PDA

View Full Version : Holy shit.... Occupy Arrest Story...



Godfather
12-08-2011, 06:17 AM
My Occupy LA Arrest, by Patrick Meighan

My name is Patrick Meighan, and I’m a husband, a father, a writer on the Fox animated sitcom “Family Guy”, and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica.

I was arrested at about 1 a.m. Wednesday morning with 291 other people at Occupy LA. I was sitting in City Hall Park with a pillow, a blanket, and a copy of Thich Nhat Hanh’s “Being Peace” when 1,400 heavily-armed LAPD officers in paramilitary SWAT gear streamed in. I was in a group of about 50 peaceful protestors who sat Indian-style, arms interlocked, around a tent (the symbolic image of the Occupy movement). The LAPD officers encircled us, weapons drawn, while we chanted “We Are Peaceful” and “We Are Nonviolent” and “Join Us.”

As we sat there, encircled, a separate team of LAPD officers used knives to slice open every personal tent in the park. They forcibly removed anyone sleeping inside, and then yanked out and destroyed any personal property inside those tents, scattering the contents across the park. They then did the same with the communal property of the Occupy LA movement. For example, I watched as the LAPD destroyed a pop-up canopy tent that, until that moment, had been serving as Occupy LA’s First Aid and Wellness tent, in which volunteer health professionals gave free medical care to absolutely anyone who requested it. As it happens, my family had personally contributed that exact canopy tent to Occupy LA, at a cost of several hundred of my family’s dollars. As I watched, the LAPD sliced that canopy tent to shreds, broke the telescoping poles into pieces and scattered the detritus across the park. Note that these were the objects described in subsequent mainstream press reports as “30 tons of garbage” that was “abandoned” by Occupy LA: personal property forcibly stolen from us, destroyed in front of our eyes and then left for maintenance workers to dispose of while we were sent to prison.

When the LAPD finally began arresting those of us interlocked around the symbolic tent, we were all ordered by the LAPD to unlink from each other (in order to facilitate the arrests). Each seated, nonviolent protester beside me who refused to cooperate by unlinking his arms had the following done to him: an LAPD officer would forcibly extend the protestor’s legs, grab his left foot, twist it all the way around and then stomp his boot on the insole, pinning the protestor’s left foot to the pavement, twisted backwards. Then the LAPD officer would grab the protestor’s right foot and twist it all the way the other direction until the non-violent protestor, in incredible agony, would shriek in pain and unlink from his neighbor.

It was horrible to watch, and apparently designed to terrorize the rest of us. At least I was sufficiently terrorized. I unlinked my arms voluntarily and informed the LAPD officers that I would go peacefully and cooperatively. I stood as instructed, and then I had my arms wrenched behind my back, and an officer hyperextended my wrists into my inner arms. It was super violent, it hurt really really bad, and he was doing it on purpose. When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my face into the pavement. It really, really hurt and my face started bleeding and I was very scared. I begged for mercy and I promised that I was honestly not resisting and would not resist.

My hands were then zipcuffed very tightly behind my back, where they turned blue. I am now suffering nerve damage in my right thumb and palm.

I was put on a paddywagon with other nonviolent protestors and taken to a parking garage in Parker Center. They forced us to kneel on the hard pavement of that parking garage for seven straight hours with our hands still tightly zipcuffed behind our backs. Some began to pass out. One man rolled to the ground and vomited for a long, long time before falling unconscious. The LAPD officers watched and did nothing.

At 9 a.m. we were finally taken from the pavement into the station to be processed. The charge was sitting in the park after the police said not to. It’s a misdemeanor. Almost always, for a misdemeanor, the police just give you a ticket and let you go. It costs you a couple hundred dollars. Apparently, that’s what happened with most every other misdemeanor arrest in LA that day.

With us Occupy LA protestors, however, they set bail at $5,000 and booked us into jail. Almost none of the protesters could afford to bail themselves out. I’m lucky and I could afford it, except the LAPD spent all day refusing to actually *accept* the bail they set. If you were an accused murderer or a rapist in LAPD custody that day, you could bail yourself right out and be back on the street, no problem. But if you were a nonviolent Occupy LA protestor with bail money in hand, you were held long into the following morning, with absolutely no access to a lawyer.

I spent most of my day and night crammed into an eight-man jail cell, along with sixteen other Occupy LA protesters. My sleeping spot was on the floor next to the toilet.

Finally, at 2:30 the next morning, after twenty-five hours in custody, I was released on bail. But there were at least 200 Occupy LA protestors who couldn’t afford the bail. The LAPD chose to keep those peaceful, non-violent protesters in prison for two full days… the absolute legal maximum that the LAPD is allowed to detain someone on misdemeanor charges.

As a reminder, Antonio Villaraigosa has referred to all of this as “the LAPD’s finest hour.”

So that’s what happened to the 292 women and men were arrested last Wednesday. Now let’s talk about a man who was not arrested last Wednesday. He is former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince. Under Charles Prince, Citigroup was guilty of massive, coordinated securities fraud.

Citigroup spent years intentionally buying up every bad mortgage loan it could find, creating bad securities out of those bad loans and then selling shares in those bad securities to duped investors. And then they sometimes secretly bet *against* their *own* bad securities to make even more money. For one such bad Citigroup security, Citigroup executives were internally calling it, quote, “a collection of dogshit”. To investors, however, they called it, quote, “an attractive investment rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser”.

This is fraud, and it’s a felony, and the Charles Princes of the world spent several years doing it again and again: knowingly writing bad mortgages, and then packaging them into fraudulent securities which they then sold to suckers and then repeating the process. This is a big part of why your property values went up so fast. But then the bubble burst, and that’s why our economy is now shattered for a generation, and it’s also why your home is now underwater. Or at least mine is.

Anyway, if your retirement fund lost a decade’s-worth of gains overnight, this is why.

If your son’s middle school has added furlough days because the school district can’t afford to keep its doors open for a full school year, this is why.

If your daughter has come out of college with a degree only to discover that there are no jobs for her, this is why.

But back to Charles Prince. For his four years of in charge of massive, repeated fraud at Citigroup, he received fifty-three million dollars in salary and also received another ninety-four million dollars in stock holdings. What Charles Prince has *not* received is a pair of zipcuffs. The nerves in his thumb are fine. No cop has thrown Charles Prince into the pavement, face-first. Each and every peaceful, nonviolent Occupy LA protester arrested last week has has spent more time sleeping on a jail floor than every single Charles Prince on Wall Street, combined.

The more I think about that, the madder I get. What does it say about our country that nonviolent protesters are given the bottom of a police boot while those who steal hundreds of billions, do trillions worth of damage to our economy and shatter our social fabric for a generation are not only spared the zipcuffs but showered with rewards?

In any event, believe it or not, I’m really not angry that I got arrested. I chose to get arrested. And I’m not even angry that the mayor and the LAPD decided to give non-violent protestors like me a little extra shiv in jail (although I’m not especially grateful for it either).

I’m just really angry that every single Charles Prince wasn’t in jail with me.

Thank you for letting me share that anger with you today.

Patrick Meighan

Deepsepia
12-08-2011, 09:40 AM
When the LAPD finally began arresting those of us interlocked around the symbolic tent, we were all ordered by the LAPD to unlink from each other (in order to facilitate the arrests). Each seated, nonviolent protester beside me who refused to cooperate by unlinking his arms had the following done to him: an LAPD officer would forcibly extend the protestor’s legs, grab his left foot, twist it all the way around and then stomp his boot on the insole, pinning the protestor’s left foot to the pavement, twisted backwards. Then the LAPD officer would grab the protestor’s right foot and twist it all the way the other direction until the non-violent protestor, in incredible agony, would shriek in pain and unlink from his neighbor.

At this point the "non violent protesters" are also "non compliant arrestees", a category which exposes you to the use of a lot of force.

The author comes across as exceptionally naive.

If a cop say "move" and you say "no" -- you can't expect that he will then call out the police Yoga squad to figure out how to move you most gently . . .

If a cop says "you're under arrest" and you say "I'm not going anywhere" - well, that's a very serious threshold you just crossed.

Cops really can do very little with folks who they don't have grounds to arrest . . . but once they've crossed that threshold and you resist . . trouble.

You might note that the author fails to mention any police communications with them . . . at some point they were given an order, "move or you will be arrested" and undoubtedly a direct order "you are now under arrest"

FBD
12-08-2011, 12:09 PM
http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3300428/baby_crying_42-17880849.jpg

Teh One Who Knocks
12-08-2011, 12:10 PM
At this point the "non violent protesters" are also "non compliant arrestees", a category which exposes you to the use of a lot of force.

The author comes across as exceptionally naive.

If a cop say "move" and you say "no" -- you can't expect that he will then call out the police Yoga squad to figure out how to move you most gently . . .

If a cop says "you're under arrest" and you say "I'm not going anywhere" - well, that's a very serious threshold you just crossed.

Cops really can do very little with folks who they don't have grounds to arrest . . . but once they've crossed that threshold and you resist . . trouble.

You might note that the author fails to mention any police communications with them . . . at some point they were given an order, "move or you will be arrested" and undoubtedly a direct order "you are now under arrest"

:thumbsup:

Acid Trip
12-08-2011, 01:43 PM
At this point the "non violent protesters" are also "non compliant arrestees", a category which exposes you to the use of a lot of force.

The author comes across as exceptionally naive.

If a cop say "move" and you say "no" -- you can't expect that he will then call out the police Yoga squad to figure out how to move you most gently . . .

If a cop says "you're under arrest" and you say "I'm not going anywhere" - well, that's a very serious threshold you just crossed.

Cops really can do very little with folks who they don't have grounds to arrest . . . but once they've crossed that threshold and you resist . . trouble.

You might note that the author fails to mention any police communications with them . . . at some point they were given an order, "move or you will be arrested" and undoubtedly a direct order "you are now under arrest"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't agree with the OWS movement at all but it is their right to peaceably protest.

Muddy
12-08-2011, 02:22 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't agree with the OWS movement at all but it is their right to peaceably protest.

But isn't there a line here between 'assembling' and 'occupying' that being really crossed?

Loser
12-08-2011, 02:24 PM
I'm sorry, but after seeing the ENTIRE UC Davis video, I have no sympathy for these asshats. The police are doing what they should be doing.


Incase anyone wants to see what really happened, here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y

DemonGeminiX
12-08-2011, 02:27 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't agree with the OWS movement at all but it is their right to peaceably protest.

The local police aren't a tool of Congress. Just sayin'.

Acid Trip
12-08-2011, 02:27 PM
But isn't there a line here between 'assembling' and 'occupying' that being really crossed?

That's up to individual interpretation. In my eyes it's quite easy to get rid of them. Just start writing tickets for littering. When they aren't paid you can start arresting people. That's all well within the laws reach.

Arresting people who are sitting in a circle and peaceably protesting isn't right. Again, all up to individual interpretation.

Acid Trip
12-08-2011, 02:31 PM
The local police aren't a tool of Congress. Just sayin'.

Congress is the one who should be stepping in to tell local authorities "hey, you don't have the authority to do that."

Federal government trumps state/local government, especially when it comes to Constitutional matters.

Loser
12-08-2011, 04:25 PM
If there's a local or state law prohibiting loitering in state or city parks, then the police can uphold those laws and remove those people.

End of discussion in my opinion.

DemonGeminiX
12-08-2011, 04:27 PM
Congress is the one who should be stepping in to tell local authorities "hey, you don't have the authority to do that."

Federal government trumps state/local government, especially when it comes to Constitutional matters.

:lol:

I'm well aware of that. I'm just pokin' at you.

:nana:

Teh One Who Knocks
12-08-2011, 04:27 PM
But isn't there a line here between 'assembling' and 'occupying' that being really crossed?

This ^^


If there's a local or state law prohibiting loitering in state or city parks, then the police can uphold those laws and remove those people.

End of discussion in my opinion.

And this ^^

Godfather
12-08-2011, 04:45 PM
(For the record I posted this vid because I thought it was an interesting story, not because of any direction my sympathies lean regarding OCW. I think it's just interesting to read about this individual who went from just going with the flow to thinking he might be murdered by the gestapo in a matter of 5 minutes :lol: )

RBP
12-08-2011, 04:49 PM
(For the record I posted this vid because I thought it was an interesting story, not because of any direction my sympathies lean regarding OCW. I think it's just interesting to read about this individual who went from just going with the flow to thinking he might be murdered by the gestapo in a matter of 5 minutes :lol: )

We don't believe you Hippy! :x

Godfather
12-08-2011, 04:51 PM
:slapchop:

Muddy
12-08-2011, 04:55 PM
(For the record I posted this vid because I thought it was an interesting story, not because of any direction my sympathies lean regarding OCW. I think it's just interesting to read about this individual who went from just going with the flow to thinking he might be murdered by the gestapo in a matter of 5 minutes :lol: )

The law has to keep that fear factor in place... We dont need any Egyptian shit happening around here because people think the cops are a joke..

Teh One Who Knocks
12-08-2011, 04:57 PM
We don't believe you Hippy! :x

:lol:

Godfather
12-08-2011, 05:01 PM
We don't believe you Hippy! :x

I meant to talk to you assholes about that :lol: Calling me hippy and telling me to get a job.


Well now I have a grown-up job, have had one for about a year and I've found 3 grey hairs :shock: I blame every one of you

Deepsepia
12-08-2011, 05:01 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't agree with the OWS movement at all but it is their right to peaceably protest.

a very good point. I happened to run into two "Occupy" protest sites, and while one was what I'd call an orderly protest, the other basically looked like someone had delivered a slum, and made life impossible for the folks living in the neighborhood.

If you're someone who lives or works downtown, you've paid your taxes to purchase a working city.

Folks are entitled to "protest", but they're not entitled to "Occupy".

DemonGeminiX
12-08-2011, 05:05 PM
I meant to talk to you assholes about that :lol: Calling me hippy and telling me to get a job.


Well now I have a grown-up job, have had one for about a year and I've found 3 grey hairs :shock: I blame every one of you

So what? 10 years until you're completely grey and balding?

:-k

Godfather
12-08-2011, 05:06 PM
Depends on if it's straight-line depreciation or plateau accelerated I would guess :-k

Leefro
12-08-2011, 05:13 PM
Depends on if it's straight-line depreciation or plateau accelerated I would guess :-k

A New Career


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0SbVFxl64A

Acid Trip
12-08-2011, 05:21 PM
a very good point. I happened to run into two "Occupy" protest sites, and while one was what I'd call an orderly protest, the other basically looked like someone had delivered a slum, and made life impossible for the folks living in the neighborhood.

If you're someone who lives or works downtown, you've paid your taxes to purchase a working city.

Folks are entitled to "protest", but they're not entitled to "Occupy".

Like I said, it's up to interpretation.

I'm sure there are some peaceful, mindful, law abiding protesters that are getting the shaft due to the unruly bunch creating a mess. The Police won't make the distinction between the two groups and it would be difficult to do so.

So how can we protest and voice our grievances (like the 1st Amendment says we have the right to) if Police don't distinguish between law abiding protestors and the unruly ones? That's the million dollar question.

PorkChopSandwiches
12-08-2011, 05:35 PM
http://forums.techguy.org/attachments/113072d1186613443/korean-protester.jpg

Deepsepia
12-08-2011, 05:40 PM
Like I said, it's up to interpretation.

I'm sure there are some peaceful, mindful, law abiding protesters that are getting the shaft due to the unruly bunch creating a mess. The Police won't make the distinction between the two groups and it would be difficult to do so.

So how can we protest and voice our grievances (like the 1st Amendment says we have the right to) if Police don't distinguish between law abiding protestors and the unruly ones? That's the million dollar question.

You raise a good question.




What is peaceable assembly? When does it become unlawful?

“The line moves,” said Harvard Kennedy School Professor Timothy McCarthy, “because protesters embrace and define freedom of assembly on their terms, and the police and the state and private companies and corporations define it on their terms. So those definitions are always being renegotiated.”

This push and pull over the right to protest and the desire of authorities to maintain public control and safety has been a common thread throughout American history, McCarthy noted. Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, also the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN that these kinds of demonstrations are “as American as apple pie.”

“The original revolutionaries took assembly really seriously and understood that freedom of assembly is especially important in the face of the presence of police or troops of the state,” said McCarthy. Up to and during the Revolutionary War, the British sent troops and colonial governors to “occupy” the colonies and to keep the colonists in line. Each time troops increased so did rebellion. McCarthy said the ever-increasing presence of enforcers only deepened the American values of freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition. “There’s a reason why [freedom of assembly] is the first thing in the Bill of Rights and a reason the Constitution couldn’t be ratified without the Bill of Rights.”

“The whole point of the amendment is to restrict the government,” said attorney Jonathan Albano of Bingham McCutchen in Boston, a First Amendment specialist and activist with the ACLU. However, he said that “very fuzzy lines” separate the preservation of an individual’s First Amendment rights and the government’s responsibility to maintain law and order

“It is easy to say at one end of the spectrum that this is right and at the other end that is wrong,” said Albano. “But once you get away from the extremes it gets very hard to figure out what the right balance is.”



Albano explained that while the right to protest cannot be restricted based on subject matter, it can be restricted based on time, place, and the manner of the protest. In the case of Occupy Boston, the line between the two restrictions blurs, he said. On the one hand, the location of the protest in Dewey Square is an issue of place, and the overnight camping is an issue of manner. On the other hand, Occupy Boston lawyers argue that the place at the feet of the city’s Financial District is a necessary component of their protest, and the overnight occupation defines their protest.

These arguments could be applied to the other Occupy protests around the country. Whatever happens in Boston in the coming weeks will set a legal precedent that will likely inform how other occupations are addressed in the future.

The organizers of Occupy Boston made a decision when they first settled in Dewey Square to ignore the permitting process established by the city. One organizer told a small group that first night, “We are a permitless society. We are illegally taking this public space for our protest.”

Occupy Boston attorneys have argued in court documents filed in support of the injunction that despite the lack of a permit, the group’s permitless presence in Dewey Square is in itself a form of protest and is protected under freedom of assembly.

http://www.newenglandpost.com/2011/11/21/occupy-boston-sets-stage-legal-tug-war-assemble/


Not a settled issue.

I can see both sides.

The "Occupy" protesters clearly did have a political goal, and clearly their actions do constitute a political act. And they were peaceful.

So on that score, I sympathize.

But when you can get Oakland pissed off at you -- yes Oakland, which tolerates basically anything, and hates police-- its clear that some line of public nuisance has been crossed.

Loser
12-08-2011, 07:15 PM
http://forums.techguy.org/attachments/113072d1186613443/korean-protester.jpg


This ones better :lol:

http://i.imgur.com/9pxTK.jpg

JoeyB
12-08-2011, 08:43 PM
The local police aren't a tool of Congress. Just sayin'.

No, but they were being tools.


The law has to keep that fear factor in place... We dont need any Egyptian shit happening around here because people think the cops are a joke..

Wow, no...dude...police are not meant to be stormtroopers spreading fear and maintaining order through intimidation and violence.

Muddy
12-08-2011, 08:59 PM
No, but they were being tools.



Wow, no...dude...police are not meant to be stormtroopers spreading fear and maintaining order through intimidation and violence.

Sometimes you have to bud... These occupy losers need to shit or get off the pot... Enough is enough... You can just take the public squares hostage for an indeterminate amount of time and not even have a fucking goal in place...