NYPD forcibly evicts Occupy Wall Street, banning Press

I zapped the Midget guy. Tom, you should stop falling for that.

Just flag 'em and move on.

Why doesn't the Mayor just straight-up declare Zucotti city or private property?

Okay boss man. (Though I didn't think the Troll Post Crusher was necessary. Oh well...)

So continuing from where I was, if they go to Canal what hope do they have of making much of a statement? There isn't much in the way of public property over there and the cops are already on edge about the movement so...

According to Slate, the protesters are currently evicted from Zuccotti park, but they're standing just outside(with the police preventing them from entering) until an temporary hearing(currently in progress) gets done in New York supreme court.

About time, where the New York demonstration is concerned. (Well past time, for Oakland.) And I guess the media blackout is a pretty good riot-prevention measure in a city with so many people within walking distance; I feared from the topic header that they blocked the actual coverage, which would not be cool in any way.

Yeah, Fast Ed, the troll post crusher was a bit....extreme. Midget ain't that bad.

But anyhoo, I agree that Canal St. might not be the best idea. But...I want them to be able to protest. What they have to say is legit.

There has to be a way to meet halfway on this.

Not to tempt fate. But a riot, were it to occur, would not happen in midtown. More likely the Bronx or parts of Brooklyn, probably Crown Heights or one of the Jewish neighborhoods that have been terrorized lately.

But even those places are pretty sleepy.

Good point johnny.

I'm starting to think that the haters of OWS go to as many news articles they can find and make troll comments.

Especially if the majority support the movement.

Yeah, every time I read the comments on any OWS article, I always feel like I need a stiff drink. ...and I'm a teetotaler.

The protestors should've been allowed back into the park earlier today, due to the fact that there was a court order to keep Zuccotti park open for protestors until the official hearing was started, but the order was ignored.

No doubt the protesters will demand their tents back in court.

Oh yes, and this titbit: "The park would temporarily remain closed due to a court order that restrained the city from closing the park." -Bloomberg

Did...he seriously say that? Could that be interpreted as him being on the side of OWS personally while politically having to oppose them?

Part of his speech:

“We are now ready to open the park but understand that there is a court order, which we have not yet actually received, enjoining us from enforcing [park owner] Brookfield’s rules,” the mayor explained. “And so the park will remain closed until we can clarify that situation. But I want to stress that our intention was to reopen the park and to let people go in and express their first amendment rights to protest.”

He added that protesters would “not be allowed to use tents, sleeping bags or tarps and going forward, must follow all park rules,” something that seems to contradict the court’s restraining order.

Wait what? They keep it closed because they can't close it because court told them not to close it?

What sort of insane breed of logic is that!?

Ninja'd

edited 15th Nov '11 12:38:28 PM by Mandemo

As far as I see it, this is the problem with bureaucracy, on both sides.

Some hippie judge signed an order allowing the protestors back into the park. Problem though; the park isn't public space, it's the private property of Brookfield Properties. That judge's order is kinda like somebody signing an order to force you to let your pissed off neighbors into your backyard to protest the volume at which you watch Sunday football.

But.....of course, this really began because some dipshit douche told Brookfield that they could have the plaza, but they had to make it "available to the public".

Is there any other place they could set up camp for their protest?

And therein lies the problem. If they choose public space, the City will say it belongs to them and they have the right to police it. If it's private, then...well, you get it.

God Almighty, this really is getting depressing.

The City can't really ban protests, as the parks and other properties that they own are public property and thus available for protesting.

...Or that's my understanding of it, though I'm no expert on American law.

It's blatant breach of the constution

Imagine if they tried to take guns away for a while.

So a judge has ruled they can't camp out their. They're going to appeal it.

I have to say, I almost don't care. Yea their ideal was cool, but lately they've devolved into a bunch of people camping in New York. They havent been protesting, they've been screwing around. The mess there making dosn't help. The Ideal was great, but they got lazy quickly. And they started really messing around badly, pissing off the local shops. People, when you want to change society, graffiti in a guy's bathroom won't help you, it'll just piss him off.

Also, technically it's not banning protesting, there evicting them from private property. That park they turned into a camp? someone owns that and was finally getting pissed at the protesters. They should have found a better place to stay at.

And while it may seem rediculous theres no media allowed, I think it's because every now and then someone would attack the police to make a scene to make it look like the police are being brutal again. No cameras, it's less likely.

edited 15th Nov '11 2:37:52 PM by Joesolo

Then perhaps OWS should use the funds it gained to just organize a shitload of legal protests.

If they had a few people good with law, they could have gotten the right permits and stuff so they legally COULDN'T be kicked out. It's not easy, but if you cover all your bases, they'll have to leave you alone.