State Concedes Defeat For Now in Occupy Nashville Battle; Judge Bans More Arrests
Posted by Jeff Woods on Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:05 PM
- One of the 55 protesters arrested at Legislative Plaza
The two sides agreed to negotiate ways to accommodate the protesters while maintaining public safety at the Plaza. They were given until Nov. 21, at which point they'll go back to court. If there's no deal, then Trauger will decide whether to make her injunction permanent. Oh yes, the state also agreed to return the protesters' tents, soggy sleeping bags and other possessions that troopers confiscated on the first night of arrests and tossed into the back of a pickup truck in the Plaza garage.
- Judge Tom Nelson
Gov. Bill Haslam claims he acted to protect public safety and because of increasingly unsanitary conditions at the encampment. Protesters say that's merely his pretext for banning their free speech. They say street people were causing all the trouble, and it was the protesters who first came to the state asking for protection.
But Safety Commissioner Bill Gibbons told reporters, “We don't have the resources to go out and, in effect, babysit protesters.” So Haslam had the protesters arrested instead.
On both nights of the crackdown, Metro Night Court Judge Tom Nelson has scolded the highway patrol, telling them to release the protesters because—in what’s become a celebrated rebuke—there’s “no authority anywhere for anyone to authorize a curfew anywhere on Legislative Plaza.” But on the first night, demonstrators still were detained for five hours. That, too, is cited in the lawsuit as evidence of what the plaintiffs are calling the state of Tennessee’s brazen disregard for the law.
“The commissioner of safety kidnapped these kids. That’s what he did,” says Patrick Frogge, one of the lawyers for Occupy Nashville. “He took them down to night court. Tom Nelson said, ‘No, release them,’ and they kept them in a bus for five hours.”
“This is like Tiananmen Square,” Frogge says. “I don’t want to overstate it, but Jesus. They sent 75 troopers two nights in a row, and they’re telling us they don’t have the resources to babysit them? They’ve outlawed free speech in the most public forum in Nashville.”
For the past two nights, troopers have left the protesters alone, perhaps because state officials realized the ACLU lawsuit was inevitable and the state’s actions are, ahem, shall we say a little difficult to defend?
After this afternoon’s hearing, we talked with David Briley, the former Metro council member and attorney who’s also representing Occupy Nashville in this lawsuit. Here's some of what he said:
Q: What happened?
Briley: The gist of it was, the judge looked at what we filed and it was very clear to her from what she said that (1) the Legislative Plaza is the quintessential public forum and it has to be protected and (2) that the regulation they adopted was done improperly and they have to start from scratch on that.
Q: So now you guys are going to get together and try to figure out a way to accommodate the protesters?
Briley: Ideally, we’re going to get together and talk and see if there’s a rational and procedurally open way to establish a set of regulations that both allow legitimate public participation and expression on the Plaza while at the same time protecting the public’s interest in preserving the physical integrity of the Plaza.
Q: Would accommodating the protesters necessarily include an encampment or overnight occupation?
Briley: Obviously, that’s important to Occupy Nashville, and our clients will ultimately make the decision about what we can agree to. My personal opinion is that occupy is an important word. There’s something meaningful from the long-term presence in that particular public space. That’s important to the message of the group. My sense is that’s going to be a sticking point.
Q: What other sticking points are there?
Briley: The Supreme Court law is very clear on what sort of limitations there can be on public spaces and speech in public spaces. So we’re going to have to touch all of those bases in terms of reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. We’re going to want to ensure that it’s not cost-prohibitive to organizations that are especially pursuing speech on behalf of the impoverished and disadvantaged. There are a whole list of things.
Q: If there’s nothing by Nov. 21, the lawsuit goes forward?
Briley: As it currently stands, if we can’t reach agreement by Nov. 21 on injunctive relief we would have a preliminary injunction hearing, and the court would make a determination about whether to extend the injunction for a longer period of time.
Q: Do you think the state realized they were fighting a losing battle here and decided to surrender?
Briley: I think to his credit, the attorney for the state made it pretty clear that they looked at the facts and conceded.
Q: What do you think? The attorney general called Haslam and said, ‘Dude, you can’t do this?’
Briley: Um, I seriously doubt that was the gist of the conversation.
Showing 1-69 of 69
Woo Hoo! Today, justice and the Constitution prevailed.
G.
G.
Posted by G on October 31, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Report this comment
who's country?
OUR COUNTRY!
OUR COUNTRY!
Posted by Citizen X on October 31, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Report this comment
It's good to know that if I lose my house, I might be able to camp out on the Plaza.
Posted by Donna Locke on October 31, 2011 at 5:08 PM | Report this comment
"...calling the governor's actions "clear prior restraint of free speech."
From a federal judge that's sure gonna be a real nice centerpiece to the civil lawsuits... bring 'em on!
We're probably stuck with Gov. Hassle-em but people (and Legislators and Senators) need to be demanding Gibbon's resignation immediately, he sure seems to be a major architect of this whole fiasco...
And I'm glad our Mayor's been SO willing to speak out on a clear breech of the law by the State in his city... Way to go, we're proud of ya!
From a federal judge that's sure gonna be a real nice centerpiece to the civil lawsuits... bring 'em on!
We're probably stuck with Gov. Hassle-em but people (and Legislators and Senators) need to be demanding Gibbon's resignation immediately, he sure seems to be a major architect of this whole fiasco...
And I'm glad our Mayor's been SO willing to speak out on a clear breech of the law by the State in his city... Way to go, we're proud of ya!
Posted by formerdeansupporter on October 31, 2011 at 5:08 PM | Report this comment
Donna, you'll be in good company!
Posted by Frances on October 31, 2011 at 5:10 PM | Report this comment
So now who is going to pay the state back for the dollars spent on an illegal effort. Halsam has the big bucks, he should pay the state for the total amount spent on the TN Troppers being brought in, fed and housed for the days they were here. And I might ad, not on the highways of Tennessee doing their real job.
Posted by Ed McLaurin on October 31, 2011 at 5:32 PM | Report this comment
Well, must admit I was reminded of Napolean when the mobs were rampaging throughout Paris. Probably most on this board know little Napoleonic history, but I have provided a link. You must read down this to the famous "whiff of grapeshot" to understand those times. However, the Legislative Plaza does need to be cleared so the ordinary folk could walk with their little children safely about our city.
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/napoleo…
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/napoleo…
Posted by john on October 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM | Report this comment
Justice is done for the moment, let's keep it that way !!!!
Unfortunately in Miami Justice is not happening!! Please read my blog http://marinameadows.wordpress.com or my page facebook.com/themeadowsfmly, find out what is been done to our family for exposing corruption in Miami, how our medical records have been used to harm us, & much more, Gov.Officials covering for their own !! and my mother loosing her sight and our family almost collapsing !!
Unfortunately in Miami Justice is not happening!! Please read my blog http://marinameadows.wordpress.com or my page facebook.com/themeadowsfmly, find out what is been done to our family for exposing corruption in Miami, how our medical records have been used to harm us, & much more, Gov.Officials covering for their own !! and my mother loosing her sight and our family almost collapsing !!
Posted by Marina Meadows on October 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM | Report this comment
So "John" the protesters are a "mob" and the police are the Emperor?? I think you'd better return to this century.
Posted by Larry Harris on October 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM | Report this comment
Join The Resistance.
http://i.imgur.com/npJCu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/npJCu.jpg
Posted by Tommyknocker Pale on October 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM | Report this comment
No, the occupiers must stay so that other ordinary folk's children will have a future worth living.
Posted by OccupySac on YouTube on October 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM | Report this comment
Hammering Occupy http://bit.ly/s57WiM
Posted by Buzz Mills on October 31, 2011 at 7:07 PM | Report this comment
John, your uppercrust is showing.
Posted by Jason Marc Phelan on October 31, 2011 at 7:31 PM | Report this comment
A seguir resistiendo. Acá en el 2001/2002 nos robaron los sueños y los proyectos. NO LO PERMITAN. Fuerza que Yanquilandia se tiene que despertar¡¡¡¡
Posted by Vic57H on October 31, 2011 at 7:47 PM | Report this comment
Thank you from Occupy DSM (Des Moines).
Please come to Iowa for the caucuses: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/…
(Sung to the tune of "Please come to Boston")
Please come to Iowa for the caucuses: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/…
(Sung to the tune of "Please come to Boston")
Posted by Dutch Ruisch on October 31, 2011 at 7:49 PM | Report this comment
How can we get in contact with Gov. Haslam's office to show our disappointment in his actions? I looked at the state website but couldn't figure out where to email/call.
Posted by wmiller on October 31, 2011 at 7:51 PM | Report this comment
I am proud of TN today, after two days of shame. Too bad it took a federal judge to enforce the constitution for the rest of us among all those so-called constitutional conservatives.
Posted by Mike Lawson on October 31, 2011 at 7:53 PM | Report this comment
"The two sides agreed to negotiate ways to accommodate the protesters while maintaining public safety at the Plaza." The only way to do this is for the police to enforce the law! The Occupation has rules against violence, drugs and other crimes, but we don't have the authority (or the guns) to kick troublemakers off the plaza. Law enforcement could cut safety issues on the plaza down to zero by having one officer on patrol, and responding promptly to 911 calls. Our tax money pays to keep public spaces safe, & if that's "babysitting," I would hate to think how much babysitting Lower Broadway requires on a Saturday night.
Posted by Emily H. on October 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM | Report this comment
However, the alternative "Napolean" hypothesis is very intriguing. "Probably most on this board know little Napoleonic history" -- ZING! Guilty as charged!
Posted by Emily H. on October 31, 2011 at 8:20 PM | Report this comment
Excellent ... Judicial Judo.
We need more attorneys ... The battle is in Federal Court.
Pass it on...
We need more attorneys ... The battle is in Federal Court.
Pass it on...
Posted by Charles Hatch on October 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM | Report this comment
tunisia ::::!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Firas Gaffari on October 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM | Report this comment
Occupy (insert your town here) chant...
Tell me what Democracy looks like... THIS is what Democracy looks like... Tell me what Democracy looks like... THIS is what Democracy looks like... Tell me what Democracy looks like... THIS is what Democracy looks like... Go Nashville!
Tell me what Democracy looks like... THIS is what Democracy looks like... Tell me what Democracy looks like... THIS is what Democracy looks like... Tell me what Democracy looks like... THIS is what Democracy looks like... Go Nashville!
Posted by Gadfly Granny on October 31, 2011 at 9:13 PM | Report this comment
Buzz Mills, your catch phrase "Hammering Occupy" leads to this link http://bit.ly/s57WiM which I followed, fully reading the text on all the links. Your "Hammering Occupy" is a very strange choice of words because you provide nothing significantly different really that Occupy General Assemblies have not already covered, and to the extent you have different claims, nothing you say leaves Occupy especially hammered. One thing that deserves mention is that you seem to be somewhat uninformed about the extent to which the 1% controls the government. Dems and Republican representatives are all bought and paid for by the 1%, suchj that trying to change the system by electing different representatives is about like trying to save the Titanic by getting different deck chairs.
Posted by Mark V Reid on October 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM | Report this comment
@ John. Not sure if you were jesting. I don't support much of what Occupy Nashville/Wall Street/Fill In the Blank is doing in regards to any goals but I do support the principle of free speech. I'm wondering who exactly you think the ordinary citizens and small children should be protected from? To that I say "seriously?"
Posted by fengshuimama on October 31, 2011 at 9:40 PM | Report this comment
WE R THE 99%~~pEaCe...
Posted by BiggDaddy White on October 31, 2011 at 9:49 PM | Report this comment
Well, John doesn't know his Napoleonic history especially well, either. Otherwise he might have pointed out that the "whiff of grapeshot" remark occurred in the context of Napoleon, a Jacobin, defending the gains of a radical revolution against a Royalist attempt to restore the monarchy (the 1 percenters of that time). His Napoleonic Code later enshrined many of the gains of the 99%ers into French law.
Posted by bubbadog on October 31, 2011 at 10:38 PM | Report this comment
I'm proud of Occupy Wallstreet and Occupy Nashville, and all of those who are speaking out for the 99%. I was there in 1966 and have been protesting unfairness and cruelty to humans and animals and the environment since that time. My heart is still with you, there, and if I get an opportunity, I will come stand with you as a grandmother.
It is true that the Constitutionalists seem to support the strict adherence to the Constitution when it suits their reasoning, but not when it doesn't. I appreciate a Federal Judge that stands her ground..
Paula Denmon
It is true that the Constitutionalists seem to support the strict adherence to the Constitution when it suits their reasoning, but not when it doesn't. I appreciate a Federal Judge that stands her ground..
Paula Denmon
Posted by Paula Hooper Denmon on October 31, 2011 at 11:15 PM | Report this comment
The excuse of "public safety" was given for the arrests, by 75 highway patrol officers each night, in a state that has seen over 2,000 DUI related deaths the past 5 years? To date, there have been zero deaths at Occupy Nashville. Another example of the powerful using our money, our police, our troops, for a their own self serving agenda cloaked in cries of "public safety". Perhaps Haslam will now claim "credible evidence" that Occupy Nashville has WMD's! Thank you Occupy Nashville!
Posted by Larry Hensley on October 31, 2011 at 11:16 PM | Report this comment
You Tennessee folk gotta learn to play by the Constitution or we'll kick you out of the U.S. and sell you to the Freemasons.
Posted by Pontifex Soddi on October 31, 2011 at 11:20 PM | Report this comment
"At the height of his powers, Napoleon implemented the Napoleonic Code, guaranteeing the rights and liberties won in the French Revolution across his sector of Europe. In addition to standardized laws, the code abolished feudalism and serfdom, established freedom of religion, and provided free schooling for all." John I'd say those who caught that "whiff" that day were those loyal to the deposed royals. Kind of like the cops and teabaggers are to our yet undeposed wall street oligarchs. Oh and I took my kid down to the square with the protesters and walked around just fine.
Posted by Vondumptruck on October 31, 2011 at 11:30 PM | Report this comment
solution- resource based economy.
Posted by zeitgeist movement on October 31, 2011 at 11:50 PM | Report this comment
American real estate Lenders, Agents, and especially Appraisers encouraged and enabled buyers to borrow more than properties were worth. This truth is proven by the rapid nationwide decline in APPRAISED values . Lenders are complicit perpetrators of this scam. Appraisers are at fault now, or were at fault 3 years ago. Agents over-profited from over-valuation.
Regular Americans must force the Real Estate Industry to take half the responsibility of these OVERVALUED mortgages. Mortgage Lenders over-lent, and won't admit it until we force them to. Instead of sending in your mortgage payments, put them in escrow at a home town bank or credit union. The only reason Wall Street can ignore us is because we continue paying their debts.
Escrow your payments. Enforce responsibility on Lenders. When they don't have our cash every month to pay their debts, watch how fast they declare bankruptcy. When 99% insist, the 1% must listen.
Regular Americans must force the Real Estate Industry to take half the responsibility of these OVERVALUED mortgages. Mortgage Lenders over-lent, and won't admit it until we force them to. Instead of sending in your mortgage payments, put them in escrow at a home town bank or credit union. The only reason Wall Street can ignore us is because we continue paying their debts.
Escrow your payments. Enforce responsibility on Lenders. When they don't have our cash every month to pay their debts, watch how fast they declare bankruptcy. When 99% insist, the 1% must listen.
Posted by OccupyUS on October 31, 2011 at 11:52 PM | Report this comment
Interesting ... I read nothing from anyone about the legality of occupying property on a continueing basis which is against the law ... Clearly the property is used for governmental purposes ... not a campground for those that have the time because they have nothing to occupy their time, like a job or family ...
Posted by Jim Witte on November 1, 2011 at 12:12 AM | Report this comment
This Judge deserves a Christmas Card. Thank You
Posted by Peter Gatliff on November 1, 2011 at 12:52 AM | Report this comment
Occupy The Kenyan Prime Minister's and the Deputy Premier/ Finance Minister's office for the massive loss of Youth Empowerment Funds locally known as "Kazi Kwa Vijana, Pesa Kwa Wazee". Long live the worldwide movement against greed of corrupt public officials.
Posted by Christopher Alvin Mokaya on November 1, 2011 at 1:26 AM | Report this comment
HAHA! Where is gast and all the other teabaggers? It isn't worth reading all this crap unless we get to crack on our own FOX News Morning Team of Fact Finders, Arbiters of Fairness & Balance. The fear and loathing of science crowd, the xenophobes, the gay marriage threat people, the vote disenfranchisers, you know - the attack the immigrant crowd, defend the unfair tax loophole crowd, the CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE FOLK - whur u at? I KNOW WHERE GAST IS! He's attending the Halloween party at the law firm of Steven J. Baum!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKQJjzNDXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKQJjzNDXY
Posted by SmoothyBobo on November 1, 2011 at 2:27 AM | Report this comment
John, the only "history" that applies here is US history. Maybe you don't know much about Jefferson, Adams and Franklin. I suggest you read up on their thoughts on free speech.
Posted by Stacy Shafto on November 1, 2011 at 6:13 AM | Report this comment
@smoothybozo: As usual you're wrong. I'm for constitutional rights but against the ideas of the OWS crowd.
Posted by gast on November 1, 2011 at 6:16 AM | Report this comment
Dear gastbag, I'm so glad you support our constitutional rights. It makes me feel all warm & fuzzy inside. I don't know how I could have misjudged you so. Tell the truth now, you were at that Halloween party weren't you? You giggled and peed in your pants a little when you saw that video didn't you? You old queen. (And it took you that long to come up with smoothybozo?) You are an incorrigible madcap. I don't know WHAT we're going to do with you!
Posted by SmoothyBobo on November 1, 2011 at 7:01 AM | Report this comment
I'm just wondering how the TEA Party showed up to town hall with automatic weapons, and Haslam wasn't worried about safety, but some people expressing their distaste for everything he stands for is dangerous. To whom? Not to a parson, but to his political career. Haslam isn't allowed to talk about wasting money until her pays back the state for his personal use of 75 troopers.
Posted by Dane Calderon on November 1, 2011 at 7:46 AM | Report this comment
@SmoothyBobo: Actually, I have to give gast credit. In a previous posting, he correctly identified the actions taken against the OWS protesters as being those of a "bully". He may not agree with what the Occupy folks stand for, but he knows restraint of free speech when he sees it.
Kinda makes me want to give him a hug. Kinda.
Kinda makes me want to give him a hug. Kinda.
Posted by Don't Ask on November 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM | Report this comment
Haslam actually has what he needs. He and Gibbons can report to their corporate masters: "Hey, we tried, but those mean old liberal judges made us abide by the First Amendment. Don't worry. We may not be able to stamp out all criticism, at least not yet, but you can be sure that every act of Republican government will continue to be of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations."
Posted by Perry Aubric on November 1, 2011 at 9:54 AM | Report this comment
I'd love a hug Megan. I feel particularly huggy today.
DON'T ASK - If you'd read as much vitriol & bile from gast as I have you wouldn't be so quick to give him much credit. For example -
"Old Lady with Cane Can't Wrangle Photo ID from Helpful State Bureaucrats" -
POSTED BY JEFF WOODS ON FRI, OCT 21, 2011 AT 8:17 AM
No sooner does 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper finally snag a photo voter ID than another old lady pops up to give Republicans grief. This one is only 91. Virginia Lasater, who has voted faithfully for 70 years, came hobbling on her cane to the driver's service center but left when it became apparent that she'd have to wait (standing in line) for hours for the opportunity to receive one of the precious IDs. What happened to the promised "express lanes" for voters? Safety Department officials already are making excuses. Mrs. Lasater knows the score.
"I'm just afraid people will say it's too much trouble," said Mrs. Lasater. Bingo!
HERE IS GAST'S REPLY -
What has a 91-year-old in abundance? Time. So watching TV must be more important than getting her photo ID. Unless (snicker) this was a set-up for a publicity stunt.
Posted by gast on October 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM | Report this comment
You can have him. He is vile.
DON'T ASK - If you'd read as much vitriol & bile from gast as I have you wouldn't be so quick to give him much credit. For example -
"Old Lady with Cane Can't Wrangle Photo ID from Helpful State Bureaucrats" -
POSTED BY JEFF WOODS ON FRI, OCT 21, 2011 AT 8:17 AM
No sooner does 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper finally snag a photo voter ID than another old lady pops up to give Republicans grief. This one is only 91. Virginia Lasater, who has voted faithfully for 70 years, came hobbling on her cane to the driver's service center but left when it became apparent that she'd have to wait (standing in line) for hours for the opportunity to receive one of the precious IDs. What happened to the promised "express lanes" for voters? Safety Department officials already are making excuses. Mrs. Lasater knows the score.
"I'm just afraid people will say it's too much trouble," said Mrs. Lasater. Bingo!
HERE IS GAST'S REPLY -
What has a 91-year-old in abundance? Time. So watching TV must be more important than getting her photo ID. Unless (snicker) this was a set-up for a publicity stunt.
Posted by gast on October 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM | Report this comment
You can have him. He is vile.
Posted by SmoothyBobo on November 1, 2011 at 10:36 AM | Report this comment
Jim Witte, my thoughts exactly. And there is a way to resolve this situation in everyone's favor, respecting everyone's rights and interests.
Posted by Donna Locke on November 1, 2011 at 11:38 AM | Report this comment
Jim, Legislative Plaza is a public space. To quote Wikipedia, "A public space is a social space such as a town square that is open and accessible to all, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. One of the earliest examples of public spaces are commons. For example, no fees or paid tickets are required for entry, nor are the entrants discriminated based on background. Non-government-owned malls are examples of 'private space' with the appearance of being 'public space'."
Now that we've cleared that up, you're right! A lot of these folks don't have jobs because they've been laid off! They're having a hard time providing for their family. That's why they're there protesting, which is their Constitutional right. They are angry that the top 1% keep getting richer, and the rest of us hard-working Americans are doing our damnedest just to get by.
Now that we've cleared that up, you're right! A lot of these folks don't have jobs because they've been laid off! They're having a hard time providing for their family. That's why they're there protesting, which is their Constitutional right. They are angry that the top 1% keep getting richer, and the rest of us hard-working Americans are doing our damnedest just to get by.
Posted by karaokeblackout on November 1, 2011 at 11:52 AM | Report this comment
Having some personal experience with this, I know we can't do absolutely anything we want any time we want on public property. Everyone's interests, including safety, must be considered. I don't have any problem with the protests in general. I see the camping out as problem. We have something called equal protection. If the protesters can camp out on the Plaza, then all of us can. Anytime. Do you see a problem with that?
Posted by Donna Locke on November 1, 2011 at 12:03 PM | Report this comment
No, I do not. It is a peaceable assembly, which is completely legal. Honestly, I think the public restrooms should be provided, by the state, so people can exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
Donna, have you even been down there to Legislative Plaza to see what's going on? And not just driving by, but actually talking to people and walking the Plaza? I have spent my fair share of time down there, and it has been completely clean. Everyone is being respectful. They're even picking up their trash. It's far more than I can say for folks on 2nd Ave. on a Saturday night.
Donna, have you even been down there to Legislative Plaza to see what's going on? And not just driving by, but actually talking to people and walking the Plaza? I have spent my fair share of time down there, and it has been completely clean. Everyone is being respectful. They're even picking up their trash. It's far more than I can say for folks on 2nd Ave. on a Saturday night.
Posted by karaokeblackout on November 1, 2011 at 12:09 PM | Report this comment
I understand what you're saying, karaokeb, but this has nothing to do with how orderly a protest is.
Posted by Donna Locke on November 1, 2011 at 12:17 PM | Report this comment
The difference between vagrancy and participatory democracy in a public space is pretty easy to read, Donna: purpose and intent. And it's what policemen are ostensibly well-trained to discern.
It's not a hard thing for a policeman to figure out the difference between a person camping out to express a political viewpoint and someone camping out because they have nowhere else to go. It's when they either don't care to figure that out (or are told to ignore their duty to determine purpose and intent) that turns it into a problem.
It's not a hard thing for a policeman to figure out the difference between a person camping out to express a political viewpoint and someone camping out because they have nowhere else to go. It's when they either don't care to figure that out (or are told to ignore their duty to determine purpose and intent) that turns it into a problem.
Posted by Don't Ask on November 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM | Report this comment
So you're saying there is already a rule, Don't Ask? We have to be making a statement or we can't camp out on the Plaza/public property? Anyone can claim to be making a statement. Our lives are political statements. Why couldn't I camp out there if I just lose my house and don't care about politics? It's public property.
Ah, now we're getting to the meat of it.
Ah, now we're getting to the meat of it.
Posted by Donna Locke on November 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM | Report this comment
Smoothybobo, you seemed angry and hostile. It doesn't matter to whom it was directed. Also, I wasn't defending fast. That name was not mentioned. But I do find it beyond hilarious that you came to that conclusion and tried to back up 'your side' by posting a previous comment. Just because you don't like someone's view, doesn't mean its ok to personally attack them. Maybe you're having a bad day. Hence.. do you need a hug?
Posted by megan on November 1, 2011 at 1:06 PM | Report this comment
Meat of... what? You seem to think that context is an all-or-nothing proposition. It's not. Never is; ask any policeman.
We'll just skip past the whole special-enforcement "curfew" since the courts have already smacked the DoS around on that. There are already vagrancy laws on the books related to public property and a particular protocol to use to determine whether they're violated. These folks didn't meet that test, nor did the officers try to determine that. They failed in that duty. Or were told to ignore that duty.
We'll just skip past the whole special-enforcement "curfew" since the courts have already smacked the DoS around on that. There are already vagrancy laws on the books related to public property and a particular protocol to use to determine whether they're violated. These folks didn't meet that test, nor did the officers try to determine that. They failed in that duty. Or were told to ignore that duty.
Posted by Don't Ask on November 1, 2011 at 1:12 PM | Report this comment
Look, I, and many others, have been removed from public property and told to move from public property by law enforcement officers, all while meeting your criteria, Don't Ask. This is not as simple as you're trying to make it.
Posted by Donna Locke on November 1, 2011 at 1:18 PM | Report this comment
While not knowing the details, Donna, it sounds like you have just as much right to be angry about the infringement of your 1st Amendment rights as the Occupy Nashville crowd does.
Posted by karaokeblackout on November 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM | Report this comment
END corporate personhood! END money in politics!
Posted by fred on November 1, 2011 at 1:32 PM | Report this comment
Donna: Sure it is. It's actually quite simple. Let me ask you this: did you move? Or did you stand firm and assert your right for being there?
Part of a policeman's process of determining purpose and intent is to advise a suspect of when he or she thinks a violation of the law has occurred and what that suspect's options are. If he tells you "I believe you to be trespassing on this property; if you fail to leave you could be arrested," what he's actually looking for is for you to assert that a violation has not occurred and then prove it.
The response a protestor should use is, "officer, I understand your concern; however, I am participating in political speech on public property, which is not an activity to which the charge of trespassing would apply. I would be happy to move myself if you can show me that this is not public property, but at the moment, I believe myself to be within my rights to be here."
So... prove it to him. More importantly, _be prepared_ to prove it to him. The law is your tool, too. And be polite when doing so. Most people move on when confronted in this way; but policemen are people, too. They can be convinced -- and, in fact, are duty-bound to be convinced. You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Part of a policeman's process of determining purpose and intent is to advise a suspect of when he or she thinks a violation of the law has occurred and what that suspect's options are. If he tells you "I believe you to be trespassing on this property; if you fail to leave you could be arrested," what he's actually looking for is for you to assert that a violation has not occurred and then prove it.
The response a protestor should use is, "officer, I understand your concern; however, I am participating in political speech on public property, which is not an activity to which the charge of trespassing would apply. I would be happy to move myself if you can show me that this is not public property, but at the moment, I believe myself to be within my rights to be here."
So... prove it to him. More importantly, _be prepared_ to prove it to him. The law is your tool, too. And be polite when doing so. Most people move on when confronted in this way; but policemen are people, too. They can be convinced -- and, in fact, are duty-bound to be convinced. You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Posted by Don't Ask on November 1, 2011 at 1:42 PM | Report this comment
Dear Megan, you are correct. I am quite angry and hostile. I'm very mean spirited and vindictive too! I never thought you were defending gast. I was responding to Mr. "Don't Asks" comment. (You must have skipped over that part. Reading comprehension is very important!) And I got the joke, why you offered the hug. And I'd really like one but I'll still be very angry and hostile to gast. See, in gast's case I think it IS ok to personally attack him if you don't like his views. gast is a vile, loathsome excuse for a human being. You'd know that if you'd been communicating with him as long as I have. You don't have to take my word for it, you can view his profile and read his comments for yourself. If you don't agree with me I'm ok with that. And you thought I'd be unreasonable, didn't you?
Posted by SmoothyBobo on November 1, 2011 at 3:18 PM | Report this comment
@Smoochybozo: When 91 year-old Ms. Lasater turned away to go home, who just happened to be there (pure coincidence) to record her thoughts?
Was a newsmedia representative camped out waiting for an old person to turn away and walk out the door? Who gave her transportation? Was it the same person who recorded her thoughts and then made sure those thoughts were publicized? Questions like these is why I wondered if her experience was a setup and the more I look at it the more obvious it becomes that Ms. Lasater was merely a tool - and probably an innocent tool - for the left to advance their arguments.
Was a newsmedia representative camped out waiting for an old person to turn away and walk out the door? Who gave her transportation? Was it the same person who recorded her thoughts and then made sure those thoughts were publicized? Questions like these is why I wondered if her experience was a setup and the more I look at it the more obvious it becomes that Ms. Lasater was merely a tool - and probably an innocent tool - for the left to advance their arguments.
Posted by gast on November 1, 2011 at 4:44 PM | Report this comment
Brother Gast, these creten libtards like smoochybozo are tools! You are correct sir! They actually have bought the lamestream media lie that there even is a Ms. Lasater! This person is completely fictitious! Unless someone can prove that this woman exists, she doesn't exist! In fact, this is really a cynical ploy to see if they can get this fictitious woman to vote in the next election with the help of ACORN!
Posted by Angry White Patriot! on November 1, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Report this comment
At the New York OWS, the crowd is now being handed twenty dollar bills to get tested for AIDS because of all the unprotected sex going on. What a crowd! What a country!
Posted by gast on November 1, 2011 at 6:59 PM | Report this comment
The US is rapidly becoming a police state. Even though our country was founded upon these principles and are supposedly guantreed under the US Constitution, the US government has always tried to stamp out true dissent; be it the union movement, civil rights movement, women's suffarge, anti-war just to name a few. Yes we do have this so-called two-party system which has really become nothing more than a distraction to keep us divided.
Posted by Randy on November 1, 2011 at 7:27 PM | Report this comment
Don't Ask: Yes, I moved, and, in two instances, was forcibly moved. You have to understand that some instances, as with many Vietnam War protests, were geared to provoke arrest. Some instances, however, were not and involved no protest at all, just statements with signs along with attempts to gather petition signatures for relay to elected officials.
In the situations I was involved in, we were moved or told to move for reasons revolving around interfering with business and other activities on a college campus, impeding traffic flow, disorderly conduct (this can be broadly defined, depending on who is doing the defining), violating permit, and creating a traffic hazard. In the big demonstrations, police could arrest everybody because of drug use if even one person was using. (I wasn't.)
Then there were "escorts" against our will off public property for our own "safety." That situation sometimes tells you something about the opposition. The "for your own safety" thing has happened to me, and also happened to immigration-control advocates on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. -- captured on video by NumbersUSA. We felt the opposition (SEIU people acting like fools) who were threatening us should have been the ones escorted off the Mall. Our side wasn't doing anything to them; they were assaulting us as they tried to interfere with a videotaping. Again, on video.
In the case of the petition events, I had to move to other pieces of public property, where it was more difficult to make contact with people and get signatures, but we found people sought us out when they found out what we were doing (drivers would turn around and come back, for example), and we had no trouble getting lots of signatures. Getting the signatures was a lot easier than getting political action/fulfillment of campaign promises.
No, I won't be up there roasting marshmallows with you -- I don't see why you can't have a fire, too :) . I think you should spend your time there informing yourselves on some details. Same advice I'd give the Tea Party. Also, my cats would miss me. Hey, why can't pets be there, too?
In the situations I was involved in, we were moved or told to move for reasons revolving around interfering with business and other activities on a college campus, impeding traffic flow, disorderly conduct (this can be broadly defined, depending on who is doing the defining), violating permit, and creating a traffic hazard. In the big demonstrations, police could arrest everybody because of drug use if even one person was using. (I wasn't.)
Then there were "escorts" against our will off public property for our own "safety." That situation sometimes tells you something about the opposition. The "for your own safety" thing has happened to me, and also happened to immigration-control advocates on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. -- captured on video by NumbersUSA. We felt the opposition (SEIU people acting like fools) who were threatening us should have been the ones escorted off the Mall. Our side wasn't doing anything to them; they were assaulting us as they tried to interfere with a videotaping. Again, on video.
In the case of the petition events, I had to move to other pieces of public property, where it was more difficult to make contact with people and get signatures, but we found people sought us out when they found out what we were doing (drivers would turn around and come back, for example), and we had no trouble getting lots of signatures. Getting the signatures was a lot easier than getting political action/fulfillment of campaign promises.
No, I won't be up there roasting marshmallows with you -- I don't see why you can't have a fire, too :) . I think you should spend your time there informing yourselves on some details. Same advice I'd give the Tea Party. Also, my cats would miss me. Hey, why can't pets be there, too?
Posted by Donna Locke on November 1, 2011 at 11:32 PM | Report this comment
I've been informed on the details by Rev. James Lawson; the advice I gave you is the same advice he gave to protesters of the SCLC/SNCC in 1960 and continues to give today to his college classes. There's plenty more where that came from. I figure he's probably someone who knows his stuff about this protesting thing, don't you?
I'm sorry you had bad experiences with your protests; but without knowing the exact sequence of events, it sounds like you were led by folks that were poorly trained in how to conduct themselves -- and probably faced people who were likewise poorly trained. The way to be successful is to be firm but polite to authority, but be passive at all other times, including when someone is trying their hardest to incite you.
If you ever get the opportunity to hear Lawson speak, make sure you do so. I think it'd be helpful to you.
I'm sorry you had bad experiences with your protests; but without knowing the exact sequence of events, it sounds like you were led by folks that were poorly trained in how to conduct themselves -- and probably faced people who were likewise poorly trained. The way to be successful is to be firm but polite to authority, but be passive at all other times, including when someone is trying their hardest to incite you.
If you ever get the opportunity to hear Lawson speak, make sure you do so. I think it'd be helpful to you.
Posted by Don't Ask on November 2, 2011 at 9:16 AM | Report this comment
You're stupid if you question every news event that doesn't come through the propaganda machine of Rupert Murdoch or Rush Limbaugh. Just stupid. Yes, WE'VE stationed reporters all over just waiting to catch an old lady being abused. You are a crack pot. Disingenuous at the very least.
Posted by SmoothyBobo on November 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM | Report this comment
Comments (69) RSS