And so the Gestapo tactics begin (OWS)

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Absolutely true. But if said lunatic is organizing and speaking for OWS, then he is not so fringe, unless, of course the middle is also at the fringe. The Anthony Hayne quoted in the following article is the same one now in jail. So there are no spokespeople for the Movement and there are no bombers associated with the Movement. Quack. Quack.

http://lakewood-oh.patch.com/articles/occupy-cleveland

Rush Limbaugh is a big part the Republican party. Therefore the Republicans are all misogynists. Bush had innocent people tortured, therefore republicans are all sadists.

Bank management intentionally took actions that trashed the economy, therefore all banking staff hates people having jobs.

You need a shrink, and not a quack, retard.

[Algher]

Since we have drifted into crimes at OWS events, the National Review (long may it publish) has thoughtfully provided a blotter:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...iel-botwinick#

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Rush Limbaugh is a big part the Republican party. Therefore the Republicans are all misogynists. Bush had innocent people tortured, therefore republicans are all sadists.

Bank management intentionally took actions that trashed the economy, therefore all banking staff hates people having jobs.

You need a shrink, and not a quack, retard.

How clever. How original. Bush! Rush! Bankers! Retard!
Great argument.

[ElvisL1ves]

It's called an "analogy". You could look it up.

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I would not expect OWS people to rat out someone smoking a joint or peeing behind a tree but I would be stunned to find anyone knew of a sexual assault or murder going on and figured to just let it go and not find the police.

Except maybe in Baltimore where the Occupy group published a pamphlet that expressly states that they "do not encourage [sexual assault victims] going to the police"*. Though they are so gracious as to allow that victims have the right to do so.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...-report-crimes

*emphasis is mine.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Absolutely true. But if said lunatic is organizing and speaking for OWS, then he is not so fringe, unless, of course the middle is also at the fringe. The Anthony Hayne quoted in the following article is the same one now in jail. So there are no spokespeople for the Movement and there are no bombers associated with the Movement. Quack. Quack.

http://lakewood-oh.patch.com/articles/occupy-cleveland

You realize that OWS is a nationwide movement (worldwide even as the style has spread if not the name).

One guy in Cleveland who organized an information session is not a spokesman for the movement. He is a guy who talked to the press in Cleveland.

[ElvisL1ves]

Remarkable, innit, how so many folks think a group has to have its own cable news network to provide organization, promotion, and spokesmen for it, or else it isn't really a true popular movement at all.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Except maybe in Baltimore where the Occupy group published a pamphlet that expressly states that they "do not encourage [sexual assault victims] going to the police"*. Though they are so gracious as to allow that victims have the right to do so.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...-report-crimes

*emphasis is mine.

Interesting except your quote is nowhere to be found. You paraphrased and selectively quoted.

Here's the whole thing:

"Though we do not encourage the involvement of the police in our community, the survivor has every right, and the support of Occupy Baltimore, to report the abuse to the appropriate authorities."

Bit different that.

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

It's called an "analogy". You could look it up.

I did. It means that there are similarities or comparability between two things. However, in this case, no. I have not, and would not claim anything about "all" Occupy protesters. What I did do is refute some claims that no crimes were committed, that the organization had no spokespeople and that at least one lunatic was not on the fringe. Now that's no reason for name calling is it, asshole?

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Interesting except your quote is nowhere to be found. You paraphrased and selectively quoted.

Here's the whole thing:

"Though we do not encourage the involvement of the police in our community, the survivor has every right, and the support of Occupy Baltimore, to report the abuse to the appropriate authorities."

Bit different that.

My attempt to quote was inept but not intentionally so. It doesn't change that in the context of your claim that beyond pissing on the sidewalk or blowing a bowl the organizers would surely contact police for a major crime. Here is a statement that they will not.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

I have not, and would not claim anything about "all" Occupy protesters. What I did do is refute some claims that no crimes were committed, that the organization had no spokespeople and that at least one lunatic was not on the fringe. Now that's no reason for name calling is it, asshole?

To what purpose did you do all this?

The OP is about police kicking in a guy's door on the pretext of an unpaid ticket with the much more obvious purpose of intimidating someone whose politics they dislike (or more to the point that their masters dislike).

We have pointed out to you the OWS movement is nationwide and comprises many, many thousands of people.

Congratualtions, you found some people in a very large, loosely run, very open group who are criminals.

There are pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood. You have a group of people, some of that group have committed a horrible crime. Tell me what to you that indicates about priests as a whole (for the moment separating the Catholic church's appalling efforts to cover it up)?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Here is a statement that they will not.

It says no such thing.

It expresses a desire to manage their own community if possible without police involvement and expressly tells people they will support them if they go to the police.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

The Supreme Court of the US has jurisdiction over the constitutionally protected rights of citizens (the tenth amendment deals with powers). Congress may grant or restrict other rights at whim (though there may be consequences to violating rights granted by treaties to which the US is a signatory).

No. Any legislation by Congress is subject to Judicial Review. Congress cannot restrict rights at whim. If the SCOTUS voids a law, the law is voided.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by John Mace

No. Any legislation by Congress is subject to Judicial Review. Congress cannot restrict rights at whim. If the SCOTUS voids a law, the law is voided.

The post you quoted made reference specifically to the "constitutionally protected rights", aka "enumerated rights". Those are the ones SCOTUS is supposed to protect.

Other, non-enumerated rights, are supposed to be under the purview of the states or the people.

If Congress and the SCOTUS would be following their proper roles, gamerunknown's post would be correct. Currently, they don't, so it is SCOTUS who can restrict or grant rights at whim, enumerated or not.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

These numerous reports? Words like "numerous" are a bit vague. You give us one and refer offhandedly to "numerous" reports that are "similar". And we are expected to take this at face value, are we? That we have your assurance that you have carefully sifted these reports, with the open and unbiased mind that is your very hallmark.....and here are the results, the plain unvarnished truth. Strong evidence, indeed, Counselor. Naturally, one reels in dismay at such an evidentiary thunderbolt!

I cannot offer anything so substantial. But I do know these people, a lot of the people at my local OWS gatherings are friends of mine, some of them are the children of my friends. Merciful Debs, some of them are....never mind.

There is no such uniformity of thought or deed. If one hundred OWS bystanders happened to witness a rape, or be convinced that one had occured, maybe some wouldn't all the police, but it wouldn't matter because somebody else would. About twenty of them would be busy keeping about ten of them from beating the living snot out of the perp.

So, no, extra special unlikely. Maybe once, but only maybe. "Numerous" such reports? Well, of course you said "similar", which grants enough wiggle room to hide the Hindenburg. Before it burned up.

So we have your solemn assurance that the police would get called.

But what I picture is an agony of indecision. "I know elucidator woud want us to report this," wails my imagined OWS participant, "but this publication tells us to just get the security committee! Oh, what to do?"

Look, I think you know a certain breed of OWS'ers. I think you know the folks that are not exactly strangers to protest and understand a little bit about human nature, and know what they're doing. In the soup kitchen and shelter where I volunteer, we have a curious mixture of right-leaning religious folks and left-leaning true believers of their own sort. All of them have been doing this work long enough to know when to leave things alone and when the shit is serious and the cops need to be called. Not a one would ever leave a rape or sexual assault unreported, never.

And those folks, or their spiritual brethern, are (I suspect) who you know wherever you are.

But OWS has attracted a bunch of newbies, too. Innocents, happy to be part of a cause, but with no bruises yet from their work. Those are the folks that are gazelles for the human predators, and those are the folks that think they don't need police becauser they can create a people's security committee and handle things without John Law.

And if you insist that this second breed doesn't exist: you're fooliing yourself.

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

To what purpose did you do all this?

The OP is about police kicking in a guy's door on the pretext of an unpaid ticket with the much more obvious purpose of intimidating someone whose politics they dislike (or more to the point that their masters dislike).

We have pointed out to you the OWS movement is nationwide and comprises many, many thousands of people.

Congratualtions, you found some people in a very large, loosely run, very open group who are criminals.

There are pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood. You have a group of people, some of that group have committed a horrible crime. Tell me what to you that indicates about priests as a whole (for the moment separating the Catholic church's appalling efforts to cover it up)?

I made an initial comment regarding the OP. I've lurked here for years, but never really posted much, but I took some offense to the thread title because I knew people (now deceased) who were tortured by the real Gestapo. I also have a general distaste for people using Nazis as shorthand for anything even vaguely authoritarian that they don't like because they (the Nazis) were so much more and so much worse than that. --- Nothing to do with OWS, politics, crime, and certainly not the Catholic friggin priesthood. I got sucked into an unrelated argument, I kept finding cites that I felt refuted other's statements and my ego wouldn't let me shut up.

Let me state unequivocally that I believe the Occuppy movement is nothing more or less than it claims to be. I don't believe that Occupy, or the people involved in it are a homogenous group at all (and I never said that). I don't think there is some secret council of evil puppet masters pulling strings. I don't think its a phalanx of criminals. I am not even entirely at odds with some of the grievances that it attempts to give voice to.

At the same time, I think it's naive at best or disingenuous at worst to deny some creepy stuff has gone on at the sites and amongst A FEW mambers. That's what got me started. There appeared to me to be a certain amount of denial going on. I'm not even terribly interested in the whole thing, but when somebody says "show me just one" and I know I'd read and seen numerou credible reports, or someone "there are no spokespeople" and I'd seen them, I couldn't resist.OK, there's no-one with a business card that says spokesperson. But the "councils" do elect people to speak.

How that devolved into Rush Limbaugh and the NRA and the Catholic Church I frankly don't know. I don't subcribe to any of those. But then again, I can see how you all can get addicted to this arguing shit.

I am not trying to paint all the protesters with an Anarchist brush. But to deny they (Anarchists) are a part of the movement is dishonest, too. Even if they are just using it for cover or a place to crash or whatever. The whole Occupy movement is, by design, set up to eschew traditional leadership - I get that. At the same time that eliminates any responsibility. By accident or design it provides the ultimate in "plausible deniability". Ultimately, even the Catholic Church was forced to be accountable at some level - and forced to take some responsibility for it's actions/inactions (regardless whether one believes true justice is being served) because it was organized - there were leaders who made decisions and (eventually) got called on it. I would, in fact argue that you could paint a significant portion of that organization with a brush of culpability for their denial.

[elucidator]

Bricker:

But that's not what you said. (Well, actually, you didn't right out say much of anything, you implied the one thing, hinted at the other and slipped an innuendo in between.) But the gist of it was that police don't get called, because the hive mind walks in lock step with their non-leadership. Which is absurd on the face of it, because it depends on a uniformity of motivations and responses that doesn't actually exist.

Your proof consists of one quote from Bloomberg and your assurances that it is "similar" to "numerous" reports that you have personally sifted through with your typical non-partisan objectivity.

....And if you insist that this second breed doesn't exist: you're fooliing yourself....

Ah! So you would like to move the argument onto grounds where you think you will win? Would you like a turnip, there were a bunch of them on the truck I just fell off of. Sure they do. They may even be "numerous". Be that as it may, it only takes one person with a cell phone to say "Fuck that shit, I'm calling the cops!" One. Count 'em, one.

I've an idea! Since you have personally sifted through these "numerous" and "similar" reports, you likely have them right at your fingertips, no? You could offer them. We can all read. Unless you're bluffing, of course, in which case I recommend you shift the argument onto sophistic and legalistic grounds, where you shine.

But as it stands, you are left asserting that out of a crowd of thousands, no one, not even one! called the cops. Ridiculous. Did you consider the alternative possibility, that they were called but didn't respond, or didn't respond in a timely fashion? Is that impossible, is that why you did not mention it, because everybody knows that the cops just love, love, love scruffy protesters, and are eager to protect them?

We should trust your objective judgement on this? Aren't you the guys who said, in post #174, asked which group is worse:

The one raping women in tents and shitting next to police cars.

The "group" doing that? You're not painting with a broad brush, Counselor, but with a fire hose. I either have to believe that you knew that wasn't true when you said it, or you are too stupid to make your own oatmeal.

And on this basis you insist that I trust your objective judgment, free from the taint of bias? Who are you kidding?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Bricker:

But that's not what you said. (Well, actually, you didn't right out say much of anything, you implied the one thing, hinted at the other and slipped an innuendo in between.) But the gist of it was that police don't get called, because the hive mind walks in lock step with their non-leadership. Which is absurd on the face of it, because it depends on a uniformity of motivations and responses that doesn't actually exist.

Your proof consists of one quote from Bloomberg and your assurances that it is "similar" to "numerous" reports that you have personally sifted through with your typical non-partisan objectivity.

I guess you missed the other link I provided.

How many more do you want?

“Pervert! Pervert! Get the f--k out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops.

Even their own press release suggests a reluctance to get police involved:

The survivor knew immediately that she wanted to make sure that the person who assaulted her did not harm anyone else at OWS. Community members honored this demand by asking that this person stay off site, and, when he refused, monitored his activity, ejected him from the space and escorted him to police custody.

Good thing for the rest of the world he refused, huh? Or else their sanction would have been kicking him out, period.

How many more cites would you like?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

The "group" doing that?

Yes, yes -- the group isn't doing that. The group is merely setting up ideal opportunities for predators who wish to rape women in tents to do so with minimal risk.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Bricker

How many more do you want?

Rapes commonly go unreported to police. Wondering if you can find a way to blame it on OWS.

Sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes, with 54% still being left unreported.

54% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police, according to a statistical average of the past 5 years.

SOURCE: http://www.rainn.org/get-information...eporting-rates

Originally Posted by Bricker

Even their own press release suggests a reluctance to get police involved:

I wonder why?

The city of Oakland, California has been issued an ultimatum by a federal judge: either figure out a way to handle the flood of complaints against the police or start being sanctioned.

<snip>

Calling into question the police department’s documented mishandling of protesters demonstrating there under the OWS umbrella, Judge Henderson says that cops have time and time again resorted to "an overwhelming military-type response" when conducting crowd control during a series of events in recent month that have become especially commonplace since the Occupy movement began last fall.

SOURCE: http://rt.com/usa/news/oakland-polic...tions-ows-444/

UC Davis protestors pepper sprayed (they were just sitting there)

NYPD pepper spray women (they were not doing anything untoward)

Scott Olsen shot in head with rubber bullet (he was provoking no one)

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I guess you missed the I provided.

How many do you want?...

Question wasn't how many do I want, question was how many you actually have, what real number is hidden behind the word "numerous". So, four is it? Why didn't you say "four" if that is the case? Were you perhaps reluctant to admit that the New York Post qualifies in your estimation as a worthy and respectable cite? Good for one thing, been a long time since I saw the words "sex fiend" in print. Even longer since I have seen a story pushed forward by Andrew Breitbart treated with the respect usually reserved for legitimate news outlets. Had hoped it would be much longer, but alas, no.

....Even their own suggests a reluctance to get police involved:....

But "reluctance" isn't quite what you said.

.....Good thing for the rest of the world he refused, huh? Or else their sanction would have been kicking him out, period....

You presume.

How many more cites would you like?[/quote]

Ah, good one! Suggest the overwhelming power of citation at your beck and call, without actually providing any such. Do the rest of them compare with the dignity and firm commitment to truth of Breitbart and the New York Post? Gotta watch out for those sex fiends!

Counselor, you are as slippery as a catfish in a barrel of motor oil.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, yes -- the group isn't doing that. The group is merely setting up ideal opportunities for predators who wish to rape women in tents to do so with minimal risk.

And again, that isn't what you said. What you actually said was much much stronger than this. Maybe it might be a good idea to say what you mean in the first place. Then your reputation as an honest and straight forward debater would not suffer. Such as it is.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Nice job on totally shifting the original topic of the discussion.

Good job! <golf clap>

I'm surprised that we're not all arguing about the historical importance of the Byzantine empire in terms of modern tax policy at this point.

As I recall, the point of the matter is:

Police have used the pretext of an old outstanding minor ticket to break down the door of some dirty smelly hippies (DSH) and arrest some of them, while intimidating the rest. This was done because the DSH might have been going to protest something, and the authorities did not want them to do that. Thus the intimidation.

Is this the right thing or the wrong thing for our police to be doing? Do we want this tactic to be standard operating policy? Just for DSH? or for anyone that those in power do not like?

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

As I recall, the point of the matter is:

Police have used the pretext of an old outstanding minor ticket to break down the door of some dirty smelly hippies (DSH) and arrest some of them, while intimidating the rest. This was done because the DSH might have been going to protest something, and the authorities did not want them to do that. Thus the intimidation.

Is this the right thing or the wrong thing for our police to be doing? Do we want this tactic to be standard operating policy? Just for DSH? or for anyone that those in power do not like?

The police went to the very limit of what the law allows, without violating it, also known as the "I'm not touching you" approach. The only argument you're going to get will be from posters saying, "What? He's not touching him, is he?"

[elucidator]

Yeah, OK, but I'm not quite done. If the OWS had set up a feast for sexual predators, an "all you can rape" buffet, shouldn't there have been many more such incidents? Unless, of course, that isn't true. I'm leaning towards that, in lieu of an explanation for this anomaly.

OK, now I'm done, the witness may slink away.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Algher

Since we have drifted into crimes at OWS events, the National Review (long may it publish) has thoughtfully provided a blotter:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...iel-botwinick#

Good stuff! Anybody got anything comparable on those nasty Teabaggers?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Good stuff! Anybody got anything comparable on those nasty Teabaggers?

Apples and oranges.

Did Teabaggers setup camps around the nation and stage their protests 24/7 for weeks or months straight?

Near as I can tell they showed up for a couple hours then went home.

[Euphonious Polemic]

With apologies, I'm cross posting this from another thread, but what the heck.

I believe that this is the thinking process behind those that believe that the it's perfectly OK that the police have used the pretext of an old outstanding minor ticket to break down the door of some dirty smelly hippies (DSH) and arrest some of them, while intimidating the rest.

Basically, they need to convince themselves that This Could Never Happen to Me. Here's how the thought process goes:

- This was a terrible thing that happened. People should not be intimidated because of their political beliefs.
- It was done by the Authorities.

BUT
- Authority is a good thing
- I must always be obedient to Authority

WORRY
- Could this happen to me or my friends?
- Could the Authority target me for my political beliefs? This could be bad!

SO

- It must have been someone else's fault.
- Think, think.... whose fault could it have been?

AHA...

- It was the Dirty Fucking Hippie's fault.
- DFH's are "other". They are not like me.
- I am not a DFH

THEREFORE:
- I have nothing to fear from Authority. My life can go on as before, and I don't have to think about this anymore.

[Whack-a-Mole]

“At around six-fifteen I was woken up. I sleep in a lofted bed, and there's a police officer standing in my bedroom shining a flashlight in my face. He woke me up and said ‘get down in the living room," he said. Remer dressed, grabbed his ID as requested, and joined his housemates in the living room.

He said the officers--about six of them--took the residents' identification and began trying to match them with a list of warrants.

<snip>

"We have a little poster on our bridge that said 'Strike, May 1st.' And they said 'see, look! There’s a strike poster' in passing," said Remer. While they questioned Dempster, “They spent five minutes asking me if I was involved in any [May Day] activities, if I had any plans."

<snip>

And yet throughout it all, the officers couldn't acknowledge that they were there for anything more than a trivial violation. “They sort of had to keep up the idea that they had brought six cops to deal with an open container. I don’t know what they were hoping to find," Remer said.

SOURCE: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews..._is_in_occupy/

I know some here actively dislike OWS but if they had a clue this would bother them deeply.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Apples and oranges.

Did Teabaggers setup camps around the nation and stage their protests 24/7 for weeks or months straight?

Near as I can tell they showed up for a couple hours then went home.

But they've been doing it for alot longer.

How much violence, trash, etc would you expect of them then? Maybe 50%.... 25%.....

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

But they've been doing it for alot longer.

How much violence, trash, etc would you expect of them then? Maybe 50%.... 25%.....

Keep up the distraction.

After all, you're not a dirty fucking hippie, so it's perfectly copasetic for the police to intimidate and harass those DFH's. They are "other". They are "different".

So you're OK. The authorities won't ever use these tactics on you.... right?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

You are conflating the Brown Shirts with the Gestapo I think. Hitler had a lot of them killed during the Night of the Long Knives.

The Gestapo were the Nazi's secret police force.

85 were officially killed on the Night of The Long Knives. possibly up to 200. That is not many out of such a large organisation. Certainly not "a lot of them".

Uness you were one of the ones murdered I guess.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Keep up the distraction.

After all, you're not a dirty fucking hippie, so it's perfectly copasetic for the police to intimidate and harass those DFH's. They are "other". They are "different".

So you're OK. The authorities won't ever use these tactics on you.... right?

You can pretend I'm authorizing Gestapo tactics if you want to you dirty fucking hippie lover !

The statement I was responding to was the one that was referenced.

..... and I'll stop distracting when the MSM stops distracting the public from the degree in which the Occupiers are doing things that don't make them look like the good protestors they want them to be.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

...you dirty fucking hippie lover....

Just once, and you'd never go back to chickens.

[Euphonious Polemic]

So to summarize so far:

The OP of thread pointed out a case where some members of the police, who used the pretext of an old outstanding minor ticket to break down the door of some dirty smelly hippies to investigate the horrible crime of an outstanding ticket for an open container violation. It took 6 NHPD officers to do this. Was this to hassle and intimidate the DFH's? One would think this is the only reasonable explanation.

Respondents to this thread can be broken down into:

1. You exaggerated and used the word Gestapo. The NYPD are not the Gestapo. Therefore they did nothing wrong.

2. The NYPD did nothing illegal. They could not be prosecuted for what they did. As long as they can cover themselves with a legal pretext, they're OK, no matter how much personnel or force they use for a minor infraction. Therefore they did nothing wrong.

3. Some Occupy Wallstreet protesters did some bad things in the past. Therefore the NYPD were justified in breaking into this apartment to check about an unpaid ticket. (presumably they were trying to prevent the DFH's from committing rape at a future protest? The argument gets very unclear at this point) Therefore the NYPD officers did nothing wrong.

4. Other protests produced very little litter or poop. Therefore the NYPD officers did nothing wrong.

5. The mainstream media is distracting us, and making the Occupy protestors look good, when in fact they are bad. Therefore the NYPD officers did nothing wrong.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Cicero

85 were officially killed on the Night of The Long Knives. possibly up to 200. That is not many out of such a large organisation. Certainly not "a lot of them".

Uness you were one of the ones murdered I guess.

Depends on your definitions.

About 3000 people were killed on 9/11. Compared to the population of the US that is a drop in the bucket. I would still say a lot of people died that day.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

1. You exaggerated and used the word Gestapo. The NYPD are not the Gestapo. Therefore they did nothing wrong.

You are confusing premise and conclusion. The NYPD did nothing wrong, therefore they are not the Gestapo.

2. The NYPD did nothing illegal. They could not be prosecuted for what they did. As long as they can cover themselves with a legal pretext, they're OK, no matter how much personnel or force they use for a minor infraction. Therefore they did nothing wrong.

This part is pretty close to correct. As long as the police abide by the law, they're OK.

3. Some Occupy Wallstreet protesters did some bad things in the past. Therefore the NYPD were justified in breaking into this apartment to check about an unpaid ticket.

This is a little further from sensible than it should be, but not too bad. But yes, as long as they don't break the law, the NYPD is certainly justified in investigating possible future acts of rioting, rape, arson, etc. Keep in mind that they are not allowed to break the law or violate anyone's rights in doing so. Since they didn't break the law or violate anyone's rights, then most sensible people would agree that the NYPD is justified.

4. Other protests produced very little litter or poop. Therefore the NYPD officers did nothing wrong.

This is a non sequitur. Obviously some protests are peaceful and unobjectionable, while the Occupy rioting is not. But as long as the NYPD does not break any laws, they are justified in investigating.

5. The mainstream media is distracting us, and making the Occupy protestors look good, when in fact they are bad. Therefore the NYPD officers did nothing wrong.

Well, Occupy are idiots and losers, whose goals are meaningless rhetoric and whose means are either worthless or counter-productive, but that is not the problem (from your point of view). Your problem is that lefties on the SDMB are raving hysterics. So when they scream "Gestapo!" when the police act legally in trying to prevent rioting by losers, the response by normal people is not outrage but mockery. Because you are attacking the police who are acting legally, when the police are defending the interests of normal folks against Occupy protesters who aren't even housebroken.

From my point of view, it isn't a problem at all. But then again, my main interest in the Occupy Wall Street movement is to make fun of their strikes and marches that don't achieve anything except to make them look worse than usual, if that were possible.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Can't say I'm particularly surprised by your opinions:

Essentially, the police are entitled to do anything they want, as long as they cannot be prosecuted for it. It does not matter in this particular case that 6 of them hassled people using the pretext of a minor ticket, because they are only Dirty Fucking Hippies anyway. They are different - "other". They are unacceptable people.

The Dirty Fucking Hippies were probably planning to rape someone , or even worse, litter. So it's good that the police put the scare into them.

Anyway, you're not a Dirty Fucking Hippie, so you have nothing to worry about. The police should do anything they can to protect you from Dirty Fucking Hippie Rapist Litterbugs.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Essentially, the police are entitled to do anything they want, as long as they cannot be prosecuted for it.

If by this you mean "the police should always obey the law in the course of doing their jobs", then yes, obviously.

It does not matter in this particular case that 6 of them hassled people using the pretext of a minor ticket, because they are only Dirty Fucking Hippies anyway. They are different - "other". They are unacceptable people.

No, it doesn't matter because the police didn't break the law. Even these Occupy idiots deserve the equal protection of the laws. Which they got.

The police should do anything they can to protect you from Dirty Fucking Hippie Rapist Litterbugs.

Everything they legally can, yes. Of course the hippies and their supporters are going to whine about it, but fortunately they Godwinize themselves into ridiculousness pretty quick.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

- It's legal! It's perfectly legal! That means it's acceptable!

- And anyway they were Dirty Fucking Hippies!

- And the word Gestapo was used - and the police here are not called "Gestapo" so they did nothing wrong!

I've covered these already. Come back if you can bring anything new to the discussion.

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

The police should do anything they can to protect you from Dirty Fucking Hippie Rapist Litterbugs.

The original story linked in the OP happened immediately on the heels of 5 "Occupy" protesters and anarchists being arrested while in the act of trying to blow up a highway bridge in Cleveland. At least one of the NY raids was on the apartment of a self described anarchist. Is it possible that the events in Cleveland might have prompted police in NY to take some otherwise unplanned action?

[Shodan]

Blkshp, you cannot argue with a tantrum.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

The original story linked in the OP happened immediately on the heels of 5 "Occupy" protesters and anarchists being arrested while in the act of trying to blow up a highway bridge in Cleveland. At least one of the NY raids was on the apartment of a self described anarchist. Is it possible that the events in Cleveland might have prompted police in NY to take some otherwise unplanned action?

Ahhhh...

Dirty Fucking Hippie Rapist bridge blowing up Litterbugs then.

I was not aware that the police in this case had specific information that these specific Dirty Fucking Hippies were planning violent acts. Or are you advocating that ANYONE who has ever been involved with Occupy protests is now a valid suspect in terrorist bombings? Maybe for safety we should pre-emptively round them up and put them in camps .*




* this is hyperbole, for those who are unable to detect this.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Blkshp, you cannot argue with a tantrum.

Regards,
Shodan

Name calling - the last hope of a man with no argument.

[Shodan]

I tried argument - you seem impervious.

The perfectly legal actions of the police, in attempting to preserve public order, upset and offend you. And for that, you drag out the accusations of Gestapo tactics.

Boo copulating hoo.

But feel free to make yourself look ridiculous.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

OK, on the graph, this line is the time line from when Shodan stopped reading my posts. This other line is the line of his increasingly distant contact with reality. Note the direct correspondence.

My posts are good for your mental health, like cognitive broccoli. You're welcome.

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Ahhhh...

Dirty Fucking Hippie Rapist bridge blowing up Litterbugs then.

I was not aware that the police in this case had specific information that these specific Dirty Fucking Hippies were planning violent acts.

I was not aware of this either. I was merely pointing it out as a conceivable explanation for the NYPD actions - as opposed to merely random acts of harassment. But, then if they were only planning a rape and litter campaign as you suggest...

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I tried argument - you seem impervious.

The perfectly legal actions of the police, in attempting to preserve public order, upset and offend you. And for that, you drag out the accusations of Gestapo tactics.

Boo copulating hoo.

But feel free to make yourself look ridiculous.

Regards,
Shodan

1. You did not have an argument. You merely repeated the same old, same old that others have.

2. Perfectly legal. I've already stipulated that this was so. This is the fig leaf you are hiding behind. Was their action right? This is the question some of us are asking.

3. They attempted to preserve public order? By raiding a house where someone had an outstanding open container ticket? You funny. Unless they had evidence that these particular DFH's were proposing to conduct future criminal acts? Did the police have such evidence?

4. I am not the OP. I did not drag out accusations of Gestapo tactics. It has been pointed out that this may in fact be a bit of hyperbole on the part of the OP. It has certainly been used to hijack the post quite effectively.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The perfectly legal actions of the police, in attempting to preserve public order, upset and offend you. And for that, you drag out the accusations of Gestapo tactics.

Everything the Gestapo did was perfectly legal under the law in WWII era Germany.

So, in your world "legal" = acceptable. Nevermind who wrote what "legal" means and what it accommodates.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

4. I am not the OP. I did not drag out accusations of Gestapo tactics. It has been pointed out that this may in fact be a bit of hyperbole on the part of the OP. It has certainly been used to hijack the post quite effectively.

Yes, people have pointed out that our police are not the same as the Gestapo.

I said they were using Gestapo tactics. The Gestapo unarguably used this tactic. They used other and even worse tactics too. Still, what the NYPD is doing here is a Gestapo tactic. That is not hyperbole. If I said the NYPD were the same as the Gestapo that would be hyperbole. But I didn't say that.