So... stand up to the police but not to street thugs?
Could it be that you might just get your ass kicked for real - and alot more severe than what the cops would ever do?
Conversely, frankie dear, does this mean the Police are more adept at ousting nonviolent protesters from our parks, rather than drug dealers?

Just how is it that police, who ostensibly tout that they're just looking out for everyone's safety, while just last night complaining about "verbal intimidation" against police and park officials, apparently weren't on hand to dissuade such intimidation on the part of gang-types against peaceful occupiers?
How did this come to be about holding territory, anyway? What's wrong with having periodic marches? Just because the New Yorkers called their movement "Occupy" doesn't mean activists everywhere have to obsess about holding ground. Because the only ground the authorities might let you hold now will be far from the center. At this point you're playing into their hands by pitching tents. It's immediately "news." They have to respond.

If the Tea Party was pitching tents and taking over parks, many of us would be horrified. And you never know, they might, come spring. Would many of those who support the Occupy camps support the Tea Partiers' right to camp in city parks?

I'm not saying the movement hasn't done some good, but trying to pitch tents seems like a dead end to me. Come up with different issues to spotlight and educate the public about, or else, to the public at large, this will just end up being "Oh, they're pitching tents again. Oh, the cops are removing their tents again. Oh, they're blaming Sam for not letting them camp again. Oh, they're pitching tents again."
This is just sad.
"How did this come to be about holding territory, anyway?"

What happened to the right of the people to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances, anyway?

Prior to the so-called "anti-camping" ordinances of the 1960's and later (aimed at those damned hippies and their radical inclusive, peaceful ideas), staying in the same place as a sign of dedication to a cause was not uncommon.

See also, "Hoovervilles".
If space aliens visited our locale just this afternoon, they might conclude that the "war on drugs" had been won by the drug dealers against police, while the "cause for the 99%" was successfully defeated in the minds of Blogtown commenters.
So how do you want the police to apprehend drug dealers downtown, Bob R.? Any specific tactics the police could use that they aren't already? Surveillance cameras, more undercover officers?
Good points Todd.
Where are 'occupy' lawyers with lawsuits challenging the right of the city to shut down peaceful protest?
Bob, what keeps those lawyers from standing up anyway?
Todd Mecklem, the encampment solves many logistical issues, as it’s a peaceful assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Being geographically separated has greatly confounded the occupiers efforts to make progress.
Drug dealers preventing occupiers form holding ground? Give me a fucking break! No one is questioning the accuracy of this? But lets print it anyway. I for one who is a born and bred Oregonian, Portland lady, I have never been confronted by drug dealers/ gang members in down... this is bullshit. Lets be real, I am not buying this story. Mercury I await your inevitable demise.
"Some reports said they were gang members, but that's not confirmed."

Lol. Nothing is ever confirmed with clownish children.
Have fun a$$hats.
"So how do you want the police to apprehend drug dealers downtown, Bob R.?"

Perhaps you misread my comments and went away with the opposite meaning.
reid, I fail to see how being geographically separated could stop a political movement - especially in these days of an iphone on every person.
Where are your lawyers putting a stop to the supression of civil rights? Where?
There was a video made the other day by 'occupy' that I thought signaled a positive step for this movement - even though the particular problem was one I thought of individuals own making: personal debt.
So much for that I suppose.
I ask again though - you guys keep whining and whining about supression of rights. Where are your guys that should have your back anyway?
When I saw the mass 'occupy' demonstration downtown before the eviction, I noticed there were all the 'legal observers' around filming and such. Couldn't miss them. They labled themselves as such. There has been lawyers suggesting what to do in case of arrest too, right?
So where are the legal challenges?
Reid, I shouldn't think 'progress' would be hindered by the fact you can't camp in a park.
"even though the particular problem was one I thought of individuals own making: personal debt"

Even though that's about the only way you can go to college unless you have relatives to pay for it.

Think the big banks (rather than persons) aren't also in debt?
Or, you work your way through school as Fruitcup and many others do... or you have a debt that is low interest to pay off - which most do these days.
and when they start earning they make out one hell of alot better than those who don't have degrees.
"and when they start earning"

Would you care to quote the current unemployment rate among recent college graduates?

"they make out one hell of alot better than those who don't have degrees."

Recent studies disagree.
PS... Have you seen what's happened to tuition lately?
Just to be clear, I have student loan debt. Just not crazy ass student loan debt. College is expensive as fuck.
Hmmm... greed in higher education?
No.... not possible.
Geographic issues do not stop the movement, frankieb, but they do confound it.

NLG and others are actively helping people accused of crimes. They’re also consulting on various legal strategies, but I’m not involved with those and I’m not sure where they’re at.
Why didn't those idiot anti-abortion activists think of occupying parks before?
I'm sure if they had that there wouldn't be legal abortion now...right?
Even their peaceful protest has been met with court challenges and limited their rights to assembly.

I find it fascinating that supporters of this movement claim that their actions are protected and considered an example of peacefully assembling.

Here is the exact text of the First Amendment to the United States Consitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Amendment does not grant individuals a waver to existing laws, it does not grant them the authority to ignore the rights of other individuals, it does not grant them special privileges beyond other groups, it does not allow them to act as an increased burden on others, it does not grant individuals the authority to occupy randomly chosen lands, and it does not prevent the states from ending an assembly that is seen as unsafe toward participants or spectators.
@madehero2000 finally someone posts something sensible.
I've noticed that supporters of occupy have a fascinating way of answering every question with another question. People really enjoy that.
"Talk among some at Director Park was that drug dealers wielding skateboards surged in, ate some food, and spat in some occupiers' faces while demanding they leave."

What do they think gangs are just like those in The Warriors? Since when have gang members started riding around on skateboards in packs? I can't wait for the mime gang to show up.
I've walked through the park blocks almost every day for the past four years, so I can confidently attest that there ARE skateboard-wielding bands of disaffected youths peddling drugs, and they do resemble something out of an 80s gang flick.
@Bob R - Do you know any place that has statistics on "recent grad unemployment" broken down by major?

I'd expect to see a big reality check for a lot of students. When I was going through, too many people picked their major because they thought it was fun or interesting, NOT because they had done the research and knew there were jobs waiting. They were taking on huge student loans to fund their hobby, really. Their parents probably told them "You can be anything you want to be when you grow up!"

Anecdotally, it always seemed like those were the same people who were maxing out their student loans, and not working their way through. I got a lot of sh*t about my major when I was in college, so when I see an Occupier complaining about "recent grad unemployment," I picture those liberal-arts-department jerks. That can't be anything like a whole picture, but I probably have a chip on my shoulder about it.
@ 23, If you find this so fascinating, you should do a little research. If you're just going to quote the language of the First Amendment as your entire argument, you should actually be reaching the opposite conclusion. Cut down to just it's relevant text: "Congress shall make no law abridging.. the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Thanks to the 14th Amendment, you can add "and no state" after Congress.

Taken literally, i.e. at it's word, that should mean that no one (i.e. local cops, FBI, armed forces) has any legal authority to disperse US citizens peaceably assembled.

Now, that's plainly not the law of the land, but if 1st A's your only source, I'm not sure where you're getting your conclusion from.

The key to your argument seems to be this "seems to be unsafe" part - do you really want the constitutional standard for breaking up an otherwise peaceful assembly of citizens to be whenever the government conveniently determines it "seems to be unsafe?" That's a pretty shitty standard for a functioning democracy, I'd say.

It's also, somewhat pathetically, the law of the land.
Comenty Colin:

You might to look up what peaceable means.

Breaking local laws (e.g., illegal structures, blocking traffic, etc.) does not fit that criteria. People are conflating this word with being non-violent (i.e., you can be disturbing the peace while being non-violent).

Blocking traffic and camping wherever you please, even in protest, is not protected free speech. Never was and never has been, even with the most "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution.

If so, I would like to "protest" on some nice, sunny and warrm public beaches. Don't like my non conforming land use on your beach? Too bad, that's free speech under your reasoning.
Given the folks defending the park occupation in this comment thread, this looks like the place to ask some questions. Reid.Parham/Bob R.:

1) What particular action(s) or event(s) need to happen in order for Occupiers to cease camping out in public parks? I'm not talking about the larger issues that prompt marches, youtube videos, bank-centered demonstrations, and the like, mind you, just the specific action of occupying public land.

2) Barring the answer to #1, what do the Occupiers hope to accomplish by the action of occupying parks?

32're assuming they have and answer..big assumption. @ws...exactly but people with agendas with ignore those facts. @ovidious...I have too, the only difference being that a 130 pound kid on a skateboard does'nt intimidate me in the least, even if they are in a little pack and peddle drugs. Its a good thing these losers did'nt try an Occupy Baltimore. This is NOT about change, this is about being visible, vociferous and confronting police and authority...oh and "personal freedoms and free speech" which seem to be poorly understood by these asshats and their mob mentality
@Showstopper: I'm presuming there is *some* sort of answer, even if it's "Sok, you're missing the point," followed by an explanation of The Point. It just seems that it's taken on a self-referential purpose of "we're occupying to declare our right to occupy." I figured there was a notion of "we're going to camp here until you/the government/corporations/Ruth Buzzi does X," but I'm trying to solve for X.
@Showstopper: I'm presuming there is *some* sort of answer, even if it's "Sok, you're missing the point," followed by an explanation of The Point. It just seems that it's taken on a self-referential purpose of "we're occupying to declare our right to occupy." I figured there was a notion of "we're going to camp here until you/the government/corporations/Ruth Buzzi does X," but I'm trying to solve for X.

(Apologies if this gets posted twice. My browser burped.)
Todd: How did this come to be about holding territory, anyway?

Look up the definition of the word "Occupy".
(Yes, the most simple answer is “we occupy to show our resolve to continue with this until changes occur.”)
@Reid - I'm presuming that was directed at my questions. So, paraphrasing, there's no specific end goal for the act of Occupying a park. Got it - thanks for the answer.
Yes, it was directed at you. No, I wasn’t discussing end goals—only immediate tactics.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.