Occupy Oakland Occupiers Arrested For Mugging Critic

[jordan179]

Occupy Oakland has reached a new low of petty villainy.

From Seth Hemmelgarn in "Occupy Oakland protesters face robbery, hate crime charges," The Bay Area Reporter Online at http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=67496

Comments

[maxgoof]

The left never has, and never will, understand that the law applies to them just as much as everyone else.

[thudpucker]

If I may quote: "All animals are equal , but some animals are more equal than others."

And that's what scares me. They don't see Orwell as a warning.

They see him as an instruction manual.

[gothelittle]

"The second thing I note is that the behavior of the Occupiers is perfectly consistent with what I've seen on the Left when they face criticism from people belonging to groups whom they believe should have a "protected status." Heterosexual men may have the right to criticize the Left; homosexuals or women (let alone homosexual women) are expected to be grateful to the Left for their "protection," and are treated with extreme anger as "betrayers" when they dare criticize their "protectors.""
..................

So much yes. I run into this all the time.

[galadrion]

Er, as a heterosexual male (and a breeder, too!) I haven't exactly noticed a lot of tolerance amongst the Leftists for my right to criticize their positions. And as for criticizing them, oh my! They really don't like that, howsoever warranted it may be.

I can see and concede the point, though. No matter how little they may like me pointing out their idiocies the flaws in their thinking, they have even less of a liking for their "vassals" doing so. Yes, vassals - those offered protection in return for sworn servitude. Which is still nicer than the true relationship - victims of a protection racket. "Nice position in society you'se got here. Be a... shame if sumthin' wuz to happen to make it woise..."

[gothelittle]

In this case, they claim that they have *already* provided protection and so we have some kind of sick *obligation* to swear our servitude.

[galadrion]

Mm-hm. Well, I suspect that your best answer to them is probably along the lines of my standard reply to protection racketeers: "Should've asked me if I wanted protection before you stuck your nose in. Now, since you've deprived me of a good fight..." *Evil grin*

That, or you could ask them which Suffragette chapter they belonged to in, oh, 1910 - as a man, I suspect they wouldn't acknowledge my right to ask the same question. In any case, these people are laying claim to victories they had no part in winning.

[pogo101]

I've just quit paying attention to the Occu-poo criminals. Their cause and public presence petered out here in leftist LA several months ago, despite an uncharacteristically warm, dry winter here. Kudos to you for having the patience to keep tabs on them. (Which is not to say that Occu-poo OAKLAND is not being much more active and violent than the entirely-vanished LA cohort.)

[gothelittle]

I was a little disappointed when they left Boston. I wanted to see them put their plan into effect and attempt to build igloos to winter in.

[jordan179]

LOL, yes, that would have been amusing to watch. Of course, the actual Native American tribes who lived in New England didn't build igloos, they built timber and hide longhouses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_long_house

to shelter from the winter storms.

Not that the Boston Police Department would have let them build any such things in public spaces. But this strikes to the root of the flaw in the Occupiers' logic ...

... they are attempting an "occupation" of territory which they have not ever "conquered." Since the territory is actually controlled by municipalities of the United States of America, their "occupation" is on sufferance of those municipal authorities, and can be terminated whenever the Occupiers sufficiently annoy them. And the Occupiers are very annoying

[gothelittle]

"Of course, the actual Native American tribes who lived in New England didn't build igloos, they built timber and hide longhouses"

Oh I know, I live in Connecticut. Hence why I would have liked to watch them try. :D The whole point of an igloo is that it's nothing but snow, so the interior temperature never falls below 32F. Boston doesn't consistently snow enough to build an igloo, and the moment that snow melts and refreezes, it is no longer kept at 32F...

I think I've said this before, but if I started out in Boston and had to winter, I would immediately get OUT of Boston, well into the woods, where I could build a shelter out of branches and logs and hunt for my keep until winter let up.

I would also gladly sell that infamous $5,000 laptop for rifle, ammunition, axe, saw, rope... you get the idea.

But then again, I'm not a Boston Occupier. I'm a rural New Englander native. In the winter, my first order is survival, not protest.

[x_eleven]

Well, the assault was captured on video, so the jury may be able to find out whether or not Huang's claims are or are not true. And even if they were, this still wouldn't explain the stolen wallet.

That's not robbery, that's spreading the wealth around, DiY style. Didn't Obama tell us this was a good thing?

[hannahsarah]

So, any bets on how long it will take for the video to be barred from being shown? The judge could refuse to watch it, or s/he could refuse to let the jury see it, for some vague, imaginary reason. It's happened many times before.

[jordan179]

Sure, but this assumes the judge is extremely sympathetic to the Occupiers, to the point that he's willing to risk his own popularity by deliberately botching the trial. I so far see no evidence of this.