Occupy Wallstreet

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Here is a question: People are unlawfully occupying as space, and repeatedly asked to leave. They refuse to leave, and make it a point to do things to resist being removed (such as linking arms, making human walls, etc.).

How do you remove them without some form of violence (dragging someone away against their will is a form of violence)?

Guys, seriously. If there's a bunch of no-good poor people hanging out outside on this planet Earth in an area that I say is mine, and they won't leave when I want them to, and I don't like what they're saying:

How do I get them to shut up without punching their throats?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Guys, seriously. If there's a bunch of no-good poor people hanging out outside on this planet Earth in an area that I say is mine, and they won't leave when I want them to, and I don't like what they're saying:

How do I get them to shut up without punching their throats?

Yes, because what I wrote and what you wrote are EXACTLY the same.

The question still stands (as I wrote it) and I have yet to hear a good answer, and I don't think pepper spray and billy clubs is a good answer either, but people aren't allowed to do whatever they want simply because they aren't violent. Laws are laws, and if they would simply not squat on the property there probably wouldn't be an issue. In the end, the protesters have to understand they are inviting pepper spray by refusing all other options given to them by those trying to enforce the law. And the pepper spray was likely used because it doesn't cause permanent damage, and it incapacitates you (I know from experience). In the end, it was used to avoid unnecessary violence and injury.

This episode just goes to show that in the end all laws are enforced at the end of a gun.

[KillerGremlin]

You could argue that human interests/rights supersede laws.

And, apparently pepper spray crossed the moral line this time because UC Davis is in an uproar. The police officers who used the pepper spray are on "administrative leave.*" The UC Davis chancellor apologized for the pepper spray...but now professors are speaking out and there are additional protesters. Students are pissed and feel unsafe on campus. Professors were saying that the protesters weren't blocking anything, and you could walk around them.

They were protesting tuition raises I guess. If no one pays for tuition, how is the University going to stay afloat? I think payers of tuition should have the right to protest. There are worker strikes and unions over unjust treatment.

At any rate, it doesn't look so good for the University, which is now on the national stage. Their students, who pay for the University, were pretty maliciously pepper-sprayed. And now the actual Professors who make up the University are speaking out? Sucks to be UC Davis.

*administrative leave is such bullshit....we could have a whole thread on how cops suck.

But back to this point:

You could argue that human interests/rights supersede laws.

This is the rabbit hole.

[Dylflon]

The problem is that public property is the only good place to protest if you would like anyone to pay attention to you.

If you are asking them to protest in private then you are neutering their statement and frankly the very concept of protest.

What the hell do you care that they're protesting on public property anyways?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

What the hell do you care that they're protesting on public property anyways?

I wouldn't if they weren't destroying many of the public spaces through littering, vandalism, defecation/urination. The public areas aren't just for them. I also have an issue with camping out. There is a thin line between protester and vagrant once the bubble tent pops out.

Long story short - If the protesters kept to public property, went home every night, and cleaned up after themselves I think they should be allowed to do it as long as they like. That is their right. My issue is that they are flagrantly violating laws in order to create confrontation for public spectacle.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

You could argue that human interests/rights supersede laws.

You could, but I completely disagree for various reasons.

1) No one has the human right to occupy someone else's property, and conversely people do have the right to protect their property and the government has the right to guarantee others the right to use public property and protect it from damage.

2) We are a nation of laws, not people, but our laws (should) reflect the will of the people. If our nations only serves people and ignores laws that are created by their representatives, then what we have is mob rule/anarchy.

The minute that we lose the ability to choose our own government, I agree with you, but until then we have to let laws prevail.

Back on topic, it occurs to me that the protesters WANT these public confrontations. I actually think the best way to deal with the situation is to kill them with kindness. Schools and cities should provide corporate based sanitation, corporate based porto-potties, lunches from McDonalds and SubWay, Verizon Wireless wifi, etc. It won't be long before people are get bored with the lack of conflict or are shamed into leaving. That and winter is coming.