Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
United States Politics

NYPD Dismantling Occupy Wall Street Encampment 933

First time accepted submitter Red_Chaos1 was the first to write with news that, as of around 06:30 UTC, the NYPD appears to have begun removing the encampment of Occupy Wall Street. At 06:34 UTC the Mayor's office issued a tweet declaring: "Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the park is cleared." Around 07:15 UTC the first of several large dumpsters were deposited and the police began throwing tents and other debris into it. Reports also indicate that a Long Range Acoustic Device is on the premises. The police are using helicopters and physical barriers to prevent news coverage, but the Occupiers are streaming the events (alternative stream; #occupywallstreet on is also rather active for those who don't fancy flash or twitter.) As of 09:15 or so, the situation according to those near NYC is that the park has more or less been cleared.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYPD Dismantling Occupy Wall Street Encampment

Comments Filter:
  • by x14n ( 935233 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:03AM (#38056924) Homepage []

    Major media helicopters have been forced out of the air by NYPD. Lots of fresh news on twitter:!/search?q=%23occupywallstreet

    NYPD Police scanner here:

    NYPD switchboard isn't taking any more calls: []
  • Re:good (Score:5, Informative)

    by penguinchris ( 1020961 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [sirhcniugnep]> on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:11AM (#38056956) Homepage

    You suggest:

    Perhaps a haircut and an education might help you attain wealth quicker than living in a cardboard box on someone else's property.

    I dress well, keep my hair cut and my face shaved, I have BS and MS science degrees from good schools. I haven't been able to find a job since finishing grad school - almost two years ago.

    There is reason to protest, and the fact that you don't understand what they're protesting is as telling as your non-solution of getting a haircut and an education.

    Though I fully support their ideals I wasn't enthralled with most of the crowd in Zuccotti Park when I went to check it out, and I wouldn't join such an occupation myself, but you're attacking the messenger and not the message - because there is very little that is attackable (barring fringe elements).

  • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:16AM (#38056996)
    The only reason the protestors are in the park is because the police made it clear they'll arrest anyone who dares to actually protest near wall street. The park is designated a 'free speech zone' because it's far enough out of the way that no-one will see them.
  • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <> on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:25AM (#38057042) Homepage

    Funny, the last time I looked. That park was private property and they were squatting after they were told to leave.

  • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <> on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:27AM (#38057054) Homepage

    They've been given a vacate notice. The park is private property, and operates on a 'pro-quid-quo' status as semi-public at the pleasure of the owners who can restrict who can, and can't use it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:28AM (#38057058)

    they were allowed to build higher then the building code allowed because they built the park for public use.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:29AM (#38057060)

    The park has to be open and publicly accessible 24 hours a day.

  • by captainpanic ( 1173915 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:48AM (#38057156)

    In the USA, you can't just protest everywhere. They have no real free speech. You only have real free speech in the "Free Speech Zones". Usually, the free speech zones are hidden in places where the sun doesn't shine a lot.

    Wikipedia about free speech zones: []

  • by emj ( 15659 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:58AM (#38057218) Journal

    The cool thing is that these kinds of public/private parks are encouraged in New York since the building of Seagram Building in the sixties [], after that building the Zooning Resolution in New York was changed to offer: incentives for developers to install "privately owned public spaces".

  • by the linux geek ( 799780 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @05:14AM (#38057300)
    Or at least the "right" to squat on someone else's property for several months while defying eviction orders.
  • Re:good (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @05:31AM (#38057398)

    There are times when a job is more expensive than just being unemployed. For example, commute costs. Not everyone can afford to live in the heart of downtown, and most US cities, bicycling is out of the question unless one wants to risk having a white ghost bike planted in their memory. So, it requires a car and those costs associated with finding parking. Just the $25 per day parking cost can easily be a significant fraction of someone's wages because of the pressure to hire people at min wage and keep them at that.

    So, the "occupy a barber shop and employment agency office" claptrap is just plain wrong, and very dangerously close to "let them eat cake."

    Who knows. The occupy * movements have had their back broken, and are essentially dead after the synchronized crackdowns, but one has to at least give credit to people willing to risk it all, with the minimum being having to answer "yes" on "have you ever been arrested?" for the rest of their life on every job application or bank form. (And yes, virtually all jobs past McDonalds don't care about *convictions*, they care about *arrests* and NCIC records. Employers view that people can buy their acquittal, but if a police officer considers someone to be such a threat they have to whip out the cuffs and do the paperwork, the arrestee is a criminal, period.)

  • by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @05:34AM (#38057422)

    Oh? And when was the last time you actually checked the rules? Or by "last time I looked" do you mean "a lie I heard on Rush Limbaugh the other day"? Zuccotti Park is required to stay open to the public 24/7. The owners have the right to ban certain things, like tents, but they cannot ban protests.

  • by brokeninside ( 34168 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @06:48AM (#38057792)

    Police are clearing out the park so that the owners can clean it.

    Once they are done cleaning it, the protesters will be allowed back in so long as they do not bring tents, sleeping bags, etc.

  • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @08:13AM (#38058240)

    Occupying *is* peaceful protest

    It's called a sit-in. Just like in Greensboro North Carolina and Jackson Mississippi in the 1960's civil rights movement which resulted in desegregation of lunch counters. []

    Government has just gotten better at sweeping protesters under the rug and stifling media coverage by designating areas away from the target of the protests as "free speech zones".

    It's a backhanded way of doing it, but it's pretty clear that what's going on is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

    I find it ironic that the Tea Party is portrayed as "Right Wing" and the Occupy movement is portrayed as "Left Wing" when both groups have the same goal of throwing corrupt scoundrels out of public office.

    I think that characterization has more owed to Sarah Palin seeing a parade and running to get her baton and march in front of it as if she were leading. Ironically, her doing that has protected the Tea Party somewhat under the political shield of a former vice presidential candidate, which has required that they be taken seriously.

    You would think that some other savvy politician would take the same approach for the Occupy movement to advance their agenda, as Palin did.
      with the Tea Party.

    -- Terry

  • by Anubis350 ( 772791 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @08:42AM (#38058408)
    I agree with almost all of what you posted except the bridge. The Brooklyn Bridge has been closed Manhattan bound every night for a while now as part of a multi-year repair project, not special to last night. I live right by the bridge, the closures are a giant pain
  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @09:04AM (#38058564) Journal

    You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property they are squatting on, not a public park.

    Not exactly.

    The company that built the adjoining building wanted to make it taller, which violated certain city codes. In order to get a variance, they had to agree to provide and maintain a public space. In essence, create a public park.

    The actual deed to the land belongs to the company, but there is language saying that the company can never prevent public access. The reason the deed was kept with the company instead of the city is to help enforce the covenant that it would be the company that does all of the maintenance of the park.

    If you care to look it up, there have been good articles about this in the Wall St Journal and New York Times.

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @09:13AM (#38058644) Journal

    All I've gotten from them is "Wah! Rich people have more than we do!"

    I suppose if you only heard about the protests via right-wing AM radio, that's what you would take away from it.

    If you are even remotely independently-minded, and spend five minutes looking at primary sources, you would know that what the protests are about is pretty straightforward, and specific. It also represents a group of opinions that are held by a wide (and growing) majority of Americans.

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @10:19AM (#38059216)

    Ummm, no actually there's an amazing amount of public land. Have a look at a map some time ( That is just the federally owned public land, that doesn't count state or lower public lands.

    Also, as it relates to the protest, they might well be kicked off a lot sooner on public land. Here the protestors were camped in a public park and each night they were cited for illegal camping. The reason is the city's rules state the park is open from 7am-11pm for all people. "Public" doesn't mean "free for all", everyone has to follow the same rules. After a couple weeks, the city had used up its tolerance and told them to clear out (which they did peacefully).

    People seem to wrongly think that if something is public anyone can do anything. No, it means that anyone is allowed access and the same rules are applied to all. There very well may be a list of hours, rules of conduct, and that kind of thing. They are just universally applied. That is as opposed to, say, my house, where only people I decide are allowed access and I can change the rules as it suits me.

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @10:26AM (#38059296)

    "Oh they've made their point! They've said what they want!" Really? Because I've looked. I've seen the "official manifesto" posted here: [] and it is a rambling read of various supposed evils of companies that make them out simultaneously to be complete idiots and extremely malicious villains, but no actual list of demands. To "Clarify" things there is a picture that looks to be straight out of Mad Max Magazine.

    Or then on the official site there's this list: []. Talk about some of the most stupid, unrealistic demands ever. They want to reduce the workday to 6 hours, yet lower the retirement age to 55 (hint: more work is required to retire since people live longer)? They want a moratorium on foreclosures and layoffs so, you know, nobody needs to actually pay their mortgage, and companies can't get rid of workers even if they must. Then we get some real good ones that show that they've never read the Constitution: "Ban the private ownership of land." "Immediate debt forgiveness for all." "Ban private gun ownership."

    So where is this list of very reasonable demands they have? I am not saying find me one guy, I'm saying something from the movement itself. Because I've gone to the official places, and all I'm finding it idiocy.

  • Re:Waste of Time (Score:5, Informative)

    by JoeMerchant ( 803320 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @10:33AM (#38059374)

    I'm sorry, 50.1% was intended to be an obvious hip-shot from memory. To get research based about it:

    In 2000, 52.1% of voting U.S. Americans voted against George W. Bush.

    In 2004, only 49.3% of voting U.S. Americans voted against him.

    So, I can see how George W. Bush's actions from 2000 to 2004, in total, could be argued to have won over 2.8% of voting U.S. Americans, although there are mitigating effects such as those people who are pre-disposed to vote for/against a sitting president (I believe the balance still favors for), and the variation in his opposing candidates, which I would characterize as creepy in 2000 vs. un-likeable in 2004.

    My point is, not all U.S. Americans are abrasive ignorant jerks - only about half of us.

  • by mistiry ( 1845474 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @10:47AM (#38059508)

    I was going to mod up, but then finished reading your post....

    I am so tired of this argument, let me make it a little easier for your obviously-limited intellect...

    This 'private property' is required to be open to the PUBLIC, 24/7. An agreement between the developer and the City lays these terms out - the developer was permitted to exceed the maximum height of a structure as defined in CITY ORDINANCES by creating and maintaining A PUBLIC PARK.

    So, you'd firehose everyone away? If that happens, does that mean it is OK to blow the top floors off their building? I mean, if the park is no longer public, they shouldn't be permitted to maintain a building THAT IS TALLER THAN THE VOTERS LAID OUT IN CITY ORDINANCES, should they?

    They (the building owners/developers) are already a special case, and are now trying to infringe on the rights of American citizens. They should have done more research into what opening a 'public place' means before signing on the dotted-line. They were happy to build up taller, funny how unhappy they become when forced to abide by the terms of the agreement that ALLOWED them to build taller.

    Breaking the law by restricting public access doesn't seem so fucking smart now, does it?

  • by sl4shd0rk ( 755837 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @10:54AM (#38059568)

    > It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the
    > phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.

    You're only reading half the story. They are not allowed to bring anything back in after the park is "cleared". []

    It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.

    As far as the "private property" argument, something about that sounds dubious. If it were a private corp who owned prime space in downtown new york you can damn betcha it would have apartments stacked up as far and wide as legally possible.

    A judge even thinks so this morning too. []

  • by SlippyToad ( 240532 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @10:59AM (#38059616)

    You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property

    Like many things the wealthy of America clutch to their chests with greed, Zucotti Park is heavily subsidized by public monies [], asshole.

    $20.1 million in government subsidies, primarily since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, according to a new report by Good Jobs New York. Meanwhile, as previously reported, Brookfield itself received about $460,000 in subsidies for the building since Sept. 11.

    So, it's privately owned in name only, in reality it is apparently subsidized by those bloodsucking, useless suckfly taxpayers.

    Oh, did I call you a complete assshole yet? ASSHOLE!

  • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @11:03AM (#38059682) Homepage Journal

    Unfortunately, no one really knows what that point is. All I've gotten from them is "Wah! Rich people have more than we do!"

    Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

    Really kinda sad considering that they are the 1% themselves when looked at from a worldly point of view.

    The preacher at my church tried to make the same point, and he was wrong, too. I'm twice as rich as someone in Chicago who earns the same wage as me, because prices are twice as high there. When I was in Thailand in the USAF in 1974, it was a third world country with a median income of $1000 per year. But you could feed four in a nice restaraunt for less than a dollar, take a bus anywhere in the country for a nickle, rent a bungalow (woman included) for thirty bucks a month. In the US, my airman's salary made me a pauper, but if I'd had a year's worth of that salary in Thailand, I could have retired. If you made $1000 per year in Thailand you weren't poor, $1000 per year in the US and you were destitute. You simply can't determine wealth by the amount of dollars one has, because a dollar is worth different amounts in different places.

    Simply being able to eat without working puts them there.

    Boy, you sure swallow these 1%er tea party lies hook, line, and sinker, don't you? One in six Americans have problems with hunger. I went without food when I was young and poor. And you're going to blame the 9% unemployment rate on the people who can't find jobs? Son, that's close to insanity. It's Washington and Wall Street that keep people poor -- jobs are their job, and they're both falling down on that job.

    You might want to educate [] yourself. []

  • by operagost ( 62405 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @11:09AM (#38059764) Homepage Journal

    It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.

    No. It specifically lists tents and sleeping bags. You can still bring signs, bullhorns, pamphlets, and other things that actual peaceful protestors-- not entitled squatters-- bring to a protest.

  • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @11:22AM (#38059970) Homepage Journal

    Oddly enough, the wealthy are already taxed

    As it turns out, according to the IRS and ABC News,1,470 American millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009. [] Nearly 100,000 millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class [], and capital gains (gambling on the stock market and commodity futures) has half the tax rate as a working person's income tax. Funny how your tea party was all against repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but against the Obama tax cuts for the middle class.

    banks are already regulated

    Not nearly enough. For one thing, tha Glass-Stegal act's repeal was one of the causes of the economic meltdown. Do you really think that a 200% APR is in any way not usurious? Yet that's how much many of the payday loan places that the poor use charge.

  • by Feyshtey ( 1523799 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @12:28PM (#38060836)
    How is squating on private property legal?
    How is failing to report rapes to police legal?
    How is openly calling for violence against law enforcement legal?

    Just asking...
    The court order you're refering to was something the mayor didnt yet have all the information on, and was described as an order that kept the police from enforcing some laws within the park. They werent letting the protestors back in until they understood the order to ensure that they didn't violate that order.
  • Ummm Really? (Score:3, Informative)

    by DnemoniX ( 31461 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @12:54PM (#38061214)

    I got up this morning and I turned on CNN for some noise. As I got ready, they showed the press conference from the Mayor of NY. He was very clear, this park is privately owned but the owners are bound to an agreement to allow 24/7 public access. There are restrictions to this such as no camping etc (which were actively being violated). They can also close the park for cleaning and public health concerns. The owners have completely supported the protesters using the park, and continue to do so. The Mayor stated several times, after it is cleaned, you are welcome to come back, but leave your tents and tarps at home.

    You know what else I saw on CNN? Loads of footage of the garbage trucks cleaning up giant piles of garbage and refuse in the park. It looked like a shanty town in a 3rd world country. If there was some sort of media blackout nobody told CNN. If people were in fact kept away, doesn't it make sense that a bunch of extra bodies hanging around just might get in the way of the cleanup efforts?

    Go home, let them clean the park, then you are welcome back. That was the message the Mayor gave in the press conference. Somebody please provide a rational argument or facts that they can back up as to why this is a bad thing?

  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:45PM (#38063860)

    next time someone in China is jailed for years for using twitter, vs a group that has suppressed rape reports, assaulted reporters and police, caused thousands of dollars in property damage and under the cover of political protests has essentially been a crime wave that has been tolerated for weeks, you mean, all the while creating some twisted twenty-first century hybrid of Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies... Moral equivalence is the devil's plaything.

    Don't forget seizing public/private property (parks) and taking it for personal use under the sham of free speech and assembly. The parks belong to everyone -- not just these Occupy clowns.

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.