Should City Taxpayers Foot Bill for Occupy LA Damage?

[matt wade]

Thats right - let the KKK burn crosses as they see fit

Yes, let them. I don't agree with the KKK and certainly don't support them, but why shouldn't they be allowed to burn as many crosses as they wish?

 

[carpro]

If any U.S. city had any real guts they would file charges against the occupests as a criminal enterprise, due to the refusal to pay for permits, refusal to secure sanitation, conspiracy to block criminal investigations, intimidating businesses, vanalism and arson to public and private property, assaults on public workers, etc...take them to court, fine them, or put them in jail.

I find it hard to believe that even 1 person voted that the taxpayers should pay for cleaning up after these hooligans...but one did. :BangHead:

 

[righteousdude2]

I Was...

I find it hard to believe that even 1 person voted that the taxpayers should pay for cleaning up after these hooligans...but one did. :BangHead:

...Surprised too :BangHead:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The city should ban all such protests for many reasons, cleanup costs being one, and then ticket with fines those who violate the ban. There is no reason a civilized society should countenance such uncivilized behavior for any stupid interpretation of supposed 'rights' of the protestors.

This would suit modern American as constitutional liberties continue to be stripped away.

 

[NiteShift]

Should City Taxpayers Foot Bill for Occupy LA Damage?

Yes

What if this had been a Boy Scout Jamboree, and the Scouts caused millions of dollars in damages, and hundreds of them were arrested for disorderly conduct? It is very likely that the city would find somebody to sue for damages - maybe the BSA or local troop leaders, or sombody. And there would be none of this talk of Constitutional rights to tear up city property.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What if this had been a Boy Scout Jamboree, and the Scouts caused millions of dollars in damages, and hundreds of them were arrested for disorderly conduct? It is very likely that the city would find somebody to sue for damages - maybe the BSA or local troop leaders, or sombody.

In that case they could sue the Boy Scouts. Who are they going to sue in this case? There is no OWS organisation. All they could do is use CCTV and deal with anyone who committed crimes. That is actually the solution here, if there is one.

And there would be none of this talk of Constitutional rights to tear up city property.

I don't think anyone here has claimed there is a right to tear up property, but there is a right to assemble. We can't start pre-emptively prohibiting assembly because of what might happen. Deal with those who broke the law.

 

[NiteShift]

In that case they could sue the Boy Scouts. Who are they going to sue in this case? There is no OWS organisation.

If there is no organization then who are all their supporters giving money to? All over the net there are pleas to support the cause.

I don't think anyone here has claimed there is a right to tear up property, but there is a right to assemble. We can't start pre-emptively prohibiting assembly because of what might happen. Deal with those who broke the law.

And I don't think anyone here has claimed that they don't have the right to assemble.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

A poster earlier in the thread said all such protests should be banned.

 

[NiteShift]

A poster earlier in the thread said all such protests should be banned.

Ok so he did.

Still it seems disingenuous to say the Occupy groups can't be held accountable. They have committees, they plan activities, they accept funds. Yet they accept no reponsibilty.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ok so he did.

Still it seems disingenuous to say the Occupy groups can't be held accountable. They have committees, they plI an activities, they accept funds. Yet they accept no reponsibilty.

I agree, but they will make a legal claim that there is no organisation to hold accountable. I say fine the guilty parties as seen on CCTV or YouTube.

 

[Gina B]

That's what they use taxes for, so yes.

Although if they KNOW who did damages, those people should be charged. That isn't going to happen though and even if they do, it's highly unlikely that the persons responsible would have the money to pay.

Should people have the right to protest? Always.

Should they be able to get away with littering and leaving hazardous material like waste that could sicken and endanger people? No, that's illegal. On the other hand, major companies do the same thing all the time on a much larger scale and we pay for THAT. Why not go after the big players first?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That's what they use taxes for, so yes.

Although if they KNOW who did damages, those people should be charged. That isn't going to happen though and even if they do, it's highly unlikely that the persons responsible would have the money to pay.

Should people have the right to protest? Always.

Should they be able to get away with littering and leaving hazardous material like waste that could sicken and endanger people? No, that's illegal. On the other hand, major companies do the same thing all the time on a much larger scale and we pay for THAT. Why not go after the big players first?

Now that is a well thought out post.

 

[NiteShift]

Although if they KNOW who did damages, those people should be charged. That isn't going to happen though and even if they do, it's highly unlikely that the persons responsible would have the money to pay.

Klan groups are routinely held liable for million dollar settlements, and of course they don't have that kind of money either. One difference though is that Obama has said the Occupy groups should know "we are on their side".

...major companies do the same thing all the time on a much larger scale and we pay for THAT. Why not go after the big players first?

They do. SUPERFUND