When police exercise discretion on whether or not to enforce laws, we call that corruption.

If a cop ever lets you off with a warning, or looks the other way, for jaywalking, then just remember, they're corrupt!

You only have to look at the websites that list strange outdated laws that are no longer enforced (but still on the books) to realise how wrong you are. That's not even considering cases where the police decide there's no public interest or that charging someone with an offence is a waste of time/resources.

I do not know where you are getting the impression that I am claiming America is a fascist police state. I will be the first to point out that a few members acting violent does not mean that the entire police force should be abolished. I do, however, make the claim that police seem to use violence more often than necessary. I also mentioned this WAS based off of my incomplete experience. I was not making a claim that the police were, undeniably, using violence more often than necessary.

Now on to the main point. The laws serve the people, and it shouldn't discriminate between minority and majority. But at the same time, every effort should be made into diffusing a situation without the use of violence or threats of physical force. And as I have stated previously, this will only worsen things. Not to mention that the OWS protesters are practicing civil disobedience. To respond to civil disobedience with violence is only setting yourself up to be the bad guy. It's why Gandhi is reveled as a hero (and rightfully, imo).

Don't tell me that physical force was necessary, because it wasn't. Why not try to bargain with them? If you need to clean up the park why not try to clean it up a section at a time and simply request that protesters move to a different area?

If you approach reasonable people (which I am fully inclined to believe that most OWS protesters are) with a respectful attitude and open a reasoned dialogue, the chances of diffusing current and potential problems through nonviolent means increases dramatically.

In my experience, the OWS people are simply there for free money. Rather than taking the logical route of saying "hey, we don't have a job, so let's learn how to fish and get one", they're going the "hey, we don't have a job, and we have arguably the most socialist president in history, so he should give us a fish".

It's my personal thought that the ones who refuse to leave aren't even sure why they're there, they just want to protest to get money. I've seen reports of both sides, and it seems to me that even the pro-occupation side has no idea what it wants. In nearby Cincinnati, there was/is another Occupy protest going on. I've gone and asked the protesters exactly what they want and why they're there. The best answer I got, word for word, was "I lost my job, and now I want the government to do something about it." While I know that's not the same location, they're supposed to have the same cause...right? This is not a protest, not a demonstration, it's a public outcry for government money when the government can't handle its own money.

Now, I'm going to compare the Occupy "protest" to those of the Civil Rights Movement, and the more I do the more you'll see my point. The Civil Rights Movement featured a purpose, which the Occupy does not. The CRM wanted basic freedom, while (to all appearances) the Occupy protest simply wants money. And as my final point, since I'm typing this last and I'm running out of time, the CRM had unity, that is that regardless of location, the protesters knew what they wanted. The Occupy movement doesn't even know what it wants, so I doubt Wall Street would agree with Cincinnati.

In my opinion, the police have every right to move them, albeit not as forcefully as they have. It's not a legitimate protest, as what they're protesting isn't justice, freedom, or anything even remotely related to human rights. At best, I'd consider it a public gathering. It's terrible what's happened in various places to various people, I won't deny that people sitting around peacefully shouldn't be pepper sprayed, people being arrested shouldn't be abused, etc. But the government protects the right to protest and freedom of speech, not the right to gather where you please.

TL;DR: It should be legal to move the "protesters", but not as forcefully as done here. What they're doing is not a protest, it's asking for money. While they still have the right to voice their opinion, they should not be able to do that wherever they please.

P.S: Here in the states, Bible-Bashing is literally bashing the Bible--it's criticizing, slandering, etc. of the Bible. Bible-Thumping, however, is condemning people to hell for sins, gay marriage, etc. to the point that it induces nausea in bystanders.

Occupy movement's primary goal is far from being "increase the taxes of the rich". It's mostly about the greed the government and corporations have shown in the course of the last decades: "Get the money out of politics". They also want banks to be taken accountable for the crisis they have caused while making profit and passing under the radar.

After that, the movement became big exactly because the initial movement didn't classify itself as communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist, or anything. People saw it was growing, and thus saw a good opportunity to finally have a decent protest where their voice would be heard... and this is where all the different answers you get come from. However, if, instead of asking "What do you want?", you'd ask more specifically what they think about the primary goals of the OWS, you'll most probably end up seeing they all protest for that as well.

What they are protesting isn't justice and human rights? You're going to have to revise all the -facts- that came out of this protest, mostly related to banks.

And in regards to your argument that the OWS movement doesn't know what it wants, you should've searched more as well. I've read about a lot of intellectual gatherings that were brainstorming about fixing the issues underlined by the OWS movement... and if I remember properly, they came up with an "Election Reform Act", and quite a few good other precise solutions. So far, at the very least 3 Occupy movements from the United States were able to be precise enough about what they wanted to have their cities to actually pass different legislations directly related to OWS. Among those, I remember about LA and Cleveland.

Hey. Hey guys...

How come -

GUYS FOCUS.

How come money is the focus of the Occupy's protest? How are they any less greedy than the CEOs?

Why is this still in null?

How did go from Americans getting their rights stripped away to whether or not Occupy is just?

Don't we already have a "We are the 99%" thread or something?

The goal of OWS is ultimately the replacement of our entire socio-political system that is built around capitalism that hugely over-rewards those in the top 10% well more than they deserve, and certainly those in the top 1%.

Do you think the people making up OWS have all the answers? No. They just know that the system as it currently it is completely immoral and unjust. A lot of people (note, I did not say ALL or even MOST) with money generate more money simply because they own money to begin with - they're rent seekers. They aren't actually generating anything new or productive for society. Everything's been set up to funnel money towards the rich and powerful. OWS don't want government hand outs. They want the playing field to be made more level than it currently is because at the moment the rules significantly favour the Haves over the Have Nots and makes it very hard for the Have Nots to get anywhere.

The American Dream is dead for most average Americans. That's what OWS is protesting. If you're an average American, you too should be protesting this.

Because the OP post is not exactly awe-inspiring nor philosophically engaging.

I feel that this topic has devolved into a subject that would be better taken elsewhere; null is a place for and pineapples.

I would be forced to say that your view is inherently flawed. For one, I have not seen any evidence that OWS protesters are people who are largely jobless. Second, it would be incorrect, logically, to denounce the OWS position because of how the protesters act. And while the news media may love to commit atrocious logic and get away with it, I won't stand for it.

To any other points I yield to Lanthanide, he seems to have a firm grasp on the issue.

Quote from Sacrieur

I would be forced to say that your view is inherently flawed. For one, I have not seen any evidence that OWS protesters are people who are largely jobless. Second, it would be incorrect, logically, to denounce the OWS position because of how the protesters act. And while the news media may love to commit atrocious logic and get away with it, I won't stand for it.

To any other points I yield to Lanthanide, he seems to have a firm grasp on the issue.

While inherently jobless, I agree that they are not. The large majority seems to be jobless, or will be shortly, because they protest daily, all day, do they not? What kind of employer would want an employee that is never there? Furthermore, those that are not employed can't very well protest and search for jobs simultaneously, or is the majority in possession of things to access the internet through a mobile device? If so, they don't really have a reason to protest, as they seem to have a leg up on the needy.

Second, their actions aren't why I was denouncing them. Look through the post; I didn't even mention their actions, or lack thereof. Finally, of course you yield other points to him, he agrees with you. That would be like arguing for me, which you can't ever do

I do not see how it follows that because it would be convenient for them to be jobless it means that they are, in fact, jobless. Furthermore, even if what you said was true, then what jobs do they have to return to? What caused them to be here in the first place? I do not think they are there for a "free handout". They are not protesting taxes or that they have to go to work (which I would, for the record), but that they are protesting a government that seems, at least to them, that it has turned its back on their interests. It clearly feels to them like the government is no longer serving the people, but the elite.

- EDIT: rest of post removed for irrelevancy -

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 13 2011, 6:31 pm by Sacrieur.

You are also assuming the individuals protesting are always the same. I am not sure if it is still the case, but in the early sparks of the movement, I remember reading about people taking a week-off from their job to go support the movement. Maybe people have done so on different weeks and it thus keeps the amount of protesters approximately the same all through the protest.

I was under the impression that no one in OWS actually had a goal as such, they were just protesting life in general and want more money.

No, I mean the OWS movement has never had a defined mission statement or purpose, they just started protesting. Maybe someone in the US has a better idea of exactly why they started.