D.C. Pays $1 Million to 120 Protesters

[Juristic Person]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Protest-Arrests.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

D.C. Pays $1million to Demonstrators
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 2, 2007
Filed at 1:22 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The District of Columbia has agreed to pay $1 million to about 120 protesters who were improperly rounded up by police during demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The settlement Wednesday is the largest payout to date by the city for police actions during the Sept. 27, 2002, protests.

Charles Ramsey, who was police chief at the time, initially defended the arrests but later acknowledged they were improper. Police failed to order the crowds to disperse or warn that they faced arrest.

A larger class-action lawsuit is pending, covering more than 400 people who say they were illegally arrested at Pershing Park near the White House. The city previously agreed to pay more than $640,000 to settle lawsuits filed by 14 other demonstrators who said they were illegally rounded up by police.

[gunner]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Protest-Arrests.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

D.C. Pays $1million to Demonstrators
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 2, 2007
Filed at 1:22 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The District of Columbia has agreed to pay $1 million to about 120 protesters who were improperly rounded up by police during demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The settlement Wednesday is the largest payout to date by the city for police actions during the Sept. 27, 2002, protests.

Charles Ramsey, who was police chief at the time, initially defended the arrests but later acknowledged they were improper. Police failed to order the crowds to disperse or warn that they faced arrest.

A larger class-action lawsuit is pending, covering more than 400 people who say they were illegally arrested at Pershing Park near the White House. The city previously agreed to pay more than $640,000 to settle lawsuits filed by 14 other demonstrators who said they were illegally rounded up by police.

So I guess once the order is given not to protest, any further protesting is deemed illegal and grounds for detainment, arrest, booking and fines....pretty much defines the "freedom" that our soldiers are fighting for.

[Juristic Person]

So I guess once the order is given not to protest, any further protesting is deemed illegal and grounds for detainment, arrest, booking and fines....pretty much defines the "freedom" that our soldiers are fighting for.

I see your point but I think the freedom is actually defined by the fact that these protestors can sue the government in court and be awarded a $1 million lawsuit.

I was pretty shocked that they won. I wouldn't expect such a victory against the government would happen in a police state.

[Horn]

Aha, so this is how they intend to inflate the system.

Sounds like a ripe opportunity for the unemployed.

[Akula]

So I guess what this amounts to is the government is now willing to pay some frn's to shut people up after they strip them of their freedoms. Next time they won't be so stupid and tell the dissidents to shut up before they haul them to jail. Or just simply make sure the post the "NO Protest Zone" signs prior to the arrests.

http://www.eff.org/Misc/Graphics/nsa_1984.gif

[Juristic Person]

So I guess what this amounts to is the government is now willing to pay some frn's to shut people up after they strip them of their freedoms.

I think that's a bit of an extreme assessment of what really happened.

Next time they won't be so stupid and tell the dissidents to shut up before they haul them to jail. Or just simply make sure the post the "NO Protest Zone" signs prior to the arrests.

They do post those signs, just worded a little differently.

Either "Private Property"

Or "No Trespassing"

I don't know exactly where these people were protesting. Anybody know?

[Akula]

I think that's a bit of an extreme assessment of what really happened.



What is extreme about stating what happened? They violated their rights and freedoms(arresting them for no reason), they shut them up(no more protest that day), then paid them money(1 million according to the article). Why when I say it does it make it extreme?


So I guess what this amounts to is the government is now willing to pay some frn's to shut people up after they strip them of their freedoms.

[Juristic Person]

What is extreme about stating what happened? They violated their rights and freedoms(arresting them for no reason), they shut them up(no more protest that day), then paid them money(1 million according to the article). Why when I say it does it make it extreme?

Because you are taking one case in point and applying it as a general rule.

That's why it's an extreme statement.

First of all, this happened in DC. You don't know the local statutes.

Secondly, you don't know what kind of behavior was taking place. You also don't know if they were on private property or not.

Third of all, the cops obviously messed up, likely an abuse of power and a violation of protocol. As a result, they were punished for it.

In a real police state, the "victims" would not be compensated.

[Akula]

Because you are taking one case in point and applying it as a general rule.

That's why it's an extreme statement.

First of all, this happened in DC. You don't know the local statutes.

Secondly, you don't know what kind of behavior was taking place. You also don't know if they were on private property or not.

Third of all, the cops obviously messed up, likely an abuse of power and a violation of protocol. As a result, they were punished for it.

In a real police state, the "victims" would not be compensated.

Again you failed to show how I am being extreme.

What is extreme about stating what happened? They violated their rights and freedoms(arresting them for no reason), they shut them up(no more protest that day), then paid them money(1 million according to the article). Why when I say it does it make it extreme?

Now without the stupid "what we don't know" and "what if" tantrum show me how my statement is not factual. Your making wild ass dumb assertions.

I can make wild ass assertions also:

ONE what if Bush called for the arrests.

TWO What if the protest was gonna result in the arrest of the VP???

THREE Maybe the protest was 100% legal and that is why the courts found in favor of the protesters.......Oh yes that is exactly what happened and 100% contrary to your comments above. Of course that is simply par for the course with you,. :no_ma:

[Juristic Person]

Now without the stupid "what we don't know" and "what if" tantrum show me how my statement is not factual. Your making wild ass dumb assertions.

I didn't say your statement was not factual. I said that it was a bit extreme.

Why?

Because you are taking one situation (cops arresting protesters, being found guilty in court, and compensating the "victims") and asserting it as norm by stating that the government is now arresting protesters and paying them off.

That's an extreme statement because it is clearly NOT the norm. I see people protesting everyday and they are not being arrested and paid off by the government to shut up about it.

[Merlin]

I see people protesting everyday and they are not being arrested and paid off by the government to shut up about it.

No but they are being cordoned off behind chainlink fences in free speech zones where the media, the cameras, and the general public won't see them or be aware of the protest. Only administration supporters are allowed anywhere near official events. If protesters manage to sneak in, they're quickly removed and silenced. Now that's extreme.

[creep276]

I see your point but I think the freedom is actually defined by the fact that these protestors can sue the government in court and be awarded a $1 million lawsuit.

I was pretty shocked that they won. I wouldn't expect such a victory against the government would happen in a police state.
Well, basically now you cant protest..But this punishment carries a compensation for the detainment. Bribery

[johnlvs2run]

I wouldn't expect such a victory against the government would happen in a police state.

Because you are taking one case in point and applying it as a general rule.

That's why it's an extreme statement.

:rolleyes_m:

[R MacDonald]

I see your point but I think the freedom is actually defined by the fact that these protestors can sue the government in court and be awarded a $1 million lawsuit.

I was pretty shocked that they won. I wouldn't expect such a victory against the government would happen in a police state.

OT Halo, but I was just wondering how the weather was in Quantico today?

[Akula]

Well, basically now you cant protest..But this punishment carries a compensation for the detainment. Bribery
What pisses me off is that the goon squad doesn't have to pay these reparations out of their own pockets. Instead, the taxpayer has to pay for their Gestapo tactics.
.............
http://www.clarko-bingo.com/bingo.gif

[Juristic Person]

No but they are being cordoned off behind chainlink fences in free speech zones where the media, the cameras, and the general public won't see them or be aware of the protest.

I haven't seen much of this (cordoning behind chainlink fences, etc.) On my drive home from work, I see people picketing and protesting the Iraq War several days a week. No containment, no harrassment, no arrests.

Only administration supporters are allowed anywhere near official events. If protesters manage to sneak in, they're quickly removed and silenced. Now that's extreme.

What kinds of official events are you talking about?

Peaceful assembly is a lawful demonstration.

Inciting a riot or disrupting an event is harrassment and is not lawful.

[Juristic Person]

Well, basically now you cant protest..But this punishment carries a compensation for the detainment. Bribery

Come on, Creep. That is not true at all.

Basically, you CAN protest. People protest every day in America.

[Juristic Person]

What pisses me off is that the goon squad doesn't have to pay these reparations out of their own pockets. Instead, the taxpayer has to pay for their Gestapo tactics.

Yup. Unfortunately that's how our government works. Police work for the state and are funded via taxpayer frn's.

By voluntarily being a taxpayer, you are voluntarily funding the very Gestapo that you disdain.

My recommendation is to revoke your taxpayer status.

[Merlin]

I haven't seen much of this (cordoning behind chainlink fences, etc.) On my drive home from work, I see people picketing and protesting the Iraq War several days a week.What kinds of official events are you talking about?


I can go stand on any corner in town and protest most any days of the week. But, if Bush or Cheney were in town or the RNC was meeting here, my protest would be pretty much restricted to my back yard. We're not allowed to protest on any occasion when it might be seen as an in-your-face opposition to establishment power. They will let me march up and down my empty street with my signs until hell freezes over. But they would never allow me or my signs if the media cameras were anywhere nearby. It does no good to protest if no one knows you're protesting. And it gives a false report to the world if the only images broadcast by the TV cameras are loyal supporters of power.

[johnlvs2run]

OT Halo, but I was just wondering how the weather was in Quantico today?

It worked!!!! :D

I've just iggied the first person in the several forums I'm in with this format. :wink:

And 1/2 of the messages in this thread are now gone. :haha:

[Merlin]

I've just iggied the first person in the several forums I'm in with this format. :wink:

And 1/2 of the messages in this thread are now gone. :haha:

You're right! The bull shit has disapppeared!