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”.
- The protesters were not actually imprisoned, so therefore the NYPD did nothing wrong.
Um… they HAD a warrant.
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).
When you whooosh upon a star
Makes no difference who you are!
For when you whooosh upon a star, your dreams come true!
Oh.
Ooooohh.
Um, carry on, then.
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?
Again, you appear to be either disingenuous, or deliberately stupid. It should read -
- 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. "
A stirring sentiment indeed.
Could you mention which of the rights of the protesters were violated?
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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.
The selectively enforced consequences. How do you square equal justice before the law with selective enforcement against the politically disagreeable?
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).
In what way do you think the protesters’ speech is being suppressed? The First Amendment does not confer the right to ignore warrants.
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.
Your link doesn’t work for me. Does it describe illegal activities undertaken by the Oakland police?
Regards,
Shodan