Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What does that mean, laws don't matter after you ask nicely?
No, that you accept the consequences of your actions. They were told to leave, they did not, thus they put themselves and thier property at risk.
The protestors in birmingham in the 60's did not sue to get thier crap back. They stood thier ground, got arrested and beaten, and were RIGHT BACK on the firing line as soon as they got out.
You can respect that, and in that case I side with the protesters 100%.
The OWS protesters were a bunch of whiny rich kids who once dispersed fled with thier tails between thier legs, and went and got mommy and daddy's lawyers to fight thier battle in a courtroom. No respect for that.
Ok, the protestors had to deal with their actions = Their shit was vandalized or removed
The Police had to deal with their actions = They broke the law
I'm wondering why you only think that one of the two have to "deal with their actions"?
What you agree with is of no consequence. That's not how laws work buddy
No, that you accept the consequences of your actions. They were told to leave, they did not, thus they put themselves and thier property at risk.
The protestors in birmingham in the 60's did not sue to get thier crap back. They stood thier ground, got arrested and beaten, and were RIGHT BACK on the firing line as soon as they got out.
You can respect that, and in that case I side with the protesters 100%.
The OWS protesters were a bunch of whiny rich kids who once dispersed fled with thier tails between thier legs, and went and got mommy and daddy's lawyers to fight thier battle in a courtroom. No respect for that.
Ok, the protestors had to deal with their actions = Their shit was vandalized or removed
The Police had to deal with their actions = They broke the law
I'm wondering why you only think that one of the two have to "deal with their actions"?
What you agree with is of no consequence. That's not how laws work buddy
The police broke no such law, or they would be facing prosecution right now. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The state probably could have won, but they decided to pay out a paltry sum to save on legal costs.
If I plop my belongings in a public area, am then told to move said belongings, and I refuse, what law are the police breaking when they move my crap, and what expectations of maintenance of such crap do I expect?
Ok, the protestors had to deal with their actions = Their shit was vandalized or removed
The Police had to deal with their actions = They broke the law
I'm wondering why you only think that one of the two have to "deal with their actions"?
What you agree with is of no consequence. That's not how laws work buddy
The police broke no such law, or they would be facing prosecution right now. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The state probably could have won, but they decided to pay out a paltry sum to save on legal costs.
If I plop my belongings in a public area, am then told to move said belongings, and I refuse, what law are the police breaking when they move my crap, and what expectations of maintenance of such crap do I expect?
Apologies...it's a civil case that's correct. If they did nothing wrong then why are they paying money? Because NYC are a bunch of nice guys? No no...I bet it's because liberals are paying off liberals for liberal causes?
The police broke no such law, or they would be facing prosecution right now. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. The state probably could have won, but they decided to pay out a paltry sum to save on legal costs.
If I plop my belongings in a public area, am then told to move said belongings, and I refuse, what law are the police breaking when they move my crap, and what expectations of maintenance of such crap do I expect?
Apologies...it's a civil case that's correct. If they did nothing wrong then why are they paying money? Because NYC are a bunch of nice guys? No no...I bet it's because liberals are paying off liberals for liberal causes?
Its because they did an analysis between the cost of pursuing this to trial vs. paying out $100k, and with the costs of lawyers these days, the $100k was cheaper.
Happens in courts all the time.
Apologies...it's a civil case that's correct. If they did nothing wrong then why are they paying money? Because NYC are a bunch of nice guys? No no...I bet it's because liberals are paying off liberals for liberal causes?
Its because they did an analysis between the cost of pursuing this to trial vs. paying out $100k, and with the costs of lawyers these days, the $100k was cheaper.
Happens in courts all the time.
Ahh yes, so it made more sense for them to pay out. For no reason of course...
Its because they did an analysis between the cost of pursuing this to trial vs. paying out $100k, and with the costs of lawyers these days, the $100k was cheaper.
Happens in courts all the time.
Ahh yes, so it made more sense for them to pay out. For no reason of course...
Its called economics. They could have spent $400k on the defense, and maybe lost to a sypathetic judge, or they pay out $100k now, admit no fault, and close it out for cheaper.
My grandfather got rammed by a guy on a bike running a stop sign who ran into the SIDE of my grandfather's car, and my grandfather's insurance company paid the idiot some money even though he was at fault, because it was easier to settle for a small amount then spend more money and maybe still lose.
Ahh yes, so it made more sense for them to pay out. For no reason of course...
Its called economics. They could have spent $400k on the defense, and maybe lost to a sypathetic judge, or they pay out $100k now, admit no fault, and close it out for cheaper.
My grandfather got rammed by a guy on a bike running a stop sign who ran into the SIDE of my grandfather's car, and my grandfather's insurance company paid the idiot some money even though he was at fault, because it was easier to settle for a small amount then spend more money and maybe still lose.
So lawyers looked at the cost and the likely outcome. Weighed all the options and found out that paying out would be cheaper than going the distance. And you're mad at protestors for what now? Having a strong enough case?
$100,000 is a bargain. How many lawsuits did they settle for that?
They've probably paid more for towing and damaging one really expensive car.
Whether you agree with them or not - they have a right to hold their protest. Everyone does. If you only protect that right for those you agree with, then it really isn't much of a "right" now is it?
Ahh yes, so it made more sense for them to pay out. For no reason of course...
Its called economics. They could have spent $400k on the defense, and maybe lost to a sypathetic judge, or they pay out $100k now, admit no fault, and close it out for cheaper.
My grandfather got rammed by a guy on a bike running a stop sign who ran into the SIDE of my grandfather's car, and my grandfather's insurance company paid the idiot some money even though he was at fault, because it was easier to settle for a small amount then spend more money and maybe still lose.
So lawyers looked at the cost and the likely outcome. Weighed all the options and found out that paying out would be cheaper than going the distance. And you're mad at protestors for what now? Having a strong enough case?
Everyone has a right to protest, however you have to accept the consequences of said protest. They were told to leave the public space, they didnt, and thus thier crap got damaged in the ensuing explusion.
Everyone has a right to protest, however you have to accept the consequences of said protest. They were told to leave the public space, they didnt, and thus thier crap got damaged in the ensuing explusion.
And why was their right to peacefully assemble being infringed?
Its called economics. They could have spent $400k on the defense, and maybe lost to a sypathetic judge, or they pay out $100k now, admit no fault, and close it out for cheaper.
My grandfather got rammed by a guy on a bike running a stop sign who ran into the SIDE of my grandfather's car, and my grandfather's insurance company paid the idiot some money even though he was at fault, because it was easier to settle for a small amount then spend more money and maybe still lose.
So lawyers looked at the cost and the likely outcome. Weighed all the options and found out that paying out would be cheaper than going the distance. And you're mad at protestors for what now? Having a strong enough case?
Fleecing taxpayers. Their case is bogus bullshit.
What these kids needed was a good old fashioned ass whoopin. Fucking bums sucking off the teet of society.
$100,000 is a bargain. How many lawsuits did they settle for that?
They've probably paid more for towing and damaging one really expensive car.
Whether you agree with them or not - they have a right to hold their protest. Everyone does. If you only protect that right for those you agree with, then it really isn't much of a "right" now is it?
Everyone has a right to protest, however you have to accept the consequences of said protest. They were told to leave the public space, they didnt, and thus thier crap got damaged in the ensuing explusion.
What they should have done is tried to occupy it right after getting released from prision, then again, and again, until they got what they wanted (another issue with the OWS movement, no defined goals).
The birmingham protestors wanted an end to Jim Crow, and they kept at it until they got what they wanted. The power of civil protest is you take your punishment (jail time) and continue with RIGHT AFTER you get out. you dont go to court to get paid for your IPAD that got smushed.
The idea is to suffer the punishment given out for something you see as wrong, and thus shame society into accepting your viewpoint. Look at the bull conner crap, where his hosing down of people created sympathy among the rest of the country. OWS did not achive that because the people saw them as whiny bitches with no clear goal.
Everyone has a right to protest, however you have to accept the consequences of said protest. They were told to leave the public space, they didnt, and thus thier crap got damaged in the ensuing explusion.
And why was their right to peacefully assemble being infringed?
There right to assemble was not infringed for months. However thier right to assemble was trampling on the rights of others to use the park, as well as the rights of the buisinessowners in the area to make a living.
There was also the question of the legality of them occupying a technically privately owned space that was only turned over conditionally for public use.
They were not outside of city hall, they were on private property detailed for public use via agreement with the landowner for air rights.
$100,000 is a bargain. How many lawsuits did they settle for that?
They've probably paid more for towing and damaging one really expensive car.
Whether you agree with them or not - they have a right to hold their protest. Everyone does. If you only protect that right for those you agree with, then it really isn't much of a "right" now is it?
Everyone has a right to protest, however you have to accept the consequences of said protest. They were told to leave the public space, they didnt, and thus thier crap got damaged in the ensuing explusion.
What they should have done is tried to occupy it right after getting released from prision, then again, and again, until they got what they wanted (another issue with the OWS movement, no defined goals).
The birmingham protestors wanted an end to Jim Crow, and they kept at it until they got what they wanted. The power of civil protest is you take your punishment (jail time) and continue with RIGHT AFTER you get out. you dont go to court to get paid for your IPAD that got smushed.
The idea is to suffer the punishment given out for something you see as wrong, and thus shame society into accepting your viewpoint. Look at the bull conner crap, where his hosing down of people created sympathy among the rest of the country. OWS did not achive that because the people saw them as whiny bitches with no clear goal.
I guess that should have explained that part better in the Constitution
And why was their right to peacefully assemble being infringed?
There right to assemble was not infringed for months. However thier right to assemble was trampling on the rights of others to use the park, as well as the rights of the buisinessowners in the area to make a living.
There was also the question of the legality of them occupying a technically privately owned space that was only turned over conditionally for public use.
They were not outside of city hall, they were on private property detailed for public use via agreement with the landowner for air rights.
Hmmmm sounds like a pretty iffy case to infringe upon their Constitutional right to peacefully assemble. Better let a judge decide ...
or ....
$100,000 was a bargain.
There right to assemble was not infringed for months. However thier right to assemble was trampling on the rights of others to use the park, as well as the rights of the buisinessowners in the area to make a living.
There was also the question of the legality of them occupying a technically privately owned space that was only turned over conditionally for public use.
They were not outside of city hall, they were on private property detailed for public use via agreement with the landowner for air rights.
Hmmmm sounds like a pretty iffy case to infringe upon their Constitutional right to peacefully assemble. Better let a judge decide ...
or ....
$100,000 was a bargain.
If they really thought they had a case they wouldnt have settled for $100k.
