[wat0n]

If they weren't able to be IDed and the DA didn't have enough evidence to prosecute them, why were they initially charged then?

It's interesting that you're so concerned with violating the law when it fits your narrative, yet when those same "evil lawbreakers" aren't even able to be prosecuted due to lack of evidence of crimes, all of the sudden it doesn't matter what laws were broken.

I'm guessing they were arrested, and the DA charged based solely on the police report.

He obviously needs and wants more evidence to get a conviction. These are privileged people, they'll certainly fight it in trial.

[KurtFF8]

I'm guessing they were arrested, and the DA charged based solely on the police report.

He obviously needs and wants more evidence to get a conviction. These are privileged people, they'll certainly fight it in trial.

You've been so fixated on the fact that they "broke the law" yet their chargers have been dropped. Does this mean you're also going to drop your opposition to these protests then? If them violating the law has been a major basis for your opposition to them, you seem to have lost that point.

[wat0n]

You've been so fixated on the fact that they "broke the law" yet their chargers have been dropped. Does this mean you're also going to drop your opposition to these protests then? If them violating the law has been a major basis for your opposition to them, you seem to have lost that point.

Have you forgotten about the 14 guys who did not admit wrongdoing and will be charged for trespassing?

[KurtFF8]

Have you forgotten about the 14 guys who did not admit wrongdoing and will be charged for trespassing?

You've been claiming the entire movement has been one of violence and trespassing. And there are up to 14 who "will be charged" for trespassing? That's really your justification for the repression?

[wat0n]

You've been claiming the entire movement has been one of violence and trespassing. And there are up to 14 who "will be charged" for trespassing? That's really your justification for the repression?

Yes.

They're going to be charged because they trespassed.

That's a crime, even if not as serious as it could be.

And, as such, the response was hardly as serious as it could be. 0 pro-Palestine protesters were harmed, let alone killed, by the cops.

[KurtFF8]

Yes.

They're going to be charged because they trespassed.

That's a crime, even if not as serious as it could be.

And, as such, the response was hardly as serious as it could be. 0 pro-Palestine protesters were harmed, let alone killed, by the cops.

Students "trespassing" on their own university is hardly a serious crime of course.

[wat0n]

Students "trespassing" on their own university is hardly a serious crime of course.

Third degree trespassing is a class B misdemeanor in NYC, it's not a serious crime but one nonetheless. Regular trespassing is not a crime, but a violation although it will get you removed by the cops. Which is also why you don't really see most trespassers who only camped (as opposed to taking over a building) and didn't resist police action being charged at all. That behavior is illegal but not worth charging anything, I guess they're just issued a ticket at the police station and be done with it.

We're not dealing with much more serious stuff like the looters or arsonists from 2020 or the treasonous Capitol rioters. Burning a car without physically harming any other person or property in NY is as serious as the 1 of the felony counts Trump was convicted for, if it helps you get an idea.

[KurtFF8]

@wat0n , So what you're saying is that the "crime" these protesters committed is quite minor at most. Hardly warranting of condemning the entire protest and calling them terrorists as most regime supporters have been doing.

[wat0n]

@wat0n , So what you're saying is that the "crime" these protesters committed is quite minor at most. Hardly warranting of condemning the entire protest and calling them terrorists as most regime supporters have been doing.

I haven't accused them of terrorism. I've accused them of harassment (not a crime), vandalism and trespassing (not as serious crimes as terrorism or even what we saw in 2020/2021).

That doesn't mean they are somehow entitled to continue doing that illegal behavior.

[KurtFF8]

I haven't accused them of terrorism. I've accused them of harassment (not a crime), vandalism and trespassing (not as serious crimes as terrorism or even what we saw in 2020/2021).

That doesn't mean they are somehow entitled to continue doing that illegal behavior.

The falsehood of the "harassment" claim aside, then it seems you have no real political disagreement with the movement at all. You're just worried about upholding University codes of conduct and specific guidelines which is a bizarre thing to spend your time worrying about.

And of course let's not forget, these are mostly students. So the idea that what they're doing should even be considered "trespassing" is legally questionable.

[wat0n]

The falsehood of the "harassment" claim aside, then it seems you have no real political disagreement with the movement at all. You're just worried about upholding University codes of conduct and specific guidelines which is a bizarre thing to spend your time worrying about.

Oh I certainly have a political disagreement with them.

But having a political disagreement with protesters doesn't mean I will support their repression solely for expressing their views. If they weren't being disruptive, the pushback would just be political/intellectual i.e. pointing out their protest sucks for X, Y, Z reasons, possibly as a counter protest or some social media post or some opinion piece, and that's it.

It's when they cross the line into infringing into the rights of others that they need to be actually repressed by the state. And yes, the verb is "need" because if the pros (cops) don't do it then those affected will, and experience shows the average Joe is far, far more brutal in doing this than the pros are.

And of course let's not forget, these are mostly students. So the idea that what they're doing should even be considered "trespassing" is legally questionable.

It's not. Being a student doesn't make you an owner or even a shareholder of the university.

[KurtFF8]

Oh I certainly have a political disagreement with them.

But having a political disagreement with protesters doesn't mean I will support their repression solely for expressing their views. If they weren't being disruptive, the pushback would just be political/intellectual i.e. pointing out their protest sucks for X, Y, Z reasons, possibly as a counter protest or some social media post or some opinion piece, and that's it.

You say this yet you've spent weeks here voicing your opinion that they deserve the repression that they've faced. You've also made excuses for the violence they've faced from the pro-regime counter protesters. When examples of awful and racist things by counter protesters are exposed, they somehow "don't represent the pro-regime ideology/organizations" yet you nitpick isolated incidents of anti-apartheid/anti-genocide protesters and claim that this is why the whole movement is bad.

And to justify the repression you cite questionable "trespassing" claims.

It's when they cross the line into infringing into the rights of others that they need to be actually repressed by the state. And yes, the verb is "need" because if the pros (cops) don't do it then those affected will, and experience shows the average Joe is far, far more brutal in doing this than the pros are.

They have not, at any point, "crossed the line into infringing into the rights of others" This is not only not happening, it's not something that these protesters have the power to do. They are not a state.

It's not. Being a student doesn't make you an owner or even a shareholder of the university.

No one claimed that being a student makes you a shareholder. But paying tuition does grant physical access to the university campus. And there have been decades of examples and case law showing that students do indeed have free speech rights at their universities despite the efforts by university administrations to curtail those rights (like what we're presently seeing at places like Columbia)

[Pants-of-dog]

You can use archive.is to skip the paywall I think.

No, at this point, I will just ignore the argument that you never made.

Maybe you can get your empleada to do it for you.

———————-

The real question is: how many of these universities who call the cops are doing so at the behest of wealthy donors?

[wat0n]

You say this yet you've spent weeks here voicing your opinion that they deserve the repression that they've faced. You've also made excuses for the violence they've faced from the pro-regime counter protesters. When examples of awful and racist things by counter protesters are exposed, they somehow "don't represent the pro-regime ideology/organizations" yet you nitpick isolated incidents of anti-apartheid/anti-genocide protesters and claim that this is why the whole movement is bad.

And to justify the repression you cite questionable "trespassing" claims.

Maybe that's because the protesters are, in fact, trespassing, harassing people and engaging in vandalism all of which are illegal and beyond simply expressing whatever they want to express.

Also, it is completely okay to criticize their hateful antisemitic rhetoric.

They have not, at any point, "crossed the line into infringing into the rights of others" This is not only not happening, it's not something that these protesters have the power to do. They are not a state.

Bullshit.

Trespassing into private property is infringing on the rights of others.

Vandalizing other people's property, including their homes, is infringing on their rights.

Harassing other people, inside and outside campus and even in their homes, infringes on their rights.

No one claimed that being a student makes you a shareholder. But paying tuition does grant physical access to the university campus. And there have been decades of examples and case law showing that students do indeed have free speech rights at their universities despite the efforts by university administrations to curtail those rights (like what we're presently seeing at places like Columbia)

Paying tuition does not grant you the right to access campus without university permission.

A student found to have sexually harassed a classmate isn't entitled to access university property despite paying tuition.

Decades of case law have also found speech can be limited if it becomes disruptive to the educational process, which is what the encampments are.

No, at this point, I will just ignore the argument that you never made.

It's not my fault you are too lazy to look in this thread.

Maybe you can get your empleada to do it for you.

Oh so this is it. You are so entitled you believe I am like your maid and I have to quote myself several times over because you are too lazy to search for the quote.

So, instead of asking politely for a favor, you come up giving orders.

By the way, you have to be deep into the red set to believe people here can afford hiring a maid.

[Pants-of-dog]

—————-

Robert Kraft is one of the wealthy donors who is threatening to withhold funds if Columbia University is not even more punitive with anti-genocide protesters.

Kraft can provide millions of dollars, sorry, I should day “reasons” to convince the administration to stop campus protests.

[KurtFF8]

Maybe that's because the protesters are, in fact, trespassing, harassing people and engaging in vandalism all of which are illegal and beyond simply expressing whatever they want to express.

Also, it is completely okay to criticize their hateful antisemitic rhetoric.

They are not "in fact" trespassing. As the article I posted above demonstrates: most trespassing charges have been dropped and no one has even been proven to have trespassed. The accusations of vandalism make up such an insignificant portion of what's occurred at these protests that it isn't even worth discussing. Most violence and actual property destruction has come from the police or counter demonstrators.

Here it is again: you're falsely accusing the entire movement of using antisemitic rhetoric. This is a lie.

Bullshit.

Trespassing into private property is infringing on the rights of others.

Vandalizing other people's property, including their homes, is infringing on their rights.

Harassing other people, inside and outside campus and even in their homes, infringes on their rights.

Students who are on the university campuses where they pay tuition are not "infringing on the rights" of anyone. This is an absurd claim. And again, the cases of vandalism are so insignificant that it's not really relevant to discuss. Almost all cases of protests have been students putting up tents and holding rallies. That's not vandalism.

And the "harassing other people" claim is of course just a lie.

Paying tuition does not grant you the right to access campus without university permission.

A student found to have sexually harassed a classmate isn't entitled to access university property despite paying tuition.

Decades of case law have also found speech can be limited if it becomes disruptive to the educational process, which is what the encampments are.

This example you're providing is not relevant here. The students put up tents and engaged in political protest. What we're seeing is these universities infringing on their free speech rights accompanied by violent police repression.

[wat0n]

They are not "in fact" trespassing. As the article I posted above demonstrates: most trespassing charges have been dropped and no one has even been proven to have trespassed. The accusations of vandalism make up such an insignificant portion of what's occurred at these protests that it isn't even worth discussing. Most violence and actual property destruction has come from the police or counter demonstrators.

Here it is again: you're falsely accusing the entire movement of using antisemitic rhetoric. This is a lie.

14 are still facing trespassing charges, again, from your own source.

The antisemitic rhetoric is undisputable.

Students

Many of the trespassers, including those arrested, are not students.

This example you're providing is not relevant here. The students put up tents and engaged in political protest. What we're seeing is these universities infringing on their free speech rights accompanied by violent police repression.

The example is very much relevant. It shows schools have the right to decide who enters their property even if they're paying tuition.

And schools have the right to ban people who, due to how they are conducting their speech, are being disruptive to the educational process. This has been held true by the SCOTUS several times and in fact it is a more serious crime to trespass into elementary and secondary schools regardless of the reason, including speech.

As for the harassment, it is true that pro-Palestine protesters have gone as far as to vandalize the homes of board members at institutions like museums.

[KurtFF8]

14 are still facing trespassing charges, again, from your own source.

The antisemitic rhetoric is undisputable.

Again, the fact that only 14 people are facing the "serious crime" of trespassing shows how absurd it is for you to support their repression.

The rhetoric is absolutely disputable. Antisemitic rhetoric is not endorsed by any of the organizations involved and is not widespread. This is just a lie.

Many of the trespassers, including those arrested, are not students.

Are the 14 people you're referencing students?

The example is very much relevant. It shows schools have the right to decide who enters their property even if they're paying tuition.

The idea that property rights trump free speech at universities is not only ridiculous but not even accurate.

And schools have the right to ban people who, due to how they are conducting their speech, are being disruptive to the educational process. This has been held true by the SCOTUS several times and in fact it is a more serious crime to trespass into elementary and secondary schools regardless of the reason, including speech.

Engaging in free speech and protest via putting up tents is not the basis to ban people from a university where they pay tuition.

As for the harassment, it is true that pro-Palestine protesters have gone as far as to vandalize the homes of board members at institutions like museums.

This development happened long after the free speech of the protesters was repressed. It's not relevant to the discussion. Also unrelated to universities it seems.

[wat0n]

Again, the fact that only 14 people are facing the "serious crime" of trespassing shows how absurd it is for you to support their repression.

They were given the option to admit what they did and stay out of trouble for 6 months in exchange for getting the charges dropped, and they said no.

The rhetoric is absolutely disputable. Antisemitic rhetoric is not endorsed by any of the organizations involved and is not widespread. This is just a lie.

At this point, you're just saying that their rhetoric isn't antisemitic because it's not condemned by their already antisemitic organizations

Like for example telling Jews to go back to Poland or Germany is totally not anti-semitic and just the leftist version of the KKK telling American Jews to go back to Israel back in the day.

Are the 14 people you're referencing students?

IIRC some are, some aren't. Which also opens its own share of questions.

The idea that property rights trump free speech at universities is not only ridiculous but not even accurate.

It actually is, because schools are ending the encampments because they're disruptive.

And therefore schools can perfectly decide to exercise their property rights so such disruptive behavior stops.

Engaging in free speech and protest via putting up tents is not the basis to ban people from a university where they pay tuition.

It is because it's disruptive.

This development happened long after the free speech of the protesters was repressed. It's not relevant to the discussion. Also unrelated to universities it seems.

There is a lot of overlap here.

[KurtFF8]

They were given the option to admit what they did and stay out of trouble for 6 months in exchange for getting the charges dropped, and they said no.

So it appears they disagree with even these charges. Not sure how that strengthens your argument in any way.

At this point, you're just saying that their rhetoric isn't antisemitic because it's not condemned by their already antisemitic organizations

No, I'm saying that antisemitic rhetoric is not common at anti-genocide demonstrations. It would take a redefinition of the term to claim otherwise. For example some people have tried this by claiming that phrases like "from the river to the sea" are inherently antisemitic, but this claim has been long discredited.

Like for example telling Jews to go back to Poland or Germany is totally not anti-semitic and just the leftist version of the KKK telling American Jews to go back to Israel back in the day.

Not a common thing said at these demonstrations. According to your own criteria, it shouldn't be a reflection on the whole movement. (You consistently dismiss racist remarks by the pro-regime folks as not a reflection of the general pro-regime "movement" so you should stay consistent)

It actually is, because schools are ending the encampments because they're disruptive.

Disruptive according to who? Disruptive in what way?

And therefore schools can perfectly decide to exercise their property rights so such disruptive behavior stops.

Schools are public spaces. The "property rights" question is out of place here.

It is because it's disruptive.

Only to genocide supporters. But people who generally oppose things like genocide (the majority of people) agree with these peaceful protests.

There is a lot of overlap here.

This is also not related to the first thing you posted.