Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The ACLU's notices of "pepper spray related deaths" is a joke, IMO. They do not take other factors into account, just if pepper spray was used in the incident and make no further notice of the context of the situation. I know that the "arrestee" who died in custody after being sprayed died because of existing respiratory conditions which of course are unknowable to police at the time of the incident. They can't just look at someone and say "Hrmh...he's got asthma, clearly".

As for the people camping in front of Best Buy, the property of the store goes as far as the street abutting the sidewalk. It's the store's discretion if they want to let people camp out there or not.

d-usa wrote:Camping for freedom/injustice/whatever ---- bad.

Camping for profit --- good.

Camping overnight in a park where that is not allowed---- bad

Camping overnight in a parking lot where the owner doesn't mind---- good

What cop in his right mind going to hold a Black Friday opening hour unless its really out of hand. Then besides taking them jail its "Back of the line" which is worst instead going to jail.

Rented Tritium wrote:

d-usa wrote:Camping for freedom/injustice/whatever ---- bad.

Camping for profit --- good.

Camping overnight in a park where that is not allowed---- bad

Camping overnight in a parking lot where the owner doesn't mind---- good

Your use of facts and logic wil avail you not!

Jihadin wrote:What cop in his right mind going to hold a Black Friday opening hour unless its really out of hand.

Far more should. Those things get freakin' crazy at times.

Rented Tritium wrote:

d-usa wrote:Camping for freedom/injustice/whatever ---- bad.

Camping for profit --- good.

Camping overnight in a park where that is not allowed---- bad

Camping overnight in a parking lot where the owner doesn't mind---- good

Besides me just being a smarta**, the question one could ask is this: is the property zoned for overnight camping? Just because the owner doesn't mind does not make it legal. Zoning laws can get crazy at times. But would zoning violations result in actions against campers, or the property owners? If it's a fine, they probably make up for it on Black Friday.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

Jihadin wrote:What cop in his right mind going to hold a Black Friday opening hour unless its really out of hand.

Far more should. Those things get freakin' crazy at times.

Isn't there usually at least one person trampled to death somewhere? I refuse to go shopping on that whole weekend.

Exactly they get crazy. What cop going to stand in front of a column which is a vast majority of females (who ,I and some of you will agree, are the most vicious of our species) and try to maintain a orderly, calm, and peaceful transition from closed to open time.

Zoning laws don't really come into effect here as more likely than not, the people aren't "sleeping" there. The tents are just there for shelter against the elements or as places for privacy for activities of the amorous kind(seriously. A friend of mine who worked for Best Buy had to ask a couple to leave because they had a relatively see through tent and were doing some very...acrobatic activities within the tent while children were around).

And yeah, usually at least one person gets trampled to death somewhere(almost inevitably it's a Wal-Mart for some reason) and more injured. Fights will break out every so often and you'll see people mugged in the parking lots.

d-usa wrote:
Besides me just being a smarta**, the question one could ask is this: is the property zoned for overnight camping? Just because the owner doesn't mind does not make it legal. Zoning laws can get crazy at times. But would zoning violations result in actions against campers, or the property owners? If it's a fine, they probably make up for it on Black Friday.

That may be the case, but regular police don't actually have anything to do with zoning laws. That's all inspectors and permitting etc. At worst, you get fined, not arrested, so it's not really the same type of thing.

And in a zoning issue, it's the business getting in trouble, not the campers.

Jihadin wrote:Exactly they get crazy. What cop going to stand in front of a column which is a vast majority of females (who ,I and some of you will agree, are the most vicious of our species) and try to maintain a orderly, calm, and peaceful transition from closed to open time.

I don't think that a crazy mob of shoppers could even be subdued by pepper spray or water cannons. They would fight through the pain for that $9.99 DVD Player. We once ran a 911 call at Wal-Mart, and do you think anybody made room for an ambulance crew? Who cares about the live of a fellow human if there is a deal to be had.

Standing in front of that mob might be a good way to test your Zombie Survival plan. If you can survive them, you can survive anything.

I can see this

Some random officer
"SFC Wilkinson ensure when Best Buy open that you ensure everyone entering is calm and ordely"

Me
"Seriously?!...Sir?

Some random officer
"Yes. Your platoon is tasked with this mission"

Me (Few going to get this)
" Alright Sir....is another officer or you leading from the front?...we only have a couple of minutes before stampede Sir."

Standing in front of that mob might be a good way to test your Zombie Survival plan. If you can survive them, you can survive anything.

Possible new reality show here

Here's a link to a discussion on this topic, hosted by Democracy Now involving Norm Stamper (Police Chief of Seattle during the WTO protests in '99); Chuck Wexler, who heads a national police organization thats been involved in setting up conference calls with police chiefs on how to respond to the Occupy demonstrations; Karen Smith, former New York Supreme Court judge who has acted as a legal observer at OWS in New York; and even Dorli Rainey, the 84-year old whose pepper-sprayed face we've all seen.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/17/paramilitary_policing_of_occupy_wall_street

Here's constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwalds take on the issue:

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/20/the_roots_of_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying/singleton/

He's got links to video of the incident from different angles, as well as the Chacellors' 'walk of shame' to her car.

I'm looking forward to the news on Friday evening. If these people really try to "Occupy Black Friday" there will be blood on the pavement.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm looking forward to the news on Friday evening. If these people really try to "Occupy Black Friday" there will be blood on the pavement.

This seriously needs to be pay per view.

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm looking forward to the news on Friday evening. If these people really try to "Occupy Black Friday" there will be blood on the pavement.

This seriously needs to be pay per view.

I am not against the OWS movement, but I am interested in how many protesters will be shopping this weekend instead of protesting and seeing protesters they know....I mean I have friends who scream at you if you don't recycle but cross the border to Idaho so they can buy dish washing detergent with sulfates in it because it gets their dishes cleaner. With a movement so large there is plenty of hypocrisy in some of its members. I was thinking of checking out a few places to see the stampedes....guilty pleasure I guess.

Oh...don't buy cocacola products...they are EVIL. (I drink Pepsi who are marginally less evil!)

A quick summary for those keeping score at home...

Camp for profits= Good
Camp for political reasons= bad

$$$$ is speech= Good
Tents are speech= Bad

Letter of the Law= Good
Unalienable Rights= Bad

Camp for profits= How long has Black Friday been around?

Camp for political reasons= Is it a camping ground? or a park that closes at dusk?

$$$$ is speech= Who's talking? If they're paying to attend I'm all there

Tents are speech= Is it a camping ground or a park that close at dusk?

Letter of the Law= How long has laws been around?

Unalienable Rights= Is an excuse to break the laws?

Jihadin wrote:Unalienable Rights= Is an excuse to break the laws?

Apparently our Founding Fathers thought so.

This means that Jefferson and the other writers of the Declaration wished people to believe that God created human beings with certain rights that should never be taken away -- life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They avoided "God" using instead "their creator" to avoid religious disputes because they were preparing to move away from government-sponsored religion.

The concept of "certain unalienable rights" is evidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in God and for the most part we're strongly religious men with strong beliefs in entitlements bestowed by God upon men, and that these entitlements were so important that no earthly power can rightfully deny them. Therefore, no Government can deny these rights.
The whole of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence sheds more light on this phrasing:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Certain unalienable rights, such as a Social Security number, however, are "unalienable" only because the law prohibits reassigning your number to someone else.
In contrast, "inalienable rights" are those rights that can only be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights.

Easy E wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Unalienable Rights= Is an excuse to break the laws?

Apparently our Founding Fathers thought so.

Our founding father thought a lot of things. Right after celebrating his "Give me liberty or give me death" speech Patrick Henry went achasing after escaped slaves. On more than one occasion our founding fathers saw fit to send troops to end protests, albeit Americans of that era were more volatile and tended towards "armed rebellion" over "nonviolent civic disobedience" which is why OWS is such epic fail.
Workers World Party has an article titled "Greece to OWS: a global youth rebellion"
The Nation called OWS "Shays Rebellion without guns"
Salon called it "Today's Whiskey Rebellion"
It's a dirty shame that the OWS protesters don't have the backbone to live up such comparisons. If the did you could point out that the Founding Fathers crushed them. Maybe they will rise up in rebellion and let us talk to our kids about the Squatters Rebellion or the Unwashed Insurrection.

So Unalienable rights can not be surrendered, sold, or transferred. Great!

However, they can still be deprived from you. What do you do if your "unalienable rights" are being threatened?

You resist, potentially via protest.

If the government has deemed such actions as illegal because it restricts access to a sidewalk for example; you are then violating the law, while still upholding your "unalienable rights".

The question we are faced with today is, what is more imporatant to our society? Is it Legality or our Unalienable Rights? They can and do conflict at times.

I'm going out on the limb here to make this. Since a lot of people like to point at the Founding Fathers as examples. The values and morals of that time won't fit in this time. Auston made a good example with Patrick Henry

AustonT wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Unalienable Rights= Is an excuse to break the laws?

Apparently our Founding Fathers thought so.

Our founding father thought a lot of things.

Yup. That's the crux of the dilemna. What things did they think that matter today.

Is the Constitution a living document or just an old piece of paper from a bygone time? Did the ideas of the Declaration of Independence end after the revolution was over, or is it still relevant today?

What essentially are the core values of the nation? That's what we are really debating when we talk about pepper-spraying protesters. It's pretty clear, that there is not a lot of consensus around those larger issues here.

OWS is not illegal. No one in Gov't has declare them illegal. Its the action they took. If you protest within the boundaries of the laws/ordinance not an issue and people will listen. If you protest with a mob mentality then its illegal...what message are they sending then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Core values are what you learn from your parents at first but its changes as you mature.

Example with be Army values

Loyalty
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. constitution, the Army, and other soldiers.
Be loyal to the nation and its heritage.

Duty
Fulfill your obligations.
Accept responsibility for your own actions and those entrusted to your care.
Find opportunities to improve oneself for the good of the group.

Respect
Rely upon the golden rule.
How we consider others reflects upon each of us, both personally and as a professional organization.


Selfless Service
Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Selfless service leads to organizational teamwork and encompasses discipline, self-control and faith in the system.

Honor
Live up to all the Army values
Importance of Character.

Integrity
Do what is right, legally and morally.
Be willing to do what is right even when no one is looking.
It is our "moral compass" an inner voice.

Personal Courage
Our ability to face fear, danger, or adversity, both physical and moral courage.

Over time one developes their own version listed above. They develope their version from other leading by example (NCO's) and strong E4's.

Jihadin wrote:I'm going out on the limb here to make this. Since a lot of people like to point at the Founding Fathers as examples. The values and morals of that time won't fit in this time. Auston made a good example with Patrick Henry

I could get really philosophical about this and go on a rambling diatribe for pages and pages, so I will try to keep it brief.

Western philosphy of time is linear, and we are on a continuum from past to future. The arc of progress if you will. The future should be better than the past. I think it was a Kantian idea.

Anyway, in that persepective, the Founding Fathers had a great goal or idea for what this nation "should be". However, at no point has it ever been entirely this goal. It is like the idea of Plato and the Cave. We only see the images of the "nation" on the wall, with the "true" form hidden behind our view where we can not perceive it.

So, the role of subsequent American generations is to move the "true" nation ever closer to that "ideal" of the mythical nation the Founding Fathers wanted to form, based on continued analysis and understanding of the documents they left us as guides. The ideas of "Unalienable Rights", "All Men are Created Equal", and "We the People". At no point in the past or present have these ideals been 100% personified, but we as a Nation should be striving for the high standards the mythology of the Founding Fathers has set out for us.

So the question in my mind is, are we moving towards that better "form" of a Nation or are we still just content with the shadows before us?

Would anyone be talking about the occupy movement if the occupation side of it had not occured?

Jihadin wrote:Core values are what you learn from your parents at first but its changes as you mature.

Example with be Army values

Excellent. So, what are the Core Values of the United States of America?

Depends on the party you ask. Eventually though reality is going to bite them in the a$$ but by the time that happens there will be some pissed off people

Crablezworth wrote:Would anyone be talking about the occupy movement if the occupation side of it had not occured?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Depends on the party you ask. Eventually though reality is going to bite them in the a$$ but by the time that happens there will be some pissed off people

Yes, now you are starting to see the problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "reality will bite them in the A$$, and there will be soem pissed off people" though?

The Founding Fathers sought "Honor" -- freedom from corruption, and a positive devotion to civic virtue. These were key elements of Republicanism, and the Founding Fathers made republicanism the core values of the American system of government.

Corruption was the great evil the Founding Fathers confronted. When Britain showed too much corruption, it was time to break free with the American Revolution. To overcome the temptations of corruption--such as luxury and bribery--in their own lives, the Founding Fathers cultivated the virtue of disinterestedness. That is, the made a conscious effort to not be the creature of his financial interests, and not give any sign to the public that they sought luxury or bribes. The goal was to be impartial, concerned only for the public good, not the advancement of friends or, still less, of party.

Even personal shame and humiliation was preferable to a tarnished honor or the hint of corruption. When Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was accused of corruption for making secret payments to a man named James Reynolds, Hamilton revealed he had been set up and was paying blackmail to Reynolds following an affair with Mrs. Reynolds. Duels over honor were common in the era--Hamilton was killed in one, as was Hamilton's son.


Republicanism is a political ideology in opposition to monarchy and tyranny. Republicans hold that a political system must be founded upon the rule of law, the rights of individuals, and the sovereignty of the people. It is also closely connected to the idea of civic virtue, the responsibility citizens owe to their republic, and to opposition to corruption, or the use of public power to benefit the politician