Four cops were injured when a demonstrator threw liquid — possibly vinegar — at their faces, police said.
After the arrests, the protesters retreated north along Broadway near Trinity Church. Demonstrators eventually went back to Zuccotti Park, which has been their base since Sept. 17.
A fracas between cops and protesters erupted in the park at about 11 a.m. when demonstrators took down police barricades.
Protesters streamed into the park when a few people grabbed a metal barricade and started dragging it, screaming “Whose fences? Our fences!”
That’s when cops moved in to restore order, making at least two arrests and putting the barricades back into place.
At about 1:40 p.m., police started forcefully clearing the park, shoving protesters with their batons and making more arrests.
Witnesses said they were unsure what sparked the police action, but said no warning was issued.
At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall — but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street, where they comically chanted, “Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!”
Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: “This isn’t City Hall?”
They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: “There it is! That’s City Hall!” and the chanting resumed.
The day began when a contingent of 500 protesters gathered near Zuccotti Park at 7 a.m. and walked towards Wall Street. OWS protesters never got close to the stock exchange and the market opened as normal at 9;30 a.m.
By 8 a.m., a large group gathered on the east side of Broadway and splintered into two groups in an effort to fool cops.
“All day, all week, occupy Wall Street,” the protesters chanted as they flooded Nassau and Pine streets.
Another crowd of unruly protesters on Broad and Beaver streets also got into a skirmish with cops.
Cops were prepared even though as many as 500 protesters had clogged the streets, pushing and shoving police officers who tried to stop them.
Police in riot gear had ordered them to stay away as cops barricaded many of the protesters in an effort to thwart them from blocking traffic and getting near Wall Street.
The NYPD had prepared for all-out war — adding an extra 1,000 cops per shift.
The mobilization is on par with the 2004 Republican National Convention — although today’s protests marking the two-month mark of the movement are expected to be far more widespread.
Demonstrators have said they will fan out to 16 transit hubs in all five boroughs at around 3 p.m. — and plan to flood the subways and Staten Island Ferry just in time for the evening commute.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
18 Responses
We just had a “major” OWS protest here in northern Virginia with a HUGE mass of maybe 20 people marching past my office window on their way to Washington DC.
So many people with so much time on their hands. Nebbuch.
Shazam, it’s not a matter of people with “time on their hands.” The protesters are expressing their discontent and exercising their protected rights.
I’m curious. Do you think that any protest is warranted? Do you think that serious change of some kind is needed in this country?
‘SpecialFred3’…
“Do you think that serious change of some kind is needed in this country?”
Absolutely.
This country needs a new president like a dying man needs breath!
2,
Yes. some change needs to happen. like the change the Tea Party is demanding, and some real reform on the rules with lobbyists and elected officials. But with the current law all the banks actions are naturaly human, and not evil in any way.
These people are out to ruin other people’s life, without a clue of what they really want. Just some “serious change” – as you said…
2. Their ‘right’ to protest PEACEFULLY (they are not!) does not impede on my right not to have to hear them or for my right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Once those rights clash, MINE WINS!
Let them protest in Washington, D.C near the white House where the source of all this discontent is being generated from. The Economic and budetary policies were passed in D.C. That is where the blame should be placed not in NYC from the politicians etc.
Mark Levin, that’s not right at all. The right to protest means nothing if it does not protect unpopular protest. You do not have the right to not be offended, but they do have the right to assemble and make their voices heard. You would want the same thing if you had a grievance to air, wouldn’t you?
#2: The protesters are mostly protesting for the sake of protesting (hence “time on their hands”). Most of them, if you asked them, would not be able to articulate any logical reason why they are doing what they are doing. And if they did, you would be hard pressed to find a uniform set of “themes”.
They are rabble rousers. They have exceeded their protected rights by resorting to violence against themselves, law enforcement officers, other citizens, and property. In fact, their actions belie their alleged goals: they are causing hard working people to lose money and jobs.
The stupidity and hypocrisy of this “movement” is astounding.
MDshweks, they are not “out to ruin” anyone’s life. They are demonstrating in the way that countless others have in the nation’s history.
As for what they really want, a nice writeup appears here:http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/guy_called_cookie_monster_offe.php
Perhaps if these loafers were asked to show a photo i.d. and homeland security would look into their backgrounds,many would disappear.
There are many jobs available and you take what u can get rather than do nothing. However, many of these loafers are collecting such as unemployment,food stamps, SSI, SSD,medicaid and anything else government is using hard earned taxed money at close to 55% for some of us to pay for this. So, let the police finally do their job and get them off the street. Yes, i agree let them go to Washington and stand in front of the White House and stay there until there is change for the better.
By the way where are these loafers getting money for illegal drugs.
Another suggestion is to get a mass amount of exterminators to spray the place up to get rid of all the lice or bedbugs that may have amassed from these people many of whom don’t even know what soap and water is used for.
Shazam (#8), I’m not sure why you are so convinced that they are “protesting for the sake of protesting.” You say that if you asked them they wouldn’t be able to say why they’re there, but that’s clearly not true. I’ve been following the live feed at http://www.ustream.tv/theother99 for the entire day. The feed is live and entirely uncut. Throughout, people have articulated what they want with respect to electoral reform, campaign finance reform, student loan reform, and other issues.
As for your comment that they have exceeded their rights, I wonder how you made that legal determination. They have not resorted to violence in any sense of the word: the few people who tried to start were immediately ejected, and copious video footage shows their response to police actions is to chant “This is a peaceful protest” and to only passively resist.
Ms. Critique (#10), I’m sorry that you didn’t learn anything from the history of totalitarian and fascist regimes. Do you really want the Department of Homeland Security to “disappear” people? Don’t we have horror stories of the KGB doing exactly that to our own brothers and sisters? Do you want to live in a country where such actions can be condoned?
You assert that the protesters are among those who take government largess at the expense of working people. Setting aside the reports that the majority of the protesters are either employed or are students, I wonder what surveys you are relying on for your assertions.
Your post is essentially a screed composed of ad homoniem attacks and unfounded assertions. Perhaps you could address the merits of their complaints. Do you think that student loan reform is needed? Do you think that the right to free speech needs to be protected?
SpecialFred3
I am sorry that you are unemployed (I make this assumption from the fact that you write that “I’ve been following the live feed at http://www.ustream.tv/theother99 for the entire day.” ) Perhaps your current situation leaves you predisposed to the false hopes that rise from catchy slogans (we all remember “Yes we can” and the ensuing financial disaster that that slogan has wrought on our nation…).
I have read the occupy wall street web site and did not see any coherent statement of laws that they seek to create or rules that the movement would like to implement. The general complaint about an unfair economy and corrupt politicians is the same complaint that is espoused by the Tea party .. although their spin is that the economy is unfair in that productive contributors to the economy are burdened with ever increasing taxes and fees to subsidize the special interest groups and the programs that they promote. (This problem is not unique to this administration!)
The general tone of the OWS movement is one of jealousy. Not begrudging the success of others is an especially evil character fault as described in Ethics of our Fathers.
Throughout world history there have been people that have been blessed by Hashem with riches. We are taught as well that poverty will never cease,and that the rich achieve merit by supporting and helping the needy. I think all readers of this web site would agree that the Jewish community does an outstanding job when it comes to matters of chessed/kindness and charity. Our parents and rebbeim did not instill these value into us by teaching us to be jealous of the wealthy.
GrumpyOldMan,
Your assumption is incorrect. I am currently a student at a New York law school, where I study First Amendment and surveillance law. As a student, I have considerable flexibility in my schedule and can leave a browser window open with the livestream throughout the day.
The reason I post is not because of any particular agreement or affiliation with OccupyWallStreet. Rather, as someone who holds our Constitutional freedoms very dearly, it pains me to see people post hateful, ignorant, and damaging messages on a frum website. The majority of the posts here (yours, notably, is well-written and thoughtful) are emotional, unreasoned outbursts that seek to deny the importance of the rights of speech and assembly.
OWS is the sort of movement that I’ve written about several times. The nature of modern communications technology fosters the development of looser and less-centralized social groups than in the past. Decentralization, especially in decision-making, is a key feature of OWS, with its focus on making decisions through general assemblies and the like.
OWS has as one of its central themes the idea that systemic reform is needed. The government, in their view, is too closely controlled by moneyed and corporate interests, and no longer represents the needs of the general public. They are not “jealous” of the wealthy, but they think that a system that encourages wealth concentration is unfair and should be changed. One of their favored slogans is “Wall Street isn’t winning, it’s cheating.“ Their point is that the current economic system is broken and incorrectly allocates resources to fewer and fewer people. And the growing wealth disparity in this country seems to support this sentiment.
I should point out that the mishna in Avos says: “One who says ‘What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine’ is wicked.” The very argument of OWS is that corporatist systems encourage the accumulation of wealth from the masses to a select few.
Special Fred 3 —
I am in very strong agreement that Constitutional rights must be protected. But I see no indication at all that the rights of the OWSers have been in any way denied. Quite the opposite, the city seems to have bent over backwards not to infringe on their rights, in my opinion at the expense of the rights of others. The right to express your opinion and gather, for example, does not include the right to stand in the street and stop traffic, or to camp out indefinitely in a quasi-public park in clear violation of neutral rules such as those prohibiting tents. (These rules existed previously, by the way — they were not crafted to keep these people out.) A person’s right to protest does not allow him to protest in a residential area in the middle of the night, disturbing others. It is these types of behaviors that turn people off and give people the feeling that these protesters are somewhat less than admirable. (In contrast to the tea party, which is suddenly increasing in popularity in poling. Suddenly non violent rallies with permits obtained before hand, and campaigning on behalf of candidates who express support for your views seem very appealing, even if you disagree with those views!)
Additionally I believe the reason people feel that these people are “protesting for the sake of protesting” is that no one is sure what exactly they want. Not in the sense that you answered as to what is their agenda, but rather what do they see these protests accomplishing. Let’s say the government (local, federal, take your pick) would say “ok, we give in stop your protests and we’ll do what you say” what would that be? The general way to effect change in this country is through the legislative system. Propose laws and gather support to pressure your representatives to pass those laws. If they won’t do it, vote them out! This OWS will go on indefinitely or until they tire out because their is no practical focus to all of this. They are not trying to become involved in the political system, they are not articulating a vision and looking for individuals to put into office who agree with that vision — they are simply making a lot of noise. A perfect example is their march on city hall saying Bloomberg must go. I am not a particular fan of Bloomberg, but what do they expect to happen? Him to step down as mayor? Why would he possibly do that, and why do they feel he should do that? Simply because he’s rich? Well if you don’t want a wealthy mayor, don’t vote for him — and convince your friend not to vote for him. Don’t march on city hall saying he should “go”! Similarly, what gives them the right to “shut down” wall stree. If you feel their should be more regulation, so lobby your representative to pass such laws. (BTW all those union members who are joining are likely members of pension funds with investments in “wall street”!)
Finally, I don’t want to get into a discussion about economic models, but your quote from Avos does not seem to lend any support to the OWS arguments. In fact it is exactly what they seem to be saying — if someone is making “too much” money, they are somehow evil and must be cheating the system — and therefore the system should be set up in such a way that no one can make too much more money then others. They believe that the money the wealthy have rightfully belongs to the middle class or the poor, and not the wealthy (“what’s yours is mine”). Even those who don’t go that far at least believe that there is a big pot of money that is divided up, and if some people get more, others get less. This idea of everything belonging to everyone, and therefore the rich are in essence stealing when they “take” more than their fair share is also described in that same mishna “what is mine is yours and what is yours is mine” is indicative of a foolish person.
It is interesting to note that in wealthy capitalistic countries like the U.S. the overall standard of living for EVERYONE is significantly better than countries with a system that is less friendly to corporate interests. There may be a large gap between the rich and the poor, but the poor in the U.S. have it a lot better then the poor in most of the rest of the world with regard to their quality of life. The bottom line is that increased productivity in a society helps everyone have more. Just look at what is happening throughout Europe now to see the end result of trying to create a system to “allocate resources” rather than allowing everyone the chance to strive for whatever they can. (People are still unhappy because of jealousy. If you give a child a candy he will be thrilled, until he discovers that you gave his brother 2 candies. This essential aspect of human nature doesn’t change when people grow up. If others have more, then it is difficult to be happy with what you have.)
Hey Fred, where is it written in our Constitution that peaceful assembly and protest includes….throwing unknown liquids at the police, spitting at the police, throwing glass bottles (which cut an officer badly), moving barricades that were put into place by NYPD, stopping decent people from getting to work, getting in the way of young children on their way to school and a whole lot more of violent actions by the OWS crew?
12786,
Nowhere, of course. Rather than focus on the actions of a few, look to the actions of the many. The overwhelming majority of protesters did not act violently in any way. In fact, they ejected several people who were trying to begin fights. Those who were violent were arrested and will face prosecution.
I should point out, however, that A) spitting on a police officer is not illegal, B) the barricades were moved after the protesters were unlawfully enclosed and detained by the NYPD, C) making people late to work is not violent, as you say in your last sentence, D) getting in the way of children on their way to school is not violent.
Would you have these same objections if this had been a rally for Israel where people were delayed to work and a few individuals attacked police?
Special Fred —
The actions of the “many” still are unappealing to the vast majority of people (dare I say the 99%?). Preventing people from traveling through public places is not violent, but it is also not protected under the Constitution. In fact it is illegal in most places (creating a public nuisance, etc.). So these protesters may not be violent in the literal sense, but they are breaking the law.
Although many protesters in the past have broken laws to make their points, the ones who have garnered support usually were breaking the specific laws they felt were wrong. In other words those engaged in the civil rights protests earlier last century may have organized illegal “sit-ins” in segregated restaurants to prove the point that they felt these laws regarding segregation were wrong. Randomly causing chaos and inconvenience for hundreds of innocent individuals does not create sympathy for your cause.
And yes, I would feel the same way if these protest were in support of Israel. Interestingly, however, in the numerous pro-Israel demonstrations over the past many years, I don’t recall protesters attempting to stop traffic on the Brooklyn bridge. . .They were almost all legal protests, with the required permits, etc.
If OWS was stopping traffic via a legitimate parade such as those that frequently happen in NYC, I would not have a problem.