Hey, there! Log in / Register

Self-policing Occupy Boston

By adamg on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:21am

The Daily Free Press reports how the community is dealing with ne'er-do-wells in their midst.

Neighborhoods: 
Downtown
Topics: 
Politics
Free tagging: 
Dewey Square
Occupy Boston


Ad:


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

Comments

By polarbare on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:23am.

Removing people from a public space where they have no more authority than anyone else off the street; that's awesome.

up
Voting closed 0

By Chris Dowd on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:24pm.

- Its scary when people handle things without involving police, laws, and lawyers.

up
Voting closed 0

By anon on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:14am.

"Rainbow blockade". There's a phrase for you! How long did it take them to think of THAT? Even their terms for use of force are hackneyed and cliched.

up
Voting closed 0

By anon on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:55am.

The rainbow blockade consists of members locking arms, and proceeding foward until the blockaded party is forced out.

So from my good old days of crim law that would consist of 1) assault, 2) battery, 3) conspiracy...i'm real rusty but that sounds entirely not legal.

up
Voting closed 0

By Pete Nice on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:19am.

They just need to call it a big game of "Red Rover" and say the people who lost are no longer welcome.

up
Voting closed 0

By HenryAlan on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:57am.

I'm sorry, my respect or support for Occupy Boston Yo-Yos quite often, and this is definitely a sharp downward spin. I generally support many of the points they are trying to make, but the tactics are almost always bad. The right to occupy Dewey Square is only meaningful if it extends to all. Now that they are forcefully removing people they don't like, they have lost the moral high ground.

up
Voting closed 0

By chicken on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 12:37pm.

“The only grounds that we have so far for immediate removal are if you have a violent altercation with someone, or if you brandish a weapon,” Duncan said.

up
Voting closed 0

By Wally Brown on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 12:47pm.

Duncan said that a different process has been set up for people deemed to be habitual problem-causers, but do not fall under the grounds for immediate removal.

He said that to remove someone, a group of mediators confronts the person and then determines whether the protester can stay based upon the situation.

“We give you three strikes,” said Joseph, another protester living at Occupy Boston who asked to keep his last name anonymous. “We have to play fair. We got to do things right, but on the third strike you are history. You are banned from the camp.”

Once again bringing to question the right they have to remove another illegal squatter.

up
Voting closed 0

By chicken on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 12:55pm.

It's good to see that they are attempting to address the problem though. Too many worthwhile movements get tripped up by various scammers and criminals trying to tag along. And the police are being worthless, apparently, at doing their jobs properly. They're just tools of Menino and his fraudster buddies. Standing around making overtime pay while doing nothing.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/401180/stay-...

up
Voting closed 0

By Chris Dowd on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:58pm.

. . . its a burning question many people who are not occupying Dewey Square are concerned about. I hope the authorities do something about this because I don't like reading about it.

up
Voting closed 0

By HenryAlan on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:33pm.

If somebody is violent toward another occupier, self-defense (which can be exercised collectively) is entirely appropriate.

up
Voting closed 0

By Michael Kerpan on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 12:44pm.

...Occupation Boston's failure to police itself (even well outside the confines of the encampment)?

up
Voting closed 0

By HenryAlan on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:36pm.

In a previous discussion, I think I said something about needing to guard their material property, because they can't simply assume that a police officer will notice a laptop being removed from a tent.

What I'm talking about here is the removal of so-called problematic folks who are not behaving violently. People can and should protect their personal property and safety. That's a non-issue. People cannot decide who gets to squat and who doesn't based upon personal traits, which is what it seems to me they've proposed.

Hopefully, my position is more clear to you, now, and I don't think it's inconsistent with other statements I've made in the past.

up
Voting closed 0

By Michael Kerpan on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:47pm.

... being controlled -- but bad behavior -- drug and alcohol use, violent or abusive words (and words can be an "act") and disrepect of property.

up
Voting closed 0

By Matt, N End on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 12:55pm.

First Occupy _______ gets criticized for not doing anything about criminality in their camps, and now they get criticized for doing something about it. The hoops people are willing to jump through to justify their world view are amazing sometimes.

up
Voting closed 0

By anon² on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:31pm.

It's actually pretty easy for them. After all, anything goes when you can't let the "Enemy" win. The ends justify the means.

Jesus said that. Really, look it up!

up
Voting closed 0

By anon on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:21pm.

Oh My God Occupy Boston is morphing into the TEA Party. Well as the saying goes a Conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. I would like to know under what authority illegal squatters get to pick who stays and who goes?

up
Voting closed 0