Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

niyad

(113,303 posts)
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:02 PM Jan 2012

OWS protesters charged with felony for mic-checking SD mayor

OWS Protesters Charged With Felony For Mic-Checking Mayor


A few days ago, members of Occupy San Diego cleverly mic-checked Mayor Jerry Sanders during his State of the City address.

Now mic-checking, while intentionally disruptive, is an completely peaceful tactic that has been employed in a wide-variety of settings during the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The CEO of Wells Fargo, representatives of JP Morgan Chase, Newt Gingrich, and even President Obama have been targets of this practice. But not even President Obama responded with as much aggression and ignorance as the San Diego police officers in attendance (with full blessing of the Mayor).

Not content to simply escort the OWS protesters out of the venue, at least three were arrested and charged with felony conspiracy for their actions.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/ows-protesters-charged-with-felony-for-mic-checking-mayor.html#ixzz1jMHpr05j


(the mayor's office in SD just claimed to know absolutely NOTHING about it)

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OWS protesters charged with felony for mic-checking SD mayor (Original Post) niyad Jan 2012 OP
I hope ACLU is on the case... n/t hlthe2b Jan 2012 #1
Is this the same guy who used to be head of AMD? Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #2
don't know anything about this person, except that he is an idiot. will have to look up his bio niyad Jan 2012 #6
NO, it is 2 different guys. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #14
I understand that the practive is disruptive, but I don't see where any laws were broken. SlimJimmy Jan 2012 #3
Felony Conspiracy? The Genealogist Jan 2012 #4
Bringing back the bad old days of the Chicago 7 gratuitous Jan 2012 #19
Charged them with a felony. Gold Metal Flake Jan 2012 #5
and how frightening their reactions niyad Jan 2012 #7
Fear + power = evil. Gold Metal Flake Jan 2012 #11
So now the 1st Amendment is a felony conspiracy? sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #8
"Occupy"ers have First Amendment Rights...This isn't one of them... brooklynite Jan 2012 #17
Sorry, they are interfering sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #18
Well said! nt oldhippie Jan 2012 #20
But that wasn't the purpose and you know it... brooklynite Jan 2012 #22
Every time I have seen a public figure mic checked it was to deliver a message to them. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #26
You should let people know that you self-identify as a 1%-er when discussing OWS DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #27
And is the Mayor of San Diego? brooklynite Jan 2012 #28
I have a female relative who is utterly impossible to never interrupt since she never stops talking. Fumesucker Jan 2012 #29
I understand your point. PETRUS Jan 2012 #30
Serious question... Is conspiracy to comit a misdemeanor a felony? cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #9
felony shit if you are going to get a felony make it worthwhile dembotoz Jan 2012 #10
This one promises some interesting trials lunatica Jan 2012 #12
Confirmation? Robb Jan 2012 #13
Isn't it a crime to deny someone their civil rights? FiveGoodMen Jan 2012 #15
There is this, but I read that it is not considered to be very powerful. Fire Walk With Me Jan 2012 #16
Wow! Felony mic checking? Conspiracy to do what? SantorumAnalFrothyMX Jan 2012 #21
Never heard of "mic checking", so I Googled it, Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #23
Off the charts of stupid. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #24
Only was I see a judge prosecuting this is if they're a con. joshcryer Jan 2012 #25
this is SD--lots of cons on the courts niyad Jan 2012 #31

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
2. Is this the same guy who used to be head of AMD?
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:10 PM
Jan 2012

I haven't heard much about the AMD CEO in a number of years...I'm wondering if he went into politics.

SlimJimmy

(3,180 posts)
3. I understand that the practive is disruptive, but I don't see where any laws were broken.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:26 PM
Jan 2012

I watched the video and it looks like they were disrupting, but that is a fairly common occurrence at these types of events. Escort them out and be done with it.

The Genealogist

(4,723 posts)
4. Felony Conspiracy?
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:38 PM
Jan 2012

I'm sure the action was disruptive and drew attention, which is part of what the mic check is meant to do. But felony conspiracy? Please!

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
8. So now the 1st Amendment is a felony conspiracy?
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:12 PM
Jan 2012

Good luck to them trying to get a conviction on the people using the 1st Amendment to speak to a public official.

What a jerk, I hope all these mayors lose their next elections. This movement has certainly exposed them for what they are.

brooklynite

(94,560 posts)
17. "Occupy"ers have First Amendment Rights...This isn't one of them...
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:45 PM
Jan 2012

No objection to complaining about the level of the charges, but interfering with someone else's rights isn't a way to protect The First Amendment, or to build support for one's cause.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
18. Sorry, they are interfering
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:00 PM
Jan 2012

with their elected officials. Not other ordinary people. They are protesting policy to those who make policy. Politicians have no special protection from the people's use of the 1st Amendment. This is in no way a felony. A minor misdemeanor at most.

We would be in a bad way if interrupting your elected official for a few minutes of the time we pay for and rarely get, is a felony offense. It simply is not. This country take the 1st Amendment very seriously, still. And if they get a conviction, I will be amazed, but if they do it should to all the way to the SC.

Sorry, if you want to be a public servant and the people want to talk to you, you can't claim 'felony'. Leave the job if you're that thin-skinned. But there is no felony here. It is laughable.

brooklynite

(94,560 posts)
22. But that wasn't the purpose and you know it...
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:22 AM
Jan 2012

The purpose wasn't to pass along a message of concerns to the elected official; it was to prevent the elected official from giving a message to the audience, and to give their own.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
26. Every time I have seen a public figure mic checked it was to deliver a message to them.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:09 AM
Jan 2012

That is what OWS is all about. Letting the people be heard over the money that has way more influence over our elected officials.

If you read H2OMan's story today, he cannot get anyone on either side of the aisle in his district or state to agree to meet with him and other concerned citizens. So, he is going on a hunger strike to try to get their attention. OWS goes to public meetings to do the same thing. And there is no way this is a felony, I sure hope not.

It is not politicians who need protection, it is the people and there would be no OWS if they had been doing their jobs.


 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
27. You should let people know that you self-identify as a 1%-er when discussing OWS
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:09 AM
Jan 2012

In the interest of fairness.

brooklynite

(94,560 posts)
28. And is the Mayor of San Diego?
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:34 AM
Jan 2012

I believe in EVERYONE's right to speak without interruption; as soon as I deny that to my opponents, I have no right to complain when they deny it to me.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
29. I have a female relative who is utterly impossible to never interrupt since she never stops talking.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:57 AM
Jan 2012

If you want to speak you have to interrupt her, at which point she becomes irate because you had the temerity to interrupt.

A lot of politicians are like that, in love with the sound of their own voices and if you want to talk you'll have to interrupt.

I've long since given up trying to have a conversation with my relative and resigned myself to hearing a never ending monologue.

PETRUS

(3,678 posts)
30. I understand your point.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:59 AM
Jan 2012

You may or may not be right about whether such tactics will build support, I don't feel I can predict. In the short run, they often don't (look at civil rights era polling about lunch counter sit-ins, etc.).

On the other hand, it's not difficult to understand that certain segments of society have much more access than others and certain points of view are given public platforms much more frequently than others. The protestors probably feel they've "been denied the right to speak" in any meaningful ways anyhow. Civil disobedience - which is what we're discussing - calls attention to such imbalances of power along with getting whatever specific message out. Yes, those actions are sometimes illegal (although felony charges seem ridiculous here) and yes, some will find them annoying.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
12. This one promises some interesting trials
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:19 PM
Jan 2012

I can definitely see the felony conspiracy argument and the Constitutional right to free speech in public places clashing in this one. All the way to the Supreme Court.

 

Fire Walk With Me

(38,893 posts)
16. There is this, but I read that it is not considered to be very powerful.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:40 PM
Jan 2012

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983

§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

21. Wow! Felony mic checking? Conspiracy to do what?
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 11:50 PM
Jan 2012

Give them enough rope and..........what's taking the PTB so long to get to the part where they hang themselves? K&R

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
23. Never heard of "mic checking", so I Googled it,
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:27 AM
Jan 2012

and it seems that it's essentially heckling. So heckling is a felony now?

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
24. Off the charts of stupid.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:42 AM
Jan 2012

These idiots had best come to grips with OWS, if they destroy it what replaces it will not be as much to their likings and messy for everyone.

Hamfisted, myopic, and minds of wheels but empty of actual thought.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
25. Only was I see a judge prosecuting this is if they're a con.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:55 AM
Jan 2012

Otherwise I think it'll be thrown out, this is hardly "felony conspiracy."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»OWS protesters charged wi...