New York City to Pay Occupy Protesters $100,000

[nodoginnafight]

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

I dont see a right to sit in a park for months milling around and stinking up the place in the consitution either, but it is an assembly. However there is no language about a perpetual assembly, and they could have remained if they had gotten rid of thier crap.

They didnt, they got thwomped. Happy day all around.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what rights you or I "see." It matters what a judge sees.

 

[martybegan]

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.

If NYC thought it was such a slam dunk, they wouldn't have settled.

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If they really thought they had a case they wouldnt have settled for $100k.

If NYC thought it was such a slam dunk, they wouldn't have settled.

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.

 

[Spoonman]

NYC is run by morons then.

Cuomo and bloomberg. two of the biggest morons going

 

[freedombecki]

NYC is run by morons then.

They pay attention to Broadway in NYC. They saw the Musical, Oliver! and thought "You got to pick a pocket or two" was good religion.

 

[Spoonman]

NYC is run by morons then.

They pay attention to Broadway in NYC. They saw the Musical, Oliver! and thought "You got to pick a pocket or two" was good religion.

now i know where my state tax dollars are going

 

[LogikAndReazon]

And to think for or a brief filthy moment , they were part of something bigger then themselves.........

A misguided collectivists dream that they can cherish forever........

Revolutionary change ??? Too f---ing comical..................

 

[freedombecki]

NYC is run by morons then.

They pay attention to Broadway in NYC. They saw the Musical, Oliver! and thought "You got to pick a pocket or two" was good religion.

now i know where my state tax dollars are going

They've had 50 years to think it over. Oliver! debuted in London in 1960 and on Broadway in 1963. They're just more practiced now.

 

[martybegan]

If NYC thought it was such a slam dunk, they wouldn't have settled.

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.

What about the right of other new yorkers to use the park for thier benefit? What of the right of the business owners in the area to perform commerce unrestricted?

So by your logic someone can basically camp out on the white house lawn indefinitely and set up as long as they call it a protest?

 

[nodoginnafight]

And to think for or a brief filthy moment , they were part of something bigger then themselves.........

A misguided collectivists dream that they can cherish forever........

Revolutionary change ??? Too f---ing comical..................

Maybe they should start a 12-step group to help them get over it.

They could invite the Tea Party .....

 

[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.

What about the right of other new yorkers to use the park for thier benefit? What of the right of the business owners in the area to perform commerce unrestricted?

So by your logic someone can basically camp out on the white house lawn indefinitely and set up as long as they call it a protest?

in a word - yes

Concepcion Picciotto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2009/03/longest-war-protest-in-us-history-is_09.html
Silent Sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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.

What about the right of other new yorkers to use the park for thier benefit? What of the right of the business owners in the area to perform commerce unrestricted?

So by your logic someone can basically camp out on the white house lawn indefinitely and set up as long as they call it a protest?

in a word - yes

Concepcion Picciotto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War News Updates: The Longest War Protest In U.S. History Is Now Over
Silent Sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the first case she stays on private property when not at her protest site, and her protest does not restrict access to the area. OWS took over the entire public space, removing other people's ability to use it. It is also still private property.

The other cases again are individuals, or much smaller groups, that have no impact on other citizen's use of said space.

Also they were not on the lawn, they were in front of the lawn.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What about the right of other new yorkers to use the park for thier benefit? What of the right of the business owners in the area to perform commerce unrestricted?

So by your logic someone can basically camp out on the white house lawn indefinitely and set up as long as they call it a protest?

in a word - yes

Concepcion Picciotto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War News Updates: The Longest War Protest In U.S. History Is Now Over
Silent Sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the first case she stays on private property when not at her protest site, and her protest does not restrict access to the area. OWS took over the entire public space, removing other people's ability to use it. It is also still private property.

The other cases again are individuals, or much smaller groups, that have no impact on other citizen's use of said space.

Also they were not on the lawn, they were in front of the lawn.

Pretty fine distinctions there counselor. Think the judge will buy it?
Lets find out.

OR .....

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

You also have the issue of damaging personal property in an "over-zealous attempt to deprieve these citizens of their rights."

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

 

[Spoonman]

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?

hey, there rights to own guns in NY have been stripped. why should this right be any different.

 

[Spoonman]

in a word - yes

Concepcion Picciotto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War News Updates: The Longest War Protest In U.S. History Is Now Over
Silent Sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the first case she stays on private property when not at her protest site, and her protest does not restrict access to the area. OWS took over the entire public space, removing other people's ability to use it. It is also still private property.

The other cases again are individuals, or much smaller groups, that have no impact on other citizen's use of said space.

Also they were not on the lawn, they were in front of the lawn.

Pretty fine distinctions there counselor. Think the judge will buy it?
Lets find out.

OR .....

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

You also have the issue of damaging personal property in an "over-zealous attempt to deprieve these citizens of their rights."

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

you should know by now libs have no respect for personal rights

 

[martybegan]

in a word - yes

Concepcion Picciotto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War News Updates: The Longest War Protest In U.S. History Is Now Over
Silent Sentinels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the first case she stays on private property when not at her protest site, and her protest does not restrict access to the area. OWS took over the entire public space, removing other people's ability to use it. It is also still private property.

The other cases again are individuals, or much smaller groups, that have no impact on other citizen's use of said space.

Also they were not on the lawn, they were in front of the lawn.

Pretty fine distinctions there counselor. Think the judge will buy it?
Lets find out.

OR .....

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

You also have the issue of damaging personal property in an "over-zealous attempt to deprieve these citizens of their rights."

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

I dont see it as over zealous, the cops cleared the square, these dolts left thier property there after being TOLD to remove said property, thus changing the protest from peacable assembly to civil disobedience.

If there was any true violation of rights, a criminal court would have been called for. It wasnt.

 

[FA_Q2]

If NYC thought it was such a slam dunk, they wouldn't have settled.

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.

 

[aplcr0331]

Can't believe this even gets a mention. The what movement? It was a fraud and scam then and its a fraud and scam still.

Silly.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

not to mention the property had clear regulations baring overnight stays

 

[nodoginnafight]

In the first case she stays on private property when not at her protest site, and her protest does not restrict access to the area. OWS took over the entire public space, removing other people's ability to use it. It is also still private property.

The other cases again are individuals, or much smaller groups, that have no impact on other citizen's use of said space.

Also they were not on the lawn, they were in front of the lawn.

Pretty fine distinctions there counselor. Think the judge will buy it?
Lets find out.

OR .....

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

You also have the issue of damaging personal property in an "over-zealous attempt to deprieve these citizens of their rights."

$100,000 was a bargain. Take it and run.

I dont see it as over zealous, the cops cleared the square, these dolts left thier property there after being TOLD to remove said property, thus changing the protest from peacable assembly to civil disobedience.

If there was any true violation of rights, a criminal court would have been called for. It wasnt.

Doesn't matter if YOU see it as over zealous or a violation of rights. You just keep repeating your opinion but your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the case you can make and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but so far you've made a pretty flimsey case imho. And yes, you are right MHO doesn't matter either. The only opinion that would matter in this case is a judge's opinion.

So I will agree to disagree with you and wish you the very best. I've enjoyed kicking it around with you. We disagree but you haven't been disagreeable in the least. I respect that - and you - and look forward to kicking it around again in the future. I can't give you pos rep. again until I spread somemore around or I would.