Assuming that protesters did have to leave...

[Cid_B]

... how would you move them?

You can have the argument whether they should be removed or not but once that decision has been made and they have to go.... which method do you prefer law enforcement to use?

It doesn't even have to be protesters for the question to be valid. It could just be a group of squatters on private property etc...

[Taverner]

1. Give them plenty of warning, help them pack up and get them out by a 12 hour deadline eom

[Cid_B]

2. and when they blow past that deadline?

[ret5hd]

3. Why are we assuming they had to leave? Was the constitution annulled?

[hack89]

4. Your right to protest does not supersede someone else's right to private property. nt

[Cid_B]

7. Thanks for showing that it is impossible to have a logical discussion about it...

Reread the question.

Assuming they did have to leave what method would you prefer to move a resistant human?

Take the protest out of it and just imagine trespassers on your own property and you want them removed. See if that can tone down the emotion and turn on the thinking.

[ret5hd]

8. Again, why the assumption?

[Cid_B]

10. Sigh... never mind...

I simply can't explain it any clearer...

[Earth_First]

11. The problem is, you are well-know for your opinons of OWS = squatters

Now you want to engage in 'thoughtful' conversation on how to evict said "squatters"

We get it.

You hate OWS.

[Cid_B]

12. Glad to see you took the time to craft a reasoned and well thought out response...

Really.. that was masterful..

Oh wait.. no you didn't. You just attacked on a personal level and added nothing to the conversation.

Silly me...

[Earth_First]

13. Well, a quick edit to your OP really backs up your reasoning, no?

:shrug:

[Cid_B]

14. The edit was to change the fourth option to request that they list...

... their "other" choice below.

Which part of that was confusing to you? :shrug:

[uppityperson]

41. "Assuming they did have to leave", teleport them out. As long as we're playing "tet's pretend"

How about make a force field, and move the thing entirely where ever they needed to move it.


If it were trespassers on my own property, I'd want them handled since I don't want pepperspray in my house.

[MADem]

9. Wouldn't that kind of hose the whole purpose of the OP and poll?

Never mind that the Constitution doesn't apply in all cases. Otherwise, I'd be "protesting" from a suite at the Ritz-Carlton!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

6. OK, we are given the task to move the protesters, is that the premise?

First, ask nicely. That likely won't work, but it's always nice to start gently.

Second, offer help to pack them up and relocate the homeless ones.

If they aren't willing to go at that point, get out the garden sprinklers (not hoses, sprinklers). Dampness is tiresome after a while.

Establish a hard perimeter and put the portapotties outside them.

When people go to the loo, they can't go back in. Detain them until the site is cleared.

If you absolutely have to arrest, the simplest thing to do is do it one by one, slowly. If there's the "link arms/sit down" thing happening, just close in the perimeter around the group and wait 'em out--not allowing anyone in, but allowing people to leave if they would like. Everyone has to poop eventually--it might take a shift or two, but they'd be gone or able to be removed without force due to simple exhaustion before too long.

[Cid_B]

16. Appreciate the effort...

and while I think you are on the right track it will still likely lead to hands on with several folks. Either with folks trying to rejoin the circle or fill a spot vacated by someone else.

There isn't an easy answer.

[MADem]

17. That's why you need tight perimeters--and maybe more than one.

It would take a lot of manpower, and a lot of patience. And maybe some very cold water in those sprinklers...!

[NYC_SKP]

18. That's a very good set of answers, I like that.

Sprinklers, that's no fun but it's not torture or mayhem or injury-inducing!

I vote for YOU for protester-wrangler!

:hi:

[MADem]

21. You don't want to hurt people. You don't have to be a bully.

Wasn't it Bruce Lee who said "Be water, my friend!"

If you can't BE water, at least use it! No fire hoses, though--just a persistent, gentle but cold rain, coming out of the sorts of sprinklers one would use on a suburban front lawn. If you're lucky enough to have a stiff breeze on the day in question, your job will go faster.

After you isolate your group of linked-arm/seated enthusiasts, you can go around behind them and start folding up their things and tagging/boxing them, loading it all on hand trucks and carting it off to a lost-n-found or property storage facility.

If you really want to be a bit vicious, and play on basic needs and wants, have a food truck come by and prepare hot chocolate and cinnamon buns, and maybe some nice hot coffee, too, for the enforcement personnel--and anyone who gets on the detention bus.

If cold water and a chilling breeze won't move a person, the smell of cinnamon rolls and hot chocolate or coffee just might.

[NYC_SKP]

23. The wafting scent of Cinnabons???

I think that could be considered torture.

:hi:

[TNLib]

53. If they really want the protesters to go away then they should have just left them alone

in the first place anything they do now is mute. The more aggressive law enforcement gets the stronger the movement becomes and more protesters will return.



If I was a mayor of the city and had to get these protesters to leave the best thing to do would be wait it out and do nothing make conditions uncomfortable no porta potties and encourages private business owners to not allow them to use the private restrooms. Close down all public restrooms or stop janitorial services in the park, stop security services ect.. Basically don't do anything for them and nothing to them till they get tired and go away.

[MADem]

54. Well, no, it's not moot. It certainly won't be mute, as they'll be making a lot of noise.

The horse was out of the barn when that asshat in NYC broke out the pepper spray. That sort of set the tone.

If they do nothing, those guys will not leave. Weather doesn't get awful in LA.

I don't think the police will get aggressive--they surely can do this in other ways. It might take time, though, and they may have to do it incrementally.

The portapotty thing could work eventually, but in the short term, you'll find people shitting in bags and leaving it on the steps of the state house. It happens. They might want to put in a few spare security cameras from inside buildings looking out.

They could always start fining individuals for camping w/o a permit or some other ordinance violations as well. Individual tickets, and then start pulling drivers' licenses and docking state tax refunds if they don't pay up.

Some individuals within the OWS framework do not realize it, but being forced to swap out their paradigm is a good thing. They need a new approach.

The "camping schtick" is stale already.

[unkachuck]

15. definitely dogs....

....dogs will toughen-up the protesters for when the local authorities request the National Guard with tanks in the future....

[Zorra]

19. Elevator Muzak would be vile and cruel, but most effective. nt

[CreekDog]

20. I have a question for you: what methods should have been used on Martin Luther King, Jr.?

he was arrested multiple times during the Civil Rights Movement.

are you saying that had pepper spray, had it been available then, been used on him when he was nonviolently protesting and at times occupying places the police didn't want him?

if you're saying the protestors now deserve to be pepper sprayed (do you mean point blank in the face?) then you're a hypocrite if you don't think he should have been treated the same way.

but my guess is that you won't state an opinion about Martin Luther King, Jr. because what you really think about him is nothing you would dare post here.

or you can surprise us with a progressive thought about what you think of him and how he should have been handled.

[Cid_B]

22. The power of MLK...

... was that he coupled responsibility for his actions and decisions along with devotion to his cause.

He broke a ton of rules and took the punishment that came for it. An excellent ethical standard.

Do you think that if he had given the law enforcement of the time even the tiniest reason to kick his ass they wouldn't have jumped on it? Forget pepper spray. I am talking about a straight up beating unto death.

He didn't and that is why he was successful. He worked within the confines of the system to effect real and lasting change. That is what OWS lacks.

[CreekDog]

24. did he obey all police orders?

always?


and why are you linking to right wing blogs on DU?

[Cid_B]

25. I must have missed it..

Did I stroke off there and post a link in our little chat?

On a side note, I see that you didn't take my advice and put me on ignore. This lost puppy thing is getting stale. Get a hobby that isn't me...

[CreekDog]

27. being coy? you linked it in the other thread about the same topic

but here you're making it sound like you did no such thing.

so people can look at Red Giant's thread defending pepper spraying students and see your link for themselves.

[MADem]

26. They DID have mace back then. And dogs. And clubs. And Fire Hoses.

And if Martin had decided to camp all over hell's half acre, they probably would have resorted to wholesale use of bullets--which DID come out on occasion for no damn reason.

Also, Martin got permits, and his people kept moving and were disciplined in their nonviolence--no anarchists, at least not at the outset (later on, the Panthers and others started doing their own thing, but in the early days, it was a tight ship).

They stuck to the theme, too. No taunting the police.

The few times he couldn't get a permit, the federal government assisted him.

It's difficult to compare then and now. The protesters at a MLK march dressed as though they were going to church. It was an EVENT. Very serious. Not a lot of festival atmosphere. There was no confrontation with the police, no "civil disobedience," a simple statement of what they wanted.

It was all very dignified, but that seems to have fallen out of favor nowadays. So it's hard to compare the two eras or the two protest efforts, because they come from different perspectives.

The methodology is just not the same, either.

[CreekDog]

30. You're arguing he broke no laws and committed no civil disobedience --that's laughable

he openly violated laws and said that he was doing so for a reason.

:wtf:

is your view of history that sanitized?

do you even know what civil disobedience is?

[MADem]

34. Where did I say "He broke no laws and committed no civil disobedience" in my post?

Why do you make shit up?

You wonder why people don't want to discuss things with you? There's an example.

Do you even know what "civil discussion" is?

[CreekDog]

36. you're saying he followed all the rules, permits, etc. --he doesn't even argue he did that

how can you argue that he followed rules and got permits, etc. and then say he committed civil disobedience?

you don't get a permit to commit civil disobedience do you?

[MADem]

43. I did not say "he followed rules" so why do you keep stuffing false words in my mouth?

I spoke to his difficulty getting permits and how the federal government assisted him in that regard.

You keep showing us why no one likes to discuss matters with you--you try to twist what people say, or invent meanings not transmitted in the text. It's an unattractive trait.

The police in the south would have fined MLK for looking at them the wrong way. They'd happily arrest him for putting a foot wrong. If you know anything about that time, or if, like me, you lived through it, you'd know this. They wanted to preserve their way of life, and he was interfering with that desire by marching, creating tensions, and raising awareness on a national level.

His time was not spent taunting police or complaining about tents, though, or arguing about kitchens, libraries, and General Assemblies. He marched, and he spoke. He addressed the key issues head on. His direct actions created genuine tensions, not nuisances. When a direct action was initiated, arrests were EXPECTED. People didn't whine about it, it went with the territory. It was the PURPOSE of the direct action. And police brutality? We're not talking about some asshat with pepper spray, we're talking dogs, guns, and clubs. You didn't need a camera phone to get in there to see the details, they were evident from blocks away.

When he was jailed, he didn't tweet complaints, he wrote things like this: http://tinyurl.com/7nxexr9


The other key difference is that MLK was a LEADER. He wasn't the only leader in the movement, but he was a guy who stepped up, took responsibility, spoke truth to power, developed a massive following, and because of this he was able to call the shots and those who believed in the path he was carving had no problem following him, listening to him, and enforcing his vision within the group. That kind of discipline brought results.

You cannot compare then to now, no matter how much you might want to. It's just not the same paradigm.

There is no Martin, and that, apparently, is how this group wants it.

[Cid_B]

46. Appreciate the context...

... Creek follows me around and attempts to derail any thread I post on.

Thanks for putting it a bit back on track.

[CreekDog]

48. nice accusation

:eyes:

[Cid_B]

51. More of a statement really...

Like I said... find a hobby that isn't me.

[CreekDog]

49. You Said there was "No civil disobedience" --you said that, in this thread

And Martin Luther King, Jr. is well known to have committed civil disobedience and penned letters and made statements saying it was necessary.

Are you now taking back your statement that he committed "No Civil Disobedience" or not?

Because when you say that, not only is it wrong, you don't even seem to know what the term means.

Sorry to be harsh, but you don't get to misrepresent the Civil Rights movement in order to make the Occupy Wall Street movement look bad.

[MADem]

50. I said it in the context of CONFRONTATION with the POLICE and nonviolence.

It's quite plain I wasn't talking about sit ins at lunch counters.

See? You are deliberately, contextually obtuse--and you do it on purpose. You could give a shit about discussing the topic in all its nuance, you just want to play "Gotcha."

You also quite desperately want to inaccurately characterize people as making the "movement look bad" without a shred of evidence.

I know the term for someone who does that sort of thing, and so do most people who can read.

You should go play with someone else--I find you a poor companion.

[Ohio Joe]

28. Other - Assuming the protesters to be peaceful, it should not be a law enforcement issue

If the issue is that protesters are on private property, the town/city/state should request they move to public property and give them a list of nearby locations. Law enforcement has no business removing people from public property unless they are committing a crime... Which brings us to the real problem, they are making/have made protesting a crime. The protests need to continue, if only to draw attention to this, and to gather more to the protests. IMO, the most important thing for protesters to remember is to remain peaceful.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

35. Most municipalities have ordinances against blocking the sidewalk.

This is why most union strike protests involve a single file of people with signs, who keep moving so as not to impede passage by other pedestrians.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

37. Assuming a shop or apartment building

I would expect protesters to be allowing unmolested entrance and exit. Preventing unmolested entrance and exit to a building to other people is not a protest anymore, it's no different then fundies blocking a Planned Parenthood and not allowed.

If your point is more along the lines of civil dis-obedience... Well, the purpose there is to get arrested to make a point. In that case, protesters again should be peaceful in the protest and co-operate with police when getting arrested. Police should also understand the type of protest before them and carry people away gently (assuming protesters are not going but not resisting either) for processing.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

42. No, not impossible, difficult and it is a part of the civil dis-obedience protest

The police should respect this (not that they do) and take the time required to separate the people without harming any of them in any way. I should correct myself, the purpose of civil dis-obedience is not only to get arrested but to draw public attention to the cause and one of the ways is a public, long and drawn out arrest... One that is best recorded and put out for public consumption.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harun]

32. They don't have to leave. They have the Liberty to stay.

[Cid_B]

33. I refer you to post #7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2389861#2390025

[harun]

47. Logical discussion about a false hypothetical? Give me a break.

[Marr]

40. Your assumption is the crux of the argument.

It's like saying, "assuming kittens are deadly, was it right to drown a bag of them?". They aren't-- so why make the assumption?

[Cid_B]

45. Really?

You can't think of any situation that would require the police to move a person from point A to point B? ever?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire Walk With Me]

52. To quote the UC Davis students to the kops:

You can go. You can go. You can go.