Occupy Los Angeles More Vigilant about Safety

Submitted by lizsavage on

Its day 42, and this blog is written from my personal POV and account of what just went down here at the occupation.

 I was down by the welcome tent, trying to figure out what other supplies were needed for the impending rain, and saw two of our peace patrol guys across the street speaking to the LAPD, there was one guy in handcuffs with them, and another standing there shouting. 

 I decided to be an observer, and stand and see what was going to transpire, and to wait to find out from our peace patrol what had happened. Instead, the man who was shouting, continued to shout at, and then aggressively approach the two officers, who were by that time shouting back at him. He threw his arms at the police, they blocked it, he tried again, and they attempted to take him into custody, he kicked away, and then tried to flee back into the occupation.

 I was not going to allow this.

I started screaming out to stop him, and his description, and chased him myself, others also gave chase. The guy ducked through the maze of tents, and tried to ditch his striped jacket near the fountain box. The occupiers caught up and gathered around him.

 I told the occupiers what I had seen. They agreed we needed to hand him over, back to the police. The police were walking away, we called the LAPD back, and surrounded the man causing trouble, and forced him into the hands of the police.

 He tried to run, we pushed him back. The police sighted him with the lazer on a stun gun, a Mexican woman who seemed confused and did not speak English jumped in front of him, we got her back into the crowd. Some other officers arrived, confused at the mob, batons drawn, I yelled to them, "No, we are handing over the guy who assaulted the officer, we pushed him out of camp and do not want him here." The officer looked relieved and turned to speak with the other officers.

 A huge crowd had gathered, confused as to what has transpired, and those of us aware of the situation tried to explain, and disperse the crowd, but we all know how people like to look at a "scene" which it truly was with multiple cop cars and two helicopters flying over spotlighting the incident.

 By the time the police helicopters left the news choppers were here. Who knows what corporate press will have to say about this, but this is a first hand account as to what happened, again, in my perspective as a witness.

 A little background on the guy who just got arrested, he we just arrested charged, and let out of jail for harassing one of our food tent volunteers. Yesterday he got out, and he was here with a LIVE chicken, which I inquired with some officers as to the municipal code, and how we could get rid of him. The volunteer put a restraining order on the man. He was here anyway. We got rid of a problem.

What made me so excited about coming to write this blog is how well our community came together, and non violently assisted the police in handling a potentially dangerous assailant. Well over 50 people gathered around him and escorted him out of camp. Thank you to everyone who helped in this. This is how we will keep our camp safe. We are ALL security.

52 Comments

suspicious post is suspicious

Submitted by Louise Belcher on

...is all I am saying.

I did not see any official post about the event she mentioned. (there might be one now, but I haven't seen it)

And her join time and the time of this post match.

If she has made other posts that dispel this pattern, I cannot search for them with this bulletin board software.

Just seems like a drive by post with no dox.

 

Fair enough..

Submitted by tovangar2 on

...about the time. But I was a lurker until the day I saw something I wanted to reply to (though for the life of me, I cannot remember what it was just now).

As to the accuracy of BellaDonna's post and whether it's firsthand or secondhand info (or just a wild rumor), we can't know until s/he explains it. Until then, I'm going to ignore it.

 

Thumbs Up to Louise

Submitted by charliehbryan on

Kudos to Louise. Especially because this seems a drive-by unconfirmed report from someone ('BellaDonna13') who cannot be bothered to return to the thread to respond to queries and questions, including a very detailed set of questions from 'tovangar2' immediately below the fold here.

Please give more info re the incident you describe.

Submitted by tovangar2 on

Did you witness the incident or hear about it secondhand or as a rumor?

Were you one of the perps or the victim?

What day was it?

Where did the incident take place?

Was it on the lawn or in a nearby street or other place?

Were there witnesses?

Who identified the perps as "Occupants" and how?

Who do you include in the description "Occupant"?

Was the victim removed by ambulance?

Did the victim receive any medical care? From whom?

Do you have the names or descriptions of the three individuals involved or of any witnesses?

Are any of those involved still at the Occupation?

If not, do you know where they went?

Could you identify them if you saw them again?

Did you inform anyone, other than by your comment here? Who?

Is there a written report? Who prepared it? Where can it be found?

Was anyone taken into custody? By whom?

Was anything said before, during or after the incident? What? By whom?

Etc., etc.

 

Thx

No, that the situation was allowed to deteriorate to that point

Submitted by tovangar2 on

...which I thought was neither "great" nor "good".

If one has a buncha "confused" cops running around the Occupation in the dark "with batons drawn" & aiming an activated taser, helicopters overhead, sweeping searchlights, "shouting" and "screaming", a "mob", etc., not to mention the fricking M$M, I don't think one can decently congratulate oneself on "being more vigilant about safety". Sounds like someone could have been injured or killed (as is always a possibility in the midst of a police action).

In my reply to FW_RickyLA (lower down on this thread) I said (omg, don't you hate it when ppl quote themselves?),

"I am angered that Frank was not removed to where he could receive help when he first showed up, acting up by thieving and harassing. Even though he endangered others, he was "protected" until OLA got fed up, realized he was beyond amateur "help", and had him arrested twice which "got rid of a problem" as one put it. There's no respect, dignity, honor or even sense, in that series of decisions, for OLA or Frank."

In other words, I'd be more inclined to put the incident in the "disasters" column, rather than under "successes".

All the more reason why all non-participants should be physically separated from OLA  asap. 

 

cryptomnesiac's picture

In the long term (and by that

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

In the long term (and by that, I mean weeks at best), the current situation is unsustainable. Some want to tough it out and change the character of the camp to something positive. I don't think it can be done. We deposited ourselves in a place surrounded by good and bad people, but good people can be skittish. We saw a dysfunctional slum gather around us into something beyond our control. It'll continue until the good people give up, then all that will be left over are lowlifes and cheerleaders for totally indiscriminate policies.

What I approve of is someone finally ejecting a dangerous, disruptive nut into the arms of "the system." We're not equipped to deal with society's problems on a microscopic scale, we don't have an alternative answer to things like detaining dangerous people.

The problem here is the police aren't taking things like this seriously. All of a sudden, they're "understanding" and hands-off, and prone to leave us to "police ourselves." In reality, they're hoping crime will destroy the movement from the inside.

But, yes, I approve of the fact that some people in camp took things seriously enough to do that—whether the police held up their end or not—instead of trying to "love" them into submission.

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

Having people like Frank at the encampment is exactly...

Submitted by tovangar2 on

...what makes it unsafe at City Hall. 

Frank was arrested and charged with harassing a volunteer

He got out of jail & despite a restraining order returned to camp with a live chicken.

With the help of the police you "got rid of a problem"

He next assaulted a police officer and came back to camp.

A scene ensued complete with "multiple cop cars and two helicopters flying over spotlighting the incident" followed by news choppers.

"Confused" LAPD officers, "with batons drawn" entered the camp.

There is some concern about what the MSM will say about the incident.

The man in question has a history of disruptive behavior and thefts at City Hall including one where he stole a bamboo pole and then physically threatened the OLA activist who chased him down to retrieve it.

The above is what happens when one is NOT vigilent about safety.

None of this helps the Movement. All of it threatens OLA's continued existence at City Hall.

Frank is obviously not getting the help he needs but has been arrested twice with cause at OLA's instigation.

Frank and other non-participants should not be at City Hall. As I've said elsewhere, only committed Movement participants are covered by Constitutional Free Speech/Assembly rights that are the legal basis to be there. Frank and other non-participants may need social services that can best be provided by professionals at other venues.

Proposals have been discussed at length in the Forums, at the GA's, etc. to confine the encampment to OLA participants only, so as to further the aims of the Movement without distraction and to protect Occupy LA's legal rights.

Unless OLA makes some decisions soon about the situation at City Hall the decisions will be made for them.

You didn't ask for my opinion, but there it is.

 

 

 

 

 

With all the bad conduct by

Submitted by poppadango on

With all the bad conduct by banks, credit unions are a much better option for keeping your money out of the hands of the banksters. Why give your money to someone who doesn’t respect you or your financial health? See what I’m talking about at learnmore.asmarterchoice.org. There’s info about making the switch, too.

FW_RickyLA's picture

WE are compassionate and caring for OUR PEOPLE!

Submitted by FW_RickyLA on

A FW is calling for volunteers who may be trained in medical aid, psychological/psychiatric aid, and first aid in general.  THIS is where our collective efforts shall truly begin to "help" those amongst us who may need the most care, understanding and help.

Perhaps this person, and YES a human being like all of us are, would have been better served by OUR referral and guidance, and "handing over" to OUR Medical/Psychological aid people, to receive the care DENIED him, and so many others for too long, way BEFORE such a "crisis" developed in the Occupy Los Angeles camp.

Let us be VIGILANT in our love, compassion, understanding and proper caring for OUR PEOPLE.....and SUPPORT the call for OccupyLA Wellness! 

PLEASE CONTACT:  wellness.ola@gmail.com

Some day the workers will take possession of your city hall, and when we do, no child will be sacrificed on the altar of profit!  Mother Jones, IWW

Wow, I do not even know if I can express how much I disagree...

Submitted by tovangar2 on

...with you.

"THIS is where our collective efforts shall truly begin to "help" those amongst us who may need the most care, understanding and help." - FW_RickyLA

I am speaking as a person who lives without minimum human dignity every day because of lack of services/too few services (I won't bore you with the details, it's no one else's business anyway). I am not interested in amateurish "help", or charity or church-lady types trying to stick band-aids on me, as all the while "our" government attacks and destroys what's left of social services. I don't want to be "adopted" or kept as some well-meaning but misguided do-gooder's "pet". I want justice.

I think the best way to seek that justice is through the Movement. If we are successful, and do not get distracted by trying to solve all of society's ills before, and ipso facto, instead of, working towards justice (believe me, one cannot do both), then we will all have respected, dignified, decent lives, with enough professional services for the most vulnerable who, without question, deserve them.

Also, by only attempting to help those who OLA happened to literally find on their doorstep, we show no solidarity with other vulnerable groups, including many children, or any of the rest of the 99% for that matter, who do not happen, by chance, to be underfoot. But maybe most importantly, we are showing zero solidarity with participating OLA activists who are somehow expected to carry on while essential equipment and materials are repeatedly stolen or trashed and, at least in the case of women activists, while undergoing a barrage of sexual harassment. Our fellow activists, and their health and safety, must take priority as we move forward towards attaining the Movement's goals.

Occupy LA or its donors cannot take on the responsibility for whatever numbers of people who somehow show up on the lawn (including increasing numbers of the 11,000 homeless). Their problems are best served for now by the many dedicated professionals at work on the Nickel and other venues. They certainly should be directed to those who might provide them with services, however scant at the present time. Frank and other vulnerable people will have to make do with what's already available for now, as I do.

Also, I would not dream of expecting hardworking social service professionals and volunteers to set up satellite operations at City Hall with their already stretched resources. If a few mental-health professionals want to join OLA, they will find plenty of clients among the OLA activists, as, among its joys, the stresses inherent in protest work can all but break the best of us and cause days of real dispair.

I am angered that Frank was not removed to where he could receive help when he first showed up, acting up by thieving and harassing. Even though he endangered others, he was "protected" until OLA got fed up, realized he was beyond amateur "help", and had him arrested twice which "got rid of a problem" as one put it. There's no respect, dignity, honor or even sense, in that series of decisions, for OLA or Frank.

I think OLA should be the sole occupants at City Hall Park, both so OLA can help advance this country towards justice for all, undistracted, and to protect our First Amendment rights to be there to do that. Misguided attempts to look after people who would better be served elsewhere is not an activity that falls under our First Amendment rights to Occupy.

OLA, I think, must focus and stay on track until the Movement's goals are reached. The OWS Movement has raised a great deal of hope around the world. We cannot, in all decency, let people down, for whatever reason.

I seem to be repeating myself an awful lot in the Forums and here, I'm sure you are all well sick of me, but I feel strongly about this subject, and so will probably continue to do so.

 

Mahayana's picture

I'm sure there are deep &

Submitted by Mahayana on

I'm sure there are deep & meaningful reasons behind your idea that it is better to harbor someone that's mentally unstable and potentially dangerous whom is being pursued by the cops. Do you care to share your rationale with us rather than just giving it a "two thumbs down"? In case you didn't notice, this is real life - not some fucking movie. Our actions - or LACK of actions have REAL consequences. Tell us what you would have done genius.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe

Finally, OLA protects the victims

Submitted by 99-kitty on

Every time there is a violent episiode reported, there is great talk about the love and understanding poured onto the perpetrator.  The victims of the violence are nowhere in the conversation.  They might get a brief mention but are basically used as a theatre prop to show how OLA can love someone who does an evil thing.  

Even this dialog is framed as protecting the camp.  There is little concern for the volunteer who was so worried that they took out a restraining order.  Where is the love, the protection and understanding for them?  

It is about time that the victims of OLA's asshole* squad got some protection, even if it is second-hand.

* http://radioornot.com/site/?p=5181

Thank you kitty...

Submitted by tovangar2 on

..for saying that. It needs to be said again & again. By showing solidarity with the perps, OLA is NOT showing solidarity with legitimate OLA activists (most especially women and families), donors and valuable peeps who have not joined with OLA because of the intolerable situation at the Occupation. Many are voting with their feet, leaving to pursue other ways to support the Movement. This is a crisis that could end OLA.

As I've said before, OLA non-participants, who do not further the Movement's goals, should not be co-camping with the Occupation on the lawn. They do not have First Amendment rights to be there. OLA is swamped by them and totally distracted from the work at hand by their presence, which endangers OLA's very legitimate First Amendment rights to Occupy. In the meantime, the Mayor, the City Council, LAPD, LAFD, Health & Safety, Sanitation, lawsuit-threatening neighbors, CCLA, etc. get ever closer to shutting down the Occupation, using the behavior of the non-participants as the excuse.

As the Mayor's office has publicly stated that,

 "we recognize that a number of the individuals who are on the lawn are not affiliated with the Occupy L.A. protest."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1105-occupy-crime-20111105,0,7765367.story

I think OLA should publicly tell the Mayor, in writing, to remove his non-OLA-affiliated guests from the City Hall lawn as a way of disassociating ourselves from the non-participants' behavior. If the letter was released to the press, it just might embarrass the Mayor into doing it (PR is all to our Tony). In any case, it would go a long way towards covering OLA's collective ass. Such a letter would be critical to any court action OLA might bring in response to a shutdown of the Occupation.

...no right unless...

Submitted by ultrarad on

I mean this as a friendly comment.

The non-participants have no right to be at the City Hall Park if they are not identifiably petitioning government for redress of grievances.    Just because anyone doesn't have the same grievances as you or I doesn't mean we can dismiss them as having no right to be there (for if we could, then anyone could argue we have no right to be there because our grievances aren't "good enough.")  BUT we are in no way compelled to associate with them by virtue of petitioning government.  Intermingling makes things logistically more difficult; to the extent that participants are segregated/can segregate themselves away from the non-participants, that makes it easier (and I've thought about the prospect of the necessity of participants forming a human chain around part of the encampment as problem non-participants are removed if that comes to pass.)

As far as asking city officials to remove non-participants, if that is done it must be done very carefully so as not to validate the same being done to participants in a different variation.  In particular, I'd advocate preceding it with a literal presentation of an actual petition of at least some OLA demands to city government.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

Good points! Thank you ultrarad :-)

Submitted by tovangar2 on

OLA does have the City Council's Resolution (acknowledging OLA's rights to be on the lawn, NOT giving OLA "permission"). Maybe we could ask the Mayor/City Council if they acknowledge other group's rights to be on the lawn. So far, we only have the quote the Mayor's office offered.

At any rate, if there are to be co-protesters with rights equal to OLA's, OLA, I think, must physically separate themselves from those groups, as you said, so as to make a clear line as to which groups are responsible for which behaviors. The smaller group (if there are only two) could take the North Lawn and the West side of CH as far as the West steps. (Separation would be great, for one thing OLA would only have to pay for portapotties for themselves & their visitors, rather than all comers.)

(You've now made me wonder, since the LAFD has said smoking must be kept to the sidewalk, are the "legalize pot" folks complying w/ that? If they think they have First Amendment rights to be at City Hall, one would think they would continue to smoke weed on the lawn as part of their protest petition.)

As for demands, the OWS declaration might serve. Otherwise, something big that the 99% agrees with should do it. Something unarguable that everyone can get behind.

"We demand that our government rein in the US citizen members of the globalized criminal class that is destroying our society/economy/environment and represent the American people by bringing those systems into balance"

(Text to be agreed upon of course. Come on peeps, ideas needed! Man, if there was ever a case of "taxation without representation", we're living it.)

Last I read (can't find the link just now), 87% of Americans agree with the basic ideas in that statement, even those who never heard of OWS. 

I would not want to get into a laundry list of demands ("end the Fed", etc), as too many disagreements come up.

Also, in the Forums, physical ID's were proposed. I recoiled from the suggestion at first, but have come to accept that wristbands might be valuable, especially after a person from another Occupation said how proud he was to sport his.

I'm tovangar2 on gmail, if you need to reach me re any of this.

Bring the fous local...

Submitted by ultrarad on

This might be an opportunity to discuss a practical yet relevant more immediate demand.  It needn't be sweeping, and doesn't preclude advancing other demands later.  Since we may want to move fast, it might be reasonable to move forward on the non-participant issue with an interim demand that doesn't fill the criteria that I'm advancing here but quickly superseding it with something that does as soon as possible.

If we are petitioning city government, it makes the most sense to ask for something consistent (as you imply) with larger OLA goals, that is within their power.  Perhaps groups and organizations that have been working for change since long before the Occupation began and which have been supporting the Occupation could provide insight.  Also, we'd be best served by researching the background of whatever we might propose.

As I've thought about a possible demand or set of demands, the contrast between Wall Street and public service comes to mind.  We may consider feeding that beast with fewer of our local tax dollars.  This is only one idea, and not necessarily the best, but what comes to mind is this:

We petition the City of Los Angeles to:

Create/increase the preference for City contracts with Tripple-bottom-line (3BL) and not-for-profit organizations.

Create guidelines in city procedures, similar to those enacted into law in other states, defining minimum 3BL standards.

If necessary, propose amendments to the city charter implementing these.

Admittedly, I know little about whether/to what extent anything like this already exists or has ever been debated.  I do know there was some talk (though not what the result was) about directing city business away from one or more banks involved in the largest number of foreclosures.  Also, it would be useful to research whether any other cities have done anything like this and if so, what the results were.

Alternatively, we might consider something directed at unemployment or foreclosures.  Here again, the comments about research and other cities' experience apply.

Don't hate me for saying this, but:

In any case, it's probably best to form a committee (don't run screaming) to produce quality proposals. And tweet this and ideas and progress as heavily as possible to perhaps cast a wider net for ideas.  As suggested above, it's entirely possible that there's something other groups have already developed that we simply need to be made aware of.

At the same time, it might be best to specify a short time-frame for proposals (hopefully more than one) to be reported back to the GA so that action on the non-participant issue doesn't effectively get delayed by this if there's no interim demand. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

idk...

Submitted by tovangar2 on

...all that sounds like it's broadening demands if anything, and anyway, it's well beyond my poor powers of research, etc.. Getting the non-participants separated from OLA asap is the primary short-term goal (in my view) so OLA is no longer blamed for, or the victim of, their behaviors. Neither of us wants that muddied. If OLA doesn't act, others will make our decisions for us.

Committees are fine, anything that moves this forward, as the whole point is to ensure that OLA is functioning and contributing at the highest level possible in support of the Movement's goals. (I would not be able to join a committee, except by video chat, etc., as physical limitations mean I cannot be at the Occupation. Two of my young-adult children are there, but I do not know if they could find the time to address this too).

I can certainly contact the other Occupations (as an individual, not an OLA rep) through their web sites, etc. I actually have sent a couple of tweets, but with no result. All Occupations are autonomous, but we face many similar challenges and it seems a pity to engage in duplicate efforts, as you said, when time and resources are so limited.

Let us know what you come up with & I'll see what I can do my end. Thx again.

 

 

Seriously, Was I just

Submitted by lizsavage on

Seriously, Was I just supposed to allow this lunatic to run into our camp, hide, and have the police storm in looking for the man who just assaulted an officer? The LAPD has been great with us, we are very lucky here, and I know they were greatful we did what we did last night.

I LIVE here and this is not the kind of thing I want in my front yard. I don't work 16 hour days to make this movement progress for people like that to destroy it all.

It also bothers me that people at the GA think community problems in camp are not thier problem, yet want to make desisions that affect those of us who do occupy full time.

Its real easy to judge from the outside. I  wish more people would come and spend some time here, and see what is getting done, which is a lot, but it is difficult to work when constantly under threat of assault by people not here for the right reasons.

We need everyone to work together, we need people to help, and this includes people who come "just for GA" if you want to claim to be involved, be INVOLVED and dont stand by and allow people to jeopardize this movement.

We are the 99%, we need to stand together. But we also need to protect ourselves, our allies, and our movement.

My words represent myself and not Occupy Los Angeles. @lizsavage on Twitter

I would have done the same thing

Submitted by Louise Belcher on

...especially if I felt threatened or knew others would be.

I witnessed people trying to love-bomb an addict who was still high that had tried to attack protesters and had stolen items from tents.  
(the people he had attacked said he had used meth and so it was assumed that was what he was on)
The victims were told they were getting security, but the person who attacked them was not thrown out because he promised to behave himself.
That is not how addiction works. 

That would NOT make me feel safer if I lived in the camp.

I was part of that too. You

Submitted by invictus99 on

I was part of that too. You missed the fact that the cops came to the camp, saw him, broke up the scuffle and decided to do nothing even though he was clearly very visibly tweaked out. The only reason we were forced into a position of not turning him over tot he cops was because the cops already did jack shit. We spent hours workign with both of the victims and the perpetrator and came to an agreement. The reason that we wanted the perpetrator to stay was because we did not feel it morally correct to accuse someone of something and not give him a fair process. Did most of us believe that he was in the wrong? Absolutely. But how can we sit here and bitch about cops not being fair, not giving us our rights and then turn around and commit the exact same offense. The 20+ people that were part of that "love bombing" held a mini GA and made the soundest decision we could given the circumstances. We had no hard blocks. The victims even acknowledged that it was handled remarkably well and we set 3-4 security volunteers on the drug abuser because he was so tweaked out we could hardly speak to him. Please make sure you state the whole picture and the entire circumstances.

 

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Howard Zinn

 

Yes, I did not see the entire event.

Submitted by Louise Belcher on

I left kind of disgusted after seeing the violent drug abuser receive positive affirmations and his victims were barely acknowledged.  If I were the victim, I would have left right then and there.  

So I did not see the police ignore the situation.   I hope someone filed a complaint so that if the drug abuser actually hurt someone in the future, the police could be held liable.

As to the victims stating it was handled remarkably well...they seemed pretty pissed at the end of the night at the bus shelter to me.

We will have to agree to disagree.  But if this is normal reaction to these events, more people will leave because they do not feel safe. 

Mahayana's picture

"The reason that we wanted

Submitted by Mahayana on

"The reason that we wanted the perpetrator to stay was because we did not feel it morally correct to accuse someone of something and not give him a fair process. Did most of us believe that he was in the wrong? Absolutely. But how can we sit here and bitch about cops not being fair, not giving us our rights and then turn around and commit the exact same offense."

Are we talking about making the desision to kick somebody off of the premises or to give them the electric chair? If most of you felt he was wrong, he should have been booted out. If you are going to waste time giving each person who does something stupid (by something stupid I mean something that is obvious to the majority of the people as an act that is threatening or violent in nature) a "fair process" then you might as well pack your bags up right now & go home. This guy was on meth. If you're not aware of just how bad meth is or never had a loved one with a meth addiction, you DO NOT want anyone on meth involved in the movement. I guarantee you, they are there to get money, find a connection, steal or do anything it takes to score some more shit. It is sad but true and this is coming from somebody that has personal experience with it. If it were my choice, OLA would have a zero tolerance policy for all drugs. (weed excluded- not a "drug" IMO)

By letting them stay, valuable time & energy is wasted on keeping them in line.

"We spent hours workign with both of the victims and the perpetrator and came to an agreement."

Their presence creates an unsafe atmosphere, driving many of the would be protesters away. They reinforce the media's and a majority of the public's negative view of the OWS movement. People seem to be so concerned about the feelings of these people who are causing problems but you are doing them an injustice by letting them stick around. Those that are there just to get high & party, would greater benefit by you kicking them out so you can get back to the ORIGINAL GOAL of taking corruption & money out of government. That homeless dude tweaked out on meth at the age of 40 probably wouldn't be in that situation had he had the opportunity to get a job that could pay for a roof over his head and food on the table. The young kids there baked out of their mind, looking for a fun time would be young activists with a coherent vision had they not given up because their government made it nearly impossible for them to get an education. Their parents can't help because they're too busy themselves trying to make ends meet. Their government has failed them, but we are here to hopefully change all of this! We cannot do it if we are distracted from the main goal. You will feel like the mean person for making them leave but if we are successful, they will thank us for it in the long run.

 

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe

I don't believe it matters if

Submitted by invictus99 on

I don't believe it matters if we are kicking someone out of camp or if we are putting someone in an electric chair. Either you agree with the idea of innocent until proven guilty (for any crime or offense) or you do not. If you actually stayed until the very end of the situation...the victims acknowledged that we handled it well and that they were very emotional at first but feel very supported by the way we handled things and let them speak. Also, let me remind you that the only reason we were forced into the situation with the drug abuser to begin with is because the LAPD literally walked away and did nothing. We were concerned that if we kicked the guy out in the state he was in, he may come back and retaliate, perhaps even with a weapon. So as a group we felt that it was safer for the camp as a whole to have 3 security guys stay with him all night into the next day. The drug abuser agreed and was actually cooperative. He expressed that what he did was wrong and that he needed help. So, again, please have all of your facts before making statements that are not true. I will forever feel that we did the right thing in this given situation.

The problem is that a lot of times the drug use is directly linked to the disenfranchisement that someone feels. While I definitely do nto think we need to be social services for everyone, we do have to recognize that these things are part of our society and by kicking them out on their ass we are doing the exact same thing society has done to them.

I propose a mediation system like I think it is Denver uses. They have a group of security and a few others that confront the person, surround them and make a decision after listening to the person speak. Another thing is, if you kick someone out they can always come back and if they are pissed off and on drugs, they could pose even more of a threat than they did before.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Howard Zinn

 

I was there until the victims left the bus shelter

Submitted by Louise Belcher on

after they gave their statements.

Maybe they discussed this further after some sleep, but when they left the shelter (while others were having a mini-meeting on the sidewalk), they were still visibly upset, and it looked more to me like they were resigned to the decision to let the violent guy remain at the camp because they were outnumbered and outvoted.

You mentioned again the police were partly responsible because they would not remove this guy.  Was a complaint filed against the officers who did not take the complaint?

That should be done in the future for a paper trail.

I spoke to both the husband

Submitted by invictus99 on

I spoke to both the husband and the wife and they were very afraid for their safety at first. I think many people were. But they also acknowledged that kicking him out of the camp in the state he was in would also be very unsafe. That was why it was important to keep an eye on him for the entire night and 3 men volunteered to do that. We encouraged people to individually file complaints if they were involved, but I'm not sure if anyone did. I did not see the incident unfortunately otherwise I would file one myself.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Howard Zinn

 

Quotes of the Day

Submitted by tovangar2 on

"...it is difficult to work when constantly under threat of assault by people not here for the right reasons."

"dont stand by and allow people to jeopardize this movement."

"We are the 99%, we need to stand together. But we also need to protect ourselves, our allies, and our movement."

  -lizsavage

 

"As to the victims stating it was handled remarkably well...they seemed pretty pissed at the end of the night at the bus shelter to me."

"But if this is normal reaction to these events, more people will leave because they do not feel safe."

- Louise Belcher 

 

 

VERY PROUD

Submitted by Tony M on

I caught the end of this episode and recorded some of it on video. It was a beautiful example of us self-policing. There was a moment of uncertainty around the time one of the officers pulled out his tazer, but we communicated with the police and everyone gradually backed into the park, diffusing the potential standoff withe LAPD. The cops grappled the man to the ground and took him away and we all went back to business as usual.

This kind of person has no place in OLA. I agree completely that OLA should only be for those who are participating in the movement (and visitors of course). I want to make this a proposal at the GA soon.

To paraphrase the slogan from the American Revolution - "No Taxation Without Representation" - I propose we should have our own new slogan:

"No Occupation Without Participation"

We could make signs and put them all over the camp.

Tony (the random Australian from the 'Demands' committee)

 

"No Occupation Without Participation"

Submitted by tovangar2 on

Brilliant!

(Tony, did you read the exchange between ultrarad & I earlier in this thread about removal of non-participants? There is also much discussion of this issue in the Forums. I think the "Occupiers Should Be Activists" thread is getting the most traffic now, out of several overlapping threads. It's in the "General Discussion" section of the Forums)

Thank you - I'll tag this

Submitted by Tony M on

Thank you - I'll tag this idea into the other threads. I think the proposal should follow the rationale that non-participants are not covered under our First Ammendment rights to assemble here with our greivances. That gives us a solid basis to challenge them with.

Tony

Great, thx so much

Submitted by tovangar2 on

I'll try to come up with some draft wording for a proposed letter to the Mayor/City Council & run it past my law-student "kid" & his professors (NOT as an OLA rep, just on my own) if anyone thinks a letter is worth pursuing. I don't know if the ACLU/NLG would want to help w/ this. It would be for the GA to decide if they wanted to approach them or other legal advisors.

Something must happen quickly as forces are gathering against OLA w/ accelerating speed. Time for OLA to stop dithering and get proactive. (I've got no patience with those buying gas masks and preparing for the "inevitable" LAPD raid.)

I'm tovangar2 on gmail if you have any ideas for a draft letter or want to reach me for any other reason. 

Greetings

Submitted by patsyyy on

I am very grateful for everyone who is involved with the Occupy Movement.  I thank you for being at the camps when I cannot be there, I go as much as I can, I also wear my wristband whereever I go. I am proud to wear it and it makes me feel good..Please do not lose focus on the important matters...We are the 99%, tell yourself that everyday, and if people are creating a disturbance or creating some problems, remember they can also be the enemy, they can be sent from who knows who. I think what you all did for the situation with the man who got arrested at the camp was the right thing to do. Now lets move on and not give them so much attention. We need to keep focus and maybe those thrill seekers or rude people wont stick around to long if they get no attention. People are going to try hard to destroy what is being accomplished, no doubt about that, we must keep together. I will continue to support the cause and join the camp as much as I can, I will take my donations and pray every day for everyone's safety, here and around the world. please wear your bracelete's.  wear them everywhere you go, show them off and maybe if someone asks what does that mean, maybe you can give them one...We are the 99% !!!!!!

Patsy

Eric_E_Jones's picture

No Such Thing As A Non-Participant

Submitted by Eric_E_Jones on

 As a native Angelino who has camped out since week one I am proud of how little assault, crime, and drug use I see here at camp. And I fully support our less active participants as they along with all the other participants are exactly what make up the 99%. 

Everyone at OLA is a participant, regardless of whether or not they frequent the GA or are involved in any committee. This type of elitist thinking needs to stop now and is doing nothing more than to fracture and fragment an already fragile movement.

Maybe those more active should do something to unite the seperate elements instead of trying to further divide them.

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."~Maurice Strong

Holding Ground

Submitted by StevenVincent on

True, holding ground is a form of participation.  I will grant you that.  I would wager that most of the talk about non-paricipation would go away if so-called non-participants were only fulfilling the function of holding the ground.  Unfortunately there seems to be the real problem that many of them are doing other things that are regarded as generally injurious to the community.  And that does need to be addressed.

Eric_E_Jones's picture

Holding Ground

Submitted by Eric_E_Jones on

Those things which "are regarded as generally injurious to the community" I view as an inescapable fact of life, This is Los Angeles, we have some of the highest crime, drug and homeless rates in the coutry, of course it was bound to manifest itself at camp. These people are part of the 99% that have been ignored and pushed to the side for too long, and now it seems those more involved with the the OLA process are trying to do the same thing.

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."~Maurice Strong

Pages