I don’t remember any stories about tea party members being maced and arrested in mass all over the country like what is happening with the occupy movements.
Are the occupy movements just more prone to law breaking than the tea party? My impression is police forces tend to have a more conservative outlook, so is there a bias there where they are more comfortable arresting 20 year old hippies than they would be arresting a tea party made up of 60 year olds? Or is it just the behavior of the crowds that is different and the tea party never did illegal things in large groups? I’ve heard tea party members openly talk about the need for ‘revolution’, which when a group of armed people say that is something to take into consideration (see Sharon Angles statement about 2nd amendment remedies or some tea party signs). But no arrests were made for it. Nor for spitting on congressmen.
The tea party would openly brandish guns in their marches while talking about the need for 2nd amendment remedies or revolution. But I don’t remember any cops running up and macing people, then running away like what happened in New York. And there were no arrests of large numbers of people at a time like happened in Boston, NYC, Seattle or Idaho.
My understanding is in Seattle the police told them to put their tents up, and some refused so they were arrested. But supposedly in NYC the police directed people onto the brooklyn bridge, then arrested people for obstructing traffic. I think the occupy movement is blocking traffic in Chicago too.
FWIW, is there a bias with the police in how they treat protesters based on the ideology of the protesters (do police treat liberal 20 somethings differently than they treat conservative 50 somethings)? Or is that not a factor. Does the fact that the occupy protesters don’t openly carry guns make the police more aggressive towards them?
The tea party protests were generally day-long events with permits. These are going to cause less problems for police than large encampments in public areas with or without legal permits.
Even if you are in sympathy with the aims of the encamped protesters, the fact that these camps are sanitation issues and the protesters both potential lawbreakers and crime victims mean some additional scrutiny is justified.
While I did see reports of guns being displayed at some tea party protests, they were not being brandished - they were being carried openly in a holster in states that expressly permitted this. Much as this might cause chagrin to some people, this was legal and the police could do nothing but keep an eye on it - which they seem to have done.
I don’t remember any stories about tea party members being maced and arrested in mass all over the country like what is happening with the occupy movements.
QUOTE]
If you block traffic, or camp on an area that was newly planted with $150k in landscaping (which is what happened in Boston) you are going to get arrested. I believe the tea party rallies all had permits, which I know the Occupy Boston folks did not get. If anything the Boston city government has been bending over backwards to accomodate the protestors. Partly because almost all of the protestors are very reliable Democratic voters and activitsts.
Apart from the fact that the tea party rallies were of a fixed duration, the police could make arrangements to direct traffic around the area, and even charge the organizers for clean-up, etc. At least in Boston the campsite is starting to become something of a cesspool (literally).
This is something I’ve been wondering. Do the Wall Street Occupiers have all the proper permits to be out there marching, protesting, camping out, etc.?
You’re right, and I now realize that I mistakenly followed a hijack. So I will try to go back to the main point:
It has been stated that the reason the protesters are being treated differently by police is, among other things, they don’t have permits. Then **Fear Itself **said:
What I should have said, I now realize, is that this simply isn’t relevant to the issue. The question isn’t whether the tactics of the protests are proper, or whether they will succeed. The question is why are the police treating them differently.
And has been pointed out, the question is loaded. Of course the police are treating them differently, because these protesters are going about it differently. It’s like asking whether traffic cops treat speeders differently than they do other drivers.
The group I would rather see the Occupiers compared to is abortion protesters. They do not usually have permits, but the police leave them alone. What’s the difference?
Besides the tremendous difference in numbers, marching in the streets, taking over public parks, building stages to speak from, and leaving trash everywhere? Why, nothing at all.
I organized a small protest once. I was too late to get a permit to do so, but found out that as long as the protest took only a few hours and was confined to the sidewalk, no permit was required.
So that is what we did.
Local laws vary here. What is loosely regulated in one locality may be more restricted in another. Keep in mind that these general permitting regulations cannot run afoul of the First Amendment, so where they apply they cannot be too onerous and they must be content neutral.
I am not saying they are exactly the same, but during the March for Life or what ever it’s called, they also have huge numbers, the impede traffic (at least around here), they have disgusting signs, and generally seem like a huge nuisance.
The March For Life not only has a permit, but it’s only for one day and they prep for it. The police know when and where it will happen, and who to contact within the group in case anything happens.