New York City to Pay Occupy Protesters $100,000

[nodoginnafight]

Not really. The city does a metric on the cost of litigation vs what the aggrived party is willing to settle for. If the settlement meets a certain limit, they will settle before merits are even discussed.

Ive been involved with city lawyers on construction accidents, and even if the person hurt has ZERO case they will often settle if the price is right.

Maybe
Maybe not

I haven't heard any compelling argument for infringing on the protesters Constitutional right to assemble peacefully.

But if NYC is happy and the protesters are happy, then I certainly have no beefs.

Did you miss the part where they were on private land? That alone bars them from doing what they were doing. Further, the right to assemble DOES NOT mean you have the right to live perpetually in a public spot or infringe on others use of that land. That is not assembly. That is squatting. There is no ‘clear’ way to determine the line BUT there is little legal case for them to make demands on property unless the police did not do their due diligence in safeguarding the property. I don’t know the details but it really does sound pretty thin for the OWS.

Nope it was public land in that it had been designated for public use. A protest is public use.

 

[nodoginnafight]

not to mention the property had clear regulations baring overnight stays

a sign ... oh well then ....

I can put up a sign that says I get to punch anyone in the mouth I want. Does that mean I can? Does it mean the judge is gonna tell all those toothless people: "well .... he DID have a sign up ..."

 

[nodoginnafight]

Gotta fly - it's been nice guys. Props to all - I've enjoyed it.

 

[Lovebears65]

That is bullshit. I would be pissed if i lived in NY They were told to leave. They didnt . case closed

This of course doesn't include all the additional costs to the city from these nutjobs. Cities around the country for that matter.

New York City has agreed to pay Occupy Wall Street protesters more than $100,000 for property damaged or lost when police cleared out their encampment in a downtown Manhattan park in 2011, according to court documents signed on Tuesday.

The settlement includes $47,000 for books and library equipment lost or damaged in the raid on Zuccotti Park, where the protesters, campaigning against economic inequality, had camped for nearly two months, setting up tents and a ramshackle library.

Hundreds of books were damaged, and more than 2,000 books were never returned after police raided the park early on November 15, 2011, said Norman Siegel, an attorney for the protesters.

Brookfield Office Properties, named in the protesters' federal lawsuit as owner of Zuccotti Park, will reimburse the city one third of the $47,000 in library damages, the documents said.

The city also agreed to settle two related federal lawsuits by paying the protesters $75,000 for lost or damaged computers and network and broadcasting equipment, and $8,500 to an environmental group for 16 lost or damaged "energy bicycles" used as power generators at the park, the documents said.

The lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the raid, police arrested more than a hundred protesters and dismantled the encampment, which city officials said had become a health and fire safety hazard.

The encampment had been most visible fixture of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which inspired similar protests in dozens of cities across the United States and around the world.

New York City to Pay Occupy Protesters for Damaged Property

 

[martybegan]

Maybe
Maybe not

I haven't heard any compelling argument for infringing on the protesters Constitutional right to assemble peacefully.

But if NYC is happy and the protesters are happy, then I certainly have no beefs.

Did you miss the part where they were on private land? That alone bars them from doing what they were doing. Further, the right to assemble DOES NOT mean you have the right to live perpetually in a public spot or infringe on others use of that land. That is not assembly. That is squatting. There is no ‘clear’ way to determine the line BUT there is little legal case for them to make demands on property unless the police did not do their due diligence in safeguarding the property. I don’t know the details but it really does sound pretty thin for the OWS.

Nope it was public land in that it had been designated for public use. A protest is public use.

Just one more post. The land falls under a grey area. It is still private property, and has to be maintained by the owner. however it is acceded to public use in exchange for the builder of whatever structure is related to the space in exchange for being able to build higher than the building code allows normally. Its an exchange of "air rights" for public space. Some of them are even inside the buildings, with tables and food vendors, one even has a piano player that plays during lunch hours. They are allowed to set hours, but must be open to the public, not just employees of the given building.

 

[Spoonman]

not to mention the property had clear regulations baring overnight stays

a sign ... oh well then ....

I can put up a sign that says I get to punch anyone in the mouth I want. Does that mean I can? Does it mean the judge is gonna tell all those toothless people: "well .... he DID have a sign up ..."

more than a sign. a city code law.

 

[FA_Q2]

Did you miss the part where they were on private land? That alone bars them from doing what they were doing. Further, the right to assemble DOES NOT mean you have the right to live perpetually in a public spot or infringe on others use of that land. That is not assembly. That is squatting. There is no ‘clear’ way to determine the line BUT there is little legal case for them to make demands on property unless the police did not do their due diligence in safeguarding the property. I don’t know the details but it really does sound pretty thin for the OWS.

Nope it was public land in that it had been designated for public use. A protest is public use.

Just one more post. The land falls under a grey area. It is still private property, and has to be maintained by the owner. however it is acceded to public use in exchange for the builder of whatever structure is related to the space in exchange for being able to build higher than the building code allows normally. Its an exchange of "air rights" for public space. Some of them are even inside the buildings, with tables and food vendors, one even has a piano player that plays during lunch hours. They are allowed to set hours, but must be open to the public, not just employees of the given building.

And to add to this – ‘designed’ for public use is a misnomer. Either the land is publically owned or not. A store or restaurant is ‘designed’ for public use, that does not mean you have a right to protest IN the store or restaurant. You may only do so in the street in front of it where the owner does not own the land and even then – there are city codes. The city codes though, in my opinion, wrong but that is for another thread and does not touch on this case as there is no court precedent that I know of concerning that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Internet lawyers think they know more about the law than actual lawyers involved in the case. LOL

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Police damaging property is not good, actually illegal. But they are protestors and laws and rights go out the window when ppl are hated /sarcasm

They were told to leave, they didnt leave. If the cops hadn't warned them they might have had an actual case, but If I leave my crap in the middle of a public square, my anticipation of finding it in good shape later on is basically a crap shoot.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I know you Conservatives love the Second Amendment, can we show some love now for the First Amendment? It doesn't matter if you AGREE with them or NOT. They have a right to protest peacefully. This right was infringed on, badly.

 

[Spoonman]

Police damaging property is not good, actually illegal. But they are protestors and laws and rights go out the window when ppl are hated /sarcasm

They were told to leave, they didnt leave. If the cops hadn't warned them they might have had an actual case, but If I leave my crap in the middle of a public square, my anticipation of finding it in good shape later on is basically a crap shoot.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I know you Conservatives love the Second Amendment, can we show some love now for the First Amendment? It doesn't matter if you AGREE with them or NOT. They have a right to protest peacefully. This right was infringed on, badly.

either way, you can't break laws while expressing your rights. having a right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone. free speech doesn't give you the right to trespass and create dangerous situations.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They only like rights when applied to ppl they also like

 

[The2ndAmendment]

either way, you can't break laws while expressing your rights. having a right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone. free speech doesn't give you the right to trespass and create dangerous situations.

What did they trespass on? What dangerous situation did they create?

The Second Amendment is our permit to carry whatever weapon we want.

The First Amendment is our permit to protest on any piece of PUBLIC property that we wish.

You pretend to love the Constitution, while dismissing half of it.

 

[Sallow]

If NYC agrees to pay those losers anything then they are nuts.

Nobody told them to act like assholes and protest. Thats a decision they made. If they lost possessions while protesting or being taken into custody. Tough Shit.

Wonder if the protesters will be paying all the businesses they screwed during their protest??

Ain't holding my breth for that one.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That amendment gives them the right to protest and makes ABSOLUTELY no mention of the interests of business..or private property.

Funny how you folks seem to only know 2 amendments..and generally you never completely quote either of them.

 

[Sallow]

They were told to leave, they didnt leave. If the cops hadn't warned them they might have had an actual case, but If I leave my crap in the middle of a public square, my anticipation of finding it in good shape later on is basically a crap shoot.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I know you Conservatives love the Second Amendment, can we show some love now for the First Amendment? It doesn't matter if you AGREE with them or NOT. They have a right to protest peacefully. This right was infringed on, badly.

either way, you can't break laws while expressing your rights. having a right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone. free speech doesn't give you the right to trespass and create dangerous situations.

Where is the restriction against peaceably assembling on private property?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe
Maybe not

I haven't heard any compelling argument for infringing on the protesters Constitutional right to assemble peacefully.

But if NYC is happy and the protesters are happy, then I certainly have no beefs.

Did you miss the part where they were on private land? That alone bars them from doing what they were doing. Further, the right to assemble DOES NOT mean you have the right to live perpetually in a public spot or infringe on others use of that land. That is not assembly. That is squatting. There is no ‘clear’ way to determine the line BUT there is little legal case for them to make demands on property unless the police did not do their due diligence in safeguarding the property. I don’t know the details but it really does sound pretty thin for the OWS.

Nope it was public land in that it had been designated for public use. A protest is public use.

It was for public use, but what the Occupiers did was deny the rest of the public the use of public land. So much for sharing it, eh? Oh and not to mention they practically caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.

 

[ClosedCaption]

either way, you can't break laws while expressing your rights. having a right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone. free speech doesn't give you the right to trespass and create dangerous situations.

What did they trespass on? What dangerous situation did they create?

The Second Amendment is our permit to carry whatever weapon we want.

The First Amendment is our permit to protest on any piece of PUBLIC property that we wish.

You pretend to love the Constitution, while dismissing half of it.

Predicted answers:

1. My feelings
2. Made me pee mahself

 

[GHook93]

Unbelievable! These SQUATTERS were breaking the law. They unlawfully unoccupied areas that required a permit and a payment of a fee.

Imagine of Tea Partiers did that. I mean tea parties always obtain permits and pay hefty fees to hold their rallies. On top of that they don't destroy the areas, don't vandalize the neighboring property, don't rape women at their functions and provide for their own security. OWS destroyed the areas they occupied, countless charges of rape were filed, the vandalized neighboring property, and they cost the city TENS of $1000s in police and other fees!

 

[Sallow]

Nope it was public land in that it had been designated for public use. A protest is public use.

Just one more post. The land falls under a grey area. It is still private property, and has to be maintained by the owner. however it is acceded to public use in exchange for the builder of whatever structure is related to the space in exchange for being able to build higher than the building code allows normally. Its an exchange of "air rights" for public space. Some of them are even inside the buildings, with tables and food vendors, one even has a piano player that plays during lunch hours. They are allowed to set hours, but must be open to the public, not just employees of the given building.

And to add to this – ‘designed’ for public use is a misnomer. Either the land is publically owned or not. A store or restaurant is ‘designed’ for public use, that does not mean you have a right to protest IN the store or restaurant. You may only do so in the street in front of it where the owner does not own the land and even then – there are city codes. The city codes though, in my opinion, wrong but that is for another thread and does not touch on this case as there is no court precedent that I know of concerning that.

Where does the Constitution prohibit that?

 

[Spoonman]

either way, you can't break laws while expressing your rights. having a right to own a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone. free speech doesn't give you the right to trespass and create dangerous situations.

What did they trespass on? What dangerous situation did they create?

The Second Amendment is our permit to carry whatever weapon we want.

The First Amendment is our permit to protest on any piece of PUBLIC property that we wish.

You pretend to love the Constitution, while dismissing half of it.

property which clearly stated no overnight camping. if you worked in the area you would see what kind of dangerous situations they created. mobs roaming the streets over run who ever is in their path. walking on the streets in the path of traffic is a dangerous situation. they were told to abide the laws and stay on the sidewalks. they didn't. i'm free to own a gun but i am not free to walk down the streets discharging it into the air. they are free to protest but not violate the regulations of the properties they protest on.

 

[Spoonman]

Just one more post. The land falls under a grey area. It is still private property, and has to be maintained by the owner. however it is acceded to public use in exchange for the builder of whatever structure is related to the space in exchange for being able to build higher than the building code allows normally. Its an exchange of "air rights" for public space. Some of them are even inside the buildings, with tables and food vendors, one even has a piano player that plays during lunch hours. They are allowed to set hours, but must be open to the public, not just employees of the given building.

And to add to this – ‘designed’ for public use is a misnomer. Either the land is publically owned or not. A store or restaurant is ‘designed’ for public use, that does not mean you have a right to protest IN the store or restaurant. You may only do so in the street in front of it where the owner does not own the land and even then – there are city codes. The city codes though, in my opinion, wrong but that is for another thread and does not touch on this case as there is no court precedent that I know of concerning that.

Where does the Constitution prohibit that?

where does the constitution prohibit me from owning lare capacity magazines and assault rifles?