My God, you are an idiot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

That would be great, if they would actually use them.

This has nothing to do with the content of the protests. Getting large groups of people of any type together for any reason poses safety concerns in my book. Have you ever been to a Raider game (says the Raider fan)? Or a concert. Why do they have cops at those events?

I am having enormous difficulty trying to figure out whether you want to let people shit anywhere without restriction or whether you want to arrest everyone at a Raider's game.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

He seems to mean that some one, once or maybe more than once it's not clear, took a poo where they weren't supposed to.

There was a picture a few weeks ago of a homeless-looking guy taking a dump on the side of a NYPD car. Some media sources -- perhaps one that club saw -- tied this to OWS. Others pointed out that the car was from a precinct nowhere near OWS, but the idea that lefty protesters are dirty and unclean is far too compelling to some people to get slowed down by the facts.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There was a picture a few weeks ago of a homeless-looking guy taking a dump on the side of a NYPD car. Some media sources -- perhaps one that club saw -- tied this to OWS. Others pointed out that the car was from a precinct nowhere near OWS, but the idea that lefty protesters are dirty and unclean is far too compelling to some people to get slowed down by the facts.

To be fair, some of them are dirty and unclean.

But I don't think that translates to them choosing to poop in the bushes if there is an alternative available.

Also, if This American Life is to be believed (dirty PRI hippies!), the desire to relieve themselves in the outdoors does not make them meaningfully different than your average State College partier on a Friday night.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

To be fair, some of them are dirty and unclean.

A lot of other people are dirty and unclean. Old people in nursing homes, for example, have their fair share, but you don't see that ever mentioned to delegitimize their political views. If you don't catch more than a strong whiff of the culture wars of the 60's in the media emphasis in all of this, then your nose isn't working.

[I]f This American Life is to be believed (dirty PRI hippies!), the desire to relieve themselves in the outdoors does not make them meaningfully different than your average State College partier on a Friday night.

Indeed.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Really? Why?

ETA: To clarify, why is it any different? They are assembling for the purpose of speech. I'm also no con law expert, but I don't think the legal standards would be any different in this case.

And it might not be "unreasonable" to have them move along. But it might also not accomplish anything.

Because there is more of a public safety interest in regulating the assembly of large groups of people that just pure speech/expression. Large groups of people aggregated together for whatever purpose are inherently more of a risk.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm curious about what you witnessed. You observed that the preponderance of the protesters had no interest in opposing war or sending some other political message but instead gathered for the purposes of causing mayhem? Really?

Of course it wasn't a preponderance. But it was a significant enough of a number to be concerning from a safety standpoint. They were generally running through the streets breaking shit.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You think homeless kids have health issues only under those circumstances? That can't be it.

I think it's that the "public" you have in mind when you say "public health" excludes homeless kids, prostesters, and other hooligans, drug-dealers, derelicts, etc.

Or maybe when you say "public health," you mean that such riff-raff are dirty, and should be relocated somewhere that respectable people don't have to see them.

Otherwise I can't make sense of what you mean by the words "public health."

You are being ridiculous.

I can't say this any clearer than I have. When large groups of people get together for a period of time, there is an escalated risk of bad shit happening.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

He seems to mean that some one, once or maybe more than once it's not clear, took a poo where they weren't supposed to.

This, of course, is the sort of thing that dirty hippies do, even if you provide sanitary facilities, because, well, because, um, they are dirty hippies and they like to poo where they shouldn't poo?? They want to get themselves and others sick, you see, and they want to do stuff that Fox News and the right wing spin machine can use to undermine them and stuff that gives the city a credible pretext for cracking down on them.

They are animals, after all. Who else would protest?

ETA: My office in DC was across the street from one of the many little "parks" created by the L'Enfant-planned diagonal avenues cutting through the city's grid. This particular one, like many downtown, served as a sleeping and congregating place for various homeless people, especially at night. One evening, after a long day of reviewing documents or whatever else a presumably hardworking junior Big Law associate does, I was walking past this particular park on my way home fairly late at night.

I did not notice the man squatting in the shrubberies. Well, at least not until I heard him evacuating his bowels only a few feet away from where I was on the sidewalk. It left me concerned about his diet.

I'm fairly sure he was part of the 99%.

The caricature you have of me in your mind is very amusing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Because there is more of a public safety interest in regulating the assembly of large groups of people that just pure speech/expression. Large groups of people aggregated together for whatever purpose are inherently more of a risk.

You're back to the fascist thing again?

I really don't follow why a large group -- just because of its size -- is inherently dangerous.

That is, a group of 800 nuns is no more dangerous than a group of 8 nuns, in my view.

The public safety issues change depending on what that group of people wants to do, and getting 800 to march safely across a busy street is different from getting 8 across, but it's not size alone that creates additional public safety issues.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There was a picture a few weeks ago of a homeless-looking guy taking a dump on the side of a NYPD car. Some media sources -- perhaps one that club saw -- tied this to OWS. Others pointed out that the car was from a precinct nowhere near OWS, but the idea that lefty protesters are dirty and unclean is far too compelling to some people to get slowed down by the facts.

The reports and interviews I saw were from local mom/pop merchants in SF (on Market).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Of course it wasn't a preponderance. But it was a significant enough of a number to be concerning from a safety standpoint. They were generally running through the streets breaking shit.

So they weren't "essentially an excuse for anarchist to cause trouble" then? They were a legitimate protest speckled with trouble makers?

Don't you think those two things should be dealt with differently?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

You're back to the fascist thing again?

I really don't follow while a large group -- just because of its size -- is inherently dangerous.

That is, a group of 800 nuns is no more dangerous than a group of 8 nuns, in my view.

The public safety issues change depending on what that group of people wants to do, and getting 800 to march safely across a busy street is different from getting 8 across, but it's not size alone that creates additional public safety issues.

Now I know why Sebby gets so frustrated with you. This isn't a law school exam or the LSAT and we aren't talking about nuns. I would posit that it is very rare for large groups of people to get together and there NOT to be an issue of some sort. We are animals.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Of course it wasn't a preponderance. But it was a significant enough of a number to be concerning from a safety standpoint. They were generally running through the streets breaking shit.

The cops let them run through the street breaking stuff? I have nothing against arresting someone for breaking something.

If, on the other hand, you arrest everyone on the street because several of them were breaking things, well, I have an issue. Should we arrest everyone at any investment bank where a bunch of people broke the law and did some insider trading? If your law firm or mine has someone who gets nailed for abuse of client funds, should you or I go to jail?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

So they weren't "essentially an excuse for anarchist to cause trouble" then? They were a legitimate protest speckled with trouble makers?

Don't you think those two things should be dealt with differently?

You act as if the presence of anarchist and related groups at these types of events (e.g., G8 meetings) is just a coincidence.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The cops let them run through the street breaking stuff? I have nothing against arresting someone for breaking something.

If, on the other hand, you arrest everyone on the street because several of them were breaking things, well, I have an issue. Should we arrest everyone at any investment bank where a bunch of people broke the law and did some insider trading? If your law firm or mine has someone who gets nailed for abuse of client funds, should you or I go to jail?

The cops didn't really have much of a choice. They were trying to deal with the situation, but those guys are FAST.