And so the Gestapo tactics begin (OWS)

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

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.

And some believe the use of the term Gestapo Tactics is hyperbole in and of itself. You position it as pure harassment. If you (re)read the original story, the people questioned were all associated with the anarchist movement. Do you think it totally outrageous that maybe the NYPD heard about the Cleveland plot and thought they should check in on their local branch? Not to mention that one guy is actually accused of assaulting a police officer. You make the whole thing sound like it goes on every day -- like it did in Germany -- or are all those stories being suppressed by a complicit global corporate media cabal?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

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

Our democratically elected representatives wrote what "legal" means. None of whom were Nazis.

Just let us all know when the law is amended to send Jews to the death camps, and we can all agree that the NYPD is employing Gestapo tactics. Until then, complaining when the police investigate twits makes you look nearly as stupid as those dolts in Occupy Wall Street.

You wanna cry "Wolf!!!"? Feel free. But those of us with more than a passing familiarity with zoological classification are going to snicker when you pee yourself at the sight of a schnauzer.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

If I said the NYPD were the same as the Gestapo that would be hyperbole. But I didn't say that.

Yes, I know.

But certain folks here certainly latched onto that, and diverted the conversation into the realm of what the Gestapo did, was the NYPD merely Gestapo-lite, and potentially it would finally morph into a debate about the tactics of Rommel's troops in North Africa.

[Blkshp]

From a recent article in the Atlantic, here's the voice of your would-be Gestapo...

One police officer I spoke to doing crowd control along the parade route said he thought that the Occupy Wall Street protests were important when they first began bringing up issues close to home for him, but that the movement had lost him since. "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow, " he said, quoting John Lennon's lyrics for "Revolution."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...w-york/256657/

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally Posted by OP

Occupy Wall Street hopes to shut down New York and cities across the country in massive May Day protests

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

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...

Unless you consider blocking traffic and preventing individuals from earning a living merely an inconvenience, (and barring the creation of a 'FuckOWS' counter-movement that could hypothetically (but illegally) create a human chain that blocks Zachary Dempster's ability to leave his Bushwick apartment to 'shut down a city'), what non-Gestapo tactics should police employ prior to the commencement of such planned crimes/inconveniences?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

And some believe the use of the term Gestapo Tactics is hyperbole in and of itself. You position it as pure harassment. If you (re)read the original story, the people questioned were all associated with the anarchist movement. Do you think it totally outrageous that maybe the NYPD heard about the Cleveland plot and thought they should check in on their local branch? Not to mention that one guy is actually accused of assaulting a police officer. You make the whole thing sound like it goes on every day -- like it did in Germany -- or are all those stories being suppressed by a complicit global corporate media cabal?

There is absolutely nothing illegal about being an anarchist. That is, presumably, one of the better features of living in the US. You can hold any political view you want without fear of retribution from the government.

Did the police have ANY evidence of a planned future crime? All we have evidence so far is the police kicked in the door and sent six officers in to arrest someone on a six year old unpaid open container violation. There is no mention of them having evidence that anyone there was planning some future attack.

As for it going on every day...it does.

New York's "stop and frisk" policy is going to court. Oh yeah...here is an example of a cop claiming he was assaulted. Totally false and made up (there are other stories to be had of police using excessive force on protestors under the blanket of the person assaulting them or resisting them...to the point the experienced protestors go totally limp and shout, "I am not resisting").

As for more police-state tactics perhaps you missed the Pulitzer Prize winning series of stories recently on the NYPD spying on Muslims.

These are not just one-off oddities. These are continued police-state tactics.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Just let us all know when the law is amended to send Jews to the death camps, and we can all agree that the NYPD is employing Gestapo tactics.

The Gestapo had nothing to do with sending people to the camps (although many Gestapo goons would later be detached to the organizations who did focus on that ; and the Gestapo also had a role in nipping prisoner escapes/revolts/conspiracies in the bud within the camps themselves).

That is not what people are talking about when compare the NYPD & the Gestapo in any event. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Our democratically elected representatives wrote what "legal" means. None of whom were Nazis.

Just let us all know when the law is amended to send Jews to the death camps, and we can all agree that the NYPD is employing Gestapo tactics. Until then, complaining when the police investigate twits makes you look nearly as stupid as those dolts in Occupy Wall Street.

Can't happen here right?

See Korematsu v. United States. Not death camps but definitely rounding up Americans who worry you and imprisoning them with no due process.

But that was legal, in a democratic society no less, so ok by you right?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Can't happen here right?

It could - it just hasn't, in the sense that nothing the anarchists suffered is even remotely similar.

Regards,
Shodan

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by JohnBckWLD

Unless you consider blocking traffic and preventing individuals from earning a living merely an inconvenience, (and barring the creation of a 'FuckOWS' counter-movement that could hypothetically (but illegally) create a human chain that blocks Zachary Dempster's ability to leave his Bushwick apartment to 'shut down a city'), what non-Gestapo tactics should police employ prior to the commencement of such planned crimes/inconveniences?

Since when are police allowed to come in and harrass you based on the mere possibility that you may do something they dislike in the future?

If they have actual evidence you plan to commit a crime then sure, they should go arrest you. Here though there is no such evidence. The best they had was a six year old unpaid ticket for an open container violation.

Besides, civil disobedience has a long history in the US and usually there is not much fuss. Here is a picture I took last November of OWS sitting in an intersection in the Loop (business district) in Chicago. They stopped traffic and police were all over the place and let it continue for ten(ish) minutes. Then the police walked in and started taking people away. No knocking heads...the people stood up and calmly walked away with the police to be arrested. No muss. No fuss. No riots. No violence. It was downright civil.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It could - it just hasn't, in the sense that nothing the anarchists suffered is even remotely similar.

Death camps have not happened here but then actual death camps are a relative rarity even in history. Imprisoning people wholesale that worry the powers that be with no due process or actual proof of intent to commit crimes is common in police states and has happened here (which I just showed you).

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Do you think it totally outrageous that maybe the NYPD heard about the Cleveland plot and thought they should check in on their local branch? Not to mention that one guy is actually accused of assaulting a police officer.

I think it would be absolutely terrific if the NYPD would check in with the "local branch" of the anarchists. However that is exactly what the NYPD did NOT do.

Were these guys the "local branch"?

And how exactly did they "check in"? Did they call them up ans schedule a meeting? No? is the normal way of "checking in" coming by in the early morning with 6 armed officers and interrogating residents?

I"m afraid I don't buy the "accused of assaulting a police officer" bit. These accusations are routinely made, and have a way of diasappearing once they rubber hits the road (ie there is no evidence whatsoever)

[elucidator]

Who authorized this? Who signed off on spending the money to keep six policeman on one case, and that case trivial? Doesn't the local government have standard techniques for dealing with unpaid tickets? Do they typically involve a visit from the police? Is there a presumption of necessity for forced entry, such that no warrant is required?

..."But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow, " he said, quoting John Lennon's lyrics for "Revolution."...

Yoko wrote that part. True fact, you could look it up.

[elucidator]

When you say "accused of assaulting a police officer", are you saying he has been charged with assaulting a police officer?

[Blkshp]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I
And how exactly did they "check in"? Did they call them up ans schedule a meeting? No? is the normal way of "checking in" coming by in the early morning with 6 armed officers and interrogating residents?

I"m afraid I don't buy the "accused of assaulting a police officer" bit. These accusations are routinely made, and have a way of diasappearing once they rubber hits the road (ie there is no evidence whatsoever)

Perhaps when five brethren attempted to blow up a bridge, they felt more urgency. I am not sure the Anarchists have an office New York so maybe they couldn't call, maybe they're unlisted.

You don't seem to get that the guys in Cleveland planted bombs and dialed the code to detonate them. When the charges didn't explode, they called the guy who sold them the dummy C4 -- in order to double check that they got the code right. There is no speculation about their intent. I am simply saying that the episode could have made any number of police forces around the country jumpy.

Originally Posted by elucidator

When you say "accused of assaulting a police officer", are you saying he has been charged with assaulting a police officer?

"Accused of assaulting a police officer" was my paraphrase of the information in this graph from the article linked in the OP:

In the first case: activist Zachary Dempster said that six NYPD officers broke down the door of his Bushwick, Brooklyn apartment at around 6:15am this morning. Dempster said they were armed with a warrant for the arrest of his roommate, musician Joe Crow Ryan, for a six-year-old open container violation. But Dempster believes this was an excuse to check in on him, as he'd been arrested in February at an Occupy Wall Street Party that was broken up by cops, and charged with assaulting a police office and inciting a riot.

So old Zach was suspicious of their motives.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Blkshp

Perhaps when five brethren attempted to blow up a bridge, they felt more urgency. I am not sure the Anarchists have an office New York so maybe they couldn't call, maybe they're unlisted..

"brethren". Were these activists related to the accused bridge-blower-uppers in some way? Did they attend the same anarchist meetings? Did the police have evidence that they were related to the Cleveland group? I must assume you have evidence that confirms this. And that the police in New York were acting on this evidence. I'll wait while you look for the evidence....

....


... dum de dum......

You know, I think police need actual evidence of a crime before they bust in with 6 of the best to roust out a nest of Anarchists, even if they are Dirty Fucking Hippies.

Originally Posted by Blkshp

You don't seem to get that the guys in Cleveland planted bombs and dialed the code to detonate them. When the charges didn't explode, they called the guy who sold them the dummy C4 -- in order to double check that they got the code right. There is no speculation about their intent. I am simply saying that the episode could have made any number of police forces around the country jumpy.

I'm thrilled that the police in Cleveland did such a good job. I remain unconvinced that this means there is an open season on any and all unrelated Dirty Fucking Hippies in the ENTIRE COUNTRY who remain unconnected to the Cleveland crime, and they can be harassed at will.

[Makeitstop]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

I"m afraid I don't buy the "accused of assaulting a police officer" bit. These accusations are routinely made, and have a way of diasappearing once they rubber hits the road (ie there is no evidence whatsoever)

So you'll believe the DFHs about this entire incident, but not the police about the alleged assault? Not saying you're beliefs are wrong, I'm just wondering why you trust one group over the other.

Because these kinds of accusations against police are somewhat routine, and they do have a tendency to disappear just as quickly.

Again, not saying you're wrong. Just wondering.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Makeitstop

Because these kinds of accusations against police are somewhat routine, and they do have a tendency to disappear just as quickly.

That's just it.

Such accusations (either direction) are generally a matter of he said/she said and in such cases the presumption usually goes with the cop making the accusation telling the truth. Up a few posts I linked to a case where the cop claimed the perp assaulted him. Video of the incident showed the cop totally made it up. So clear was the evidence the DA dropped charges on the kid and is investigating the cop.

I have shown (and you can easily Google) cops using excessive force against OWS. To the point a federal court is looking in to police conduct in Oakland. Not to mention the pepper spraying of protestors doing pretty much nothing in New York and UC Davis (I linked to these earlier).

We have a lot of examples of police being abusive in the OWS protests. Do you have a lot of examples of police getting their asses kicked by OWS protestors?

[Euphonious Polemic]

I can also cite a case of a man who was tasered to death by the police. They reported under oath that he was assaulting the 4 of them, and they were in fear for their lives. Subsequently, video emerged that was taken by another party which showed that he did no such thing.

Each of the police officers are now charged with perjury.

Sadly, cases like this are only too common. With the advent of cheap and common video phones and cameras, it seems the the charges of "assaulting an officer" are made up in many, many cases.

Perhaps not in this particular case of the OWS protesters of course.... but there is certainly doubt in my mind about the veracity of any officer's claim.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Imprisoning people wholesale that worry the powers that be with no due process or actual proof of intent to commit crimes is common in police states and has happened here (which I just showed you).

But the anarchists were neither imprisoned, nor deprived of any of their due process rights. So I don't see what your example has to do with this.

You have to give some indication that a slope exists before you can drag out even as sorry a slippery slope argument as this is.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Thanks for actually bringing a slightly new argument to the table - a variation, if you will on "if it is legal there is nothing wrong with it".

6. The protesters were not actually imprisoned, so therefore the NYPD did nothing wrong.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Who authorized this? Who signed off on spending the money to keep six policeman on one case, and that case trivial? Doesn't the local government have standard techniques for dealing with unpaid tickets? Do they typically involve a visit from the police? Is there a presumption of necessity for forced entry, such that no warrant is required?

Um... they HAD a warrant.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Yoko wrote that part. True fact, you could look it up.

I'd like a cite for this. I know Yoko was at the recording session, but her relationship with Lennon was just beginning, and the song (credited, as all Beatles tunes were, to Lennon/McCartney) was always thought to be John's concern about the hardline tactics used by the anti-establishment left. (I understand that a few years later he told an interviewer that he now thought Mao was all right after all).

[elucidator]

When you whooosh upon a star
Makes no difference who you are!
For when you whooosh upon a star, your dreams come true!

[Bricker]

Oh.

Ooooohh.

Um, carry on, then.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Um... they HAD a warrant.

You realize, I'm sure, that raises more questions than it answers. Did they advise the judge of the DFH status of the targeted scofflaws? Did the judge explicitly or implicitly endorse the "send a message" implied by their actions? Did the judge have any reservations about this, or was he compelled by the legal circumstances to issue a warrant this for dangerous serial containment scofflaw?

Do you, yourself, actually believe that the whole point of the exercise was nothing more than enforcing the law, that no effort to chill the OWS movement in NY was contemplated or designed? Do you approve of such efforts, so long as the appropriate legal fig leaf can be applied?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Thanks for actually bringing a slightly new argument to the table - a variation, if you will on "if it is legal there is nothing wrong with it".

6. The protesters were not actually imprisoned, so therefore the NYPD did nothing wrong.

Again, you appear to be either disingenuous, or deliberately stupid. It should read -

6. The protesters were not imprisoned, nor were any of their rights violated, nor did the police do anything illegal. Therefore, the NYPD did nothing wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Again, you appear to be either disingenuous, or deliberately stupid. It should read -

6. The protesters were not imprisoned, nor were any of their rights violated, nor did the police do anything illegal. Therefore, the NYPD did nothing wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

We'll have to agree to disagree. You are of the opinion that as long as the police did nothing illegal, they did nothing wrong. As long as the police cannot be prosecuted, they are ipso facto morally, ethically right in what they do. Society should always uphold any action by the police, as long as they do not actually commit a crime.

I do not agree with this stance.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

You realize, I'm sure, that raises more questions than it answers. Did they advise the judge of the DFH status of the targeted scofflaws? Did the judge explicitly or implicitly endorse the "send a message" implied by their actions? Did the judge have any reservations about this, or was he compelled by the legal circumstances to issue a warrant this for dangerous serial containment scofflaw?

I'm sure the judge did what he normally does, every day.

At some point, Joe Occupier was issued a summons for a open container of alcohol, in violation of the laws of New York. And then rather than appearing as commanded by the summons, Joe did not appear to answer the charge against him. So the judge issued a warrant for his arrest -- not because the Republic was in danger of collapse because he was nursing a 40 but because people cannot be permitted to ignore a summons with impunity. The police do not generally consult with judges on how or when to serve arrest warrants; the tactics of individual service are typically left to the discretion of the police.

Do you, yourself, actually believe that the whole point of the exercise was nothing more than enforcing the law, that no effort to chill the OWS movement in NY was contemplated or designed? Do you approve of such efforts, so long as the appropriate legal fig leaf can be applied?

Why do you care what I believe?

Here's what I believe: the police asked themselves, "Can we nip the worst of this idiotic crap in the bud? Can we do anything to get these idiots to not create further mounds of trash, disrupt further commuter hours, and cause further problems for the law-abiing citizens of the Great Apple?"

"Well, Sarge," likely replied on enterprising researcher, "I have found some of the organizers' names, and matched them against our outstanding warrant database. We could serve the warrant in and use that opportunity to talk to them."

And I approve of this particular effort. Because the purpose of the OWS protesters, or perhaps it's just an unintended side effect, is to screw up the lives of regular people in an effort to call attention to their lame-o "demands."

As long as the police act legally, I'm fine with the actions described in this story.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

We'll have to agree to disagree. You are of the opinion that as long as the police did nothing illegal, they did nothing wrong. As long as the police cannot be prosecuted, they are ipso facto morally, ethically right in what they do. Society should always uphold any action by the police, as long as they do not actually commit a crime.

I do not agree with this stance.

Why are you omitting the part about "none of their rights have been violated"?

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Why are you omitting the part about "none of their rights have been violated"?

Regards,
Shodan

We'll have to agree to disagree. You are of the opinion that as long as the police did nothing illegal, and none of their LEGAL rights were violated, they did nothing wrong. As long as the police cannot be prosecuted, they are ipso facto morally, ethically right in what they do. Society should always uphold any action by the police, as long as they do not actually commit a crime.

I do not agree with this stance.

Happy now?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Here's what I believe: the police asked themselves, "Can we nip the worst of this idiotic crap in the bud? Can we do anything to get these idiots to not create further mounds of trash, disrupt further commuter hours, and cause further problems for the law-abiing citizens of the Great Apple?"

This only works if the police are on "your side", and the both of you do not like OWS or Dirty Fucking Hippies.

The police are making the judgement call that Dirty Fucking Hippies have no place protesting in our society, and the authorities should use whatever excuse they can legally come up with to make sure the DFH's know that they are marginalized members of the community, and that they can be intimidated or harassed at will.

I am not comfortable with the police having that power. I am not confident that the police, (or higher authorities to whom the police report) will stop at DFH's. I know I'm in peril of the dreaded slippery slope argument, but I see the next step as perhaps environmental protestors, or anyone protesting against corporations, or perhaps those who espouse a particular political position that is unpopular with certain officials.

I don't want armed officers deciding which protesters get hassled, and which ones get a free pass.

[Sinaptics]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

This only works if the police are on "your side", and the both of you do not like OWS or Dirty Fucking Hippies.

The police are making the judgement call that Dirty Fucking Hippies have no place protesting in our society, and the authorities should use whatever excuse they can legally come up with to make sure the DFH's know that they are marginalized members of the community, and that they can be intimidated or harassed at will.

I am not comfortable with the police having that power. I am not confident that the police, (or higher authorities to whom the police report) will stop at DFH's. I know I'm in peril of the dreaded slippery slope argument, but I see the next step as perhaps environmental protestors, or anyone protesting against corporations, or perhaps those who espouse a particular political position that is unpopular with certain officials.

I don't want armed officers deciding which protesters get hassled, and which ones get a free pass.

Or maybe it's abortion doctors in a state that's particularly against abortion. Or planned parenthood officials. Or maybe political opponents supporters. All kinds of good people to hassle.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Here's what I believe: the police asked themselves, "Can we nip the worst of this idiotic crap in the bud? Can we do anything to get these idiots to not create further mounds of trash, disrupt further commuter hours, and cause further problems for the law-abiing citizens of the Great Apple?"

"Well, Sarge," likely replied on enterprising researcher, "I have found some of the organizers' names, and matched them against our outstanding warrant database. We could serve the warrant in and use that opportunity to talk to them."

And I approve of this particular effort. Because the purpose of the OWS protesters, or perhaps it's just an unintended side effect, is to screw up the lives of regular people in an effort to call attention to their lame-o "demands."

As long as the police act legally, I'm fine with the actions described in this story.

Since when are police supposed to decide what is "idiotic crap"? You would leave it to the infinite wisdom of the police to determine what is and is not ok to say?

What if police decide something near and dear to your heart is "idiotic crap" and seek to "nip it in the bud"? Realizing that nipping it in the bud means the police are assuming someone will do something they do not like before they do it. Maybe it is like Minority Report with a Future Crimes division.

The most important time to protect someone's rights is when you are protecting someone who you disagree with because some day the tables may be turned on you.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

The most important time to protect someone's rights is when you are protecting someone who you disagree with because some day the tables may be turned on you.

A stirring sentiment indeed.

Could you mention which of the rights of the protesters were violated?

Regards,
Shodan

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Shodan

A stirring sentiment indeed.

Could you mention which of the rights of the protesters were violated?

The police are trying to suppress speech they do not like (before it happens). The police have abided by the letter of the law in this case but their clear purpose was not to chase down a six year old open container violation but rather to intimidate a US citizen.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times the Gestapo never violated anyone's legal rights. In your world, since what they did was legal, what they did is perfectly fine by you.

No one here has said the police broke a law in this case. We are saying having the police in the job of intimidating people whose speech they do not like is disturbing in the extreme.

If you had any sense you'd be disturbed too because it could someday just as easily be them kicking in your door to intimidate you because the powers that be do not like what you have to say. I doubt you would be ok waking to six police at the foot of your bed, having smashed in your front door, because they wanted to execute a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket from six years ago and talk to you about some unflattering posts you wrote about Obama on the SDMB. I seriously doubt the police telling you that this is all legal would have you shrug and be fine with it.

More broadly I already noted a federal judge has issued an ultimatum to the Oakland police department regarding their handling of OWS protestors. Apparently a judge feels the police in Oakland, at least, are going too far.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Since when are police supposed to decide what is "idiotic crap"? You would leave it to the infinite wisdom of the police to determine what is and is not ok to say?

What if police decide something near and dear to your heart is "idiotic crap" and seek to "nip it in the bud"? Realizing that nipping it in the bud means the police are assuming someone will do something they do not like before they do it. Maybe it is like Minority Report with a Future Crimes division.

The most important time to protect someone's rights is when you are protecting someone who you disagree with because some day the tables may be turned on you.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

Sure. But I believe society enshrines in law that which it seeks to protect. In other words, a right is something that when it's violated by the government, there is a legal remedy.

So I would say the lesson is, "If you wish to do something that the police may consider idiotic crap, then make suree your own hands are clean, esepcially as it relates to outstanding warrants." Because if you do have an outstanding warrant, you give the police the invitation to arretrrest you at any time they please.

These idiots did not have a right to ignore summonses and fail to appear. I will defend their right to say what they please, but not to be free of the consequences of that decision.

[elucidator]

The selectively enforced consequences. How do you square equal justice before the law with selective enforcement against the politically disagreeable?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So I would say the lesson is, "If you wish to do something that the police may consider idiotic crap, then make suree your own hands are clean, esepcially as it relates to outstanding warrants." Because if you do have an outstanding warrant, you give the police the invitation to arretrrest you at any time they please.

These idiots did not have a right to ignore summonses and fail to appear. I will defend their right to say what they please, but not to be free of the consequences of that decision.

They are responsible for the consequences of their decision but consider what the cops did.

An open container violation is a $25 ticket in New York (less than a parking ticket). You can mail in the money, no need to go to court.

For not paying a six year old, $25 ticket, these guys had their door busted in and six cops come after them. Do you think that is in any way a reasonable response to an unpaid six year old $25 ticket?

These guys are not the ring leaders. There are thousands of OWS protestors. The police are sending a message to the crowd at large. This is little different from some good-ole boy southern sheriff harassing a black man for little or no reason. It is to scare the community at large more than worrying about that one particular person whose crime merits a penalty smaller than a parking ticket.

The police simply cast a wide net to see who among thousands they could go fuck with. Hardly surprising they found a few.

The NYPD are trying to suppress speech which is a right in this country. Even idiotic speech. Even if you did not pay a ticket six years ago. If this OWS guy did something illegal at the protest then arrest him for breaking the law then and there.

If New York really wants to hunt down six year old, $25 ticket scofflaws I think one cop knocking on the door would have been more than sufficient. New York is a big city, I imagine the police have more important things to devote six police to then chasing old open container violators who didn't pay their ticket (unless you can cite that the NYPD regularly sends six cops to knock down doors in pursuit of people who didn't pay a $25 ticket).

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

The police are trying to suppress speech they do not like (before it happens).

In what way do you think the protesters' speech is being suppressed? The First Amendment does not confer the right to ignore warrants.

I doubt you would be ok waking to six police at the foot of your bed, having smashed in your front door, because they wanted to execute a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket from six years ago and talk to you about some unflattering posts you wrote about Obama on the SDMB. I seriously doubt the police telling you that this is all legal would have you shrug and be fine with it.

I don't have any unpaid tickets. Nor is OWL's unfortunate habit of disrupting traffic, defecating in public, and otherwise attempting to interfere with others going about their lives very analogous to writing nasty things about Obama.

Suppose the police thought I had an outstanding warrant (by mistake). And they decided to use it to try to intimidate me, but by entirely legal means, and without depriving me of my rights, as was the case in the OP. I would say nothing whatever to the NYPD except my name, birthdate, and address.

And there would not be anything the NYPD could do about it.

More broadly I already noted a federal judge has issued an ultimatum to the Oakland police department regarding their handling of OWS protestors. Apparently a judge feels the police in Oakland, at least, are going too far.

Your link doesn't work for me. Does it describe illegal activities undertaken by the Oakland police?

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I don't have any unpaid tickets.

And also, you're not a Dirty Fucking Hippie. So you're golden, right?

I understand that the IRS is legally able to audit your taxes. Anytime they want. As many times as they want.

It would be fine then, if the upper levels of the IRS decided that they were damn sick and tired of your idiotic comments here on the SDMB, and gave you the enjoyment of an audit with a fine-toothed comb every month for a year. That'd be perfectly legal. You could complain of course. To the IRS. Who would be (I'm sure) very sympathetic, but would let you know "nothing personal fella. And very legal. So suck it up buttercup."


"If it's legal, it's good."

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Shodan

In what way do you think the protesters' speech is being suppressed? The First Amendment does not confer the right to ignore warrants.

I seriously doubt the NYPD gives a fig about six year old $25 unpaid tickets. Certainly not enough to devote six officers to chasing down one petty criminal.

Neither were these guys ring leaders to be targeted. The entire purpose was to intimidate.

The NYPD is sending a message to ALL protestors that the police will fuck with them if at all possible with only the slightest pretext. This has a chilling effect on those who would like to protest.

I don't have any unpaid tickets. Nor is OWL's unfortunate habit of disrupting traffic, defecating in public, and otherwise attempting to interfere with others going about their lives very analogous to writing nasty things about Obama.

How do I know you won't go out in an hour and defecate on a police car? You probably won't but you might.

Here's a notion...how about the police arrest people when they actually commit a crime rather than harass them ahead of time. There is no evidence I am aware of that the guys the police got were planning to poop on cars. Absent evidence that the people are planning a crime it is not appropriate to assume they will commit a crime. If the police see them pooping on a car then sure...arrest them.

Suppose the police thought I had an outstanding warrant (by mistake). And they decided to use it to try to intimidate me, but by entirely legal means, and without depriving me of my rights, as was the case in the OP. I would say nothing whatever to the NYPD except my name, birthdate, and address.

And there would not be anything the NYPD could do about it.
Your link doesn't work for me. Does it describe illegal activities undertaken by the Oakland police?

Nothing the NYPD could do about it?

Well, they bashed in your door so you have a $300 or more bill to have that replaced.

Also, consider the recent Supreme Court case on strip searches. The guy who brought the case was arrested for not paying a fine. Thing is he had paid the fine and the police made a mistake. So, off to jail he went and got strip searched.

So sure, the NYPD could do nothing to you except arrest you, strip search you, rummage around in your ass looking for drugs, then let you cool your heels for a few days till they figure out their mistake then send you home with a, "Sorry about that."

But you won't mind because it is all legal.

Not sure what was up with that link. Try: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84104T20120502

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Again, you appear to be either disingenuous, or deliberately stupid. It should read -

6. The protesters were not imprisoned, nor were any of their rights violated, nor did the police do anything illegal. Therefore, the NYPD did nothing wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

So your saying whatever is legal is not wrong? You really want to assert that? Are you really that stupid?

[Makeitstop]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

They are responsible for the consequences of their decision but consider what the cops did.
For not paying a six year old, $25 ticket, these guys had their door busted in and six cops come after them. Do you think that is in any way a reasonable response to an unpaid six year old $25 ticket?

Right, and Al Capone was sentenced to ten years in prison(the maximum sentence for his crimes), plus fines and leins against his various properties all because he evaded paying his taxes. No, these people were targeted because they were linked to people who might have been planning to cause chaos. Not saying that OWS is a criminal organization, or equating DFHs to crime bosses, but let's not pretend that the 25$ ticket was what this was really about. It was the excuse, not the reason. I think we agree on this.

Let's also not pretend that what the DFHs beleived or said was what the police were concerned about. Police in this country are not concerned about what you say, they are concerned by what you DO, or what you can cause others to do. Sure, scream "I HATE *insert whatever here*!" Just get the proper permits and conduct yourself in an orderly, lawful manner.

Given this, I believe that the police executed this particular warrant because they had genuine concern over the impending actions of a few individuals.

The goal of the police, in this particular case, was to intimidate a group of people. Intimidation is a viable tool that police use, and they used it here. The people they directly intimidated may very well have been totally innocent of the suspected crimes. But the people the police indirectly intimidated were those fully intending to break the law. What the police did was entirely 'legal', there's not too much arguing over that. But 'right' or 'moral' is another thing entirely.

I guess it comes down to whether you think it is wrong to allow police to use loopholes in the legal system to induce the intended effect of intimidation. I tend to put this kind of thing in the grey area. It isn't illegal, but certainly unethical. But I believe it comes from the right place. The goal here was to stop certain extreme elements of OWS from breaking the law and disrupting public order, not simply to inhibit free speech. If the police hadn't heard of the alleged law-breaking plans, this would not have happened.

The only part that it's hard to defend the police on is that the DFHs in this case were probably innocent. But from the POV of the police, they had to at least try to stop the actions they had heard about from happening. If they didn't, they would not be doing their jobs. So they picked a target that they could legally target, and intimidated them to intimidate the people they were really after. In some cases, that's what needs to be done. That's a hard reality to accept when it comes to policework and that doesn't make it 'right' or 'moral'. But in some cases it is necesary.

I'm sorry that the DFHs were treated as they were. They didn't deserve it. But if that's what it took to stop people from unlawfully clogging the streets and disrupting public order(something which often leads to greater destruction than a broken door and a strip search), then I'm glad that the police were willing to do it.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

The NYPD is sending a message to ALL protestors that the police will fuck with them if at all possible with only the slightest pretext. This has a chilling effect on those who would like to protest.

It has a chilling effect on those who ignore warrants. Law-abiding citizens - not so much.

Here's a notion...how about the police arrest people when they actually commit a crime rather than harass them ahead of time.

That's what happened.

Well, they bashed in your door so you have a $300 or more bill to have that replaced.

Is there actual, independent corroboration that the police broke down the door?

Also, consider the recent Supreme Court case on strip searches. The guy who brought the case was arrested for not paying a fine. Thing is he had paid the fine and the police made a mistake. So, off to jail he went and got strip searched.

I am not sure what the point is - the Supreme Court ruled that jails can (optionally) do a strip search on arrestees. This has nothing to do with free speech rights. And there was no mistake about the outstanding warrant for the OWL protester, as far as I know. Nor am I aware that he got strip searched.

Not sure what was up with that link. Try: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84104T20120502

Well, that link worked, at least. But some judge complaining that the police in Oakland have not submitted a plan to deal with complaints is not real good evidence that the NYPD is stifling free speech, unless you think there was some coordination between New York and California police. Especially since the complaint seems to be that the police used "an overwhelming military-type response". That's hardly illegal. The other complaint, that one of the protesters was hit by a bean-bag round instead of a tear-gas round also does not strike me as a gigantic outrage against human rights. At least not until I can get some kind of context.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Makeitstop

.... If the police hadn't heard of the alleged law-breaking plans, this would not have happened.....

Many of us are not as well informed as you. Perhaps you could expand upon this, and enlighten us as to precisely what heinous acts were in the works. It would also be interesting to know precisely how the police came to be aware of this conspiracy to commit traffic-clogging.

I wish I could say this is un-American, but I know better. The proud tradition goes back many, many years, to the age when the disorderly traffic-cloggers sought to commit dastardly acts in pursuit of the eight-hour day, pensions, and other such parlous threats to the public order.

It must be noted, in fairness, that they don't club or shoot anyone anymore. Merely a generous application of pepper-spray and legal harassment. That's nice. So much to be proud of.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It has a chilling effect on those who ignore warrants. Law-abiding citizens - not so much.

I had a friend who became a Chicago police officer. Once when we were having some drinks and talking about the police (in general) and why it is wise to not piss them off. He told me it is drop-dead easy to find something to arrest someone for. Even if a court finds them innocent later their goal of hassling you has been achieved and they can do it all quite legally.

The point is the chances are excellent there is something you do, however minor, that violates some law.

According to Silverglate, the average busy professional commits three felonies every day—any of which an ambitious and creative prosecutor could turn into an indictment. Seemingly innocuous activities like using the telephone or e-mail at work, or posting information on Web sites could potentially lead to a federal offense if your tone strikes someone as threatening.

SOURCE: http://www.thecrimereport.org/archiv...u-break-today/

Ted Nugent recently got a visit from the Secret Service over a single comment.

You may want to nitpick the "three a day" bit but the bottom line is you can easily commit crimes you do not even know you committed and police could use that, legally, to harass you.

That's what happened.

You were talking about OWS habit of disrupting traffic and pooping on cars. Were these guys arrested for pooping on cars or a six year old $25 ticket? You were making the point that it is good to stop these guys, even on a pretext, because they poop on cars. You are presuming they will commit a crime and use that to justify actions against them. By this token I could suppose you will commit a crime tomorrow so it is ok if the police come and get you today.

Is there actual, independent corroboration that the police broke down the door?

I linked two stories to this. I have seen none suggesting it is bullshit. If you can find it then feel free to post it.

I am not sure what the point is - the Supreme Court ruled that jails can (optionally) do a strip search on arrestees. This has nothing to do with free speech rights. And there was no mistake about the outstanding warrant for the OWL protester, as far as I know. Nor am I aware that he got strip searched.

You maintained you would not care if you woke to find the police standing at the foot of your bed, having knocked down your front door, to arrest you for an unpaid ticket.

I was suggesting you (anyone) would care. Your cavalier attitude is not convincing.

Nice try moving the goal posts though.

Well, that link worked, at least. But some judge complaining that the police in Oakland have not submitted a plan to deal with complaints is not real good evidence that the NYPD is stifling free speech, unless you think there was some coordination between New York and California police.

I do think that.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan Admits Cities Coordinated Crackdown on Occupy Movement

Embattled Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, speaking in an interview with the BBC (excerpted on The Takeaway radio program–audio of Quan starts at the 5:30 mark), casually mentioned that she was on a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities shortly before a wave of raids broke up Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country. “I was recently on a conference call with 18 cities across the country who had the same situation. . . .”

SOURCE: http://capitoilette.com/2011/11/15/o...cupy-movement/

Especially since the complaint seems to be that the police used "an overwhelming military-type response". That's hardly illegal. The other complaint, that one of the protesters was hit by a bean-bag round instead of a tear-gas round also does not strike me as a gigantic outrage against human rights. At least not until I can get some kind of context.

Apparently a federal judge disagrees with you.

[Euphonious Polemic]

The defense of this still all boils down to a few main points:

1. What the NYPD did is not illegal. Therefore there is nothing wrong with it.

2. So they harassed some Dirty Fucking Hippies. So what. I don't agree with the politics of the Dirty Fucking Hippies anyway. I'm not a Dirty Fucking Hippie, and I will never complain about anything that anyone in authority does, so nobody will every harass me, and I don't give a shit.

3. It's good that they harassed the DFH, because they were probably going to do something bad anyway. It's just good policing to crack down on people like that who will probably commit a crime sometime in the future.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

The defense of this still all boils down to a few main points:

1. What the NYPD did is not illegal. Therefore there is nothing wrong with it.

Again, you are leaving out the part where none of their rights were violated. The first time it may have been a mistake, but the second it becomes clear that you are doing on purpose.

2. So they harassed some Dirty Fucking Hippies. So what. I don't agree with the politics of the Dirty Fucking Hippies anyway. I'm not a Dirty Fucking Hippie, and I will never complain about anything that anyone in authority does, so nobody will every harass me, and I don't give a shit.

3. It's good that they harassed the DFH, because they were probably going to do something bad anyway. It's just good policing to crack down on people like that who will probably commit a crime sometime in the future.

And here you move into outright lies. No one has said that it was good that they were harassed because of their politics, no one has said they would never complain about what those in authority did, or that it was good policing to arrest someone for something they had yet to do.

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Again, you are leaving out the part where none of their rights were violated. The first time it may have been a mistake, but the second it becomes clear that you are doing on purpose.

It does not fucking matter if none of their rights were violated. I don't give a shit if none of their rights were violated. This is still "it's legal so it's OK territory.