Hey, there! Log in / Register

Police move in, shut down one camp, arrest dozens

Arrest at Occupy BostonArrest. Photo by Jtpouliot. Copyright Jtpouliot.

Boston Police moved into the new encampment on the Greenway around 1:20 a.m., giving protesters five minutes to retreat back to the original encampment closer to South Station or get arrested. They didn't move, and the police, who had been massing around the encampment since the previous evening, kept their word. Jtpouliot was there to record the arrests. Scott Eisen also took photos. An arrest photo. Open Media Boston posted photos as well.

Police Commissioner Ed Davis says anarchists, not a harrumphing mayor, forced his hand today (Ed. historical note: Anarchists were originally blamed for the Great Molasses Disaster as well; as we now know, the tank exploded due to corporate greed - an executive ignored warnings the tank was leaking).

Mayor Menino told WBUR that "enough's enough," and the protesters had stopped being respectful. "There's a lot of other folks living in Boston" and they have rights too, he said, adding he actually agrees with the protesters on many of their issues related to the economy.

Open Media Boston reports more than 100 arrests. The Suffolk County District Attorney's office, however, reports that so far only 45 people have been scheduled for arraignment in Boston Municipal Court over the next three days - including one protester arrested at an earlier demonstration at the Charlestown Bridge.

Removing tents, Boston style. Photo by Open Media Boston.Removing tents, Boston style. Photo by Open Media Boston. Creative Commons license.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Ed Davis is a liar. He's created this "anarchist takeover" to try to sway the media. Notice he doesn't mention the veterans beaten up or the medics trying to help the hurt being arrested. When we said the world was watching, we weren't lying, did you think we were? Davis, your time is done. We don't respect or believe you anymore, sorry. Menino, don't expect another re-election.

You guys aren't protecting the people.

up
Voting closed 0

Granted, it's still early, but I've yet to see any photos or video showing beatings (protesters face down on the ground, yes, but that's not the same). Am I just not looking in the right places?

up
Voting closed 0

At about 15 seconds: Guy sort of rushes up to police with a large flag and one cop pushes him back:

up
Voting closed 0

The greenway website states the park closes at 11pm. If you want to congregate you need a permit. There is a link on the website to get one. How could they make it any easier? They claim Menino said they didn't need a permit? I don't believe it. Get one anyway to be on the safe side. Since when do politicians tell the truth? Cover all your bases. The cops warned them to move somewhere else and they did not. I have no sympathy for them.

up
Voting closed 0

Need permits.

The right of the people to free assembly shall not be infringed upon. The park is also private property and they had the blessing of the people in charge of it. What rights do the police have to remove them from the property?

Either way, this just became much more of a headache for Menino and the police. It amuses me that, in the end, they couldn't show restraint. Their power must be projected, or they, lose it or something.

This is only going to fuel on the 99%'ers.

And hopefully it's the start primary against Mumbles. Listening to him on the news yesterday was shameful.

up
Voting closed 0

1) "No, Organized Events Need Permits," as written, contradicts your sentiment. I believe you meant to say, "No organized events need permits." That comma means something.
2) The park is *not* private property:

Who owns the Greenway?

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation owns the land and operates the highway beneath the Greenway. On August 11, 2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed legislation giving the Greenway Conservancy responsibility to maintain, program, improve, and manage the Greenway. The Conservancy has a lease with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

3) The right to assembly afforded by the Constitution does not extend the right to assemble wherever the hell you'd like to do it. Menino, as much as I don't like his politics, was well within his power to remove protesters from an area. And good for him for preserving a *public* investment in green land.

The real problem here is the erosion of personal responsibility. One-hundred percent of the "99%'ers" seem to believe that it is the responsibility of our society and economy to ensure their future well-being. I've heard repeated arguments from this group about "I have education debt I can't pay off" or "I can't find a job."

Who forced you to take on this debt? Why not market yourself better in order to find a job? What exactly are you looking for the government/corporations to do for you?

Try to recall your history lessons. Did the Irish or Italian immigrants (or any other nationality for that matter) of the early 1900's complain about this nonsense? Of course not - they worked hard to make something of themselves and something of this country. This concept even extends into today. How many recent immigrants do you see at these Occupy events? Almost none. Why? Because they are either looking for a job, or working that job, thankful to be here.

So, if you are protesting poor ethical decisions by the top brass in corporate America, then perhaps I support that. I'm not sure what protesting will do about it, but go crazy (and not in a way that is a nuisance towards others). However, approaching the problems of this economy with a sense of entitlement just undermines any argument you ever had and, frankly, makes you look stupid.

up
Voting closed 0

One-hundred percent of the "99%'ers" seem to believe that it is the responsibility of our society and economy to ensure their future well-being. I've heard repeated arguments from this group about "I have education debt I can't pay off" or "I can't find a job."

Actually:

"They are acting to secure conservative aims of re-balancing a society that is becoming dangerously unmoored and increasingly bent asunder." Why? Because it reasonably identifies a truth about today's Conservative/Liberal political environment - that many on the Liberal side of the political equation are often quite philosophically conservative. And that today's "conservatives" are anything but.

The thing is regulation protecting the middle class have been destroyed, while legislation giving huge write offs to special interests, corporations, and businesses partners have been written to give away taxpayer money.

Apparently wanted a meritocracy and capitalism back is now akin to wanting a handout? No one wants a handout, they want a level playing field.

I find it amusing that your hard working immigrant story makes no reference to assembly, or even the thing that gave them the political power to take concessions from the powers at be at the time; Unions.

Anyways, I've seen it. Corporation hiring "interns" and giving them full desks. Corporations hiring "temps" and getting away with not paying them a full wage and benefits because of a loophole. Corporations asking for a 4 year degree or masters degree, on top of 5 years experience for a entry level job; while the boomers doing the hiring have been working in the same few positions with their high school degrees.

To even have a slim chance, we're forced to shell out tens to hundreds of thousand of dollars in debt to get a education; then told to work for free to try to scrape by on $30,000 in a city where the average rent of a 2-3 bedroom (room mate) place is $700-800 a month (if you can find a "deal").

This isn't the little snowflakes complaining. Far from it. It's the rest of us trying to make a honest living; and increasingly seeing the 1% stack up a higher and higher wall for us to climb over, while they line their pockets with taxpayer and shareholder money.

up
Voting closed 0

The thing is regulation protecting the middle class have been destroyed, while legislation giving huge write offs to special interests, corporations, and businesses partners have been written to give away taxpayer money.

So then why are they protesting Bank of America? That is like beating up your younger brother because your mother gave him an undeserved allowance.

Apparently wanted a meritocracy and capitalism back is now akin to wanting a handout? No one wants a handout, they want a level playing field.

If you want capitalism, lets do what we should have done. No bailouts. Let the banks fail - others will pick up where they left off. *That* is capitalism, and, frankly, I'm all for it. But no, we had to bail out the banks because the banks *AND* many of their customers made very poor financial decisions. It does not take a degree to figure out that paying no interest on a mortgage makes poor financial sense. Is this this "merit" we should be rewarding?

I find it amusing that your hard working immigrant story makes no reference to assembly, or even the thing that gave them the political power to take concessions from the powers at be at the time; Unions.

I have no qualms with assembling - whether in protest or in a union. That is a Constitutional right. I do have a problem with protesters that destroy property, cause a public nuisance, and make unsafe conditions. This *is* what happened, so, yes, I have a problem with it.

Anyways, I've seen it. Corporation hiring "interns" and giving them full desks. Corporations hiring "temps" and getting away with not paying them a full wage and benefits because of a loophole. Corporations asking for a 4 year degree or masters degree, on top of 5 years experience for a entry level job; while the boomers doing the hiring have been working in the same few positions with their high school degrees.

Didnt you just say you wanted a meritocracy? Interns are working a job because they have expressed interest/are working towards a position in that field. That is called merit. Temps are working a job for a number of reasons - typically not because they love being an office admin or someone that does data entry. More than not, they have no interest in the job other than the fact that it pays the bills. So, these people should now be rewarded with benefits? Again, this goes back to meritocracy. As for unfair wages, there ARE regulations regarding this that DO protect the middle class - check out the office of the attorney general.

To even have a slim chance, we're forced to shell out tens to hundreds of thousand of dollars in debt to get a education; then told to work for free to try to scrape by on $30,000 in a city where the average rent of a 2-3 bedroom (room mate) place is $700-800 a month (if you can find a "deal").

No one forces you to do anything. Right now I have 2 jobs. My part-time job I work 2 days a week, it requires NO education, and I will likely pull in 20K this year doing that alone. So dont tell me there are no opportunities out there/that you need to "work for free." Nonsense. As for housing, if you dont want to pay $700/mo (again this is capitalism at work) then dont live in the city. The suburbs are much more affordable for a reason (hint: capitalism).

This isn't the little snowflakes complaining. Far from it. It's the rest of us trying to make a honest living; and increasingly seeing the 1% stack up a higher and higher wall for us to climb over, while they line their pockets with taxpayer and shareholder money.

Yes, it precisely is the little snowflakes complaining. The rest of us who ARE working to earn an honest living are doing just that: WORKING!

When the Occupy movement gets their demands straight then maybe we can take them more seriously. Until then, I hope the police continue to protect the public's investment in our infrastructure.

up
Voting closed 0

Let see, what juicy tidbit of yours to reply to, oh, how about:

"No one forces you to do anything. Right now I have 2 jobs. My part-time job I work 2 days a week, it requires NO education, and I will likely pull in 20K this year doing that alone. So dont tell me there are no opportunities out there/that you need to "work for free." Nonsense. As for housing, if you don't want to pay $700/mo (again this is capitalism at work) then don't live in the city. The suburbs are much more affordable for a reason (hint: capitalism)."

Could you please let us know what type of job you do that requires NO education, where you work only two days a week that pays you 20K a year and whether they are hiring nor not?

$700 per month to live in the city? WTF? What year are you living in? I paid $650 for a small, one room studio with a hall bathroom on the Boston/Brookline line in the mid 1980s! And living in the burbs, um, don't know where the heck you live to get that cheap of a rent but I am about 15 miles south of Boston and pay $900 bucks per month for a small, one bedroom on a busy street. And most one bedroom apartments in my area are a minimum of $1,500 per month.

You should be an inspirational speaker. I am sure the approx. 15 million unemployed folks (never mind those that have just dropped out of the system) would love to hear how they can get a job if they just tried harder.

up
Voting closed 0

No grasp of economics or capitalism, do you?

There is no universe imaginable where letting the banks fail would have produced unicorns and butterflies. A shock to the economy of that magnitude would have brought great depression levels of hurt on the American people, and the world economy. That is if not more, since we didn't have nearly as many banks as we did back then, we had 5-6 behemoths before the downturn.

Recessions and depressions tend to feed off themselves. They don't correct naturally, or rationally. Like a rock rolling down a hill, either something stops it, or it'll continue until it hits bottom. Panic is a strange thing.

The arguments from OWS are that no one was held accountable for the bailouts. The same people are making the same trades. the same CEO's and BOD's are in power. Corporate profits are their highest ever this year. Bonus too. Not one person was arrested for the kind of fraud and ponzi scheme accounting that would have a normal person locked away for life Nor is there any push to reinstate sound financial practices, or smartly break up the too big to fail banks into smaller, more manageable, and more risk adverse businesses.

That's the rub. And they are right.

But I see it's just a issue of people not being bootstrappy enough, or poor people buying things they should have left to the rich. I bet it's their fault they're not rich too, since after all, a man makes his wealth all by his own sweat.

Here's a challenge. Throw away mommy and daddies money, don't use your prior education or your networked connections, and try to start a life from scratch. Right now, the likelihood of you making it is less than 1%. The game has been rigged, and people want the playing field to be fair. That's all.

up
Voting closed 0

Welcome to reality, buddy. Do you think that 20-30 years ago everyone who graduated from college did so debt-free and was able to jump into a high-paying job and live in a trendy part of Boston? Wrong. Some were fortunate enough to have entered the right field at the right time and landed fantastic jobs. Others weren't so fortunate. That's the way life goes. Boston is a small expensive city. Don't expect to be able to live in a trendy neighborhood just because you graduated from BU and think you therefore deserve it. A lot of people are scraping by to live here and elsewhere in this economy.

up
Voting closed 0

This isn't about handouts. And anyone thinking college debt should be forgiven is a little loony. I don't want that. I want a fair chance and level playing field where I can succeed or fail depending on my own drive. People are realizing what once was the case is all but a pipe dream now.

This fight is about undue Corp influence on our politics and vice versa. It's about the playing field being stacked against citizens and small business, in the favor of the rich and powerful.

Maybe I can put it in simpler terms for the GOP in the crowd. Why are small businesses strapped with a effective tax rate of 25% plus healthcare costs; while GE, BOA, Lockheed Martin, & Exxon's effective rates are 0 (and in many circumstances, they're actually negative, taking taxpayer money)?

Part of it is the failure of the free market, the other is the failure of our government. We can't pin one or the other, like the ideologies try to; because it's both.

The free market leads to this, at the same time government getting it's hands in things it should does too. It's the same side of a coin.

BUT, the rightful role of government is protecting it's citizens. The rightful role of business is to create wealth for the citizens of the country.

Right now we're at a point where government is serving only the corporations, and the corporations are only creating wealth for the 1% and the government officials they paid off.

If the Teabaggers weren't so herp-derp about government = evil, taxes = evil, and so easily mislead, they'd realize there's quite a big of overlap and room for working together.

But they need a enemy, their fanaticism demands it.

And so everything is put in a little box, and we're left to fight with each other while the 1% sip champagne and laugh.

up
Voting closed 0

This is a flawless comment.

(Personally, I would absolutely *love* for my student loan debt, now into six figures for two degrees, to be forgiven. But I know it's not going to happen.)

up
Voting closed 0

1) You said:

"Try to recall your history lessons. Did the Irish or Italian immigrants (or any other nationality for that matter) of the early 1900's complain about this nonsense? Of course not - they worked hard to make something of themselves and something of this country."

Actually, they did, for good reason. That's when the modern American labor movement took flight, so much so that, in 1920, labor luminary Eugene V. Debs tallied nearly a million votes as the candidate for the Socialists. There were massive strikes and demonstrations (where the immigrant groups you've mentioned were very well represented) around just the sort of issues that are motivating the Occupy movement. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit the arc of history you've imagined, but it's all quite well documented. If anybody needs a history lesson, it's not the occupiers - they're following a well-established, very American tradition. It's just the case that it's a tradition you don't acknowledge, though you've almost certainly enjoyed the benefits its bestowed on all working Americans, from the 40-hour work week to workplace safety regulations and on and on.

2) The demonstrators aren't demonstrating because they believe the government owes them handouts as you've suggested here. They're organizing against undue corporate influence on our political system, from endless wars advocated by extractive industries and bloated defense contractors to bailed-out Wall Street banks that continue to hand out massive bonuses while their fellow citizens (the ones who bailed them out after fat-cat bankers put us all in a terrible jam) watch their prospects grow ever dimmer. It's odd that these people, enduring discomfort in the cold and rain for what they believe in (a thankless job) are accused of a sense of entitlement while Wall Street continues its wanton speculation and unbridled manipulation of our political system and civic institutions with the one hand and holds out the other for hundreds of billions in bail-outs. How does that even begin to make sense?

up
Voting closed 0

Try to recall your history lessons. Did the Irish or Italian immigrants (or any other nationality for that matter) of the early 1900's complain about this nonsense? Of course not - they worked hard to make something of themselves and something of this country.

I would also ask you to recall your history lessons, since your memory is clearly failing. They worked hard but they also protested their sweatshop working conditions by joining labor unions, who decreased the duration of the work week and increased wages.

up
Voting closed 0

The Conservancy's letter says that they will follow the lead of the BPD when it comes to public safety.

Personally I think they've been more than restrained and the group should have a) gotten a permit and b) should be removed each evening at 11 pm and not allowed back until 7 am - the operating hours of the park.

And I'm one of the "99%" and like most of us for all I care these punks can go jump in the harbor. Want a decent job - they are hiring by the thousands in North Dakota. The BPD is having trouble getting recruits. Nurses are in short supply throughout the country - we are literally importing them from the Philippines and other countries - all these jobs pay quite well - mid level career with OT/ detail etc you are looking at about 6 figures. According to CNBC there are 3.2 million unfilled jobs in the country - but there's a mismatch of skills and geography. Get some training and move if you have to.

And this'll make them happy - apparently Bloomberg says there will be 10,000 fewer Wall Street jobs in NY next year. Wonder who's gonna pay for all the teachers and the $2 million and counting public safety bill the Occupados are racking up in NY.

Boo hoo - I played the game and didn't get a trophy. In the real world only winners get the trophies kids. Take some advice from Knute Rockne - stop yer whining and get out there and play like winners. That is - stop acting like the 2011 Red Sox.

up
Voting closed 0

The Conservancy's letter says that they will follow the lead of the BPD when it comes to public safety.

However, they weren't removed from the second camp due to public safety issues. They were removed because they were standing on fresh grass.

up
Voting closed 0

That's part of public safety too. According to one report they just dumped $150k of work into that area - we don't need a second mudpit like the one they are creating where they are.

up
Voting closed 0

It's good to know your price of freedom is $150,000 in grass seed.

up
Voting closed 0

How much do you think the massive police operation cost?

Im going to go and guess more than $150,000.

up
Voting closed 0

Kind of reminds me of another time when an older man charged at someone younger and in better shape and got thrown to the ground. Pedro-Zimmer circa 2003?. It seems to me like the fault lies with the man, holding a flag, running at the police officers. What would we have them do?

up
Voting closed 0

That's police Supt. William Evans giving protesters one last warning. At around 1:50, you can see one protester forced to the ground and another one either pulled to the ground or falling as he's being pulled:

up
Voting closed 0

good riddance. It's only a shame that daddy will be bailing them all out today.

Anyone else find it highly ironic that the "poor oppressed 99%" were livestreaming from a room in the cushy Intercontinental Hotel?

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, it's horrible when people exercise their right to peaceably assemble and protest what they believe to be unfair. They should be beaten for disagreeing with you.

up
Voting closed 0

There are elections held for many positions.

up
Voting closed 0

The US Senate spent three days last week engaging in procedural manouvers over a Chinese currency bill. There was no discussion of the merits of the bill - just two sides trying to undermine eachother with esoteric rules.

So when you say "run for office" if you want change is this what you mean? Office holders are no longer able to assert any real power in the legislature - yet democracy continues on the streets and in the parks.

up
Voting closed 0

Only 37% of eligible voters voted in 2010, and look at the congress we got. Arguable one of the worst in history.

Low turnout means the worst of the worst find it very easy to put together small constituencies and get voted in.

Voting matters. People need to learn it's a 2 year thing, not every 4 years. We also need to strive to get more voices into the pool, and more people registered. You can't be a narrow focused, filibustering fool when you have to answer to a bunch of different constituencies that voted you in. You have to be conservatively moderate in your governance.

It's also reason #1 why the teahadists and corporatists are trying desperately to undermined easy, fair, and fast voting around the nation. Shrinking the voter pool is very, very good to their prospects.

up
Voting closed 0

Office holders are no longer able to assert any real power in the legislature - yet democracy continues on the streets and in the parks.

Officeholders can assert as much power as they have at their disposal. Whether they choose to do so is up to them.

Just because some current officeholders are not doing what you might wish, that does not mean that somebody else will not be effective. Electing somebody who feels as you do is still the most effective lawful way to bring about change in a democratic republic.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

While we wait for 5 more years to go by for those that were just inducted to the Senate in 2010, the other lawful means of bringing about change in a democratic republic is to let your representative know that they aren't representing you accurately any more. When letters and phone calls go ignored, the next best option left to the people is outward demonstration.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously? There's an elected official that make you develop a more nuanced and intelligent position that doesn't agree with anybody, but factors in the objects and positions of others and addresses those in a sane, polite and intelligent manner, instead of mindlessly complaining and attempting to dismiss those who disagree with you?

Who the hell is this guy and what's his job?

up
Voting closed 0

It was nice for the city to let the little boys and girls have a camp out on the city's dime for so long, but the fun had to end.

For the homeless and drunk - my heart goes out to you.

To the aged and unemployed - you're better off going somewhere warmer or learning HTML to get a job.

To the college kids - you should be ashamed. If you are worried about jobs after college, don't study some candy ass liberal arts degtee. Also arrests don't look so good.

For the rest of you hipsters, hard to take the 'we are the 99%' seriously when you are tweeting from your 2000$ macbook.

up
Voting closed 0

"To the aged and unemployed - you're better off going somewhere warmer or learning HTML to get a job."

Just Wow.

up
Voting closed 0

what the GOP really believes.

up
Voting closed 0

actually, there is a glut of just such as plumber, electrition, welder, etc. In all seriousness, why can't people train for these jobs we desperately need people to do?

up
Voting closed 0

Finally somebody brought it up!
We are 99% is just run by bunch of hipster with some hapless hangalongs.

You want change? There is a process for that - VOTE!!! When voter participation is over 75% - complain then.

Effin losers.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a shame that Boston is the first city to crackdown on and clear out the protesters. What would Sam Adams say?

Tommy could not control himself from exerting authority, because we all know that nothing happens in Boston without Tommy's personal permission. Everything is personal with Tommy.

What were they arrested for? "Unlawful assembly?" Right, and the taxpayers of Boston will be paying legal fees and damages for the civil rights violations.

Please spare me the "taking up public space" argument - that end of the expanse of the Greenway is empty except for the occasional stroller.

up
Voting closed 0

If the protesters had circled the Filene's Hole in Downtown Crossing, would they have been left alone there? The city doesn't seem to care about anything that happens over there...

up
Voting closed 0

I don't seen anyone showing up there to protest the welfare families, the drugs being sold on street corners, etc.

Also, didn't I see some of those protestors at the Whole Foods meeting in JP a couple months back?

It is important to stand up for your rights for organic produce in a latin area, and something having to do with banks.

up
Voting closed 0

Did you not read about the hundreds of arrests in NYC?

up
Voting closed 0

reprimanded the police, and it looks like all charges are going to be dropped (probably because of the headache it's going to cause).

The same will happen here, but it's a very different story with our "Mayor".

up
Voting closed 0

For working a reference to the Great Molasses Disaster into this contemporary story!

up
Voting closed 0

As Puleo writes in "Dark Tide," the tank basically burst because of corporate greed: An executive at the company that owned the tank ignored some rather explicit warnings from an engineer that it was at risk of collapsing - to the point of ordering the tank painted a brownish red to hide the molasses leaking out if it rather than spend money to fix the tank. When the thing did burst, they first tried to pin the blame on North End anarchists.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . one day this past summer- while lounging in a chair in front of the Starbucks on Commercial Street- I had a good long chat with some old timers from the North End- and I asked them if a story I heard about that disaster were true- that people who lived in the North End could smell molasses on hot summer days as late as the 1950's. The consensus was "No"- that wasn't true- there was no lingering molasses odor that lasted decades as I had heard since I was a kid.

up
Voting closed 0

Puleo's book is cool. For a fictional treatment of the era, Dennis Lehane's "The Given Day" works in the Boston Police strike and the Spanish Influenza along with the Molasses disaster. And enough real Anarchists to cause Commisioner Davis to bring back the mounted police.

up
Voting closed 0

Can I set up a tent in the Boston Common as a sign of protest against how the City treats their homeless? What if I set up the tent at Millineum Park? What if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to set up camp and protest on the Greenway? How long do you let them stay there?

It should be obvious that there comes a point where a line must be drawn for any type of protest.

up
Voting closed 0

It's in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And in Article XIX of the Massachusetts Constitution: "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer."

There's no "well, we're tired of listening to you" limitation on that right.

up
Voting closed 0

Is blocking roads when people are trying to get home peaceful? How about all of the road rage you create? Or what about the people trying to get home to see sick loved ones? Perhaps you didn't hear about the woman who delivered a baby on Rte. 93 yesterday?

What is a peaceful protest?

up
Voting closed 0

Perhaps in your rush to complain about the protest you missed the fact that it was CORPORATE GREED that caused that woman to have her kid born on the side of the highway....the highway that was shut down by officials so a MOVIE STUDIO could film on the Zakim! It had nothing to do with the protests and everything to do with the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY blocking the highway so it could film a movie.

up
Voting closed 0

And 93 is the only way into the city? Perhaps you need a map. Was it not a large number of protestors who caused the bridge between Charlestown and the North End to be shut down? Perhaps you didn't see the enormous group of protestors blocking the entire road near Bank of America at Dewey Square?

The movie filming gave advanced notice of its closing down roads? The protestors do not and simply take up residence wherever they feel entitled to do so.

up
Voting closed 0

The movie makers were making a movie... that's what they do. To call that corporate greed makes no more sense than saying that a food truck serving food (because that's what restaurants after all do) is corporate greed. And as far as "blocking" the roadway... they must have got DOT OK for that poor decision.

up
Voting closed 0

They were making a movie here in MA (instead of anywhere else) because they were able to lobby the state to put in insanely stupid tax breaks for them to locate their filming here. The morons at the State House thought "job creation". Instead the film industry just pays themselves and the stars more to shoot here. The State House heard tales of a "Hollywood East" that would be located on an old manufacturing plant...Hollywood decided it would just take the tax breaks and work out of their trucks like a location shoot. They only chose to be here, block our roads, and disrupt our lives because our state representatives were stupid enough to get bought off by MPAA/Hollywood lobbyists into the belief that they'd start a whole new industry here. They were wrong.

That's a prime example of corporate greed meets politics in today's world, my friend. Special tax breaks that only the already-wealthy can take advantage off to the detriment of the other 99% of us.

up
Voting closed 0

There's no "well, we're tired of listening to you" limitation on that right.

There are lots of limitations on our Constitutional rights. From not yelling 'fire' in a crowed theatre, to parade permits, to the people deciding what defines the words "orderly", "assemble", "probable cause", and all sorts of other words.

But let me ask you. If these people wanted to keep their tents on the greenway for 5 years you would be ok with that? What if I wanted to protest something?

up
Voting closed 0

These people have been peaceably assembling on the Greenway for a couple of weeks. Whatever the theoretical limitations on the right to assembly might be, they aren't implicated here. People either have the right to assemble or they don't.

up
Voting closed 0

And my questions aren't irrelevant. Is setting up tents and sleeping on public property a form of protest? Could you do it on the sidewalk? The Street? In front of your driveway?

There are lots of theretical limitations on the right to protest here. That is why this is happening now. There are some abortion clinics that have had protesters every day for the past 15 years in front of them and the police have never moved them along.

Why do you think they aren't letting the Greenway people do the same?

up
Voting closed 0

Because it's a large group, and large groups are BAD NEWS for politicians and police.

Pete, you might have a point while they're marching down a street, or blocking the Washington street bridge. Sitting in a park, with the parks owners blessing isn't exactly a reason to crack sculls because you need to have a show of force to put these dirty hippies in their place.

Now the taxpayers are on the hook, and the real face of the BPD and mayor are on display.

How many people were shot, murdered, or assaulted last night in the city while the mayor and his security force were focused on this non-issue?

It's becoming abundantly clear who's side Mayor Menino is on. And it ain't the majority of the residents of Boston. It's the 1%'ers up in their ivory towers mad that they'd be forced to even look at those horrible wretches below.

up
Voting closed 0

The police don't decide whether to move them off or not. If the Mayor decides to let them stay, the police look good, especially if no crimes are happening. If the mayor (or insert person who makes this decision here) decides they want them moved, then the police have to move them.

But Menino could have done this on day 1, day 7, or day 14. My question continues to be: How long is enough time to let protesters stay on public property?

And sure if the "park owners" want people to camp out on their property, then I guess the people have the right to camp out on their property.

up
Voting closed 0

My question continues to be: How long is enough time to let protesters stay on public property?

Why not ask the opposite question: How short is too short to have any meaningful protest?

What makes Day 11 of a peaceable assembly on public (as in, they are part of the public too) land any worse than Day 10, Day 1, or Hour 1?

up
Voting closed 0

because if you say 2 weeks, who is going to stop the next group that wants their 2 week protest on public property? And setting a time limit kind of defeats the right to protest.

But wouldn't you say at some point these public protests infringe on the rights of the other public people that might want to enjoy the park?

I'm not saying I have the right answer here, but don't you admit that at some point the protest has to end? Come up with a different form of protest. Spread it out to different points of the city. Get creative, but recoginze the issue of protesting too long in a public space takes away the rights of other public citizens to use that property.

But yea, I think this protest kind of jumped the shark. 2 Weeks seemed ok for this one.

up
Voting closed 0

If I want to go to a public park and need space to play volleyball, then the next guy along wants to throw a football through my court...what do we do then? Someone was there first to use the space. Well-used parks are taken as first-come, first-served all the time.

Besides, this crackdown had nothing to do with "other people wanting to use the space". It's not like someone was begging OccupyBoston to move out of the way so they could read a book on the grass at 3 AM.

The protest has to end when it accomplishes a change to whatever it is protesting against. Otherwise, what's the use of the protest? "Hey, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore...until Tuesday." "The people, united, will never be defeated...but we do go home at night to sleep, see you tomorrow at 9 AM!" Yeah, see how often that effects any real change.

up
Voting closed 0

If I want to go to a public park and need space to play volleyball, then the next guy along wants to throw a football through my court...what do we do then? Someone was there first to use the space. Well-used parks are taken as first-come, first-served all the time.

This is where common sense takes over. Pickup basketball games would be a better example though. When you go to a public court and there is a pickup game going on, there are unwritten rules that dictate who gets to keep playing or not. Usually the winner gets to stay on, and people that show up get to call the "next game" and set up their team against the winner of the game. Your volleyball example in this case would make sense if the volleyball players camped out and played volleyball 24/7 when other people might want to either play volleyball or do other things in the park.

Protests don't have rules like this, and probably shoudn't, but I think in theory there is going to be a point where a decision has to be made about how long people can stay there.

up
Voting closed 0

Did the police become the strongmen of the Mayor's office?

As far as I know the mayor can request the police to remove them, but they have no obligation to follow requests that are unlawful; which this seems it was.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd have to know the rules and regulations of the Greenway area and who has the right to be there, etc.

And the Mayor's office/City has a legal department who helps the mayor make these decisions.

up
Voting closed 0

The greenway demonstrators attempted to obtain permits to peacefully assemble on the Common, Millenium Park, City Hall Plaza, etc and were turned down each time. The city has not provided a "permit based" venue for this protest as of yet.

The protesters have a constitutional right to assemble and petition for redress of greivances but the City of Boston has not provided a sanctioned space for this activity.

up
Voting closed 0

And my questions aren't irrelevant. Is setting up tents and sleeping on public property a form of protest? Could you do it on the sidewalk? The Street? In front of your driveway?

There are lots of theretical limitations on the right to protest here. That is why this is happening now. There are some abortion clinics that have had protesters every day for the past 15 years in front of them and the police have never moved them along.

Why do you think they aren't letting the Greenway people do the same?

up
Voting closed 0

so, can my friends and i come camp out on your parents lawn for a month to protest the color they chose to paint their house?

that'd be a peaceful assembly and totally free speech right?

cause you either have the right to assemble or you don't.

up
Voting closed 0

It has been established that 1st Amendment free speech isn't w/out restriction and definition,("fire in theatrer" etc.)

But I too am confused about a post on BPDNews.com.

Know the Laws:
Unlawful Assembly
• In the event that 5 or more armed people or 10 or more people are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, the police can demand that they immediately and peaceably disperse.

Putting aside the vaguery of defining "Unlawful Assembly" as someone who is"unlawfully assembled," does anyone know the MA statute this is referring to? Why 10 people, or 5 armed people? How old is this thing?

I could see arresting protestors on trespassing, disturbing the peace, and obstruction of justice, but unlawfully assembly smells fishy here...

up
Voting closed 0

The statute (Mass. Gen. Laws c. 269, § 1) dates back to at least 1750.

It used to be 12 armed or 30 unarmed men but the statute was amended in 1965 to use the lower numbers (I'd be guessing, but that may have been a response to the Watts riot in that year).

There is no case law of which I am aware interpreting the term "unlawfully" in this statute. I would suspect that a court would hold that mere assembly cannot be unlawful; there would have to be something unlawful about the assembly (e.g., that it was violent, or blocked traffic on a public street).

There was a reference in the Globe item about some demonstrators being on a part of the Greenway which was private property. I found that slightly confusing -- isn't the Greenway public property? -- but setting that confusion aside, I suppose that an group of people trespassing on private property might be held to be "unlawfully assembled."

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not clear on the overriding goal of the "occupy this" movement, and am not sure to what extent I sympathize. But I'm very disappointed in what happened last night. Unless the protesters were trespassing on private land or harming passerby, they should be allowed to remain in place.

I don't believe free speech should be restricted to certain zones. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that the city decided it didn't want to have to expand the police presence to a larger zone of protest. The action was taken to save money, not because any laws were being broken. That's how it appears right now, but I welcome the opportunity to review counter evidence.

up
Voting closed 0

But the just of it, to me, is a return to capitalism and meritocracy.

They realize capitalism has given way to a consumerist plutocracy, and want it stopped.

The rich have systematically torn down the regulations that protected the people; while erecting back patting and pocket filling regulations in their place to steal from the majority of taxpayers.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20154360900a8970c-550wi)

up
Voting closed 0

I do? Not really. Are librarians the supreme authority on the legitimacy of a march?

up
Voting closed 0

. . . Overheard last night at the protest as I milled about to get a taste of what its all about . . . a big star with local roots is looking to do a movie on the life of General Smedley Butler. And if you don't know who that is- look him up. It's a piece of history- one of many- not talked about.

up
Voting closed 0

Protesters take over common space... the city allows it for a reasonable amount of time... the city asks them to peacefully move... they don't... people get arrested and pushed around. Is this a surprise to anyone?

This is pretty much what I expected to happen when I first heard about Occupy Boston.. At the end of it all, our country still faces the same serious issues. Was occupying common space really all that effective? What about getting involved in community, education, local government? It may not change the world overnight, but I have a feeling it'd be a better way for these young kids to spend their time.

up
Voting closed 0

Polling of the group is favorable. The news is finally following it, and thus the new cycle. It's really, really worrying some in the GOP and Teaparty; so much so they're tripping over themselves attacking them from both ends to see which one is the better message.

The birth of a movement is only the start. Find spokespersons, registering voters, and becoming a voting block are all down the line (if it makes it that far).

One thing is certain, Scott Brown should be worried. As long as you keep away from the Herald comments section, you'll find a lot of MA residents agree with these protesters. It's the same language and arguments Elizabeth Warren is making.

up
Voting closed 0

yeah because ef the rich is a hard sentiment to agree with...

up
Voting closed 0

The polls with highest approval I've found for the Occupy movement?

Fox News' website.

No kidding; when I last checked it was at 65% or so and had jumped ten percent in the last two days. Some of that could be online trolling, but as Fox News the site tends way more moderate in its polls than Fox News the Channel, it's...somewhat telling.

People seem to forget that Obama is introducing plans that two-thirds of the country likes most of. Yeah, the far ends of the spectrum may hate them for various reasons, but they appeal to the center.

up
Voting closed 0

Late last week I swung by our little Hooverville (note none of the protestors understood when I used that term) and decided to engage some of the proestors in coversation. Here are some quotes:

"My history prof is totally for this and won't mark down my grade for missing a few classes." - Future Northeastern grad(?) and fast food worker

"This isn't about you or me, it is about big corporations doing what they shouldn't, like making money and putting people to work." - Aged hipster from Somerville

"Leave me along you f#g, I'm updating my facebook status." - Suffolk university post grad

"I may not have a house or a mortgage, or know anything about real estate but forcing someone to pay back a mortgage they shouldn't have gotten in the first place is wrong. The government should either pay it, or forgive all loans, but not raise taxes or cut services." - Former Borders books cashier

"Being out here is cool like a camping trip. Also, company's are looking for people who stand out, so I am hoping the Google recruiter calls me back once they read my tweets." - Web developer who still thinks mousepads are hip

"This is why I never vote in any election, because politicans don't help." - College student who is upset that bars close at 2 am

"Are you a narc? Don't commit your hate crimes here!!" - English major at unknown college

"This is about sacrifice. My iphone died yesterday and I haven't played "Angry bords" since then. Can I borow your phone to tweet that?" - Unknown

"People need to realize we're upset about pretty much everything, and when you don't have a job and are tired of living with your parents and not paying your loans, you need to look for something to do. Why the heck would I get a job in fast food or volunteer? That's beneath me. I've got a double major in film and TV." - Angry college grad.

Its funny because its plausible!

up
Voting closed 0

Stick to "making money" guys...

up
Voting closed 0

No, actually those were all pretty much unfunny and obvious.

Good effort though.

C-

up
Voting closed 0

Funny, I swung by a rally of Republicans and found a whole lot of people who just all asked me the same thing:

"Hi, I'm a guy who wants reasonable taxation and a balance between government regulation, trending towards the hands-off, and free enterprise, and civil debate leading to compromise that achieves that action. Have you seen my political party? I swear, I left it right here."

We looked for it, but all we found was a burned out husk covered in some sort of slime with a bunch of badly spelled signs stuck to it.

Too bad, they seemed nice. I hope they can find another party.

up
Voting closed 0

Shut up.

up
Voting closed 0

Did the protesters really think they could criticize the deplorable conditions of the City of Boston owned North Washington Street Bridge, a Menino embarrassment for nearly two decades, and get away with it? No coincidence that he retaliated within hours.

up
Voting closed 0

This protest is nothing but "class warfare."

Of course, when he ran Bain Capital and wiped out hundreds of workers at American Paper and Pad company, and assorted others shops, that was Capitalism. Not class warfare.

I'd love to see these kids move their tents from Dewey Square into the lobby of the main branch of BOA.

up
Voting closed 0

They don't have the guts to park their tents at BoA. Why should they? It's all fun and cozy and adventuresome-like in their safe EMS tents with free electricity and free trash pick-up.

It's hard to be supportive of the occupyboston group when they STILL don't have a cohesive message or clear point to get across. Wall Street isn't being inconvenience by their mass protest, but Main Street is.

up
Voting closed 0

Dallas, Boston, San Fran, Atlanta, and St. Lewis.... same night, early AM when people were asleep and the media was nowhere to be found.

Prob a coincidence, but this is sure to generate more media attention.

up
Voting closed 0

And people still think they have some sort of freedom? 200 people are able to 'tie up a city'?

What a joke. "Rights trampled to keep the grass green!". That's what the headlines should say!!

up
Voting closed 0

No, basic strategy: you take action when people are least likely to start accelerating the situation. That's usually when they're sleepy. The last thing the BPD wanted was for somebody to start hucking rocks and make what was going to be ugly anyway into a nightmare.

That said, I'm sure the lack of news vans may have figured into it, but any half-way sane police force has to realize that raw photos and footage can be way more damning in the public eye than footage from news networks which will let them record a response.

up
Voting closed 0

I was there on my bike from 1:30 to 2:30 while the arrests and de-Occupation were going on. Plenty of news reporters and photographers were on the scene documenting the events.

up
Voting closed 0

Since the beginning of these protests, I have been interested in seeing what would happen when the weather becomes severely cold and foul. Any action forestalling that eventuality pisses me off aesthetically.

I think it would be instructive to see the reaction of the protesters to a change in the weather (as well as to see how much momentum the protesters might gain if their numbers did not dwindle too heavily in the snow.)

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Were sowed in Boston's local pubs and parlors. It's happened before, and it can happen again.

up
Voting closed 0

The police "show of force" was entirely self serving.

Basically, a buffet of overtime.

1:30am? What, let me guess, that's when double over-time kicks in?

The protest needs no more than 10 cops on hand at any one hand. Mobilizing every cop in the city is just an attempt to collect as much overtime as possible.

up
Voting closed 0

I also wonder if the police waited until 1:30 because by that time the T was out of service for the night, which makes it tougher to leave or arrive if you're not within walking distance or do not have a bike. It's certainly tougher for journalists to stay out that long if they're relying on the T to get home. That's one of the reasons I wasn't there.

It kills me when I hear the argument that the cops "had no choice" but use such a large number of cops. If the commissioner is not making conscientious decisions and is instead just following guidelines, then is he paid so much?

up
Voting closed 0

I agree with most of their issues too, and one of the neat things about this country is that we have the right to legally protest and express our opinions, and we should. But what bothers me is that they can sleep on the greenway. At any other time, one homeless person keeping to himself and sleeping, not trying to draw attention, will get kicked out. But we have hundreds of people creating their own tent village and makeshift streets, and they are allowed to stay?

up
Voting closed 0

If a large group of homeless decided to sit around city hall in quiet protest, I'm betting the mayor would be forced to acknowledge their qualms. The media would. And the police would have no right to kick them out.

This isn't people "staying" for something to eat, or a place to sleep; it's a group assembly to petition the government.

Political vs Personal.

At least to me, there's a big difference.

up
Voting closed 0

as seen on 6pm local WBZ TV news: a Brookline protestor went on camera and said that he was at Occupy Boston "risking his temporary safety and comfort..."
Risking his temporary comfort? What a brave soul.

up
Voting closed 0