4 ms·

How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed them? Remember, those folks didn't want to unlink. Your answer should include some evid

by anamax 15y ago

How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed them? Remember, those folks didn't want to unlink. Your answer should include some evidence showing that it would have worked. Your right to protest does not include a right to occupy a public park for an indefinite amount of time. As to their property, they were given notice that it would be removed. They ignored said notice. Again, what would you have the police do? Acceptable answers result in the property removed without the cooperation of the owners or significant costs to the city. FWIW, Villarigosa's statements in favor of these actions are perhaps the best argument against them in my mind because he's a disaster.

mindslight 15y ago
> How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed them? By waiting for them to do something they should actually be arrested for, rather than using trumped up misdemeanor charges as an excuse to quash dissent. > Your right to protest does not include a right to occupy a public park for an indefinite amount of time. Actually, it does. Every one of these protesters is choosing to spend their time in this park (symbolizing something) rather than carrying about their lives. What harm is being done? Public parks aren't in short supply. > significant costs to the city. Government efficiency is an anti-feature. If police save 50% doing something a certain way, that just means they'll do twice as much of it.
- anamax 15y ago
  > > How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed them? > By waiting for them to do something they should actually be arrested for That's not a mechanism for unlinking. > Government efficiency is an anti-feature. If police save 50% doing something a certain way, that just means they'll do twice as much of it. In other words, you want to abolish govt spending. Great!
  - mindslight 15y ago
    If one refuses to cooperate with an arrest it's reasonable for the police to carry out the procedure without the person's cooperation, but this is a far cry from forcing the person to cooperate through physical abuse. If one goes limp during an arrest, it's not unreasonable for the police to carry them, but it's highly unreasonable for the police to kick a person on the ground until they decide to get up of their 'own' volition. Also, it's not my job to brainstorm ways for the police to carry out their missions, and some things will always be physically impossible for them to do. Tough. For example, it's probably impossible to read my encrypted disks. Does this mean the police, in the process of collecting evidence, should be able to beat me until I unlock them? > In other words, you want to abolish govt spending. Great! You state this as if you expect it to be incongruent with my beliefs. Honestly, the most worrisome part of OWS is seeing supposed small-government people supporting heavy-handed disruption of the protesters.
    - anamax 15y ago
      Lots of words, but you still haven't explained an acceptable-to-you means of getting them to unlink.

by anamax 15y ago

mindslight 15y ago

> How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed them? By waiting for them to do something they should actually be arrested for, rather than using trumped up misdemeanor charges as an excuse to quash dissent. > Your right to protest does not include a right to occupy a public park for an indefinite amount of time. Actually, it does. Every one of these protesters is choosing to spend their time in this park (symbolizing something) rather than carrying about their lives. What harm is being done? Public parks aren't in short supply. > significant costs to the city. Government efficiency is an anti-feature. If police save 50% doing something a certain way, that just means they'll do twice as much of it.

anamax 15y ago
> > How, exactly, should LAPD have gotten those folks unlinked and removed them? > By waiting for them to do something they should actually be arrested for That's not a mechanism for unlinking. > Government efficiency is an anti-feature. If police save 50% doing something a certain way, that just means they'll do twice as much of it. In other words, you want to abolish govt spending. Great!
- mindslight 15y ago
  If one refuses to cooperate with an arrest it's reasonable for the police to carry out the procedure without the person's cooperation, but this is a far cry from forcing the person to cooperate through physical abuse. If one goes limp during an arrest, it's not unreasonable for the police to carry them, but it's highly unreasonable for the police to kick a person on the ground until they decide to get up of their 'own' volition. Also, it's not my job to brainstorm ways for the police to carry out their missions, and some things will always be physically impossible for them to do. Tough. For example, it's probably impossible to read my encrypted disks. Does this mean the police, in the process of collecting evidence, should be able to beat me until I unlock them? > In other words, you want to abolish govt spending. Great! You state this as if you expect it to be incongruent with my beliefs. Honestly, the most worrisome part of OWS is seeing supposed small-government people supporting heavy-handed disruption of the protesters.
  - anamax 15y ago
    Lots of words, but you still haven't explained an acceptable-to-you means of getting them to unlink.