Comment

Comment by windy windlan on October 8, 2011 at 4:30pm

It will get worse wrt police brutality. Bloomberg is saying the mass demo is hurting tourism, hurting Wall Street, and must end soon. Too much democracy cannot be tolerated in the age of fascism. As usual, we the peeps are in the way and must surrender our rights and liberties. How else can the new world order agenda proceed on schedule? If you have seen the police in action at the WTO Conference demos, then you know how far they can go.  The police are controlled by Wall Street and now are being integrated into Homeland Security. We the Peeps, the ones who publicly dissent, have FEMA camps awaiting. This is why we must not quit and the movement must grow in size and intensity. These people only respect forceful action. Words alone won't do much, but education is important.

Comment by truth on October 6, 2011 at 10:30am

Crazy isnt it Christopher?

J.P. Morgan Chase “donates” $4.6 Million to NYPD” #OccupyWallStreet

 

I support the movement either way. More than one controlled movement has been captured and retained  truly for we the people.

Comment by Gary Don Oliver on October 6, 2011 at 10:28am

The irony is that in the French Revolution, the Banksters were the first in line to have their heads chopped off after the country was set free by the revolt.  facebook.com/garydonoliver

Comment by Christopher on October 6, 2011 at 9:48am

Well; I guess the NYPD have to make good now, on that very generous contribution to 'their' cause, given by, none other than, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm?TB_if...

Comment by Andy Anduer on October 6, 2011 at 12:35am

So what lessons can we learn from the French Revolution, because that's what this is turning into?

Comment by Nota Khan on October 6, 2011 at 12:34am

"the right to PEACEFUL protest ends when it starts to interfer with MY RIGHTS,"

Oh well, then let's hope they switch to VIOLENT protests (you gonna love those)...

P.S. Don't think you have a clue about your RIGHTS (they are a LOT MORE than "right to walk a city street without interference", you streetwalker (not a typo) you! :-P

prople (not a typo) protesting something i have no business dealings with

That is so nonsensical. YOU have no business dealing with that something but the 'prople' do -- hense THEY protest. Duh! ;-)

Comment by Daniel Seigler on October 6, 2011 at 12:01am

excuse me, the 'liberal/progressives' ARE responsible for this.  i continue to point everyone's attention to the recent occurrences in Egypt, Tunisia, and Lybia, and DEMAND that if you live city in which one of these protests occur, you aid your local law enforcement in protecting your city property and insure the continued exercise of LAWFUL business without interferrence from these protests.  the right to PEACEFUL protest ends when it starts to interfer with MY RIGHTS, such as the right to  walk a city street without interference from prople (not a typo) protesting something i have no business dealings with. 

Comment by Anthony Kimbrough on October 5, 2011 at 10:57pm

Actually, those sworn to uphold the Constitution are  Committing Treason by the Law.

Comment by Andy Anduer on October 5, 2011 at 10:47pm

When the cops go against their oath, they become the criminal.

I don't remember where I got this but it sound like it could be a great help at this time. Please pass it on. 
The Right of Defence Against Unlawful Arrest

The police are to be respected and obeyed as keepers of the peace and the law of the land, the Constitution as they have sworn an oath to protect it. But what happens when the police deciede to take sides in violations of the Constitution such as  first, second, or Fourth amendment rights? Do we have a rightto defend ourselves against unlawful arrest, search and seizure?
According to the Supreme court in the case of (Plummer V. State Ind. 306) "Citizens may indeed resist arrest to the point of taking an officers life."This premise was upheld by Supreme court in that case of ( John Bad Elk v. U.S. , U.S. 529. )
The court stated " Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon upon a transaction, when the officer had the right to make rhe arrest, from what if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more that manslaughter in the other, or facts might show that no offense had been committed.
Other similar cases that involve involuntary man slaughter "HoushvPeople, 75 111.491; reaffirmed and quoted in "State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; (State v. Gleason, 32Kan. 245:) (Ballard V. State, Ohio 349;)(State v. Rousseau8, 241 P. 2d 447;)(State v. Spaulding, Minn. 3621)
When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defence, his asailant is killed, he is justified."  Runyanv. State Ind. 80;  Miller v.State, 74 Ind. 1.
"These principals apply as well as to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abused his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by use of unneccessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully useds such force and violence."(Jones V. State, 26 Tex. App. I; )(Beaverts v. State, Tex. App. I 75;  )(Skidmore v. State, 26 Tex. 93, 903 )
" An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77,72 ATL. 260)
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest in the position of a "wrong doer"and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense."(State v. Mobley, 24 N.C. 476,83 S.E.)
One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnaped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance."(Adams v. State, Ga. 16,48 S.E. 910)

" Story affirmed the right of self defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he admitted that a situation could arrise in which the checks and balances principles ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in gross usurpation." There would be no usual remedy by changing law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority.Story concluded,               "If there be any remedy at all -- it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.  ' That was the ultimate of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and toapply force against ruinous injustice."                                                                                       (From "Mutiny on the Amistad" by Howard Jones, Oxford Univerity press, 1987)An account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice

Comment by Daniel Patrick Hall on October 5, 2011 at 10:45pm

RP2012 Retro-Moneybomb Win Ron Win
www.OurName4Freedom.ws
www.YourName4Freedom.ws