Nerditorial: Occupy Bellingham (November 7, 2011)

My previous Nerditorial regarding Occupy Bellingham drew many spirited comments.

Including this one...

Make up your mind. Do you want the police to enforce the law or not? Bellingham Municipal Code section 8.04.080 states "Overnight camping is prohibited on park property except by written permission of the Director of Parks and Recreation."


What you want is for the police to enforce the law selectively. You want them to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce.
...

This one...

So now that we've established it's OK to camp just about anywhere as long as you have some type of occupy sign posted can I take my family to a State Park and camp for free? I promise I'll post an "I'm Occupying This Tent Site" sign as a protest to all the people who don't have the money to pay for a campsite.
...

this one....

I don't think there is enough information here to decide if the police non-action was justified or not. He was "allegedly violent" in his "actions and words", well that doesn't tell enough of the story for readers to understand what was going on at all. Police don't arrest people unless they break the law, and removing someone from a public property would require a trespass action if there were sufficient legal grounds.
...

...and my personal favorite...

You quote the WA post but fail to include the rest of the article which read


"Lt. Christopher Micciche (MITCH’-ih-kay) of the D.C. police said the driver was not cited because he had a green light when his vehicle struck the three at around 10 p.m.


The protesters were apparently trying to block the roadway,” Micciche said. “It was essentially an accident where three individuals were injured but they were in violation by being in the roadway.”


Micciche said witnesses told police that the three pedestrians “either ran toward or jumped in front of the moving vehicle.” He said one pedestrian jumped on the hood of the car.
...

Oh... where do I begin?

In terms of the first quoted comment which raises the loaded question of "Do we want the Police to enforce the law or not..."

...I say, we do want the law enforced.

The Constitution (pardon the phrasing here) constitutes the highest law of the land. And that law enforces and protect the right of citizens to assemble and express themselves.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, whether the Justices were conservative or liberal, that political speech enjoys the highest level of protection under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently held this view since the first days of the Republic itself.

When Occupy Bellingham stakes the claim that "The First Amendment Is Our Permit", they don't do so lightly.

The act of occupying the Encampment in Maritime Heritage Park is clearly an act of politically symbolic speech.

We expect the police to enforce that law, and respect that speech.

We also expect the police to enforce other laws, such as laws against being drunk and disorderly, and public nuisance, and other acts which clearly fall outside of the protection of the first amendment.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Supreme Court Justice, put it elegantly when he said...

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

So, that establishes to my satisfaction that stomping around picking fights with, and throwing punches at, Occupy Bellingham participants does not constitute politically protected speech.

Since such action is not protected by the First Amendment, the police have some obligation to protect the safety of those who are lawfully, and Constitutionally, exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.

I don't expect a police officer to be a Constitutional scholar. Police have plenty on their plates on the best of days. However, I do expect the police to protect citizens, particularly those who are exercising their First Amendment rights in a conspicuously non-violent manner.

The police can't have it both ways. They have to enforce the law, and respect the highest law of the land while doing so.

When there is conflict between the Bellingham Municipal Code and the Constitution, the Bellingham Municipal Code yields, not the Constitution.

As to comment #2, this is not about camping for free. To reduce the Occupy Movement to that is absurd.

If you don't know what the Occupy Movement is about by now, it is you who are unfocused.

But if you want to go freeze your butt off "for free", go for it. If you think you described an act of symbolic political speech, enjoy the cold.

As to comment #3, I take exception to the notion that my judicious use of the work "allegedly" is being used to assert that nothing happened.

There is no doubt as to the fact that there was conflict. I only used the work allegedly to establish that the conflict may or may not have crossed a line into criminal conduct.

My decision to chose not to assert that someone committed a crime, when no one was given a proper day in court, is not to be used to assert that maybe nothing happened at all.

Nice try. Go back to Fox News. You will be happier getting your information from there.

As to comment #4...

Are you clinically insane?

The protesters were "in violation of being in the roadway"?

Bravo Sierra.

It is not okay to hit people with your goddamn car because a goddamn light is green. I don't care who says otherwise. If an on duty police officer says that, then that police officer is goddamn wrong.

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ...

The Occupy Movement has a lot of the right people uncomfortable, and the stress cracks are beginning to show.

You critics need to chill out, or take a nap.

This isn't be beginning of the end, folks. This is the end of the beginning.