99 Percent Movement | New York | News | Occupy Wall Street

BigGayDeal.com

Police Raid Zuccotti Park, Evict 'Occupy Wall Street' Protesters: VIDEOS

Zuccotti

In an early morning raid, hundreds of police officers swept into Zuccotti Park and began dismantling the tent camp set up there for weeks and arresting protesters in the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement, the NYT reports:

The protesters, about 200 of whom have been staying in the park overnight, initially resisted with chants of “Whose park? Our park!” as officers began moving in and tearing down tents. The protesters rallied around an area known as the kitchen, near the middle of the park and began building barricades with tables and pieces of scrap wood.

Over the next two hours, dozens of protesters left the park, while a core group of about 100 dug in around the food area. Many locked arms and defied police orders to leave. By 3 a.m., dozens of helmet-clad officers, watched over by Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, closed in on the remaining protesters. They pulled them out one protester at a time and handcuffed them. Most were walked out without incident.

Videos, AFTER THE JUMP...

(Below, Zuccotti Park as of 4 am, courtesy @JoshHarkinson)

Park

The police prepare to conduct the raid:

Moving in"

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Don't you have to have a permit to protest? If so, I'm sure these people did not get one.

    Posted by: Come on... | Nov 15, 2011 7:52:45 AM


  2. Yes, "come on...", a message is only important if you have a permit to express it.

    Posted by: Ken | Nov 15, 2011 7:58:12 AM


  3. Sympathetic to the viewpoint, I'm glad this happened. We were there a week ago and you could smell it a block away as you approached. There was little organized protest but a lot of mentally-ill rantings on the edges, sad more than inspiring. I hope they reformulate into true protest.

    Posted by: Charles | Nov 15, 2011 8:02:44 AM


  4. Good riddance. They can now occupy a jail cell while the residents of that community can finally have their neighborhood back.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Nov 15, 2011 8:27:12 AM


  5. My point being, if they do not have the necessary permits then the police have every right to arrest them.

    Posted by: Come on... | Nov 15, 2011 8:57:40 AM


  6. Permit to protest... smell bad, crazy... go to jail.. What a bunch of sheep post on this website. To quote your hero Reagan We are the government and we are here to help.. as they beat you over the head and take away your basic rights. No wonder we are ruled by an elite and beaten down.

    Posted by: Joey | Nov 15, 2011 8:58:02 AM


  7. Spoken like a true KAPO, "JOHNAGJ"

    Welcome to the Police State everyone. As we've known all along the course of our history (go Google "Th ePalmer Raids") "Freedom of Speech" and Freedom of Assembly" are meaningless phrases.

    It's all about Absolute Power.

    And nothing else.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 15, 2011 9:00:43 AM


  8. Or, as La Streisand sang so many years ago...

    "It's not cricket to picket, not cricket."

    Posted by: Name2 | Nov 15, 2011 9:32:18 AM



  9. Here in San Francisco as with the other Occupy movements around the country, the police invade and beat us in the dark of night, just like many of the brutal tyrants have done throughout time.

    Thank you SFPD and the city of San Francisco for not beating us last night.

    Permits? I believe the US Constitution and the first amendment supersedes any local, municipal, and state codes and ordnances.

    Many of us at Occupy are truly homeless and have nowhere to go. Some have mental health and substance abuse issues. Mostly due to the policies of the 1%. We are sorry about the inconvience but here is reality TV in your face. Just saying........

    Posted by: mymy | Nov 15, 2011 9:37:09 AM


  10. Good riddance.

    Posted by: John | Nov 15, 2011 9:48:09 AM


  11. I don't know about the specifics of life in the Occupy Wall Street encampment, but their lack of a permit was precisely the point. The entire economic and governmental system of our nation and the world has been structured to meet the needs of the 1% at the expense of the 99%. The gap between the haves and the have nots has grown, from a cronyism of the rich. I'm sorry all of the other posters are upset by their presence, but I applaud their admittedly quixotic gestures against a system that is rigged against the majority of people.

    Posted by: Jonathan OZ | Nov 15, 2011 10:52:54 AM


  12. brookfield properties the owners of zucoti park have pulled in government corporate welfare of $700,000 since 9/11

    There is the permit right there

    ---------------------------------

    OWs has changed the paradigm with a study showing that since they began talk about income inequality by the media has increased a hundred fold

    Some cities are now divesting themselves out of big banks and moving city funds to local small banks and or local credit unions

    etc etc

    OWs has accomplished a lot so far and will accomplish more

    This isn't over

    Posted by: say what | Nov 15, 2011 10:55:10 AM


  13. oh and turns out a judge has ruled

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/zuccotti-park-eviction-co_n_1094675.html

    OWs can return to OWs with tents in tow

    Posted by: say what | Nov 15, 2011 11:01:07 AM


  14. @David: Feel free to let them squat on your property. It's not their park but private property and they've caused chaos in that local neighborhood for two months now. Enough is enough. I'm glad they've finally been evicted. Protesting I support, squatting on private property and disrupting a neighborhood like they've done for weeks on end I definitely do not. Good riddance to them.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Nov 15, 2011 11:06:46 AM


  15. @SayWhat: Oh please, you can find a sympathetic judge for just about anything if you look hard enough. Zucotti Park is private property and this particular judge's order won't stand for very long.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Nov 15, 2011 11:10:22 AM


  16. Johnagj lots of people would say good riddance to gay people, the difference is OWS would stand up for you. I am sorry that you find democracy distasteful and should only be allowed by permit from the government, but the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution that the peoples' right to protest is absolute. I am so sorry you were inconvenienced since so many have no health care, no jobs, and are going hungry. Have a nice day

    Posted by: Joey | Nov 15, 2011 11:27:11 AM


  17. Johnagj

    barring the whole "how is a park in a city private property" issue

    The owners of zucotti have received $700,000 of tax payers / gov big biz welfare money so they have given up their right to claim private property

    Posted by: say what | Nov 15, 2011 11:29:10 AM


  18. @Joey: I said nothing about permits or taking away the right to protest. What I did say was that these folks were squatting on private property, something that to the Founders was just as sacrosanct as free speech, and have disrupted that local neighborhood for two months now. The right to protest doesn't include violating the rights of others. So yes, I'm glad to see them evicted and good riddance to them.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Nov 15, 2011 11:31:54 AM


  19. Since when does one require a permit to exercise our inalienable rights as American citizens? Isn't that why we are in several wars? Isn't this what Republicans and Democrats alike extol at any and every opportunity? I don't see a footnote requiring prior notification under the First Amendment, which "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

    And btw, @JOHNAGJ, if you're going to talk about how Zuccotti Park is "Private Property", you might consider that the land that this park and entire city occupy was STOLEN from the indigenous peoples who once lived there. 200 years or so still doesn't erase that fact, so before you go complaining about how it's not theirs to occupy, you might want to consider it is no more legally Brookfield's than it is anyone else's.

    Posted by: Jesus | Nov 15, 2011 11:32:59 AM


  20. 7 Johnagj

    it is not a neighborhood

    it is a business mall area

    All business / surrounded by businesses

    not a residential area

    "neighborhood" is propaganda speak to make it sound like little old lady's homes are surrounded and their nap times disturbed

    and again, the owners of zucotti have taken public funds to the tune of $700,000 so their "property" is less their property with the public having a stake in it now

    rethugs all about private property and private profits and all for public liability and public paid bail outs for them

    Posted by: say what | Nov 15, 2011 11:35:53 AM


  21. Wow John no answer to getting rid of gay people. Because the 1% are firing up the right to hate YOU. I guess you would have bitched about Stonewall as well.

    So you think the rights of a fake private park subsidized by my taxes are more important than the people's right to protest. I see no ones rights violated but the protesters. Are you one of the 1%?

    Posted by: Joey | Nov 15, 2011 11:45:38 AM


  22. It's just about the most barren and boring neighborhood in the entire city to begin with -- like something out of Metropolis -- so their presence actually succeeded in making it interesting.

    The point is that the cops and the venal money-graspers who give them their orders want all this inconvenient poverty and outrage gone. They did the same thing in the '30s the first time around.

    Everything old is new again.

    Posted by: Gry | Nov 15, 2011 12:11:08 PM


  23. Just a point -- this isn't private property in the same way that someone's backyard is private property. This is a park owned by Brookfield under the specific condition that it remain open to the public 24 hours a day. Brookfield has a legal obligation to leave it to public use through an agreement with the city.

    Posted by: rafi | Nov 15, 2011 12:46:07 PM


  24. @Jesus: Oh please. If you want to play that game then anyone can occupy any piece of property and eviscerate the very concept of private property. It's not that difficult to thumb through history, find a grievance and stake a claim if you want. Yet this had nothing to do with Native Americans and you know it. They squatted on private property and have been evicted. Sounds good to me.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Nov 15, 2011 1:08:43 PM


  25. @SayWhat: If they've illegally taken money from the public trough, prosecute them. If they've taken money that was given to them by the government, cut off the funding. Squatting on private property isn't the answer. As for bailouts, corporate welfare, etc. where did I say I disagreed with you about that? It's your methods I deplore and I'm glad OWS was evicted.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Nov 15, 2011 1:11:38 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Blaze Destroys Pavilion, Other Structures at Fire Island Pines« «