There is a lot going on in C&E this week. We have the Iron Jawed Angels reflection due on Monday, a quiz on the Constitution on Tuesday and a current event due on Friday. For this week's assignment, I would like you to find an article that deals with individual rights/liberties or can be connected to any of the 27 amendments in some way. This should give you a wide range of material...anything that involves an individual person or freedoms granted (or not granted) by the government should work. Be creative in your connection to the assignment and find something that is interesting to you. I cannot wait to read your posts. :) Don't you just love the Constitution? Have a great week.
p.s. Check out the bonus assignment on founding fathers below if you want to give your grade a little boost.
Nate M. Pd. 4
ReplyDeleteBy Ashley Hayes, CNN
updated 4:57 PM EST, Sun November 13, 2011
Protesters arrested as police clear Occupy encampments
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/13/us/occupy-movement/index.html?hpt=us_c2
In Portland, Oregon, unrest continued into Sunday morning as protesters defied a midnight Saturday deadline for the Occupy encampments to close.
Tensions abated later Sunday as police attempted to peacefully close city parks, but flared at one park when protesters refused to leave. Police said on Twitter those refusing to leave Chapman Square were being arrested.
Portland police Sgt. Pete Simpson estimated Sunday afternoon that more than a dozen people were arrested. Chapman Square was the last city park where protesters were gathered, as the others had been vacated as of Sunday afternoon, he said. Meanwhile, in Salt Lake City, police said on Twitter 19 people were arrested Saturday night as authorities moved in to clear an Occupy Salt Lake encampment at a downtown park.
Police had ordered protesters to leave the park after a man was found dead late Thursday night. The cause of death was thought to be carbon monoxide poisoning and a drug overdose. In Denver, police in riot gear arrested 17 people Saturday night as they cleared furniture and tents from an Occupy encampment near the city's civic center, police spokesman Sonny Jackson told CNN. The main issue, he said, was that the items were blocking a right of way.
First of those arrests were unnecessary. The Occupy Wall Street Movement is protected by the first amendment. They have the right to assemble and petition he government. But I could see why those arrests were made, the police did the right thing for arresting those who would not leave even though they were asked to leave. It was also a good thing since there are numerous reports of sexual assault, there are threats of health problems and littering. If only the protestor followed the law there would not have been that many arrests.
Period 4
ReplyDeleteTitle: Couple Sues Airline over Cockroaches on Plane
Author: Tony Burbeck
Date: 11.11.11
Source: WCNC.com
http://www.wcnc.com/home/Couple-sues-airline-over-cockroaches-on-plane-133728938.html
Attorney Harry Marsh and fiancée Kaitlin Rush are suing Air Tran Airways after saying that their flight had cockroaches crawling in and out of the ventilation system and storage areas. The couple’s reasons for suing are negligence and recklessness, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, fraud, false imprisonment and unfair and deceptive trade; and they are suing for over 100,000 dollars plus the price of their tickets. The lawsuit alleges that the attendants were too busy to investigate and control the problem, and that other passengers eventually became aware of the bugs. Rush was very nauseous and now refuses to fly and other passengers were also in great distress. The airline claims a number of these allegations to be erroneous and says that their planes are checked regularly for bugs.
Though I agree that cockroaches are disgusting and I would feel very uncomfortable, but taking any legal action is out of line. It sounds like this couple overreacted and made some false allegations against the attendants in order to make the situation seem more serious than it really was. Although they have a legal right to sue the airlines because of the rights of the accused, they shouldn’t because it would be futile and may cause some airline employees to lose their jobs.
Sean Dawson
ReplyDelete4th period
11-14-11
“Obama Says GOP Candidates Are Wrong, Waterboarding is ‘Torture’”
yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-gop-candidates-wrong-waterboarding-torture-055753364.html
Today, Obama stated his true opinions on waterboarding. He disagreed with the Republicans, who were for waterboarding. Obama said that it is “torture.” He says that it is against what we do as Americans, and that it basically neglects our rights. He agreed that we did the right thing by ending waterboarding. Our military used it in order to get information out of prisoners. It makes you feel like you are drowning, which is why Obama considers it to be torture. He says that if we want to end terrorism and war, we need to set good examples.
I fully agree with Obama. Simulating drowning someone is absolutely torture. If we do this to prisoners, they will do the same to our troops. It is easy for someone to say waterboarding should be allowed, if it hasn’t happened to them. How would you feel to have water forced into you, just like drowning?
Eli Grobin
ReplyDelete4th Period
11-15-11
"Chapel Hill officials defend arrest tactics."
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/15/1645122/chapel-hill-officials-defend-arrest.html
by KATELYN FERRAL AND LANA DOUGLAS
This article talks about the arrests made on Sunday. It defends against claims that use of a SWAT team was unjustified. Many claim that the people were unarmed and therefor did not need to be starring down the barrels of guns. Police say that those inside the building were distributing information on how to flips a police car, break tempered glass and how to use fire to put space between you and the police.
I think that the police were more than justified in using a SWAT team and did not violate anyone's rights. Especially if the people were inciting riot, which in my opinion, they were by distributing that information. According to North Carolina General Statute Chapter 14 section 288.2 I'm pretty sure they were inciting riot. They were also breaking and entering, and trespassing as it was private property. Also their right to peaceful protest was not violated as they are not secured right to protest on privately owned property and they were not peaceful. I think that many people are blowing this out of proportion and I continue to back the Mayor and our police force.
Anna Baynes Period 4
ReplyDeleteCity Reopens Park After Protesters are evicted
James Barron and Colin Moynihan
The New York Times
Tuesday, November15, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-begin-clearing-zuccotti-park-of-protesters.html
Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, New York City was reopened to the public on Tuesday, November 15, 2011. Occupy Wall Street protesters had been camped there for two months. Police said the conditions in park had become so bad that it couldn’t be used by anyone else. The New York State Supreme Court decided that protesters could enter Zuccotti Park, but could not camp out. The judge said demonstrators “have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators and other installations”. The park was raided by the police at 1 a.m. Tuesday morning by order of Mayor Bloomberg. Police removed all the protestors including their belongings. Many protesters would not leave and about 200 people were arrested. Some protesters moved down a couple blocks and are now camping in Foley Square. This news event is important because the people of the United States are expressing their views on the financial crisis and the government cannot agree on how to solve the crisis. Citizens are becoming sick of the government’s arguments and are getting impatient. It is difficult for citizens to manage the protests, protect people’s rights and keep the public safe.
I do not think it was right for the protesters to take over Zuccotti Park because it is private. I do not have a problem with people camping out to express themselves, but if they are making a mess I think they should be removed. I think they could protest without camping out and still be effective. In class we are learning about the constitution and the different amendments. The Occupy Wall Street Movement involves the first amendment and the right to protest. It is legal to protest, but it is not legal to make a mess and camp out. I am concerned that these protests are just wasting taxpayers’ money and are not really helping the situation. It costs a lot to keep the area safe and clean. This money could instead be used for other needs within the city.
Maddie Mesaros
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Title: Tea Party, Occupy Share Similar Beginnings
Author: Alan Gomez
Source: USA Today
Date: 11/15/11
URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-14/tea-party-candidates-occupy/
51205368/1
People have started to notice a trend between protesting now and two years ago. Much like
the Tea Party, the Occupy protesting began before the elections. The Occupy protesters are angry
about inequality. Some people say they want more of a voice in the government; others are just there
for a good riot. In the US Constitution the 1st Amendment allows people to peacefully assemble and
protest, but in some areas where Occupy is there have been, to some extent, riots. "At some point,
they're going to realize that there are limits to what they can achieve with these types of
demonstrations, and a more organized form of protest will be necessary for them to get the kind of
results they hope to achieve," said Costas Panagopoulos.
I think the Occupy protesters originally had good intentions but it has gone way out of control.
Most of the people protesting don’t even know what’s going on and they want “change”. What kind of
change? If people are going to protest, they should at least know what they’re even protesting for.
Many people reportedly are protesting for more job opportunities but there are different ways to go
about this. Occupy protestors have gathered in almost every state but are just a nuisance. No one’s
sure whether the Occupiers wishes will be in the ballots for the next election, but the country has more
important things to worry about other than a group of people taking up space. I think the true
protestors should go about this a different way.
Laura Buczek
ReplyDelete4th Period
BBC News Online by BBC News
Occupy Wall Street: New York judge backs eviction
Updated: 16 November 2011 at 09:26 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15749348
Different measures are going to be taken concerning the protesters at Wall Street. Many of the protesters returned Tuesday night to the plaza, however police are now not allowing any of them to pitch tents or sleep out in the plaza. There is no official curfew for the protesters and they are starting to “discuss new plans” and keep the mood “positive”. This happened because of a raid that broke out causing police to arrest 200 protesters and some journalists. According to Michael Bloomberg this was because of “public health and safety concerns”. The court ruling allowed the protesters to come back to the park.
This news story is related to the 1st amendment, which protects among others, the right to protest and assembly. Personally, I support the protesters but agree that sometimes police have to take more drastic measures when raids break out. The 1st amendment was mentioned a lot in this article for example when Michael Bloomberg said: “The court's ruling vindicates our position that First Amendment rights do not include the right to endanger the public or infringe on the rights of others by taking over a public space with tents and tarps.” Peaceful protest and assembly are acceptable and police should not have to deal with raids which don’t help the cause at Zuccotti Park in any way. I think that it was a good idea to let the protesters come back, especially since they are attempting to keep the mood “positive”.
Sam Williams period 4
ReplyDeletePolice dismantle Oakland camp, protestors on march
Laird Harrison 11/15/2011
Reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/us-protest-oakland-idUSTRE7AD2C020111115
Oakland police have forcible moved all the protestors in Oakland after safety concerns. Kayode Ola Foster, 25, was shot and killed last Thursday, prompting the police to clear out the camp. Many protestors marched through the city, and they were allowed to return to the square as long as they did not establish a camp. After a general assembly, many protestors decided to join the movement at UC Berkeley. This comes after many police crackdowns have occurred nationwide, in Portland, Salt Lake City, Denver, and Chapel Hill.
This article talks about how the protestors are being banned from setting up camps. The protestors have the right to protest because of the first amendment, but officials say the camps are dangerous because of sanitation and murders. The city of Oakland is still allowing a separate camp to remain because it is smaller and does not have the same safety concerns. I think that the police are right to break up the camp where the conditions are unsafe, but the protesters still should be allowed to protest.
Annie Wilcosky/ Period 4
ReplyDeleteSuspect in White House shooting in court Thursday/ David Jackson
November 16, 2011
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-16/white-house-shooting-suspect-arrest/51248798/1
Oscar Ramiro Ortega was arrested today with connection to the gunshots fired at the White House last Friday at approximately 9 p.m.. The shots were fired from the intersection of 16th street and Constitution Avenue, an were stopped by ballistic glass in the windows. President Obama was in California at the time of the shooting. Ortega was stopped by police on Friday morning after reports of a suspicious person reached the police, but they found no reason to detain him. Ortega has an arrest record in three states, and did not resist arrest on Wednesday after an abandoned car and AK-47 rifle were discovered by the police.
This article deals with amendments 2 and 4, as well as 5 if Ortega refuses to testify. Our right as citizens to bear arms comes with occasional unfortunate consequences, such as this one; Ortega had a criminal past, but he still had access to weapons, and used them in an attack. When Ortega was originally stopped by the police on Friday, they could not detain him because they did not have probable cause; the fourth amendment states that people cannot be seized without a reason. Therefore, police could not take him into custody. I think that it's unfortunate that a man with a criminal past had access to a gun, and got so close to the White House with it. The diagram accompanying this article amazes me, because Ortega was able to hit the White House from so far away, and he only had a simple gun. I was also surprised by the considerable amount of time between the incident and the arrest; it seems like a shooter would be found and detained almost immediately after mounting an attack in the middle of Washington D.C.
Alex Adams
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
11/17/11
Title: “Cities face Occupy movement’s ‘mass day’
Source: CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/us/new-york-occupy/index.html?hpt=us_c1
Summary: Today, the Occupy Movement had its “Mass Day of Action”. Protestors in New York attempted to block the New York Stock Exchange and had a clash with the local police. The same story is told in occupy movements all over the country that have had recent clashes with police while exercising their first amendment rights. The overall intentions of the movement are a bit vague but they’ve made it clear that they do not support big business, money, or police. Police arrested 700 protestors last month for trying to cross a bridge and many others for assaulting an officer and making violent threats. Government officials are allowing the protests to go on as long as they stay non-violent.
Response: I don’t understand the Occupy Movement. I mean protest is great but what are you trying to gain? They point at a problem without giving a solution for it. I don’t think the movement will ever get anything done until they start providing solutions. The protestors are using their right to peaceful protest that is given to citizens in the first amendment.
Max LeMoine/period 4
ReplyDeleteStill No Deal Between Cigna and MSHA/Preston Ayres
WCYB.com/11/15/11
http://www.wcyb.com/news/29778675/detail.html?hpt=us_bn5
I read this article about Cigna dropping many doctors. Cigna is an insurance company who is paying less but other people are paying more. Many families are loosing their right to healthcare, which is something that all people should have. One family is even loosing the doctor they have been with from 17 to 18 years. Overall this is a terrible thing that should stop as soon as possible.
I think that all people should have a right to healthcare because all people have the right to remain healthy. If you are being ripped from your healthcare and have to pay triple when your only company pays half than things need to change. Finally This is a horrible thing and it is taking away the right of a human being.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle Pura/period 4
ReplyDeleteMan Charged with Obama Assassination Attempt/ David Jackson
USAToday.com/ November 17, 2011
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/white-house-shooting-directed-at-obama/1?csp=ip
Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez was formally charged of attempting to assassinate Obama. His actions were influenced by anger and hate towards the government and the especially the president. When or if Ortega- Hernandez is guilty at trial, it may be a possibility that he will serve life in prison. Today, he went to his first court appearance in the Pittsburgh where he was also arrested. During court, he was asked if he understood that he would go back to Washington to be charged.
Informing Ortega- Hernandez that he would be charged and will participate in a public trial abides by the sixth amendment. Even though he did a very violent act and attempted to murder the nation's leader, he was not instantly sentenced. Although he may be sentenced to life in prison if convicted, it is not an unusual punishment especially since he was informed beforehand.
Justine Lockhart
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
11/17/11
Occupy Wall Street: A Lesson On An 'Organic Movement'
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/17/142473380/occupy-wall-street-a-lesson-on-an-organic-movement?ft=1&f=1001
NPR
The Occupy Wall street movement has been going on for a little while, recently. This movement is for individuals' rights and a more "organic" government/democracy. Some of the individual rights the protestors mentioned in the article included demands for good jobs and free college tuition. During mid-afternoon today the tension between protestors and police officers boiled over. The police felt it was getting out of hand, but the protestors responded against them. The crowd erupted and chanted louder and revolted against the police, taking the protest to the next level. However, the chaos was stopped from a voice of reason, 29 year old Lady Millard. "We need to remain peaceful. The police are our friends. They do not want to hurt us." She insisted.
Without the first amendment that gives us basic freedom such as freedom of speech, this Occupy Wall Street event would not be allowed. I think it's great that we have the right to protest and voice our opinions. However, as Lady Millard, who was mentioned in the article said, we shouldn't start a riot. We should be peaceful about this and not get in trouble with the police. Police officers are here for a reason, they're not trying to hurt us, we need to respect them.
EXTRA CREDIT:
1. Justine Lockhart
2. I would have voted for Thomas Jefferson.
3. Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the USA. He strongly believed in defending individual rights and freedoms and freedom of religion. He also prefiered a small, weak federal government and neutrality.
4. I was matched up with Thomas Jefferson because I also strongly support individuals' rights and freedoms. I mentioned that I wouldn't want a very strong government because it would be too controlling and would take rights away from people.
Shelby Casabura
ReplyDelete4th period
Court Backs High School in Flap over American Flag T-Shirts
November 13, 2011
Fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/court-backs-high-school-in-flap-over-american-flag-t-shirts/
A Californian principal did not violate the freedom of speech of students who wore an American flags on their shirts. On Cinco de Mayo when he told them to turn the shirts inside out or go home. This happened at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California. Last year on the holiday Cinco de Mayo, a group of Mexican-American students were walking around with a Mexican flag. A group of students then hoisted an American flag up in a tree, and started yelling u.s.a, and exchanging racial slurs and threats between two groups of students. While the Supreme Court ruled that the public school students have the right to engage in non disruptive free speech which is the first amendment.
My opinion on this situation is that students have the right to wear what they want according to the first amendment. Although the other side was their was an issue the previous year. So the principal didn’t want to cause any more confrontation. Which make since because they seemed like they were purposely worn because what happened last year. Still the first amendment covers freedoms of religion assemble speech and press and long as it doesn’t attack, and its peaceful nothing wrong.
Casey Molina
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
UNC-CH students protest tuition increase plan
11/16/11
Erin Hartness
On Wednesday University of North Carolina students protested the proposed increase in tuition for the next five years. Students claimed that the Board of Trustees, which approved the movement., was “mostly wealth white people.” The students delivered post cards with 1000 student signatures in opposition tho the increase. Some students claimed that the increase would make UNC resemble Duke and that while that ideology works for Duke it is not desired at UNC. UNC has had to make cuts due to the 231 million dollars in state cuts. The movement strives to increase tuition by 800 to 583 dollars each year for the next five years. The money will supposedly put UNC level with other colleges and those funds will go towards keeping the remaining professors and decreasing the currently overcrowded classes.
The increase in UNC tuition is something that affects many in this area and many at Chapel Hill High School. The protestors at the university have made it clear they do not like it either. According to the first amendment they have the right to peacefully assemble and petition. The postcards signed by students and the march to the Carolina inn are legal by the first amendment, however protests may not necessarily be peaceful. I think it is good that the students are voicing their opinions assertively without breaking the law, however their strong words against the Board of Trustees may prove to be counterproductive regardless of the validity of their statements such as “mostly wealthy white people.” It will be interesting to see if the professors at the school argue for the increase for their own salaries and how they express their opinions about the likeness of Duke University with the increased UNC tuition.
Caroline Stanton
ReplyDelete4th period
To demand or not to demand? That is the 'Occupy' question
Author: N/A
msnbc
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45260610/ns/us_news-life/#.TsXEO1a1Zdg
Occupy Wall street protesters are dabbling in the idea of issuing a set of demands. This idea is causing a lot of controversy amongst the protesters, some are for the idea while other say they should keep their options open. The groups public relations working group's problem lies with the fact that it will be very difficult to get a vast majority of the protesters to agree. The still continue to work for the demands and target more specific aims like political and electoral reform and trade and justice tactics. One of their demands was the “jobs for all” which of course is trying to reduce the unemployment rate.
All the “Occupy” protesters are practicing their right to freedom of speech and assembly which is the first amendment of the constitution. They also have the right to petition the government which is also part of the first amendment. I think this article is interesting because the whole occupy movement has been very different all over. Some places it is following the first amendment by peacefully protesting and in other areas there have been issues with the protesters.
Charles Wang / 4th Period
ReplyDelete'Occupy' protesters, police clash during 'day of action'
David Ariosto
Cnn.com
11/17/11
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/us/new-york-occupy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
The protestors at Wall Street were arrested again today at around 8 p.m. The police say that they have arrested 245 people who were protesting the Occupy Wall Street movement. They were arrested for protesting violently. The first amendment only gives people rights for peaceful and nonviolent protests. The police have stated that many officers and people in the movement itself have been injured. The arrest was made to stop illegal activity such as drug use and fires. They did not act earlier because the police honored the first amendment. However, when there were reports of violence, drug use and fire hazards, the police had to react and stop the danger.
I believe that originally the Occupy Wall Street movement was a pure idea which planned on bringing equality to the other 99%. However, now it seems that people don’t even what it’s about anymore. It seems to me that it is just a bunch of drug addicts who think they are doing something. There have been reports of civil violence and drug abuse in the camps that they have. While some plead the first amendment protects them, the police have stated that they have been hurt and the protest is no longer non violent.
Garrett Young-Wright
ReplyDelete4th period
Town defends use of force to end building occupation
11/16/11
Author: Katelyn Ferral
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2011/11/16/68149/town-defends-use-of-force-to-end.html
Recently, the Chapel Hill police department felt the need to use force towards those protesting capitalism. They had taken over an abandoned building on West Franklin that had once housed a car dealership. The movement was not directly associated with the Occupy Franklin Street crowd, but some of the people from Franklin were there. Police said that riot literature (detailing how to flip cars) and menacing gestures from hooded figures made them feel the need to bring semiautomatic weapons and force to disband the meeting.
I'm not sure if the police really needed to use force to stop these people. Although not directly related, I've been to Occupy Franklin and the people there are very friendly. The protesters should not have broken into the building, but order probably could have been sustained by police in a less harmful way.
Diego Lewis 4th Pd.
ReplyDeleteOpenDNS: SOPA will be 'extremely disruptive' to the Internet
By: Declan McCullagh
news.cnet.com
11/18/11
SOPA stands for "Stop Online Piracy Act." This is an act that was proposed last month to combat online piracy. The problem is that if it passes, it will have many implications, much deeper than ending piracy that it will enable. It will essentially allow the US government to create a "Great Firewall OF America," and it will let the government rule what web sites we can and cannot see. The worst part of it is that It doesn't only apply to pirating web sites, but any media form can not be streamed/posted on the Internet, that you don't have an explicit license to. These licenses cost ~$2,500, which is an absurd amount for a little girl to pay to put her cover of Beyonce on facebook (yes, this bill applies to covers of songs and remixes by anyone but the original artist, goodbye creativity).
I find the fact that this ill was even proposed troubling, as it shows how utterly uninformed our congress is right now. The Internet is a huge industry with guaranteed growth. Why would you even consider limiting its capabilities? It's explicitly violating the first amendment! There as been a huge YouTube “boom” where thousands of people post videos of the video game accomplishments, and this has created a whole new community of gamers, with competitions streamed on web sites and people becoming Internet celebrities. This bill would make putting a clip from a video game illegal without buying a license to post it online. This is why I think this bill is absolutely ridiculous.
Casey Molina
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
UNC-CH students protest tuition increase plan
11/16/11
Erin Hartness for WRAL
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/10386626/
On Wednesday University of North Carolina students protested the proposed increase in tuition for the next five years. Students claimed that the Board of Trustees, which approved the movement., was “mostly wealth white people.” The students delivered post cards with 1000 student signatures in opposition tho the increase. Some students claimed that the increase would make UNC resemble Duke and that while that ideology works for Duke it is not desired at UNC. UNC has had to make cuts due to the 231 million dollars in state cuts. The movement strives to increase tuition by 800 to 583 dollars each year for the next five years. The money will supposedly put UNC level with other colleges and those funds will go towards keeping the remaining professors and decreasing the currently overcrowded classes.
The increase in UNC tuition is something that affects many in this area and many at Chapel Hill High School. The protestors at the university have made it clear they do not like it either. According to the first amendment they have the right to peacefully assemble and petition. The postcards signed by students and the march to the Carolina inn are legal by the first amendment, however protests may not necessarily be peaceful. I think it is good that the students are voicing their opinions assertively without breaking the law, however their strong words against the Board of Trustees may prove to be counterproductive regardless of the validity of their statements such as “mostly wealthy white people.” It will be interesting to see if the professors at the school argue for the increase for their own salaries and how they express their opinions about the likeness of Duke University with the increased UNC tuition.
Connor Smith
ReplyDelete4th Period
11-18-11
"Chapel Hill officials defend arrest tactics."
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/15/1645122/chapel-hill-officials-defend-arrest.html
by KATELYN FERRAL AND LANA DOUGLAS
Last Sunday, town officials appropriated the use of a swat team to remove protesters from a private building. The rioters had apparently been wearing masks and other clothing that was "threatining" to officers. These people were also chanting obscenities and provoking authoritive figures to take action. These protestors were labeled as an anarchist group, which the Chapel Hill Police Department claims should justify their reaction. The group had been planning to vandalize police property and incorporate fire in their protests.
I can see why people were angered by the police's action. The protestors were unarmed and had yet to take violent action. Still, the information presented by the police justifies their action, and proves that the group was harmful to public safety.
Samantha Joy Straughan
ReplyDeleteNew York Upholds Eviction of Occupy Protesters
By the CNN Wire Staff
November 16th, 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
On Tuesday, November 16th, Occupy protesters were allowed back in Zuccoti Park. This was where the original activites had begun the protest months ago, but last week the NYPD came and removed the protesters from their campsite. Most protesters left without much resistance, but others would not leave without a fight. They stormed back to the center of the park and put up barricades of picnic tables, claiming that they had a right to stay in the area due to the first amendment.
Occupy Wallstreet has become a very touchy subject for many people who can’t quite decide what they are okay with. Mixed feelings of Occupy and it’s protesters have swept the nation quicker then Bieber Fever (but not as quickly as Beatle Mania.) Personally I believe in the right to protest, so the forced removal of the protesters was indeed a right that was being taken advantage of. On the other hand, without cooperation from both the police force and the protesters, chaos will surely break loose (for example, this past weekend in our own hometown of Chapel Hill.) The extremists from both views of this issue is where I believe the problem lies, when people take things too far too quickly. Unfortunaetly in today’s society extremists are everyone and we have to deal with them in the best way we can at the moment, and not worry about what others will say later on. Safety and security for all should be the main goal of both sides.
Hannah Hodge
ReplyDeleteP 4
New York Courts Upholds Eviction of Occupy Protesters
CNN wire staff
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html
The occupy movement has become a nation wide grass roots movement in the recent weeks. All over the country protesters’ rights are being questioned as police move in to evict, arrest and quiet protesters. Zuccotti park in Manhatten has been a home for occupy protesters in New York in the last two months. This week riot police came into the area and evacuated the protesters. This move was deemed unlawful by attorneys who are working for the protesters. Although Occupy will be allowed to move back into Zuccotti Park, they will not be allowed to bring tents or generators. This will make it very hard for protests to continue as the weather gets colder. The city’s argument is that the protesters have rights to assembly and protest by the First Amendment but their right may not impede on the rights of others. The mayor, Michael Bloomburg says that these concessions allow everyone to practice their rights as a free citizen. Over one hundred people were arrested and some sent to the hospital with minor injuries. After being denied reentry into the park, many protesters marched through Manhatten to try and bring attention to the fact that court rulings over powered police authority. While these arrests and conflicts came up, similar ones have been popping up all over the country. Oakland is facing the same issue right now. The ultimate question for these protesters and the government is, how far do the rights of American Citizens stretch to allow those who are dissatisfied to stand up and speak out.
This issue is being talked about constantly in the news and is a common topic of debate in my household. I think that it is hard to decipher who’s at fault in these conflicts. People absolutely have the right to protest peacefully without interfering. Police also have the power and the responsibility of interfering if things are dangerous or impeding on the right of others. What it comes down to at a legal level, is a debate of he said she said. The protesters will swear they were doing nothing illegal and not enticing the police in any way. Police officers will promise that there was violence displayed and the protesters aren’t in their legal rights. It’s hard to say who can be trusted, although many people will take the police’s word as not debatable. As far as I’m concerned, I haven’t seen cause for arrest and even if I had, I would argue that the police are simply asserting their authority in an over aggressive way. I wasn’t in Oakland or Zuccotti Park so I can’t say definitively, but I do think that the protesters are within their legal rights. I hope that this can be an example of a peaceful protest, accepted by the government to spark discussion among politicians concerning the way our country is run, and no one gets hurt in the process.
Hate crime numbers steady, nearly half motivated by racial bias, FBI reports
ReplyDeleteTerry Frieden, Nov. 14th, 2011
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/fbi-racial-bias-motivates-most-hate-crimes/?
hpt=ju_c2
Lately, the number of hate crimes is remaining the same. The number didn’t change much from
2009 to 2010, only going up by 24. Hate crimes are the result of bias toward sexual orientation,
race, religious views, and disabilities, but the main one is race. Statistics show about 2600
anti-black, 680 anti-white, and 680 anti-Hispanic offenses. The most recent incident came in
a Jewish section of Brooklyn where cars were burned and park benches graffitied. Jews are by
far the biggest religious target for hates crimes. In 2010 there were 887 reported hate crimes
towards Jews. The next closest religious group is Islamic with only 160.
I chose this because I dislike hate crimes more than any other crime. I think that everyone is
equal and should be treated equally. This topic can relate to amendments 1, 14, 15, and 19. I
really hope that the government is trying very hard to decrease the number of hate crimes, and
I hope it starts decreasing soon. The year is almost over, and I can’t wait to see how much the
number went down.
That last post was from Marc O.
ReplyDelete