was violated by the bankers that caused the biggest case of fraud in world history. People have a right to demonstrate. And if the police wanted to be in the right, they would arrest those bankers and ratings company officers that perpetrated the fraud, heck they even admit to it, then call it business as usual.

Police shouldn't arrest demonstators, they should arrest the criminals ON wall street.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Well then stand your ground and defend it with your life. After all, it's give me liberty or give me death, isn't it? Who do you suppose is going to win here?

This isn't a demonstration - it's an occupation. Or have you forgotten?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 8 years ago

I am standing my ground, and talking to people about OWS, and donating, we are doing lots of things. In my home state we are very close to repealing anti-labor laws, and OWS is gaining ground with the public in general. These police tactics are the best thing that could happen, it shows how morally bankrupt the extreme right has become. Oh, also you should see what the Pope had to say, not looking good for the globalists and their stooges when he says that you guys are immoral.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I'm an American, a descendant of the dissenter; we hold not esteem, nor ascribe to any adoration, that would elevate the Pope as one to emulate - quite the opposite. On the other hand, we are a tolerant people.

You need to consider, I would hope, that you are holding your ground within the legal confines of the rights enumerated, as a private and peaceful assembly. You should not confuse the right to assemble, peacefully and privately, with the privilege of demonstrating publicly.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

we do have the LIBERTY as outlined in our constitution to assemble.. the "laws" which these police are enforcing are in fact going against the premise upon which this nation was built.. DONT YOU GET THAT?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

You do not have the right to disrupt civil society or disturb the peace. And on NYC streets, where all is publicly owned, and publicly policed, you do not have the right of assembly unless by the express permission of the public representative. The right to assemble here is a privilege, not an express right.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

it is absolutely A RIGHT... as outlined CLEARLY in the 1st amendment...

[-] 1 points by Owlet (99) 8 years ago

Yes, and we have the right to free speech too, except you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or say the 7 Dirty Words on broadcast television. You are just waking up to this reality? I weep for the future of this movement. Sounds like it's made up of a bunch of kids who don't know the facts.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

?? who yelled fire in the middle of a crowded theater?

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

excuse me?? you are dead WRONG.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

No I am 100% right. The beauty of the Founding Fathers is that they had a full command of the English language and chose their words decisively. It says you have a right to "peacefully" "assemble." You are not assembled, this is not an assembly, this is not a meeting - it's an encampment, a self declared "occupation" and by very definition you are an invading force.

You have "assembled" within the confines of a defined commonwealth; there is no express right, only privilege subject to the congeniality of the host.

And the fact that you are nonviolent does not qualify a peacefulness. They are two separate words of distinct definition. No matter because this is not in any way peaceful - the intent is to create a disturbance than defies the peace and tranquility of others. And we haven't even begun to speak of the violations of NYC code.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

you are 100% correct within the confines of your own mind.. out here in reality you are drastically in error.. the purpose of "peaceful assembly" was because during the "revolutionary" period in 1773-1774, the colonists as they were called... were crushed for "protesting".. by the british forces. .. this is why they wrote this into the constitution.... do you not have any historical knowledge? do you live within a vacuum.. ? never mind don't answer that.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

But again, I would argue, that this is not an assembly. And it is not peaceful. What you have attempted to do is pervert the wording of the Constitution to allow you to violate the ordinances of NYC.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

Your rights to "peaceably assemble" end when you being acting in ways defined as "civil disobedience". Breaking the law is not "peaceful" by default and the Supreme Courts have ruled that being disobedient to the civil laws of this country ARE punishable by those laws.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

IT CLEARLY STATES... there will be no law to interfere with the right to peaceably assemble.. ergo, how are the "police" or who ever is calling the shots to tell these people WHEN AND WHERE they may assemble... NO!!! AMERICANS may assemble peacefully when and where as they choose..!!come on

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

here.. i'll make it easy for you : The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

civil disobedience was crafted over the years to confine protests such as these.... don't you understand that?? the original first amendment, refer to that and get back to me

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

I'm sorry, but the Constitution, and specifically the 1st Amendment, does not guarantee the "right to protest".

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

what?? are you raving mad or illiterate?

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

Both of you seem to be right. One.) The Constitution does not grant the right to protest. It grants the right to assemble peaceably and also the right to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. To petition does not mean to camp out, bang on drums, and chant that you are angry. OWS has the right to create a petition of grievances and submit them to the government for a redress.

Two.) People do have the right to assemble peaceably; however, this does not mean that they can disregard established laws. A law cannot be created that states "People can only assemble, so long as the number of participants is no larger than 20." Why because it would violate the Constitution, since the Constitution does not place a limit on how many people can assemble together, so long as it is done peaceably. Once again though, that does not mean that the assembled group can break established laws. If the law states curfew is at 10pm, then the group can be peaceably assembled until 10pm. At 10pm, each individual would then be in violation of an established law.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

you are WRONG... it clearly states; The amendment prohibits the making of any law...interfering with the right to peaceably assemble

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

"The freedom of assembly is not unlimited. The government may limit the freedom if the instance under consideration satisfies three conditions.

*First, the limitation must serve an important governmental interest. For example, a law preventing people from gathering to start a violent revolution is valid.

*Second, the limitation must be content neutral. This means it must not control assemblies based on the kinds of people who gather, their reason for gathering, or their beliefs. A law preventing people from gathering to support flag burning, for example, would violate the freedom of assembly.

*Third, the limitation must restrict the freedom of assembly as little as possible to serve the important governmental interest. In Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), for instance, the Supreme Court decided that the government may require permits for parading on public streets. As long as it issues the permits without discrimination (treating different groups unequally), the government may control the time, place, and manner of assemblies for the sake of public safety and convenience."

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/freedom-assembly

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

this is exactly what i was referring to earlier in that, there have been laws drafted which counter the initial language of the first amendment, ie "for the sake of public safety and convenience"

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

So you are insinuating that the initial language of the first amendment provided for the freedom to assemble with complete disregard for the safety of the public and irregardless of convenience or other harms to society?

The Constitution uses the word PEACEABLY for a reason-to refine the type of assembling people are free to do. it is well within the rights of the Supreme Court to interpret what constitutes "peaceable" vs what constitutes "un-peaceable" without violating the Constitution in any way.

Here's an excellent blog post with Supreme Court judgements and statements regarding "freedom to assemble" decisions made by the courts. http://www.federalistblog.us/2011/10/there-is-no-constitutional-right-to-occupy/#more-708

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

you are DEAD wrong. an american citizen has the right to protest, has the right to move freely. police to not have carte blanche to direct a citizen where and when to move. these are violations of our rights!!! OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. what is the matter with you?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

An American citizen only has the right to protest and to move freely WHEN that protest or movement does NOT infringe upon the laws and ordinances in place in that particular location. Your right to protest ENDS when you behave in an unlawful manner, violate the rights of the "state" regarding public safety, trespass, destruction of private or public property, resisting arrest, public order etc.

[-] 1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 8 years ago

you have it backwards... no use debating you. thank you good bye

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

not the police or ridiculous laws? would you have blamed the colonists for resisting british troops?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

They're plainly not NYC kids are they?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

technically, the law gives us those rights. on the other hand, those rights only exist for the one percent- not the peasants. peasants have no rights.

but yes, with our much larger numbers it should be possible to arrest the pigs, and it may come to that.

the wiser game however is to retreat back to the wiki and make the legal arguments, generate the political platform... and etc.

It should be possible to CONVERT the pigs given sufficient informational density.

the real game is when the pigs stop being evil pigs and start actually being peace officers.

the real question is how to effectively communicate with them.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

You're not going to "win" cops over. Even if they agree with you, they are going to do their job. Why? Because if they do not do their job, they will lose their job. If they lose their job, they will lose their income. If they lose their income, they will not be able to support themselves or their family.

You really think a working man cares enough about this movement to lose his family's financial stability over it? I don't think so.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

the pigs will be amongst the very last to win over, but in essence where we are now without organization, your right.

its imperative that everyone understand this. They are evil scum sucking bottom feeding parasites, operating as caste warriors, and thats what they are and who they are and what they are about. Its not going to change until we have peaked past converting around 80 percent.

Thats a communications problem we have to face over the long haul. until then the police are the enemy, and they will have no conscience, wil lbreak laws left and right whenever it suits them, will ie, steal, cheat, and assault innocent people- in essence will behave as thugs- not police officers.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

No they're not. They are just men and women doing what they have to do to put food on the table. Well some of them are scum sucking evil bottom feeders, but not most of them.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

nope. all of them. you make a choice. you either deign to be an evil pawn of the oligarchs, a thug, an evil storm trooper- or you choose to be. Nobody forces them to do these things.

They make a choice. Whatever coercion they experience to make that choice is not relevant. If somebody snags my family and holds them hostage unless i go kill 50 people, - if i kill 50 people i am still the evil prick.

There are no excuses. There are no justifications. Pigs are evil scum- period. until we stop making excuses for them, until we stop trying to say there are "good" pigs, until we face the actual reality of what they REALLY are- we have not taken even the first step. Denial is not healthy, and it prevents us from confronting the true problem.

ALL pigs are evil scum sucking bottom feeding thugs. by definition. Otherwise they would not have been able to keep that job.

If i joined the police force, and learned what it really means to be a pig- I'd quit. Id have a moral center which would prohibit me from doing those things.

There is no right justification and no right excuse.

period. end of discussion.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

if i kill 50 people i am still the evil prick. - while I don't agree with everything you said, I am glad to see that you understand the concept of personal responsibility for your actions.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

the pigs don't. thats the problem. thats why they are evil scum sucking bottom feeding thugs.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

laws dont give you those rights....u automatically have them from birth.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

NO YOU DON'T!!! You have no "rights" from birth. You only have liberty. The liberty to do whatever you want. The law SECURES certain liberties for you. Though those secured liberties, rights, my be violated from time to time. The law gives you the ability to combat such violations.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

fine point. tell that to the pigs.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

i would but the lack of education required for that position would make it pointless.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

right. by definition pigs are the ones generally with IQs under 90 and no education aside from how to be a pig. so. philosophy of civil theory is a bit beyond them.

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

I think not calling them 'pigs' would help.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

sure, but, thats what they are until they stop.

[-] 1 points by the55 (22) 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

who has a career these days?

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

It's not like you have to physically detain them. They could voluntarily accompany you or resist arrest.

Unless attempting to arrest a police officer is literally assault (I'm not a lawyer),

[-] 1 points by SteelWolf (19) from Santa Ana, CA 8 years ago

What they'll charge you with will depend upon what you actually did. Depending on how successful you are at forcibly detaining a police officer, you could be charged with anything from 'nothing at all' to 'kidnapping'.

A police officer is not going to 'voluntarily accompany you' anywhere if you attempt to arrest him. The cop will probably ignore you or tell you to get lost, unless you physically engage him. If you go that route, all bets are off, but you can pretty safely assume he will 'resist arrest' by putting you in handcuffs quickly and un-gently. Several other cops will likely jump in, ironically saying things like "stop resisting arrest" while they subdue you.

In short, no good can come of going down that road. It is an entirely bad idea.

[-] 1 points by Wildcat682 (178) 8 years ago

If you're really unlucky, you'll get a few tazers in the back while they continue to yell, "stop resisting arrest", that way they can shock you a few more times. The more the electricity makes your muscles spasm, the more you shake, the more you look like you are "resisting arrest". Its a bad cycle.

If these people plan on "arresting" officers, they might want to get their own tazers.

[-] 1 points by SteelWolf (19) from Santa Ana, CA 8 years ago

Anyone that plans on "arresting" a police officer should plan on going to prison. It's an astonishingly bad idea. No one should try it.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

You can only attempt a citizen's arrest if someone is actually breaking the law. A uniformed police officer performing his legally sworn duty-even if he's doing something you personally don't like-is NOT breaking the law. He is ENFORCING it.

Attempting to interfere with a police action is called OBSTRUCTING justice and you will be arrested for doing so.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

his legally sworn duty is protect the state and national constitution....any law that disobeys those constitutions is null and void and they should be disobeyed. sadly most cops dont even know that fact.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

For the record, the US Constitutional freedom to peaceably assemble (and most likely the NY Constitution) does NOT protect any behavior that can be defined as civil disobedience. In protests, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.

Trying to produce arguments about the police being the bad guys when their behavior has been ordered by their superiors WHO DO understand the Constitution and KNOW that their actions are justified and defensible in US Courts of law-only makes this movement look uneducated as well as unlawful.

Stop screaming about the Constitution and your "rights" when neither one are being violated. Educated citizens know this.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

everything has become unlawful conduct in order to suppress situations like ows. That was the plan of big govt. You really think their superiors understand the Constitution and the ideas of the Enlightenment? I dont ever once remember hearing a cop or cop union leader ever debate anything using a quote by James Madison. And police are the bad guys....always have been by percentage.

And have you ever asked why everything is now considered illegal and civil disobedient? Where should people protest when they cant legally protest anywhere? Or if they have to get a permit to protest, how the fuck is that right? I dont remember seeing "to assemble with permit of govt" in the constitution. The govt is not the default moral leader in a debate. I learned this by educating myself on jefferson, madison, thomas paine.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

You can legally protest. But when you break the laws of either the country OR the state DURING that protest, it becomes by default an ILLEGAL protest.

"For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains prohibitions on advocacy of "national, racial or religious hatred"; and it allows the restriction of the freedom to assembly if it is necessary "in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." (Articles 20 and 21.)

Protesting, however, is not necessarily violent or a threat to the interests of national security or public safety. Nor is it necessarily civil disobedience, because most protest does not involve violating the laws of the state." wiki "right to protest"

[-] 0 points by Joeschmoe1000 (270) 8 years ago

I was at Oakland.

It was awesome. Saw some kid get konked in the head with a nightstick.

Ouch! and bloody too. Reminded me of New Orleans.

Maybe go back tomorrow.

[-] 0 points by devilsadvocate (67) 8 years ago

They should be teargassed

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

There is no court that will uphold your arrest of a cop for violent suppression against citizens in violation of our constitutional rights.-----

The only real option is to join with other Americans to demand states apply for an article 5 convention.----

Congress is very afraid of an Article 5 because they can loose all of their control when 3/4 of the states ratify. Meaning . . . we need to organize in our states even better than was done on wall street. Much better. Some history.-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.-------

http://occupywallst.org/forum/force-a-constitutional-amendment/

Article 5 of the US constitution is the environment we need to use for amendment.

BEST IDEA: Get the cops name and badge number, the date, time and place of the offense, the victims name and any witnesses and post the fact of the assualt, time etc. leaving out witnesses and victims who are given copy of the blog url and other data for later use. Make a blog for that purpose. Later, after article 5 ALL police acting against citizens using their rights can be removed from service and jailed IF their offense is serious enough. Fines for restitution are also applicable. Peace officers are needed, the law of the land will not be enforced by law enforcement, so we are done with that role.

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 8 years ago

Go for it, Gomer Pyle.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

For the record, the Constitutional freedom to peaceably assemble does NOT protect any behavior that can be defined as civil disobedience. In protests, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.

Trying to produce arguments about the police being the bad guys when their behavior has been ordered by their superiors WHO DO understand the Constitution and KNOW that their actions are justified and defensible in US Courts of law-only makes this movement look uneducated as well as unlawful.

Stop screaming about the Constitution and your "rights" when neither one are being violated.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 8 years ago

Yes, the police's superiors DO know the constitution, because they have been violating it for years. Assembling in public spaces is not trespassing. And speech is only restricted when it causes material harm, like yelling fire in a theater. Political speech is protected, so yes Rights are being violated.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

Assembling in public spaces is different than occupying, sleeping in, camping out in public spaces. Doing so without a permit is against the law.

Zuccotti Park is PRIVATELY owned property that has public access. The owners of the park have repeatedly expressed that the OWS use of the park "violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues". That they have refrained from pressing charges does not make OWS actions legal.

[-] 1 points by deaconsyre (21) from Athol, MA 8 years ago

Dude you're the only one screaming about the constitution and rights. I'm just trying to be conniving on behalf of OWS.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Probably you would have but a few minutes walking upright if that.