Slashdot Mirror
NYPD Dismantling Occupy Wall Street Encampment
First time accepted submitter Red_Chaos1 was the first to write with news that, as of around 06:30 UTC, the NYPD appears to have begun removing the encampment of Occupy Wall Street. At 06:34 UTC the Mayor's office issued a tweet declaring: "Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the park is cleared." Around 07:15 UTC the first of several large dumpsters were deposited and the police began throwing tents and other debris into it. Reports also indicate that a Long Range Acoustic Device is on the premises. The police are using helicopters and physical barriers to prevent news coverage, but the Occupiers are streaming the events (alternative stream; #occupywallstreet on irc.indymedia.org is also rather active for those who don't fancy flash or twitter.) As of 09:15 or so, the situation according to those near NYC is that the park has more or less been cleared.
http://www.ustream.tv/TheOther99
Major media helicopters have been forced out of the air by NYPD. Lots of fresh news on twitter:
https://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23occupywallstreet
NYPD Police scanner here:
http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?action=wp&feedId=8905
NYPD switchboard isn't taking any more calls:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/contact_information.shtml
You suggest:
Perhaps a haircut and an education might help you attain wealth quicker than living in a cardboard box on someone else's property.
I dress well, keep my hair cut and my face shaved, I have BS and MS science degrees from good schools. I haven't been able to find a job since finishing grad school - almost two years ago.
There is reason to protest, and the fact that you don't understand what they're protesting is as telling as your non-solution of getting a haircut and an education.
Though I fully support their ideals I wasn't enthralled with most of the crowd in Zuccotti Park when I went to check it out, and I wouldn't join such an occupation myself, but you're attacking the messenger and not the message - because there is very little that is attackable (barring fringe elements).
The only reason the protestors are in the park is because the police made it clear they'll arrest anyone who dares to actually protest near wall street. The park is designated a 'free speech zone' because it's far enough out of the way that no-one will see them.
In the USA, you can't just protest everywhere. They have no real free speech. You only have real free speech in the "Free Speech Zones". Usually, the free speech zones are hidden in places where the sun doesn't shine a lot.
Wikipedia about free speech zones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
The cool thing is that these kinds of public/private parks are encouraged in New York since the building of Seagram Building in the sixties, after that building the Zooning Resolution in New York was changed to offer: incentives for developers to install "privately owned public spaces".
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html
Occupying *is* peaceful protest
It's called a sit-in. Just like in Greensboro North Carolina and Jackson Mississippi in the 1960's civil rights movement which resulted in desegregation of lunch counters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins
Government has just gotten better at sweeping protesters under the rug and stifling media coverage by designating areas away from the target of the protests as "free speech zones".
It's a backhanded way of doing it, but it's pretty clear that what's going on is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
I find it ironic that the Tea Party is portrayed as "Right Wing" and the Occupy movement is portrayed as "Left Wing" when both groups have the same goal of throwing corrupt scoundrels out of public office.
I think that characterization has more owed to Sarah Palin seeing a parade and running to get her baton and march in front of it as if she were leading. Ironically, her doing that has protected the Tea Party somewhat under the political shield of a former vice presidential candidate, which has required that they be taken seriously.
You would think that some other savvy politician would take the same approach for the Occupy movement to advance their agenda, as Palin did.
with the Tea Party.
-- Terry
Not exactly.
The company that built the adjoining building wanted to make it taller, which violated certain city codes. In order to get a variance, they had to agree to provide and maintain a public space. In essence, create a public park.
The actual deed to the land belongs to the company, but there is language saying that the company can never prevent public access. The reason the deed was kept with the company instead of the city is to help enforce the covenant that it would be the company that does all of the maintenance of the park.
If you care to look it up, there have been good articles about this in the Wall St Journal and New York Times.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Oh they've made their point! They've said what they want!" Really? Because I've looked. I've seen the "official manifesto" posted here: http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/ and it is a rambling read of various supposed evils of companies that make them out simultaneously to be complete idiots and extremely malicious villains, but no actual list of demands. To "Clarify" things there is a picture that looks to be straight out of Mad Max Magazine.
Or then on the official site there's this list: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/. Talk about some of the most stupid, unrealistic demands ever. They want to reduce the workday to 6 hours, yet lower the retirement age to 55 (hint: more work is required to retire since people live longer)? They want a moratorium on foreclosures and layoffs so, you know, nobody needs to actually pay their mortgage, and companies can't get rid of workers even if they must. Then we get some real good ones that show that they've never read the Constitution: "Ban the private ownership of land." "Immediate debt forgiveness for all." "Ban private gun ownership."
So where is this list of very reasonable demands they have? I am not saying find me one guy, I'm saying something from the movement itself. Because I've gone to the official places, and all I'm finding it idiocy.
I'm sorry, 50.1% was intended to be an obvious hip-shot from memory. To get research based about it:
In 2000, 52.1% of voting U.S. Americans voted against George W. Bush.
In 2004, only 49.3% of voting U.S. Americans voted against him.
So, I can see how George W. Bush's actions from 2000 to 2004, in total, could be argued to have won over 2.8% of voting U.S. Americans, although there are mitigating effects such as those people who are pre-disposed to vote for/against a sitting president (I believe the balance still favors for), and the variation in his opposing candidates, which I would characterize as creepy in 2000 vs. un-likeable in 2004.
My point is, not all U.S. Americans are abrasive ignorant jerks - only about half of us.
I was going to mod up, but then finished reading your post....
I am so tired of this argument, let me make it a little easier for your obviously-limited intellect...
This 'private property' is required to be open to the PUBLIC, 24/7. An agreement between the developer and the City lays these terms out - the developer was permitted to exceed the maximum height of a structure as defined in CITY ORDINANCES by creating and maintaining A PUBLIC PARK.
So, you'd firehose everyone away? If that happens, does that mean it is OK to blow the top floors off their building? I mean, if the park is no longer public, they shouldn't be permitted to maintain a building THAT IS TALLER THAN THE VOTERS LAID OUT IN CITY ORDINANCES, should they?
They (the building owners/developers) are already a special case, and are now trying to infringe on the rights of American citizens. They should have done more research into what opening a 'public place' means before signing on the dotted-line. They were happy to build up taller, funny how unhappy they become when forced to abide by the terms of the agreement that ALLOWED them to build taller.
Breaking the law by restricting public access doesn't seem so fucking smart now, does it?
No. It specifically lists tents and sleeping bags. You can still bring signs, bullhorns, pamphlets, and other things that actual peaceful protestors-- not entitled squatters-- bring to a protest.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.