I agree that Hannity (who I think is a tool)
then why do you post nothing but him, fox, and new york post articles and videos when you're trying to discredit OWS?
matter of fact, why do you still bother? everyone is onto your game.
Jump to content
Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:18 PM
Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:59 PM
Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:31 PM
Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:54 PM
Hannity looks like an ass all the time so all he really did was make it look like Occupy has an anarchist ASS as it's spokesman. Like I said, "people like him..."
My guess is he went out the night before and downed a 1.75 of the finest Tennessee Whiskey known to man. His mind started swirling on how he could put down the evil nemesis known as Hannity. Well, then he sobered up and needed the small amount of cash Hannity used to lure him into the den to retrieve another handle of the finest Tennessee Whiskey known to man. or Maybe he knew the audience that Hannity has and knows that any press is good press. By making both of them look like asses, he wins.
Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:56 PM
Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:54 PM
Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:17 PM
Posted 25 May 2012 - 01:37 PM
Posted 25 May 2012 - 07:30 PM
Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:53 PM
Posted 05 June 2012 - 08:23 PM
Didn't hear a thing about any kind of Occupy protest of Obama when he was in NYC for fundraisers with the fat cats yesterday. Did they even bother or was it another free pass for their man?
Posted 08 June 2012 - 02:30 PM
Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:10 PM
Even when I agree with this guy I still want to slap the smug off his face
Posted 18 June 2012 - 08:17 PM
After a dozen Occupy Minnesota protesters were arrested at a downtown demonstration, the group quickly took to the Internet, posting video that activists said showed police treating them roughly and never warning them to leave.
But Minneapolis police knew warnings had been given. And they had their own video to prove it. So they posted the footage on YouTube, an example of how law enforcement agencies nationwide are embracing online video to cast doubt on false claims and offer their own perspective to the public.
"It certainly frustrates the street officers to see their work being twisted into something that didn't happen or things being taken out of context," said Minneapolis police Sgt. Bill Palmer. "Frankly, the use of force, which is what most people want to film, is never going to look good, and the context can easily be twisted."
After years of seeing officers' misconduct captured on video, police departments across the nation are trying to use the medium to their advantage, releasing footage of their own to rebut allegations and to build trust within communities. One department even posted video of an officer punching a woman to show why he was fired.
Weeks before the Occupy demonstration in April, Minneapolis police created their own YouTube channel to give officers a venue to tell their own stories.
"We want to be transparent," Assistant Chief Janee Harteau said. "Here is what we did. You can see for yourself and be your own judge."
Larger departments in cities such as Boston, Baltimore and Milwaukee have had YouTube channels for years. They often post surveillance video, updates on cases, messages from the chief and public-service announcements.
Some agencies don't rely on YouTube. After Oakland, Calif., officers were criticized for the way they handled an Occupy protest in October, police there released four videos on their website showing hostile protesters surrounding police and throwing paint at them. Officers later resorted to tear gas.
Posted 03 July 2012 - 11:34 AM
Twitter Inc. must turn over messages posted by an Occupy Wall Street protester, a Manhattan judge ruled on Monday, another move toward giving law-enforcement agencies broad access to comments made on social media.
Monday's order was the second time Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. has ruled that law-enforcement agencies can subpoena messages posted on Twitter.
On Monday, the judge rejected Twitter's argument that its users have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, much as people who write emails do.
He acknowledged that legal interpretations of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment's protection of online commentary are still evolving. But the judge ruled that Mr. Harris had "no reasonable expectation of privacy for tweets," comparing the posting to screaming out of a window.
"The Constitution gives you the right to post, but as numerous people have learned, there are still consequences for your public posts," the judge wrote in an 11-page decision. "What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you."
A Twitter spokeswoman said in a statement that the company was "disappointed" and is reviewing its options.
Mr. Harris's attorney, Martin Stolar, called the judge's decision "not very 21st century."
"It's rooted in old law," he said.
The Occupy Wall Street protests last fall brought to the surface a growing debate in legal circles over how much access law-enforcement agencies should have to statements made on social media websites. Protesters used Twitter to communicate, often publicly acknowledging they were breaking the law, prosecutors said.
"It's sort of the modern equivalent of asking a witness, 'What did he say?' It's just a shift from asking witnesses to asking Twitter. It's the new version of an old problem,'" said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who specializes in electronic evidence and Internet law.
Mr. Harris was one of 700 people arrested for allegedly marching in the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge on Oct. 1. Prosecutors have said in a court filing that Mr. Harris's tweets, under the handle @destructuremal, "made clear…that he was well aware of the police instructions that day, and acted with the intent of obstructing traffic on the bridge."
Prosecutors subpoenaed Twitter on Jan. 26, after Mr. Harris's tweets disappeared.
Mr. Harris is set to go to trial on Dec. 12 for disorderly conduct, a violation. He contends police directed him and others onto the bridge.
Mr. Stolar, who is representing several Occupy protesters, said Manhattan prosecutors have subpoenaed tweets in at least four criminal cases related to the demonstrations. In two of those matters, the subpoenas were dropped when defendants accepted deals that would expunge the charges after six months without criminal charges, said Mr. Stolar, who isn't representing the other defendants whose tweets are being sought.
Another protester Jeff Rae, 31, whose tweets were subpoenaed until he accepted a deal for six months probation, said he wants Twitter to file an appeal.
The Manhattan district attorney's office wouldn't discuss how many times it has subpoenaed Twitter.
Under Monday's order, Twitter must turn over Mr. Harris's tweets between Sept. 15, 2011, and Dec. 30, 2011, to the court.
The judge will inspect the messages and turn over "relevant portions" to the district attorney's office. Any tweets after Dec. 30 would have to be obtained using a search warrant.
"We are pleased that the court has ruled for a second time that the tweets at issue must be turned over," Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel Alonso said. "We look forward to Twitter's complying and to moving forward with the trial."
Drew Hornbein, an Occupy protester who works with its technology operations group, said he appreciates how Twitter has tried to fend off prosecutors' subpoena requests.
"I think they're doing a great job, but they are still a business," he said. "They can't fight if it means they're going to get cut off. I think they want to do the right thing."
Occupy protesters have tried to create communication networks that can't be seen by outsiders.
Posted 12 July 2012 - 04:47 PM
Posted 12 July 2012 - 09:10 PM
From what I'm seeing the cops never said anything about it being from someone affiliated to OWS, only that it matched DNA found at the scene and they specifically stated that it could just be a coincidence.
i think we all pretty much agree that the City & NYPD have leaked false stories about OWS.
I found it very cusious that almost every paper ran the Subway Chain DNA link to an Unsovled Murder story on the front page, but chose to burry the retaction somewhere in the middle.
no one rembers the retraction/aquitals.
papers don't like to show their mistakes
A day after reports that DNA found at an Occupy Wall Street-affiliated protest had been matched to an unsolved murder case, a law enforcement official said the link was a lab mistake—and not a break
Posted 13 July 2012 - 03:39 PM
Posted 03 August 2012 - 02:15 PM