Occupy leaders arrested for plot to blow up bridge

[lilpixieofterror]

Nevertheless, my question remains -- who (if anyone) gave this guy the authority?

The fact the signed a lease for the Occupy movement, in their name right there says he was in some sort of leadership positions. Companies, groups, protester groups, etc do not give just anybody that authority.

That's why I think we need to follow the money.

Of course, but why did they let him sign the lease if he was not in any sort of position of leadership? As I pointed out above, it is almost always a yes.

I agree with you 100% -- which is why I want to know -- did anyone give this guy the authority, or did he claim it for himself?

I think following the money would provide a clear answer to that question.

Does the Occupy movement lease the property? Yes. Did they have his name on the lease? Yes. Did they make any move to have his name released or issue any sort of public statement that was not nor ever was part of the occupy leadership or at least in some sort of position among them before this event? Nope. Again, the norm is that anybody who signs a lease in the name of any group or leases a property for them to use are usually among their leadership or at the very least, close to their leadership. Does this necessarily mean that most people of the OWS movement are plotting to blow up something? No and I don't think the evidence is there for it, but does case show some poor judgement on their part? Oh yeah, although I still think ranting about the evils of rich corporations is pretty darn funny and ironic while running a facebook page (which is owned by a billionaire), posting from their iPhones (which also is a billion dollar company owned by the rich), and using the network of AT&T or Verizon while doing this makes them look worse then any of this does...

[Nathan Poe]

The fact the signed a lease for the Occupy movement, in their name right there says he was in some sort of leadership positions.

But as I said, I could sign a lease in the name of the Martian Empire, if I so chose -- doesn't make me a legitimate member, let alone a leader.

Companies, groups, protester groups, etc do not give just anybody that authority.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to find out who in the group gave him the authority. Do we know who?

Of course, but why did they let him sign the lease if he was not in any sort of position of leadership?

"They" who? I admit, I'm not really unaware of the hierarchy of OWS, so I'm not sure who "they" specifically are. Clearly someone higher up in the leadership structure delegated authority to this guy; we should at least have a general idea who.

As I pointed out above, it is almost always a yes.

Then it should be easy enough to find out who this guy reports to.

Does the Occupy movement lease the property? Yes. Did they have his name on the lease? Yes. Did they make any move to have his name released or issue any sort of public statement that was not nor ever was part of the occupy leadership or at least in some sort of position among them before this event? Nope. Again, the norm is that anybody who signs a lease in the name of any group or leases a property for them to use are usually among their leadership or at the very least, close to their leadership. Does this necessarily mean that most people of the OWS movement are plotting to blow up something? No and I don't think the evidence is there for it, but does case show some poor judgement on their part? Oh yeah, although I still think ranting about the evils of rich corporations is pretty darn funny and ironic while running a facebook page (which is owned by a billionaire), posting from their iPhones (which also is a billion dollar company owned by the rich), and using the network of AT&T or Verizon while doing this makes them look worse then any of this does...

I agree on many counts -- the OWS "official" position is erratic and riddled with inconsistencies. I just wonder why their leaders didn't spot such inconsistencies beforehand.

[Nathan Poe]

But remember all the special, protective rape-free zone tents they put up at the Tea Party rallies because of all the sexual assaults taking place.

What? You don't remember them? Oh yeah. That's right. That took place at the occupy protests. My bad.

Were you expecting a need for rape-free zones at Tea Party rallies? I wasn't.

For starters, I've never known a Tea Party rally to carry on overnight, or for its members to be away from home for any extended length of time. And when the Tea Partiers do rally, they do so with the permission and protection of the police forces which they depend on and obey. The go where the police tell them to, they follow instructions, and when told to disperse, they do so.

I'm sure the police blotters after a TP rally are full of various minor incidents and scuffles; nothing to get in a twist over (happens at any demonstration; always a couple of bad apples in any bunch), but they're dealt with -- eliminating the need for the ralliers to police themselves.

The TPers' methods of civil obedience tend to be a lot more police-friendly than OWS' choice of civil disobedience.

[Cow Poke]

Were you expecting a need for rape-free zones at Tea Party rallies? I wasn't.

He was being facetious. He was being Rogue!

For starters, I've never known a Tea Party rally to carry on overnight, or for its members to be away from home for any extended length of time.

Cause they've got to get up and go to WORK or CHURCH the next day!

And when the Tea Partiers do rally, they do so with the permission and protection of the police forces which they depend on and obey. The go where the police tell them to, they follow instructions, and when told to disperse, they do so.

And they make a point of doing this.

I'm sure the police blotters after a TP rally are full of various minor incidents and scuffles; nothing to get in a twist over (happens at any demonstration; always a couple of bad apples in any bunch), but they're dealt with -- eliminating the need for the ralliers to police themselves.

I disagree. To assume that "scuffles" happen at "every demonstration" is, IMO, a bit much. The TP crowd even makes sure the parking lots or venues are picked up and neat and clean. The old "leave the place cleaner than you found it" mantra.

The TPers' methods of civil obedience tend to be a lot more police-friendly than OWS' choice of civil disobedience.

What are they disobeying? The get permits to exercise their first amendment rights, they obey the law --- I agree on the "police-friendly", but what are they disobeying?

[Nathan Poe]

He was being facetious. He was being Rogue!

Well, that's one way to put it; we'll go with that.

Cause they've got to get up and go to WORK or CHURCH the next day!

Exactly! Priorities...

And they make a point of doing this.

And the police protect them in return.

I disagree. To assume that "scuffles" happen at "every demonstration" is, IMO, a bit much. The TP crowd even makes sure the parking lots or venues are picked up and neat and clean. The old "leave the place cleaner than you found it" mantra.

And I'm glad to hear it -- But let's not pretend that every single TPer who attends a rally follows the rules to the letter.

In any case, please understand that when I say "scuffles," I'm not talking about violent clashes or arrests, but incidents which could result in such if they're not properly defused -- these kind of incidents happen all the time, and the reason you don't know about them is precisely because the police are doing their job.

For example -- Two guys trying to get a view of the speaker. Someone accidentally elbows someone else; vioces get raised, people get angry... and a cop steps in and warns them both to cool off. Potential problem averted, and now our would-be fighters, as well as everyone else in the vicinity, knows to behave themselves... because they're being watched.

I stand by my statement -- Happens all the time.

What are they disobeying? The get permits to exercise their first amendment rights, they obey the law --- I agree on the "police-friendly", but what are they disobeying?

They're not disobeying anything. That wasn't a typo -- I said "civil obedience" because I meant it. Thought it would make a good parallel to the OWS "civil disobedience."

[Chrawnus]

Civil disobedience seem like a weird euphemism for all the misconduct perpetrated at the OWS camps.

[Cerebrum123]

Civil disobedience seem like a weird euphemism for all the misconduct perpetrated at the OWS camps.

Yeah, I think the words "mob behavior" are a better description.

[Cow Poke]

And the police protect them in return.

No, actually, they do it because it's their job. (I used to BE one. "to protect and to serve" - regardless of the level of cooperation you get)

And I'm glad to hear it -- But let's not pretend that every single TPer who attends a rally follows the rules to the letter.

Don't you think, with as much scrutiny as there is, that if one of them DID screw up, we'd hear about it? After all, the media even reported racist signs that they can't prove actually happened!

In any case, please understand that when I say "scuffles," I'm not talking about violent clashes or arrests, but incidents which could result in such if they're not properly defused -- these kind of incidents happen all the time, and the reason you don't know about them is precisely because the police are doing their job.

If they're properly defused, they don't make it to the police blotters. Cops don't like paperwork just for the sake of paperwork. I used to LOVE it when I had a shift that I could end by writing "NTR" on my shift report. (Nothing to Report)

For example -- Two guys trying to get a view of the speaker. Someone accidentally elbows someone else; vioces get raised, people get angry... and a cop steps in and warns them both to cool off.

Plausible, possibly... likely? I think not.

Potential problem averted, and now our would-be fighters, as well as everyone else in the vicinity, knows to behave themselves... because they're being watched.

And, such incident, if it happened, and were addressed as you describe it, never appears on a police blotter. Except, perhaps, in a tiny town where they NEED "excitement" on their blotters.

I stand by my statement -- Happens all the time.

I stand by my statement -- such petty nonsense does NOT "fill police blotters".

They're not disobeying anything. That wasn't a typo -- I said "civil obedience" because I meant it. Thought it would make a good parallel to the OWS "civil disobedience."

A rather FORCED "parallel", since they're not disobeying ANYthing!

[rogue06]

Were you expecting a need for rape-free zones at Tea Party rallies? I wasn't.

But you were expecting them at OWS protests? IIRC at least one of the rapes (perhaps in Dallas or Baltimore -- going from memory here) was in the middle of the day.

And when the Tea Partiers do rally, they do so with the permission and protection of the police forces which they depend on and obey. The go where the police tell them to, they follow instructions, and when told to disperse, they do so.

Well go figure.

I'm sure the police blotters after a TP rally are full of various minor incidents and scuffles; nothing to get in a twist over

Not to mention the occasional murder.

but they're dealt with -- eliminating the need for the ralliers to police themselves.

Like the one rapist in New York who was merely chased off by a crowding chanting at him because they didn't want the police involved? I'm sure his next victim will be thrilled with their decision.

[rogue06]

Civil disobedience seem like a weird euphemism for all the misconduct perpetrated at the OWS camps.

Yeah I don't think it was what Gandhi or MLK would have endorsed.

[Nathan Poe]

If they're properly defused, they don't make it to the police blotters. Cops don't like paperwork just for the sake of paperwork. I used to LOVE it when I had a shift that I could end by writing "NTR" on my shift report. (Nothing to Report)

And, such incident, if it happened, and were addressed as you describe it, never appears on a police blotter. Except, perhaps, in a tiny town where they NEED "excitement" on their blotters.

It would appear that we''ve both been a touch too literal.

[Cow Poke]

It would appear that we''ve both been a touch too literal.

Do tell. Where have I been "too literal"?

[RumTumTugger]

It's only a double standard if it's the same people doing both things. I've known that both groups -- TPers and OWS -- have an unfortunate tendency to attract the occasional whacko.

And the same people are doing both. calling the Teaparty a raciest organization because a few whackos joined the movement but are not in leader positions saying that OWS is not a terriost organization because of a few wackos who some how rose enough in the leadership to lease a warehouse in the OWS name. NP please read what LIlpixe commenting on she is right they are holding a double standard. that sounds like same people doing both to me.

[JimL]

Then WHY DID YOU ASK, you crazy JACKWAGON!



I think YOU didn't know, and when we skeweled you on it, it was embarrassing! ** Pay no attention to those men molesting those women in the tents at the OWS rally **

Tissue?

I know full well who they are, and the point is that it doesn't matter. Adbusters did not organize and is not orchestrating the Occupy movement. The Tea Party on the other hand is organized, funded, and orchestrated, or in other words manipulated by outside forces whose agendas are kept hidden from their naive recruits. I asked because lilpixie brought it up infering that they had some leadership role within the movement. They don't.

[RumTumTugger]

I know full well who they are, and the point is that it doesn't matter. Adbusters did not organize and is not orchestrating the Occupy movement. The Tea Party on the other hand is organized, funded, and orchestrated, or in other words manipulated by outside forces whose agendas are kept hidden from their naive recruits. I asked because lilpixie brought it up infering that they had some leadership role within the movement. They don't.

the ows recruits(I don't know what we are against but i'm protesting it anyway crowd?) not naive? and to have a clear message of holding those in office to their sworn word of protecting and following the Constitution , less government in private lives? Sorry JimL the one who is naive here isn't the one who has decided to make up thier own mind with all the information at hand not just the Liberals are always right conservatives wrong message that comes out of the liberal MSM chooses to disseminate.