• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

L.A. might sue Occupy L.A. protestors for financial damages

A small minority broke other laws. That is a completely seperate issue.

I wouldn't disagree that people have come up with reasons. The free exercise of our rights are not always a pretty controlled thing. They are not required to be.

One big reason : You do not have a right to trash my rights while deciding what your rights are.
 
Absolutely you do within the law. We are all citizens, and I have the right to go about my day and ignore your protest don't I?

Ignore away.

What about this pesky thing....

Common law was a basis for our laws but irrelevant and I've noted, many do try and create modern statutes to curtail our rights all the time. We should not sit back and accept them.
 
One big reason : You do not have a right to trash my rights while deciding what your rights are.

Not trying to be dimissive but this statement really isn't saying anything. I've made many points about the societal costs of our rights and how the curtailment of them can and is abused and this is the reply?
 
Not trying to be dimissive but this statement really isn't saying anything. I've made many points about the societal costs of our rights and how the curtailment of them can and is abused and this is the reply?

And I have the made the points, with far more specificity, about why we have reasonable statutes regarding assembly and protest. None say that you cannot assemble or protest. You have failed to address those legitimate concerns.

So, back atcha
 
And I have the made the points, with far more specificity, about why we have reasonable statutes regarding assembly and protest. None say that you cannot assemble or protest. You have failed to address those legitimate concerns.

So, back atcha

You say that they cost money. I say that our freedoms do not come without a price.
 
This reminds me of some of the first hacking trials back in the 80s -- indignant corporations, humiliated that their security was breached so easily, dramatically inflated the cost of the hack as reported to the government and the press. They did it, in part, by tacking on as many man-hours from as many internal professionals as they could get away with, claiming that that was how many people it took to clean up after the hacker in question -- even if no actual damage had been done.

The city government made certain decisions on how to handle the Occupy protesters, and it incurred expenses as a direct result of those decisions. A decision to sue would be akin to buyer's remorse, and the people of LA shouldn't tolerate it -- they should instead hold their government responsible for the choices that led to this situation.
 
You say that they cost money. I say that our freedoms do not come without a price.

The "price" is to obtain a permit where required, pay fees where indicated, post bonds where mandated. All of this is dependent not on whether or not you want to protest, but is triggered by varying combinations of where, when, and with how many.

Another mini-example. You do have a right of assembly. But you do not have a right to violate occupancy codes.
 
Last edited:

Where the Occutards violated statutes, they are responsible. Whether they can be made to pay is a different matter. That does not excuse politicians from facing backlash.
 
Where the Occutards violated statutes, they are responsible. Whether they can be made to pay is a different matter. That does not excuse politicians from facing backlash.

Where the Occupy protesters violated the law, they would've been responsible had the government opted to enforce the law. While I'm sure the government still has some ability to punish the protesters, morally they've lost the high ground because they totally failed in their responsibilities.
 

Which is the same arguements those who wish to curtail the right to own guns use. Can I assume you agree with them also? I have never seen a court house lawn with an occupancy code.

I also can only assume that based upon the use of a smiley that you do not take our rights as a serious thing.
 
Ignore away.


I can't when I am accosted going about my day by people that believe their right to protest, trumps my right to go about my day. This is why I think that common laws like 'unlawful assembly' were enacted.

Common law was a basis for our laws but irrelevant and I've noted, many do try and create modern statutes to curtail our rights all the time. We should not sit back and accept them.

Who decides which laws we should follow, and which are irrelevant?

j-mac
 
Ummm...

Exactly who would they send the bill to?

I think that is a valid question. I say good luck getting any money for any damages.
 

1) Why do you try to extend this argument into some notion about how I feel about the 2nd Amendment ? Do not assume for me

2) The Occutards were not creating issues with occupancy on courthouse lawns.

3) There you go assuming again ..... about me.

So, as I assume nothing, tell me if you served, for how long, and who with. Thanks.

Otherwise, how about something other than the ad-hominems.
 
Who decides which laws we should follow, and which are irrelevant?

j-mac

This is actually done daily. Officers have the flexibility to exercise judgment.
 

the gun rights vs. protest rights is a flawed narrative IMHO. I don't see many gun protests that involve obstructing peoples day at the point of guns, do you?

When assembly turns into mob, riot, and destruction of property that are there at tax payer expense, and for their use, one group doesn't have the right to exclude those others that don't agree with them.

j-mac
 
I can't when I am accosted going about my day by people that believe their right to protest, trumps my right to go about my day. This is why I think that common laws like 'unlawful assembly' were enacted.

Nobody can accost you legally.


Who decides which laws we should follow, and which are irrelevant?

j-mac

Common law is not a law so it's irrelevant. Common law is basically the idea that one ruling should follow the same as a past ruling. With the idea of permits, some official gets to decide who can protest and who can't.
 
Ultimately though it is the courts, and legislature that decide is it not?

j-mac

No, not really. Officers decide daily. They don't stop all speeders for example. They let a shoplifter go based on the circumstances. They use judgment. Law without judgment is about as useless as no law at all.
 

Like it or not this IS the LAW:


j-mac
 
1) Why do you try to extend this argument into some notion about how I feel about the 2nd Amendment ? Do not assume for me

So, I'll simply not assume and come to the conclusion that you would rather not answer.

2) The Occutards were not creating issues with occupancy on courthouse lawns.

That is what this thread is about.

Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich is considering a lawsuit against Occupy L.A. protesters to reimburse the city for damage caused during the occupation of the City Hall lawn.


Sorry though, City Hall, not courthouse.

3) There you go assuming again ..... about me.

It was a question. The way to get rid of any doubt is to answer the question.

So, as I assume nothing, tell me if you served, for how long, and who with. Thanks.

Otherwise, how about something other than the ad-hominems.

Napolis. About 8 months. The rest of the employee's.
 
No, not really. Officers decide daily. They don't stop all speeders for example. They let a shoplifter go based on the circumstances. They use judgment. Law without judgment is about as useless as no law at all.

That is both inaccurate, but flawed beyond belief. This is not about "speeding". Further, were a law-enforcement official fail to hold someone suspected of committing a felony, they will not be a law enforcement official for long.

A hallmark of Justice is supposed to be consistency and objectivity, not subjectivity.
 
the gun rights vs. protest rights is a flawed narrative IMHO. I don't see many gun protests that involve obstructing peoples day at the point of guns, do you?

The discussion was on costs associated with rights.

When assembly turns into mob, riot, and destruction of property that are there at tax payer expense, and for their use, one group doesn't have the right to exclude those others that don't agree with them.

j-mac

I noted that if the fountain was damaged, that was likely a criminal action, not a civil.
 

That's simply not true. Sorry. And no where did I say there was objectivity. And what is meant by consistency is up for some deabte. Good judgment is a requirment of justice. It is why zero tolerance laws are so stupid.
 
That is both inaccurate, but flawed beyond belief. This is not about "speeding". Further, were a law-enforcement official fail to hold someone suspected of committing a felony, they will not be a law enforcement official for long.

Of course they will and it's done everyday. People suspected of felonies are released everyday because we have rights that protect us from guilt based upon suspisions.

A hallmark of Justice is supposed to be consistency and objectivity, not subjectivity.

Which is exactly why a permit system is flawed. We saw where the Tea Party was forced to jump through hoops in N. Carolina and the OWS group wasn't.
 
Since this is about L.A. Here is their law.



Check it out people....it is AGAINST the law.


j-mac
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…