Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)

from the sweet,-we're-puritans-again! dept

Thu, Jun 2nd 2011 11:41am — Timothy Geigner

Flash mobs are an odd sort of creature in the internet age. They've resulted in some really cool public "performances", fun little comedic bits, and are now being used to raise protests quickly organized through social networks like Twitter and Facebook. We saw what happened with the assistance of social media in the so-called Arab Spring, and the way some nations in the Middle East responded harshly to the protesters. But what about in America?

Warning: be prepared to be thoroughly pissed off.

It all started in 2008, when a flash mob was organized to dance silently (to music listened to by each individual with his or her own private headphones/music player) at the Jefferson Memorial to commemorate the 3rd American President's 265th birthday. Apparently, this flash mob of clearly dangerous and possibly terror-plot developing waltzers was asked to leave the memorial because...well...you know what? I can't think of a single good reason why a bunch of people silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial on his birthday to celebrate his life should have to leave. Jefferson, a musician himself, once wrote that dancing "is a healthy exercise, elegant and very attractive for young people."

But one of the flash mob dancers was cuffed anyway. And when she sued on First Amendment grounds, she was twice told to go boogie because dancing at the memorial, even silently and respectfully, apparently was a "distraction" from the somberness of the memorial.

Upon this appeals court loss, a couple weeks ago, a group was started on Facebook to organize a protest of the ruling over Memorial Day weekend where members would waltz on over to the Jefferson Memorial and dance again, silently and respectfully, without music, so as not to disturb other tourists. It didn't take long for the police to two-step over and ask them to stop again. In one of the finest examples of why we need to be allowed to videotape law enforcement, police cuffed a couple basically slow dancing in silence, and then lindy hopped on a couple of gentlemen's heads, while horrified tourists looked on slack-jawed.

Look, I'm Irish, so I come from a lineage whose dance tradition basically consists of playing hacky sack without the sack, but perhaps bodyslamming silently dancing men and women onto the marble floor of a memorial for a patriot dedicated to preserving freedom and battling against needless government tyranny, not a hundred feet from the stenciled words "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free" might not be the best use of law enforcement, the courts, or much of anything else. Let's not mince words -- this was a peaceful assembly in protest over a court ruling, and in celebration of a Founding Father of the United States. Their treatment by law enforcement was abhorrent.

I'm trying to inject some humor into this because, frankly, I find this whole thing really upsetting. And to be honest, my words alone can't really describe the level of what occurred here. That's why, again, I'm thankful that people have cameras on their phones and a platform like YouTube to share the videos, even if it's stomach-turning to watch the results.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dancing, free speech, jefferson memorial, thomas jefferson

458 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:47am

Irony
Does the fact that they're body-slamming people who are quietly expressing themselves in front of the Jefferson Memorial never cross their minds?

No, of course not. They're cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:53am

Re: Irony
This one actually made me so angry that it was a struggle to write any humor into the piece....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwind (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:55am

Flat disgusting
I spent my time in the navy during Viet Nam and this is our reward.
These cops and their superiors need to be flogged.
No excuse at all for their behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:59am

What occurred here is people trying to cause a public disturbance, and getting an appropriate level of response from authorities. The people involved know it is wrong, they know they are breaking the law, and failed to stop breaking the law when the authorities intervened. What happened next is the normal next step when people don't obey an officer of the law and continue with an illegal activity.

A little civil disobedience is nice and all, but at the point that the officers got involved, they really should have stopped. They clearly did not follow the officers instructions, and resisted even when the office attempted to use physical force to stop the activity.

I have no sympathy for these dancing fools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:59am

First of all these cops are Park Police. Can they even be considered real cops? Besides, maybe they just didn't like Adam Kokesh or maybe he'd been giving them evil eye? He's a pretty imposing guy...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:02pm

They boogied with Jefferson to challenge this month�s U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that dancing at memorials is forbidden �because it stands out as a type of performance, creating its own center of attention and distracting from the atmosphere of solemn commemoration,� according to the panel�s ruling.

Read that, have you ever, ever heard anything so insane? You'd figure that text came from an Iraqi court because people were dancing at a Saddam statue right? Nope, right here in the USA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:02pm

Civil disobedience? Breaking the law? You poor, dumb fool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really?, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:03pm

Disruptive
Frankly, I'd find that hipsters dancing in front of a crowded monument to be more than a little disruptive. Add to that the fact that they refused to stop, and then resisted the officers, and I wouldn't consider it much of a surprise or an "outrage" that a modicum of force was used against them.

This sort of Gen Y entitlement makes me embarrassed for my entire generation.

But hey, that's just my opinion, and I am expressing it /in the proper venue/.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:05pm

Re:
"He's a pretty imposing guy..."

I believe that's because he's a veteran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kokesh#.22Adam_vs_The_Man.22
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan F (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:06pm

Re:
It wouldn't be civil disobedience if as soon as someone with civil authority came along and said to stop they did so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob V (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:07pm

Re:
Public disturbance??? I walked through a crowed going the other way the other day, should I be arrested. A little bit of common sense and a lot less lawyers would go a long way to fixing this country.

anyone rember these words...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. � That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, � That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re: Irony
What we need here is Kevin Bacon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan F (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:13pm

Re: Disruptive
Disruptive? Quite possibly in your opinion yes. Others may have found it amusing.

Their point to doing this was to 'peaceably assemble' and to protest the actions of the judicial branch of our government. If all they did was quietly gather at someones private home to kvetch among themselves, then no one would know they were not happy with the ruling. Thus in order for any action to take place they MUST be disruptive to draw attention to what they consider wrong doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:13pm

Re:
Likewise, I'll have no sympathy for you when the cops kick your ass for nothing important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:14pm

*Grrr*
Truth...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:14pm

Re: Disruptive
So were they.

I find people posing for pictures in front of something I want to look at disruptive. I find people talking about something I want to contemplate in silence disruptive. I find people in general doing anything anywhere I am that I don't want them to be doing to be disruptive.

Now I can call on the park cops to bodyslam them so I feel better. Yey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really?, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re:
Yes, public disturbance. If I went to my family member's gravestone and there were weirdos dancing in front of it, I would be ticked off.

Good job copying and pasting the declaration of independence, but I fail to see anything in it giving people carte blanche to do whatever they want in total disregard to everyone else around them.

Dance in a dance hall. Reflect in a memorial. Seems common sense, no?

Maybe I just have a disconnect with the whole "look at me, I'm doing stuff to be different" crowd. Thank goodness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really?, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Disruptive
And there are places that ban photography. And guess what happens when you refuse to abide?

Cause and effect. Didn't they teach that in school? Oh wait, maybe they were to busy handing out "participation awards" to underachievers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really?, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
sed 's/to/too/g'

Before someone launches an ad hominem grammar attack..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm

Re: Disruptive
"Frankly, I'd find that hipsters dancing in front of a crowded monument to be more than a little disruptive."

Too bad. They were no more disruptive than a Parkinson's patient. People should be able to deal w/a little silent dancing.

"Add to that the fact that they refused to stop"

Well, of course they didn't. That's the whole point of a protest. You don't stop doing what you think you should be able to do just because a browncoat tells you to.

"and then resisted the officers"

That's what you call resisting officers?

"and I wouldn't consider it much of a surprise or an "outrage" that a modicum of force was used against them."

A MODICUM of force? Wow....

"But hey, that's just my opinion, and I am expressing it /in the proper venue/."

And you're of course more than welcome to express it here. I just think you're horribly flippant about what actually took place, particularly as a Veteran is involved....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
So if someone takes a photo in a place that bans photography, do they deserve to get kicked in the head and have their camera destroyed by a police officer/security guard/person with a badge?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:22pm

Re: Disruptive
So, it's now illegal to annoy you? And if I don't stop annoying you, the cops are allowed to pick my ass up and slam me into the ground and choke me?

It is not illegal to dance. It is also not illegal to ignore a cop telling you to stop doing something legal. Severe physical violence in response to a peaceful protest, does that sound failure to anyone else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:23pm

The appeals court found that dancing was not allowed at the memorial, because while it is open to the public, it is NOT a public forum. Therefore, it falls under jurisdiction of the Park Service (and the Park Police).

Protesting without a permit is a violation of Park Service rules.

So while you all keep crying about ZOMG these mall security guards are trampling our right to protest!!1!, these protesters are not going about it properly.

Yes, we (the people) have a right to assemble. No, we do not have a right to assemble whenever and wherever the hell we want. And if we violate the rules/laws during a protest, then we should expect a smackdown (as these people most certainly did, hence the open call for photographers and media)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ts, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
You would have a right to be ticked off.... just like they have the right to dance on public grounds. But NO ONE has a right to act like these cops. This makes me want to buy a plane ticket to Washington so I can dance (and I don't dance) at the memorial.. even if I'm made an example of just like these people. Things like this will eventually wake people up and they will realize where this country is headed. They can't arrest us all. It's about time the people took our country back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:24pm

Re: Disruptive
Thankfully the Boston Tea Party Activists can't wince at your own generation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The dood, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:25pm

How come they are not arresting loud screaming school children? Are they not by letter of the law causing a disruption? At least pepper spray the little bastards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:25pm

Re:
"these protesters are not going about it properly"

I wasn't aware we needed permits and licenses and permission from the government to protest the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:26pm

Re:
"A little civil disobedience is nice and all, but at the point that the officers got involved, they really should have stopped. They clearly did not follow the officers instructions, and resisted even when the office attempted to use physical force to stop the activity."

Forgive me, but a patriot does not stop rightful activity just because his/her government tells them to....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Irony
Everything's better with bacon.

Oh, that was completely unrelated to the topic at hand and probably annoying to a few people. Here come the cops to body slam me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
Really?: "I CANNOT COMPREHEND WHAT PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION MEANS! I WORSHIP THE LAW, IT CANNOT EVER BE WRONG! I CANNOT FATHOM IT EVER BEING WRONG, NOR DO I UNDERSTAND THAT IGNORING A BAD LAW IS NOT WRONG! I AM HOPELESSLY INERT AND DEPENDENT ON THE SYSTEM AND DON'T REALIZE HOW DELUDED I REALLY AM! WAAAHHH!"

I guess you think Rosa Parks should have stayed at the back of the bus, then. And that you also lack a little thing called common sense - these people were no danger to anyone at all but were peacefully and quietly protesting. The whole point of a peaceful protest is that it must be public for the point to be made. And it was peaceful. Thus, any violence used upon them at all is both wrong and inappropriate. I guess you just get off on thoughts of police states, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, public disturbance. If I went to my family member's gravestone and there were weirdos dancing in front of it, I would be ticked off.

And if your family member was Jefferson, and he was actually buried there, I might entertain your argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re:
"I wasn't aware we needed permits and licenses and permission from the government to protest the government."

you need permission from whoever is in charge of the venue when it is not a public forum. and since the courts have (so far) ruled that the Jefferson Memorial is not a public forum, then yes, you would need permission from the Park Service.

Streets are public, but they are not a public forum. You would need permission from the city to hold a protest in a street.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re:
"Protesting without a permit is a violation of Park Service rules."

[citation needed]

No, seriously. You need to cite a law that actually says that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
I think you missed my point.

I wasn't aware we needed permits and licenses and permission from the government to protest the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, public disturbance. If I went to my family member's gravestone and there were weirdos dancing in front of it, I would be ticked off.

Feel free to be bothered, but guess what?

It's constitutionally protected: http://on.msnbc.com/iDiJTQ

If we should not quash even the most odious of expressions from some pretty loathsome human beings, why stoop to preventing expressions in a public space that are meant to be respectful, even if they are disruptive in someone's opinion? We're not talking "fire in a crowded theater" type stuff, we're talking about dancing.

If you really think that little of our right to express one's self in public that quiet dancing counts as worthy of sensorship, I can only feel sorry for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:30pm

Re:
I've often wondered if perhaps the anonymous coward brigade was here, not to voice genuine opinions, but to simply object to every article on this site for either payment or out of emotional emptiness.

I don't wonder that anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
No, that's what the laws are supposed to be for. They were protesting, civilly, and (well, almost) calmly and in near-silence. IF someone was disturbed by it, then a calm talking to would ahve sufficed.

After all, Land of the Free has the most people incarcerated per capita in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also if a public park or memorial does not count as a public space, then there's something seriously wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob V (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
Step back from the you find it distasteful part.

Gahndi, King, Stanton, Anthony, Parks just to think of a few names off of the top of my head. By your comments these people were wrong and should never have done their part in the various civil rights movements they were a part of.

There is a general failure to see the forest for the trees when people look at incidents like this.

Civil disobedience is part and parcel with our country's history. Protesting, organizing and even forming crackpot militias, these are all normal things for Americans to do. or at least they used to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Disruptive
It is not illegal to dance. It is also not illegal to ignore a cop telling you to stop doing something legal.

Disturbingly, I believe that it effectively is. For you see, resisting arrest is illegal.

Don't worry, you can bring a complaint before a judge that attended a BBQ at the policeman's house last weekend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re:
Actually that has been a law in just about every jurisdiction. You need a permit to organize a protest and hold it 'legally'.

Flash mobs are an interesting stretch to that concept. If they organize and plan ahead of time, which this group appears to have done, yes a permit is needed, especially at a public national memorial.

If someone tweets 'everybody go here and do X', is that prior organization and planning? I'd probably say no.

But the mobs where people meet and practice the dance steps etc. before hand probably are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:35pm

Of those who worship the founders as Gods among men, it seems that one should not pursue happiness and have joy in liberty, but rather you should be angry and belligerent towards those who do.
What greater blasphemy than to express happiness and joy in front of a man who sacrificed so much to give us the chance to have it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Irony
I completely agree, I'm absolutely amazed and horrified at this. It's mind blowing just how wrong this is and scary that we've arrived at this point in our society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:36pm

Re:
"Protesting without a permit is a violation of Park Service rules."

From Wikipedia on the First Amendment:

"In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States.""

Screw the Park Service and their overly aggressive puritanical nonsense. The right to peacefully assemble is a hallmark of my country's values, and this incident was sickening....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
And there are places that ban photography. And guess what happens when you refuse to abide?

Yes, what happens if you don't abide is you are told to leave the premises. You are not body slammed to the ground and handcuffed.

I hope you're not an American.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
And guess what happens when you refuse to abide?

What does happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:40pm

Perhaps the US national anthem should be changed the Imperial March from Star Wars. Seems like it's fast becoming more appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:42pm

Pissed off
This really does piss me off and the first cop couldn't even say what law was being broken. Disgusting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xian, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:42pm

Re:
I think that's kind of the point of civil disobedience. Now, this isn't the level of Rosa Parks or anything, but what she did was illegal. That's the whole point.

Now, there aren't any laws on the books about dancing in public, at least that I'm aware of. Also, what's the definition of dancing? As citizens we grant the government a monopoly on violence for the purpose of running a society for the common good. With that being the case, I cannot justify an argument for body slamming a guy on the ground for putting a jig into his step in a public place.

The way I see it, these cops (or their superiors that created these orders) are out of line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JS, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:42pm

Maybe dancing at the memorial is not breaking the law but when a cop tells you to stop dancing and leave, just do it. You're not going to win if you stand there and disobey. And you are in for a world of hurt if you resist.

Why does everyone think they need to get into a pissing contest with "the man"?

Don't like being told to leave a public place? Fine. Take it up in the courts where it will actually make some difference. But actively resisting arrest is just going to get you hurt and yes that big guy that got body slammed to the ground was actively resisting arrest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:43pm

Re: Irony
actually it does, you can clearly see the cop react to that very question with an "I know this is crazy" shrug before proceeding to it anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
No one was resisting arrest. They were asked to stop dancing and they didn't. That is not illegal. THEN the police tried to arrest them - but I'm not sure what you call resisting since all I saw was a lot of choking, slamming, and co-operation from the those on the receiving end.

I mean, if you think not listening to a police officer is resisting arrest, maybe you don't know what arrest even means?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:45pm

Re:
It's one thing to arrest people for civil disobedience.

It's another thing entirely to do what these "police officers" did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:45pm

Re: Disruptive
Those bitching about "Gen Y entitlement," such as yourself, should try to keep in mind that there are some things we ARE entitled to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:47pm

To be brutally honest, at the point they start making sarcastic responses about 'what is dancing', 'what if you're out of time when making movements...', etc etc is when I lost total respect for these 'dancers'. What response did they expect out of the cops? "Oh we're sorry, carry on!"... hardly!

Being a smart ass gets you no where. All hope was lost when they started raising their voices and resisting the cops. Now don't get me wrong, I think the cops were wrong in their initial assessment of the situation, that is of course if they were not dancing as they were in the video. If that was how they were dancing prior to the start of the video, a warning and then a subsequent arrest if they do not stop was in order. Because the 'dancers' physically resisted arrest, the proper course of action was to take em down.

I agree a little non-disruptive dance (no music, no wild actions or attention getting movements, ie slow dancing in a non-goofy manner) is no reason to arrest someone, but that is clearly not what was being done in the video. The dancers were antagonizing and they got what they deserved.

Its kind of like the concept of yelling FIRE!! in a public place, when there is obviously no fire. To do that would cause disruption. Now if you whisper fire (when there is no fire) to your friends/family in idle conversation, thats a different story... Remember, this is just an analogy, and all analogies break down at some point... Dancing wildly with the purpose of getting attention is disruptive, while RESPECTFULLY dancing is not disruptive. These 'dancers' were not respectful at all, voice and action, in the video.

I have no sympathy for them and fully support the cops in their final decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:47pm

What the heck are they protesting?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
I was being facetious there. This is very troubling to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spanky (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:50pm

Re:
You are an idiot - people like you are the reason that our country has gotten to the shape that it is in today. Our basic freedoms are being squashed and we are sitting back and watching it happen. Go to some other country if you do not believe in the freedoms that our great country was built upon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:50pm

Re:
"Its kind of like the concept of yelling FIRE!! in a public place, when there is obviously no fire."

Except it's not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re:
"Protesting without a permit is a violation of Park Service rules."

After Oberwetter twice refused requests to stop, Park Police officers arrested her for �interfering with an agency function� and �demonstrating without a permit� in violation of the National Park Service Regulations, 36 C.F.R. � 7.96(g)(3)(ii)(C).

http://adwww2.americanbar.org/SCFJI/Lists/New%20Case%20Summaries/DispForm.aspx ?ID=464

it's not a link to the NPS site, but if the appeals court cited it, it's good enough for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:52pm

Re: Disruptive
This sort of Gen Y entitlement makes me embarrassed for my entire generation.

But hey, that's just my opinion, and I am expressing it /in the proper venue/.

Who the fuck do you think you are to impose your views on others while claiming they are the ones with an entitlement issue?

You sir, are a fucking hypocrite.

Pardon me for being rude, these comments are entirely too respectful for the atrocious behavior displayed by our supposedly freedom loving government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anon, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:52pm

Re: Disruptive
I'm sorry, but have you actually ever witnessed a flash mob in person? Like, really?

In most cases everyone moves out of the way. Watch in wonder at something so different than what they had expected. Many people have smiles or laugh, some people join in, and most everyone pulls out their phone to take a picture.

That is not a disturbance. At all. That is giving the tourists an extra memory. Something that will far outlast the rather dull day of walking around a monument and a few pictures of a statue.

But now the tourists have another memory. One that I'm sure will defiantly affect their vacation choices in the future. They just witnessed people being arrested.....for hugging, kissing, and dancing.

So, I'm sorry that you find these people to be 'hipsters' and you disapprove of their manner of speech, but that doesn't take away their right to it.

Remember, if you accept the trampling of other peoples rights b/c you don't like what they have to say, where will you turn when someone doesn't like what you have to say and you find yourself without your own rights?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:52pm

Re:
"Why does everyone think they need to get into a pissing contest with 'the man?'"

Because people who cringe like cowards in the face of overbearing authority never accomplish anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:53pm

Re:
I have no sympathy for them and fully support the cops in their final decision.

Have you considered moving to North Korea? I hear it's beautiful in Pyongyang this time of year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:53pm

I'm not overly sympathetic
A bunch of people got together to engage in a demonstration - though they tried to deny it was a demonstration.

The cops actually seemed pretty calm and straightforward. The first cop seemed to try to not escalate anything, but just tell them the way it works and the consequences. And then you had people clearly intentionally taunting the cops and making inane claims like, "you have to give me a warning!"

The only real rough stuff (and I didn't see anything as rough as is being claimed in comments here) was when the cops moved to cuff one man, but another man jumped in and physically grabbed the first man, actively interfering with the cops. The other incident was with a man who refused to move at all, so the cops moved him.

I have way more sympathy for the ones who actually were engaged in more honest civil disobedience. They committed their act, made their point, and were at least minimally cooperative in being arrested. I have no sympathy for those who taunt the police, cause physical escalation, etc.

I happen to agree with the concept that such demonstrations are distracting (whether audible or not) and not in keeping with the intent of the monumnet. Just like I am against the Bible-thumping bigots who protest military funerals and think it's just fine to keep them away from such solemn events, even if they do involve the goverment/military. I do not believe that you have to allow all sorts of stupid speech in order to protect valuable speech.

I would also note that the cops all seemed to do just fine with the videotaping going on.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: Re:
I think this was indeed very disruptive. If I was visiting a national monument and uniformed goons suddenly started yelling, grabbed people, slammed them on the ground, took them prisoner and then kicked everyone out, I would indeed find this a powerful obstacle to my enjoyment of the place.

Wait, I just realized we may not be speaking about the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:55pm

Re: Re:
"Remember, this is just an analogy, and all analogies break down at some point..."

The point was to show we do not have complete freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want. I recognize yelling fire is a safety hazard. The point of the analogy was to display that we do not actually have the freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want. While we do have certain freedoms, yelling fire in a public place isn't one of them (unless of course there is a fire). Disrespecting cops is not another one of those freedoms...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:57pm

Re:
They were "respectfully dancing" until the cops came and told them it was illegal, at which point they told the cops to screw off and the public disturbance happened. Of course they weren't respectful, how can you be respectful of someone shitting on your basic rights?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCL, 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
So the Westboro Baptist Church shouting negative and hateful things at a memorial service is protected (correctly IMO, but they are just wrong) but peacefully and silently dancing at a national monument is grounds for getting forced to the ground and handcuffed.

At most they should have just asked those people to leave and escorted them out.... but being body slammed for not walking fast enough is just wrong. That level of force is just not justified.

The cops were probably pissed because they were intimidating the people. The 2nd angle shows a 'stare down' by a cop in sunglasses and the guy stands there and waves. But cops are supposed to be trained to prevent emotions from escalating the situation.... this is a FAIL in that regard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
tweeting "everybody go here and do X is pretty much by definition prior organization and planning. Just not very much of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:00pm

Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
As the writer of the post starting out with: "To be brutally honest, at the point", I fully agree with you... however, im curious about the military funerals you talk about... is there a link? I am a devout christian, but I have not heard of or seen anything in a military funeral that would cause me to protest them... just curious about the topic is all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:01pm

Re: Re: Re:
"The point of the analogy was to display that we do not actually have the freedom to say whatever we want, whenever we want."

I understand that, but you are comparing an act of civil disobedience to a truly harmful (and overtly illegal) act.

They are far from similar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JS, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re:
Because people who cringe like cowards in the face of overbearing authority never accomplish anything.

If you think actively resisting arrest and getting physically harmed doing so is accomplishing something, all the more power to you.

I'd rather walk away, live another day, and struggle against this "overbearing authority" in another manner such as through the media and the courts.

Here's a tip. As soon as the police show up and you refuse to comply with them you have immediately lost. Perhaps not the war, but you have lost that battle. You will not win. They cannot let you win. They will continue to escalate until you comply. It is just not worth it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anon, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop with your logical crazy talk! You might make someone's head explode!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:03pm

Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
When you are doing nothing wrong, told to stop and say no, and continue doing nothing wrong, that is about as honest as civil disobedience can get if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Google the Westboro Baptist Church; they regularly protest the funerals of military officers, gay people, and other famous celebrities in order to draw attention to themselves and hopefully incite a lawsuit that will make them some money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:05pm

For everyone siding with the govt., guess what? A massive dancing demonstration is being organized on the 4th. Can't wait to see some park police attempt to restrain hundreds if not thousands of people.

Btw, this was organized by a veteran. If you didn't or don't have the balls to risk your life for your country you should probably fuck off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re:
We only know what they (the dancers and tech-dirt) are telling us... we do not have the luxury of a video prior to the police engagement. All we have is the tech-dirt writer's words that they were respectfully dancing. If you have some sort of source or knowledge other than this, please, do divulge it. They had their fifteen minutes of fame, and they have their arrest. Good riddance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

The Man, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:06pm

Annoying, attention grabing morons.
Those people deserved a lot more harsh treatment than what they got. Going into a Memorial to put on some stupid dance, just to get attention...that is all they wanted! Not world peace...not feed the poor...not put a roof over someone's head. No they wanted to go and dance like the juvenile, 'I need attention' generation of losers that they are. Disrupting everyone else experience at the memorial.

Wish I was there, I would have gladly helped the police SLAM as many of those morons faces right down the stone steps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:08pm

Re: Disruptive
According to your own argument, the police should be allowed to come to your house and body slam you. After all, you are only doing what you are legally allowed to do, which is voice your opinion. And go figure, thats all those people were doing when they were assaulted by police. Just some food for thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:09pm

Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm just talking about what is seen in the video. They good have been punching people left right and center before that for all I know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
"No one was resisting arrest. all I saw was ... cooperation from those on the receiving end"
I'm not sure if you saw the same video as I did.

I agree that the reason for arrest (dancing?) is stupid, and I in no way am trying to excuse the police violence, but I don't think you can honestly say that there was no resisting arrest there.

They weren't attacking the police officers, but I think it's pretty clear that people (most clearly the body-slammee) were struggling (e.g. pulling their arms up and away) to make it difficult to put handcuffs on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:09pm

"disrespecting cops is not a freedom we have"

Short-sighted fool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:11pm

Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
"Those people deserved a lot more harsh treatment than what they got."

So...you're saying they should have been shot, or stabbed, or something worse than getting slammed to the ground and/or kicked in the head?

Wow. Aren't you a lovely little facist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:13pm

They deserved harsher treatment? Sounds like if you had any authority in your life you'd be as corrupt and abusive as they come.

Might as well shoot em dead on sight right? You people lack logic, reasoning and intelligence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
There were likely plenty of eyewitnesses, and any of them could easily come forward to say that the dancers were being violently disrespectful or something like that.

Until those eyewitnesses come forward, all we have to go on is what the cameras have shown us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:14pm

You know, I'm honestly sick of people scapegoating the police for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. If this was an abuse of power, then fine, bitch about it. But this wasn't. This was the law being acted out.

And before people start whining about "poor judgment" and how the "police should be ashamed":

1) Justice is blind. Know what that means? It means that the law should be unbiased, consistent, and not subject to the personal whims of each individual enforcing it.

2) You do NOT have the right to dance or protest wherever you please, despite what some people are saying here. You walk into a courtroom and start break dancing, you will get shit for it. You try to do Yoga on the White House lawn, you'll get tackled by the secret service.

3) Any sort of protest, event, or gathering is banned at the Jefferson Memorial. PERIOD. You don't like the law, fine, then go through the processes of changing it (even if that involves appeals and constitutional challenges). But you do NOT, EVER, expect that a Police Officer will change it on a whim for you, because they simply CAN'T.

4) The dancers were NOT BODYSLAMMED FOR DANCING. PERIOD. They were ASKED to stop. No one put a gun to their head, no one waved a big stick in their face. They were ASKED. And they REFUSED a request from a police officer.

5) If you fail to comply with a police officer who is enforcing the law, they are obligated, by DUTY, to use measures that will enforce the law (see 1). If you do not voluntarily stop your illegal actions, the police can, will, and must use physical force to stop you. If you try to PHYSICALLY resist, then they can, will, and must use further force.

I mean, what the hell do you people want the police to do? The fact that they were there in the first place means someone wanted the dancing stopped. Are they supposed to arbitrarily say "Sorry, we're not enforcing the law anymore"? Are they supposed to say "sorry, these people said no, so we can't do anything about it"?

Once again, the fact that the police CANNOT arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce is FUNDAMENTAL to an unbiased legal system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:14pm

Thousands will be there on the 4th! Haha govt apologists!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:15pm

This whole thing was a set up to test a court ruling. The good news for that bunch of sissified freedom fighters is that they got put in the DC City Jail and probably got to show off their dancing skills for a bunch of guys awaiting trial for murder, rape armed robbery, assault etc. I'd guess a couple even got to perform a little striptease for Bobo that night. Hope it was worth it kids!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
So once again, it seems that technology is trumping the law...

And the law is being used to take away freedoms from technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:17pm

Re:
"If you fail to comply with a police officer who is enforcing the law, they are obligated, by DUTY, to use measures that will enforce the law"

There are far better measures that could have been used other than bodyslamming people to the ground. They could have simply handcuffed people and walked them away from the scene, they could have coralled them into a specific area until backup arrived to help detain them in a non-violent manner...there were several non-violent options available to them, and they chose not to use them.

The police are servants of the public, not of some higher power that cannot be touched or questioned. As a member of the public that the police are supposed to serve and protect, I don't find that they either served or protected my rights and the rights of those they bodyslammed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:18pm

You're wrong, he stopped dancing, he was just standing there and got body slammed.

Violence isn't the answer to not complying with a request especially if there was no violent intention there to begin with.

You're giving too much credit to the pigs. What was the purpose of the choke move exactly?

This isn't a police state you dumb fuck
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
As a christian, I cannot agree with or support a gay lifestyle. I am not here to start a dispute over that. However, I agree that that should not deny someone a proper burial. Love the person, not the sin... I have to say not all Christians are like those at this Westboro Baptist Church. Picketing at a funeral is disrespectful and is not the time or the place for it. I have to say, those 'christians' at this church are not acting in a christian manner. But what is expected in a fallen world? Christians are to be a light in the darkness, a refuge of sorts... their actions are not doing this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Use your head, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:18pm

Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
You must be very careful when you use phrases like "stupid speech" and "valuable speech." You see, the danger is that YOU don't get to decide what is stupid or valuable, even if you are of the opinion that we should protect/deny one or the other. I am of the opinion that it is nobody's right nor privilege to decide whether the things I say are stupid, valuable, or neither.

I doubt these officers would have bothered these people had they been, say, less-than-quietly celebrating the recent death of Osama bin Laden. And if they did, I doubt that the people on this forum saying the reaction to the assembly was warranted would even bother.

I will agree that some of the people involved were asking for it with comments like "what is dancing?" (although that is an amusing point). And I can also see requiring a permit to protest if the property is not a "forum for public discourse" except I think that there should not be a permit for such a thing. If it's not a forum for public discourse, then I don't think some impersonal head behind a desk should be able give permits for public discourse. That's idiotic...to those in the "disruptive" camp, what if they had a permit and you found it disruptive, hmm? what then?

I've rambled enough for one day, do try to employ logic and reason when replying to this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
Told to leave the premises....YOU MEAN LIKE THEY WERE?!

This is honestly ridiculous...

They WERE NOT BODY SLAMMED FOR DANCING. They WERE bodyslammed because they PHYSICALLY RESISTED ARREST. One of the group tried to GRAB someone AWAY FROM THE POLICE.

Seriously people, do you even bother watching the video?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
"If you think actively resisting arrest and getting physically harmed doing so is accomplishing something, all the more power to you."

It is accomplishing something: it is highlighting abuses of power.

People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of the people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:20pm

Thousands more on the 4th. See u then govt apologists. Pig sympathizers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:22pm

Yeah so it's cool so celebrate the execution of an unarmed man but not protest a court ruling. Another dumb fuck
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re:
...
...
...

THEY TRIED TO HANDCUFF THEM AND WALK THEM AWAY.

Seriously, can't you even just watch the video? It's only 11 freaking minutes.

1) They asked them to stop.
2) They tried to walk them away (with minor force).
3) They handcuffed them when the continued.
4) They tried to handcuff the another guy who was dancing, and then ONE OF THE GROUP MEMBERS TRIED TO PULL THE GUY AWAY.

The police didn't start the violent action, it was the guy in the brown shirt that tried to yank his pal away from the police.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:22pm

You know, I was going to write a long and complicated post detailing my reasoning for my position on this issue, and then I remembered two words. Fred. Phelps.

If the courts are going to side with him protesting military funerals and harassing mourning family members with vitriolic and hateful speech on first amendment grounds, then they MUST also side with a bunch of quiet and peaceful protesters dancing in a memorial to celebrate a founder father's birthday, right?

... RIGHT?

To do anything would be phenomenally hypocritical and make a complete joke out of our entire justice system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:23pm

Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
"I do not believe that you have to allow all sorts of stupid speech in order to protect valuable speech."

And you are wrong.

Cuz one man's stupid is another man's truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm

They WERE NOT BODY SLAMMED FOR DANCING. They WERE bodyslammed because they PHYSICALLY RESISTED ARREST. One of the group tried to GRAB someone AWAY FROM THE POLICE.

Did u watch it dumbass? They didn't body slam that guy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Don't worry, bro, everyone knows the WBC are freaks and fundamentalist outliers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob V (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm

Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
I agree with you mostly in theory on the resisting arrest part. I think they were a bit excessive for the situation but I'm just watching it on my computer. In actuality it may have felt threatening to the officers and that level of force was needed for those peacefully resisting being handcuffed. Duct tape over the shrill girl may have been a better option.

I have a question for you though, who gets to decide what is stupid speech. Is it obvious when I hear it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Use your head, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that using the phrase "fallen world" is going to garner you a fair bit of ill will on the internet. However, if you wanna preach here then go for it, tis not my pleasure to stop you. I could debate you till I was blue in the face, but I value my time a bit too much for that. Just thought I'd let you know that your entire post is rendered moot by those two little words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:25pm

While I sympathize with the protesters, see this and the original arrests as being ridiculous I don't see the big deal about the body slam.

He was resisting arrest. He was asked to stop - he didn't. He was asked to leave - he didn't. So the cop said he was under arrest and he should put his hands behind his back - he held them in front of him. Now that is passive resistance but it is still resisting arrest. The cop was left with no other options, that guy is obviously bigger and stronger than he is. There was no way for that cop to get his hands behind his back with him on his feet, so he put him down.

This is what he is trained to do, this is what he is suppose to do. A cop should not just give up when he has started arresting someone and that person refuses to comply. Once you fail to comply the officer will make you comply. Adam knew what he was doing and knew what was coming. Talk to any experience protester and they will tell you to resist you should go limp and fall to the ground. Why will they tell you that, because if you don't you are gonna get put on the ground.

From reading the comments I was expecting someone to get charged and tackled or just randomly grabbed and tossed to the ground, like this guy: http://gothamist.com/2008/07/28/cop_caught_on_video_assaulting_cycl.php . But really we can argue about the law, and the stupidity of the whole situation. But that cop did what he was suppose to and acted well within his authority.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Benzon, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The 2nd angle shows a 'stare down' by a cop in sunglasses

I haven't watched the video, so forgive me if it is obvious on tape, but how can you tell what someone in sunglasses is staring at?

It seems to me that people in sunglasses could be perceived to be staring at anything in their field of view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:25pm

Re:
The protesters got violent first. No clue what video you're watching.

The guy in the brown shirt grabbed his pal that was getting handcuffed, and tried to yank him away from police custody. HE was the one that brought the first guy to the ground.

This group was full of idiots who escalated the situation. Period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:25pm

Re:
1) Justice is supposed to be blind. But it's being tinted towards an authoritarian state to justify almost anything.

2) How about freedom of expression?

3) This goes against everything that Jefferson stood for. And unless it's put up to the judicial system and even the executive, talked about and discussed, it can never change.

4) Watch the video, watch the guy get bodyslammed, and another hit on the head for nothing.

5) If the force is illegal in the first place, then I can use self defense if need be or protest them. And nothing stops them from expressing my views on their abhorrent behavior.

"Are they supposed to arbitrarily say "Sorry, we're not enforcing the law anymore"? Are they supposed to say "sorry, these people said no, so we can't do anything about it"?"

Better options would have been to use dialogue to ask them to move it down somewhere else, see if the law needs enforcement, or not hitting people for civil disobedience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:26pm

Yanking someone away is not violent. The guy got caught up in the moment and went to yank his friend away. Nothing about it was "violent". What type of fucking pansy are you? The pigs were never under any type of threat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
So under that definition, any sort of protest that is "organized" by a simple "hey, meet me at X" message sent by any means is an "illegal" protest.

God, I hate this country sometimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Use your head, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:28pm

Re:
haha you misunderstood. I'm not saying it's "cool" to celebrate an execution, nor am I saying it isn't to protest a court ruling. I'm saying that I assume the police involved and many posters here would feel that way. You are not wise to insult those with whom you argue, you may find that you misunderstood, but have already burned the bridge of reconciliation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:30pm

If a citizen is nonviolently ignoring a pigs ridiculous request then the pig should move on! It doesn't give them the right to use force.

Pigs aren't supposed to chase high speed cars either (for speeding and traffic violations) the same should apply here. The veteran was just standing there with his arms out to clearly show he was no threat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:31pm

Re:
some flashmob went to the monument to dance silently for TJ's birthday in 08 and were arrested. One of them sued and just lost the appeal so they are protesting those arrests and the ruling.

READ THE ARTICLE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:31pm

Re:
I think you are wrong.

Fred Phelps is allowed to disrupt funerals.

These peaceful dancers must be made examples of.

You seem to be out of touch with the direction our country is going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin Clark, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:33pm

dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
Human rights and arguments about freedom are always the most difficult at that point where two rights conflict. The right to quiet enjoyment of a public monument versus the right to make a political statement. Its tough. I see little discussion in the comments about anyone's rights other than the protestors. (Are protestors inevitably self-absorbed and self-important? Doesn't seem likely, but these folks obviously were).

Why was the memorial chosen? Why not protest at some place where no one would object? Perhaps precisely because no one would object. No one would really care.

It seems likely that the protestors chose the monument because it would ruin the experience of the rest of the public. It seems that they chose to subvert everyone else's rights to their own.

I see no nobility in that. But, I'll keep reading to see if some of you can add to (or change) my thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:35pm

Jeez...
Remind me not to visit the public memorials in Washington. God knows what they will arrest people for next. Laughing? Taking pictures? (oops they already do that) Holding hands?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:35pm

Re:
What occurred here is people trying to cause a public disturbance, and getting an appropriate level of response from authorities. The people involved know it is wrong, they know they are breaking the law

What "Law" was being broken? Dancing? Last I checked, Dancing was not illegal.

Oh, and a little google search turned this little bit up about the Park Police...

(http://www.nps.gov/uspp/)
"The Force provides highly trained and professional police officers to prevent and detect criminal activity, conduct investigations, apprehend individuals suspected of committing offenses against Federal, State and local laws, provide protection to the President of the United States and visiting dignitaries, and provide protective services to some of the most recognizable monuments and memorials in the world."

Highly trained and professional??? Not so sure about that after watching this video.

I have an idea...Instead of harassing someone doing a PEACEFUL demonstration, why aren't you out arresting people doing the actual illegal stuff...you know, like robbing stores and banks, murder, rape, etc...

To the person who posted the Constitution Quote, I applaud you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:36pm

This is the Police State...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:36pm

Do us a favor "Christians" save us the time and hang yourself. Your fairytale is meaningless and it has caused more death, hate and destruction than every bomb ever made put together.

Religion is for the weak and scared.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:37pm

Re: This is the Police State...
your mother should had warned you about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:37pm

Or is it..
that the cops in Washington don't get to beat up enough people as it is? They have to go to the memorials and slam people down?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johnsmith999, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:37pm

This is china or north Korea ???
Surly this cannot be USA the "land of the free and the home of the brave"

What the hell has happened to freedom of speech, when did USA become a totalitarian police state
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re:
Sorry, I did reread after I posted that and felt stupid. Nothing new to me! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re:
1) Then the problem is at the top. The police cannot, and SHOULD not, have the power to write or unwrite any laws that they so choose.

2) Doesn't change the fact that you can't do whatever you want wherever you want. Freedom of Expression still has its limits.

3) Not according to this: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/del-quentin-wilber/no-dancing-at-jefferson-memori.html. And once again, the blame isn't being placed on the law, everyone is just bitching about the police.

4) The guy was bodyslammed because he refused to put his hands behind his back (look at his arms), and he was walking away from the officer, forcing the police to follow him. He was taken to the ground because he was moving away. And could you give me the time for the hit on the head?

5) The force wasn't illegal, though. It was in direct response to the actions being taken by the protesters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually according to the Appeals Court ruling, it's NOT a public space: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55659362/10-5078-1308285
See page 4, 2nd Para.

But if that's the case, then why are Park Police involved in a private forum. I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:40pm

Re:
he was holding his hands out to be a pain in the ass. He was passively resisting. He was walking away and resisting the cops attempts to bring his hands behind him. Passive resistance brings about the use of force to make you comply. That guy was too big for the cop to grab his arm and bring it behind his back, since they can't bend you wrist anymore. I didn't notice a nightstick but if he had one there are a few moves he could have tried but really I stand by my opinion that the slam was an appropriate level of force.

The chokehold after was probably a out of line but not the slam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:41pm

Re:
THAT guy was keeping his arms up when a police officer was trying to handcuff him, and started to WALK AWAY. He was taken to the ground to stop him from walking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johnsmith999, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:41pm

This is china or north Korea ???
Surly this cannot be USA the "land of the free and the home of the brave"

What the hell has happened to freedom of speech, when did USA become a totalitarian police state
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: This is the Police State...
and don't blame the Police. After all they were only "following orders"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re:
And yet, Fred Phelps isn't allowed on the funeral grounds...

And if he tried to get on the funeral grounds? Guess what, he'd be body slammed by the police too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:43pm

Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
"just to get attention...that is all they wanted"

Wrong. They wanted to assert their right...your right...to do sensible, quiet activities in a public place. You know, the kind of rights that they/you were given in the constitution and its amendments.

They knew there would be consequences, probably arrest, possibly violent, and yet offered themselves so that they could protect our rights. Rights aren't only protected by talk: civil disobedience and the resulting excessive laws/force often need to be demonstrated before they can be denigrated.

These 'hipsters' (and they may have been losers all their lives up to this point, as far as I care) are now heroes. American Patriots in the true tradition of the revolutionaries and founders. Standing up to The Man (your handle).

Lots of commenters on your side seem to argue the tautology that if the laws say the dancers are wrong, or the laws say they can't assemble there, then they ARE wrong. Well, at what point, for you, do the laws limiting your freedom become excessive? 'No dancing here' is OK? How about 'no dancing in public'? What about a curfew? What about 'no gatherings over 5 people without a permit'? If we pass a Bylaw that says so, does that immediately make it right? For you, it seems yes. For some people, the laws/enforcement become excessive when they run against the Bill of Rights. For others, it's when they conflict with common sense. Both thresholds have been crossed here.

The best reaction for the police in this situation? They should have said (to themselves) "Nothing to see here, move along." If so, there would have been no disruption, no rights violations, and no problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:43pm

Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
The memorial was chosen because this was a protest of the people who were arrested there in 08. The protest happened now because they just lost their court case appeal. So the venue was fitting.

The people who originally got arrested were just trying to have a little fun and have a little silent dance party for TJ's birthday, it was not intended to be a protest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:44pm

Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
The whole point of civil disobedience and protest is to bring attention to an issue or grievance, and the best way to get that attention is to draw it to the issue in a memorable fashion.

Disrupting the normal "flow" of things is often the best way of drawing attention to something.

Which would draw more attention: a group of people dancing in a public park, or a group of people dancing at a memorial of one of America's most historical figures?

Disruption is just that: disruptive. It often takes disruption to get people to snap out of their normal ways of thinking and ponder new issues and ideas.

This is why these people chose that place and that action: it was noticeable, it was outside of the norm, and it was bound to disrupt a "normal" experience for people visiting the memorial.

Protests work the best when they are disruptive. When they are merely background noise that can easily be ignored, they fail in their purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:45pm

Why not just let him walk away then? Was he a national security threat? Dude danced so let him walk away then.

In one breath ur saying the body slam is ok and in the next ur saying the choke hold isn't. So where do we draw the line then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re:
A choke hold is a fairly legitimate move to ensure physical compliance (in some martial arts). Not sure what you'd consider out of line, but it's at least a move that was used how it was intended.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Thank you... I seriously wish more commenters were like you. I too, could debate you till I was blue in the face, but arguing a point neither side is willing to budge on is a fruitless effort and a waste of time. At some point, for brevity sake, it is just best to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

As per your comment on my choice of words, I agree, with you, it does bring ill will on the internet, as well as in the real world. I expect it in both places, even if I am approaching it in a respectful manner. For what it is worth (as you dont hold the Bible in the same regard as I do), the Bible says that Christians will be persecuted, no matter what. To be a Christian is to be persecuted:

2 Timothy 3:12 - "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:46pm

Re:
Yeah, that guy was an ass. He also tried to get the other guy who was *not* resisting arrest hurt by yanking on his arm while the policeman was trying to arrest him. The fact that it's against the law to dance in a public place and they actually enforce I think is more troubling than the actual "bodyslam".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:47pm

Re:
Rules for high speed chases are by jurisdiction. Some places have limits for how fast cops can pursue others have no such limit. Cops can and will chase you for nothing but speeding, your attempt to speed away from a traffic stop implies you have done something worse than the speeding they noticed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:49pm

Re: Re: Re:
And the police body slammed the guy in the white shirt who was the one who turned around and put his hands behind his back to be cuffed. The guy in the brown shirt went down with him and then was kicked in the head. Didn't anyone else see that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:51pm

Re:
I didn't say a choke wasn't okay. Someone else did, but from what I saw, it was NOT meant to harm. It was a hold used to subdue someone, and to ensure they would not physically violent. It was used as intended.

And no, once you're being arrested, you do not get to walk away. What kind of idiotic law enforcement rules are you trying to suggest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:51pm

Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2011 @ 1:46pm
A choke hold is a fairly legitimate move to ensure physical compliance (in some martial arts). Not sure what you'd consider out of line, but it's at least a move that was used how it was intended.

Thanks for the laugh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
Yeah, I saw that guy, what an ass. Everyone else was cooperative and seemed happy to have their rights shat upon though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:52pm

Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
and why can't we get some of these cops on the subways, public buses, restaurants, and movie theaters to put the smackdown on those who insist on talking on their cellphones at the top of their lungs? If anything is worthy of chokeholds and slamdowns, it would be those people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re:
He is a professional protester, not that there is anything wrong with that, Adam Kokesh. The guy who got slammed is not the same idiot who tried to lock arms too late and lays all over that other guy when they are cuffing him, but yes that guy was a jackass.

But yes the situation and the law are ridiculous. I'm am just addressing the screams of police brutality.

Just found this, its interesting http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=563& ;issue_id=42005
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:53pm

Nobody except the pigs were aggressive and violent. Stop trying to act like these guys dancing were some kind of threat it's absurd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The police didn't slam him, the guy in the brown shirt dragged him down. The officer was holding his arm, and got dragged down too...you can't exactly body slam someone just by grabbing their left shoulder.

Unless you're talking about someone else?

And I don't see the kick...do you have a time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mrbill, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

Kokesh the fool
Sorry but Kokesh was not there to be the hero. He is a run of the mill anti war demo. Part of the usual anti iraq war etc. And he was working for R TV on a stunt for Russian TV. They wanted the usual anti US Leftist drivel to put on their TV for the commies back home.

So...Kokesh happily provides such antics...same as Fonda did.

Move on...nothing here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

Re:
you really need to learn how to reply in line, click the goddamn reply to this link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
The cop was wearing a bike helmet...the beginning of the video clearly shows them entering the memorial.

Someone called them there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 1:59pm

They didn't body slam the dude who was pulled down by his friend, the body slam was later in the video watch the full video dude christ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:01pm

Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
You see, the problem with this argument is that the courts have already set such a clear precedent for this kind of behavior that there should be no question about this "conflict of rights" you mention. The freakin' Supreme Court has already decided that Fred Phelp's right to "make a political statement" trumps a grieving family's right to have a peaceful funeral.

Unless you are willing to argue that these protesters were so much more obscene and disruptive than Fred Phelp's many vile protests that their protest would not be protected by the first amendment while his would, then you have no argument at all.

Seriously, the First Amendment is kind of a big deal here in America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look again. The cop yanks him and pushes him down. Ok, the guy in the brown shirt didn't get kicked, but he did get punched in the face and the shoved away just before two cops jumped on his ass (even though he wasn't trying to flee or anything).

The guy in the white "disobey" shirt just after that was resisting arrest. Nothing violent or worth the choke hold, but still resisting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:03pm

Re:
Dude danced, refused to walk away, then started walking away when the cop was trying to cuff him. Its not like this was the cops first interaction with the guy, talking didn't work, minimal force didn't work, so it escalated.

I said the chokehold might have been out of line because it looked like he did it solely out of anger and to assert dominance rather than accomplish anything. But watching again it looks like the guy was about to sit up and than the chokehold comes to keep him down.

No he wasn't a national security risk but unfortunately you can't just walk away from a cop trying to arrest you no matter how small or stupid the crime is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rooben (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:03pm

Re:
You know, just because it is the way law isn't interpreted, doing things a certain way, because the government wants you to, doesn't mean it is right, or even legal.

The government imposes illegal laws all the time. The job of the 3 branches of government is to balance and determine if the law is valid.
Our governement has forgotten their job, and enact laws whether or not they are legal. Look at the Patriot Act - this clearly violates the 4th amendment by giving the government powers to ignore the need to get a warrant. Which is expressly laid out in the 4th, but that law just got renewed.

So, to recap - just because the law says you have to do it a certain way, doesn't mean that the law is legal, or ethical.
I don't recall the 1st amendment saying that congress will allow people to peacefully assemble when they have a permit, it says "congress shall make no law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble...".

So no law means - no law, except when I want to control when people exercise their rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:04pm

Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
Once again, the police were called to the memorial. You can even see, in the beginning of the video, one of the officers fiddling with his gloves like he'd just gotten off his bike.

If someone asks them to enforce the law, they can't very well say "sorry, I disagree with it, so I'm not going to". They are obligated by duty and law to perform their job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RobShaver (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:06pm

That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
We were just following legally given orders.

Remember, everything that happened in the WWII Holocaust was legal by German law and everything the rebels did in the US Revolutionary War was illegal by British law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IOERROR, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:06pm

They got what they wanted.
The plain and simple truth is these people didn't come there to dance they came there craving just what they got. They provokethe cops into arresting them. Notice no one was dancing till the cops told them not to?

I'm all for my freedom but at the same time I still believe in order. If an officer of the law tells you he is going to arrest you if you do something and you still do it, well then you are telling that cop you don't care. If they felt that they had a right to dance and the cop had no ground to stand on then they should have seeked out a lawyer.

The end result is they wanted to provoke the cops and get it on video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:08pm

So based on your logic, if he would have run away would it be ok for the pig to shoot him in the leg to subdue? At what point do we say it's not worth it? Simply because he's under arrest do we subdue at any cost, even though he was arrested for dancing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:10pm

According to us, we were also following law when he dropped nuclear bombs on civilian cities
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look again, and watch brown shirt's legs. Brown shirt yanks him one way, the officer pulls him the other, and then brown shirt starts clinging to white shirt, and even does a leg-lock of sorts. The officer WAS pushing his back, but not with huge force, the "take down" was brown shirts fault.

As for the punch, I don't want to get into semantics, but the officer had his palm facing forward. It was to the face, but the intent was to push him away, especially since he followed it up with the exact same move to the shoulder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:10pm

Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
While I agree with you that there is a clash between the

"...right to quiet enjoyment of a public monument versus the right to make a political statement."

...I will say that one of those rights is a hell of a lot more important than the other, with respect to maintaining a democracy. I mean, orders of magnitude more important.

If forced to choose between the two, I would choose the right to make a political statement. That seems to be much, much higher in the hierarchy of rights. Which is probably why the FIRST Amendment, the first section in the Bill of Rights, directly assures both the right to free speech and the right to assemble.

...I'm not sure why the "right to quiet enjoyment of a public monument" never was enshrined in our Constitution, but it is safe to venture a guess that it is of lesser importance.

If you see no nobility in people spending their time and risking their fate to assure your and my rights as guaranteed by this Republic's constitution, you are blind to heroism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: Re:
Luckily, I live in a "right to resist" state, where if the police overstep their authority, I have a right to resist them, up to and including the use of deadly force.

It may sound like empty tough talk, but I'm not afraid to draw my Glock 21 if circumstances make it necessary, and I'm not afraid to die fighting injustice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:14pm

Re: Disruptive
Give ya a little reading, asshole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_riders

Change doesn't happen when you do whatever stupid thing you're told to do. Many times the things you're told to do NEED to be resisted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:14pm

Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
Did you just pull out Godwin's Law? How much more hyperbole can you get?

Honestly, stop pulling out the "corrupt pig" mentality, and actually take a critical eye to the video, and TRY to tell me where the police abused their power or authority.

Sure the law may be wrong, but in any situation where the dancers DIDN'T want to make a political statement, this would have ended with "You can't dance here" and "Oh, sorry officers".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rooben (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re:
yeah i've been wondering about the comments from the people saying "you should just stop when they tell you to".

Why do I get the feeling that we have a growing population of people who have not matured emotionally beyond "follow the law because they tell you to", and have moved into "do what is right, because it is right".

These jokers seem to think that if you do what you are told, then everything will work out at the end. Shut up, stop talking, stop dancing, and comply.

That is the slope towards the police state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:16pm

Exactly Derek. Pay attention to that last sentence people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:17pm

Re:
"So based on your logic, if he would have run away would it be ok for the pig to shoot him in the leg to subdue?"

No but he can tackle him. Or possibly take out his knees with a nightstick.

"Simply because he's under arrest do we subdue at any cost, even though he was arrested for dancing?"

We should subdue with the minimal amount of force needed, but we should subdue. There are many worse things the cop could have done (off the top of my head - pistol whip, kick him in the back of the knees, full nelson, or as you say shoot him in the leg). But yes cops should always subdue, there should be no point were they go "ok you resisted too much your crime isn't worth it." Minimal necessary force, the protester is the one who escalated the amount of required force. Like I said, from the comments I thought someone got bumrushed or grabbed at random but this guy brought it to that level.

Do you seriously think the cops should just let people go if they resist to a certain level. Are cops only allowed to whip people with thorn-less flowers and feather boas to get them to comply? I agree the law is stupid, the arrests are stupid, but the use of force is just.

and fucking really hit "REPLY TO THIS" is that so fucking hard, i swear i would bodyslam you if i could
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:18pm

Re:
Are you honestly an idiot? No, if he ran away, the police would chase after him and tackle him. If he pulled out a weapon, then he'd be shot. If he started to recklessly endanger bystanders, then maybe a gun would be pulled on him.

Because he's under arrest, he will be subdued with the actions REQUIRED TO SUBDUE HIM.

And learn to use the damn reply button.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:19pm

Take out his knees! Listen to this clown, wow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
Next thing you know it will be illegal to have a seizure in public and you'll get tasered if you do... oh wait... it already is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Monkey with Atitude, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re: Disruptive
Sounds like N. Korea or China to me, but hey lets keep electing d.bags to office and see how long till they act like it here (oh wait, damn it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:20pm

Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
If the Westboro Baptist Church can legally protest military funerals (and they legally can) then these people can dance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
That's all well and good, but stop blaming the people who have no power to change the law.

It is NOT an option for a police officer to use his or her own judgment to decide which laws are worth enforcing. If, at any point, he or she feels the laws have gone too far out of line, a good person would quit their job so that they are no longer in a position which they have to commit immoral acts.

However, under no circumstances would I ever expect ANYONE to lose their job over slow-dancing at the Jefferson memorial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jjmsan (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:23pm

Re:
and here I thought John Mitchel was dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
An example of the sad truth...

Arrested for Epilepsy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:24pm

Re:
Tonight at 11 - New passive aggressive policy force fails to catch any crooks. New federal laws prohibiting cops to touch those breaking the law have been met with lots of running away by criminals. "Shy of treason and murder we aren't allowed subdue anyone, so most people just run away when we ask them to stop," says local police offer AC Retawded. On the upside this is a the perfect time to steal yourself a new television, just be sure its one you can run with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:24pm

If you see no nobility in people spending their time and risking their fate to assure your and my rights as guaranteed by this Republic's constitution, you are blind to heroism.
---

These clowns want us to be yes mam yes sir robots! Don't think for yourself! Where our corrupt lawmakers are god and the police are free to cripple you as a non-violent offender! Clowns!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re:
i would pay attention to it but i don't know what you are talking about because apparently you are too stupid to reply in line despite my numerous pleadings for you to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jjmsan (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Re:
If only you could have told this to the freedom riders. It would have saved them all that trouble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

I believe this is who they are referencing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
The Westboro Baptist Church cannot protest funerals within 500 feet of the funeral.

Your analogy just went up in flames. In fact, your analogy just supported the idea that you CAN'T dance at the Jefferson Memorial.

Way to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:26pm

Re:
Ha! I think it needs to be pointed out that Park Police are federal officers. Shoot first, ask questions later type. I have gotten into more unnecessary, power-trippin', trouble from Park Police and Park Rangers than I care to recount.

Nowadays I boogie as soon as they are in sight. And I don't mean dance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The cop was already pushing him down before the leg lock even happened. Plus, why did he yank the first guy back in the first place? The cop had backup (as pointed out earlier), they should have prioritized the one that was actually resisting. The one cooperating shouldn't have been assaulted like that. The guy in the brown shirt also didn't deserve the dog pile.

I can shatter your nose with my palm. Just because the palm was out, doesn't mean it wasn't a punch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Benzon, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:28pm

Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
These 'hipsters' (and they may have been losers all their lives up to this point, as far as I care) are now heroes. American Patriots in the true tradition of the revolutionaries and founders. Standing up to The Man (your handle).

Excuse me?! As a son of an actual American Patriot who put his life on the line for 3 tours of Vietnam, and the grandson of a Colonel during WWII, and the great-grandson of a lieutenant colonel in WWI, and the great-great-great grandson of a colonel in the Civil War, and a great-x-grandson of a sergeant in the American Revolution, I find your statement incredibly insulting to the people who actually risked their lives for the freedoms of these precocious performance artists. It's insulting to the patriots actually at war at this very moment.

Please. "Dancing" makes one a revolutionary? This is somehow a "revolution" now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:29pm

you're paying attention to it, don't kid yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:30pm

Bill, the main figure in this is a Veteran, he's just as much of an American Patriot as you and your family.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:31pm

If anyone wants to throw up a little bit they can read some of the comments about the protest here:
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/05/bizarre-dance-party-protest-at-jefferson-memorial-ends-wi th-violent-arrests/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
The reason you get ill will when you say this is a fallen world is that you're "respectfully" telling those of us that don't believe in imaginary sky fairies that you are

a) Not one of the "fallen" and therefore better than everyone else
b) Delusional
c) In utter contempt of everything non-Christian. Or even better, that doesn't adhere to your exact interpretation of Christianity.

You're delusional, ignorant and disrespectful. You get "persecuted" because you're a self-righteous asshole, not because you're a Christian.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Monkey with Atitude, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here Here!

Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting.
Napoleon Hill

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. ~Thomas Paine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that I think about it, arguing about semantics is pointless. Let's look at the real problem. It's not illegal to dance, it's protected by the first amendment in two ways (in this case). Dancing is a form of expression by itself, and this was a protest and protests are protected by themselves. If anything, this was an illegal act on the police side and resisting could be construed as self defense.

It won't, these people will be convicted of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct (and whatever else can be slapped on them).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re:
you right, i threw up in my mouth a little. At least now I know where our favorite AC hangs out when he isnt here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Monkey with Atitude, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
"Please. "Dancing" makes one a revolutionary? This is somehow a "revolution" now"

No, Bill, they're patriots for standing up for the very rights apparently every member of your family spent time fighting for them to have. You should be proud of them for not squandering what apparently all of your family except you fought for....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:38pm

Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
"Officer, go shoot this family."

"Yes, Sir"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
If you risked your life for a country that will arrest people for dancing, what did you really risk your life for? The freedoms you so espouse are being systematically stripped from us. Just because they're not facing death or bullets doesn't make them less patriotic.

BTW, your buddies that are risking their lives this very moment? It's not always for freedom. A lot of it's driven by profit, even if they think it's for freedom. When the military brass is saying we need to reduce the budget and limit engagements but the politicians say no, they're fighting for profit, not for freedom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't prioritize one person without releasing the other. And I said, yes, he was pushing, but not nearly with enough force to knock someone down. Only to force them to their knees, at best, and that's assuming the person was being compliant (which they were). He wouldn't have hit the ground if it hadn't been Brown shirt grabbing him and tripping him up.

As for a "dog pile", hardly. One officer put his knee on his neck/head, the other put weight on the lower back. When someone has shown physical violence of some sort, two people is basically the minimum to safely keep them subdued, while handcuffing them.

And the yank and the shove, the yank is trained reaction. If someone you're holding is running away, you hold them back and try get them down. Yes, it wasn't White shirts fault he was being pulled away, but the officer felt and reacted to it like he was trying to escape. Not the best response, but not exactly "police brutality". Brown shirt made a stupid move, and it caused a response.

Ditto to the shove. Once again, probably not the best action (or at least, not the best target for the action), but not exactly police brutality either. When you're actively clinging to someone being arrested, being pushed away is a standard response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
You mean like the warning that was being given in the first place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
That only works because funeral grounds are private property (AKA, not owned by the government). The government cannot infringe on your first amendment rights, a private entity can tell you to get off their property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/del-quentin-wilber/no-dancing-at-jefferson-memori.html

It is illegal, and it was upheld by the appeals court. Like I said, if you don't like the law, there are processes for it (which the protesters WERE doing, except they screwed up and made the issue more about "police brutality").

However, blaming the police for this incident is completely asinine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
"Sure the law may be wrong, but in any situation where the dancers DIDN'T want to make a political statement, this would have ended with "You can't dance here" and "Oh, sorry officers"."

The original issue in 2008 proves you 100% wrong....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
Except the Jefferson Memoral isn't public property either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Memorial#Dancing_controversy

"In May 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia rejected Oberwetter's claims, confirming a lower court's finding that "the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum reserved for the tranquil commemoration of [President] Jefferson's legacy"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
"a good person would quit their job so that they are no longer in a position which they have to commit immoral acts."

Thank you for being a selective ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:48pm

Just because it was upheld (and actually read the ruling now THATS what's asinine) doesn't mean the legal process stops and it certainly DOES NOT mean to stop protesting it! That's what a democracy is you weak fool!

BTW, nobody is "blaming" the police for the incident. People are commenting how ASININE it is to subdue the people in the manner they were based on what they were doing.

The park police could have ignored it, they didn't have to do anything. If police can ignore a group of people smoking weed during a public demonstration or at a concert, they can ignore dancing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
1) And why is that? Look at the Wisconsin situation, and how the police sided with the unions. That was illegal as well. Are you saying that they have to uphold the law irregardless of the consequences? Shouldn't we WANT officers that think "this is a bad law?"

2) There's not such a limit in the Constitution. You live by the consequences of your actions, but the government is not supposed to limit your expression (as CT explained above)

3) The cops chose to adhere the law, no matter the frivolous nature of it. But let's see what happens as they have to enforce it next time

4) The cops never explained what they were to be charged with in the first place. Merely that they were being arrested. That's not necessarily a legal arrest.. Look around 2:40s for the hit on the head.

5) We've had one cop pull a gun because he saw an innocent man open carry. Do we really need cops that only follow the law blindly? Better question, couldn't this have been handled much better than with violence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:49pm

"
The original issue in 2008 proves you 100% wrong...."

Exactly, hes a clown!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:51pm

"5) We've had one cop pull a gun because he saw an innocent man open carry. Do we really need cops that only follow the law blindly? Better question, couldn't this have been handled much better than with violence?"

Of course! but we arent arguing with bright people here! Simple and closed minded really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
You'll have to link me to the story, then, because the wikipedia article suggests otherwise:

"She was charged with demonstrating without a permit (charge later dropped) and interfering with park police."

Of course, that doesn't say much either, but it does make you "100% wrong".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
Only returning the favor.

You are advocating crushing a persons rights just to avoid losing a job. That is almost as bad of an action as killing someone.

Please, think before you spout of some BS about police following an illegal order or law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:52pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/bigger-dance-party-planned-at-thomas-jefferson-mem orial/2011/05/31/AGzAwPFH_blog.html

Lets see them arrest 1600 people. This is a national security issue! Better yet lets get the DHS on it! ICE go seize his facebook!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:52pm

Re:
you must be retarded, really is something wrong with you? Are you in the hospital for head trauma? maybe a cop was a little too rough with you and you don't think straight anymore?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
No it doesn't. The demonstrating charge was dropped. She wasn't making a political statement, they were celebrating Jefferson's life. Christ, are you dense...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
OK, what private entity owns the Jefferson Memorial?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:55pm

Re:
OK then, so you are saying after they asked the people to stop, after they asked the people to leave and after they began resisting arrest the cops should have just said forget about it and left? Right? is that your position?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aldestrawk (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
Hitler Finds Out About Kokesh Dance Party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xGw2e7P8g-s#at=15
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:55pm

You're arguing with someone who thinks its ok to take a club to a non-violent person's knees just to subdue him for dancing.

The clown never answered why the cops didn't just ignore the absurdity of it! They ignore petty crimes every single day, especially in major cities! Why choose to enforce something that's not enforceable?? Are they going to bring tear gas out for the 1600 people showing up on Saturday? Why not arrest pot smokers at concerts? POT SMOKERS ARE FUNDING TERRORISM ARENT THEY?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:56pm

I thought you weren't paying attention?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:57pm

Re:
"Btw, this was organized by a veteran. If you didn't or don't have the balls to risk your life for your country you should probably fuck off."

It is perhaps fitting that in your rage you chose a wholly misogynistic metaphor for your statement. I'd more likely rate someone willing to risk their life for one stranger in another country than someone willing to risk their life for their own country. The disrespect you show for gender serves to emphasise your apparent lack of perspective. If you're going to worship heroes then choose individuals, not careers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:58pm

Re:
> they know they are breaking the law

The point is that in a free society, it shouldn't be against the law in the first place to sway silently in public place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
> I would be ticked off.

So my constitutional rights and freedoms are dependent on whatever does and does not "tick you off"?

Interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:00pm

"The point is that in a free society, it shouldn't be against the law in the first place to sway silently in public place."

Exactly, but according to this clown we shouldn't fight it. We shouldn't protest, and we certainly shouldn't dance.

We should just say yes sir we are in agreement with this ASININE law. Don't fight for your rights. Don't question authority. Be a pawn.

Clown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:02pm

BTW, lets not forget that what they were doing was not disruptive to anyone. Try taking a subway in NYC, now that's disruptive.

Slow dancing is not disruptive, it doesn't disrupt anyone. Just fucking ignore it, what are we children?

CLOWN! HAHA!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Off-duty cops; makes all the difference. And no, you don't want that. If you think their judgment would only apply in ways you agree with, well then...

2) So you're saying I can stage a 50-man sit-in on your back patio?

3) Once again, it's not their choice. It's their job.

4) Already explained this. The guy tried to stop someone being handcuffed by physically removing him from an officers hold, he then laid on top of the guy to prevent him from being cuffed...at that point, physical removal was necessary, so the cop shoved him away. I fail to see how that's remotely "getting hit for nothing". And they were being arrested for a failure to comply with law enforcement (who WERE enforcing a law), and then for resisting arrest.

5) And I'm almost sure that pulling the gun in that circumstance was NOT procedure...or necessarily legal. And no, there wasn't a better solution, not when the protesters used physical resistance. They were refusing to be arrested, they weren't physically complying, and one of them even tried to physical stop an arrest. Notice how the belligerent one wasn't smacked around? That's because physical force to shut someone up isn't allowed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:05pm

"Notice how the belligerent one wasn't smacked around? That's because physical force to shut someone up isn't allowed."

Wow, that clearly means they follow procedure 100% of the time. No, really, that's the one thing used to show that officers are in the right, if they don't punch someone in the face to keep them quiet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:06pm

Re: Disruptive
This sort of Gen Y entitlement makes me embarrassed for my entire generation.

Yes, how dare they feel entitled to exhibit their constitutionally protected right to expression! Or their right to not be harassed by uniformed thugs without having broken any laws?

Just like that damn Rosa Parks shouldn't have felt entitled to sit in the front of the bus. Cops should have slammed her to the ground and knelt on her head...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
Says the guy who didn't even bother to critically analyze a story before turning police officers into blatant scapegoats?

Until you actually give me a story link, I have no damn clue what actually happened during the arrest. You seem to be under the assumption that it occurred like:

"You can't dance here."
"What?"
"YOU'RE UNDER ARREST, GET ON THE GROUND!!!"

But you know what they say about assumptions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HM, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:07pm

Re:
Maybe clowns don't answer you because you are too stupid to reply in line? I didn't say it was ok to take a club to his knees for protesting, you said "should a cop shoot someone who runs" i said "no, he would probably tackle him or possible take out his knees, but that would depend on the situation"(obviously paraphrasing both quotes)

The cops didn't ignore it because they were called there to deal with it. They tried to basically ignore it by saying ok just stop/leave. Its not like they rushed in wearing riot gear and started beating people. I am not against protesting at all, and have involved myself in more than a couple. I for the most part hate cops, but i do respect that they have a hard job to do, and am quick to rant and rave about abuse of power but in this specific case which we are discussing there was none.

Its impossible to talk to you since you don't reply to a comment, so no one can ever tell who you are talking to, or what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HM, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:08pm

Re:
Maybe clowns don't answer you because you are too stupid to reply in line? I didn't say it was ok to take a club to his knees for protesting, you said "should a cop shoot someone who runs" i said "no, he would probably tackle him or possible take out his knees, but that would depend on the situation"(obviously paraphrasing both quotes)

The cops didn't ignore it because they were called there to deal with it. They tried to basically ignore it by saying ok just stop/leave. Its not like they rushed in wearing riot gear and started beating people. I am not against protesting at all, and have involved myself in more than a couple. I for the most part hate cops, but i do respect that they have a hard job to do, and am quick to rant and rave about abuse of power but in this specific case which we are discussing there was none.

Its impossible to talk to you since you don't reply to a comment, so no one can ever tell who you are talking to, or what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:08pm

"Just like that damn Rosa Parks shouldn't have felt entitled to sit in the front of the bus. Cops should have slammed her to the ground and knelt on her head..."

Over and over again the clown is proven to look foolish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aldestrawk (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:09pm

Re:
My guess is the park police will just close the memorial like they did at the end of the video. It will be curious to see how they handle an, un-permitted protest in front of it. They could bring in the riot police and not let anyone near it or they could let it happen and hope interest in later mass protests dies down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:09pm

Re:
no, she let them cuff her
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:13pm

Called there to deal with it? How about ignore it? How about make a conclusion that 4 or 5 people dancing is not worth their resources. How about not feed into what you claim the protestors wanted?

Now a shitload more people are showing up on Saturday. Is this what they wanted? Had the cops just walked away it would have been a dead issue.

push and WE WILL PUSH BACK
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
What the hell do you think the Supreme Court is for?

When a law gets overturned, it had to go through the bloody legal system first, including getting arrested.

There are HUNDREDS of unconstitutional laws that have been overturned solely because someone was arrested, and then proceeded to challenge it. There are systems in place for challenging unconstitutional laws, and having the police arbitrarily say "I don't like this law" is not one of them.

Please, think before you spout of some BS about police following an illegal order or law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
cant tell if that a Zing or Burn
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:14pm

Yeah except for closing the memorial is just that guy in a yellow shirt saying "the memorial is closed".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
Hell if I know, and honestly, hell if I care. If you want to call them lying scum, be my guest, but I am simply establishing the facts that are in place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:18pm

And who called them there to deal with it? And how do you know that? How do you know they werent on a patrol and decided to interject themselves?

The cops still had the authority to tell whoever called them there to deal with it (a TJ employee??) that they should ignore it, let it pass and it won't be an issue.

Doing what the cops did is the EXACT thing to do to turn this into a much, much bigger thing! Narrow minded and dumb!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
"A choke hold is a fairly legitimate move to ensure physical compliance"

If you're talking about air chokes then I was under the impression that they were a big fat no-no for American police (as they should be). For dealing with passive aggressive protesters I would cringe at any type of choke being employed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rabbit80, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:22pm

Re:
I keep seeing the arguement that one guy was trying to grab the other away from the police.

I really don't see how that can be considered a violent action against the police. A violent action would have been to attack the officer to enable the other guy to get away. That would have warranted the police using force TO RESTRAIN THE GUY THAT ATTACKED THE OFFICER!

The incident as it actually happened did not warrant the force used.

The guy that got bodyslammed whilst walking away from the officer - that officer should have called for assistance rather than doing the bodyslam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:22pm

"For dealing with passive aggressive protesters I would cringe at any type of choke being employed."

I cringed but these clowns didn't. Cops were just doing their jobs man....right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:23pm

Brute force should not be tolerated for these types of situations, period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
"but I am simply establishing the facts that are in place."

I believe the point you missed was that non-public forum is a distinctly different phrase from private property. I don't know if funeral grounds are really private property, but if they are then that is wholly different from being a non-public forum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was not an "air choke". He placed his hand on his throat, but did not apply pressure. It's being called a choke because the hand was there, but it obvious from the video that at no point was actual air circulation cut off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
Well then, we're back to semantics. Fail to see how any of what you just said actually changes any of the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:37pm

Re: Re:
How does it not warrant it? He refused arrested, and physically tried to stop it. Force was used to remove him from the guy being arrested, and then force was used to keep him still and handcuff him so HE could be arrested.

As for the bodyslammed guy, no matter if its one or two guys, he still would have been physically brought to the ground for not remaining still...and I'm not sure how the timeline actually syncs up, but it seemed to have happened right when Brown shirt was being cuffed.

(And on an ironic side, when two guys subdued Brown Shirt, it was called a "dog pile")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'd rather walk away, live another day, and struggle against this "overbearing authority" in another manner such as through the media and the courts.

And how much media coverage do you think they'd be getting now if they stopped the second the cop told them to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
If someone asks them to enforce the law, they can't very well say "sorry, I disagree with it, so I'm not going to". They are obligated by duty and law to perform their job.

If the law is wrong, they have a moral obligation not to enforce it. If a state passed a law that said anyone wearing a baseball cap in public was to be shot on sight, would the cops then be legally obligated to go around committing murder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:52pm

Sigh...
I've already posted way too much here, so might as well end off with this:

It amazes me how many of the people here blaming the police, suggesting that the police should be able to make the law, that they're just like "those bastards at Auschwitz", etc., are the exact same people who have spent several other topics arguing the exact opposite, that the police (and prosecutors) should not, and CANNOT trump up charges (like vague Hacking charges) to get the sentences they feel are deserved.

You can't have it both ways. Either people like Lori Drew get bogus charges just to get a "morally correct conviction", or you accept that Justice is blind, and that unjust laws must go through the system.

To put it simply, if individual morality has a place in the law, then you're going to get a lot of bad decisions along with whatever good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
Yes, they are legally obligated.

One would hope they are also morally obligated to quit their jobs on the spot, as well.

But as long as they are part of law enforcement, their morality has no part in it. Justice is blind.

If, at any point, an officer does quit their job over a situation like this, to make a stand, they will have my utmost support. However, police choose not to take a stand over dancing at a memorial? I won't hold it against them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting, the 5 you can name are all Communist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:03pm

Green AC, I don't know about you, but to me, blind, unquestioning obedience isn't something that should be encouraged in any police or military force. They should always be willing and able to question orders/laws that are clearly wrong and to act according to conscience and common sense. What we need are ethical, discretionary officers instead of unthinking goons with a superiority complex.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
Honestly, stop pulling out the "corrupt pig" mentality, and actually take a critical eye to the video, and TRY to tell me where the police abused their power or authority.

Other than the guy in the brown shirt who tries to pull the other guy away from the cop, I didn't see anyone doing anything that would justify any level of force from the cops. Once that one idiot tried to pull the guy away, it was like the cops decided everyone needed to be taught a lesson regardless of if they were resisting or not.

Not to mention that this demonstration was in response to a woman being arrested for simply dancing at the memorial. She wasn't protesting or demonstrating, she was dancing and some idiot judge decided to make up an excuse to charge her with an imaginary crime.

The laws governing protests and demonstrations are meant to ensure that they don't cause undue disruption to the public, businesses and the government. These people weren't bothering anyone. The main cop couldn't even tell them what law they were breaking.

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't being told exactly what law you're breaking one of the fundamental rights people have when being arrested? And no, I don't accept "not following a cop's orders" as a valid reason to be arrested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:09pm

Re:
Just like the best and most effective government is a benevolent, intelligent dictator, the best law enforcement is completely ethical, intelligent police.

Sadly, there simply aren't enough people in the world that would qualify for either.

The legal system takes morality and individual choice out of the equation solely because there are simply not enough individuals that are worth putting your 100% trust into, especially when it comes to your rights, freedoms and safety. You may not like it, which is completely understandable, but it was built that way for very valid reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:11pm

Martial law hasn't formally been declared, but I think at this point it's technically in effect anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:16pm

Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
It seems likely that the protestors chose the monument because it would ruin the experience of the rest of the public. It seems that they chose to subvert everyone else's rights to their own.

The only ones ruining the experience of the rest of the public were the cops. The others were dancing silently and not bothering anyone.

But hey, your posts are ruining my experience on this web site, perhaps you need to be thrown to the ground by the police and arrested?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:22pm

Re: They got what they wanted.
I'm all for my freedom but at the same time I still believe in order. If an officer of the law tells you he is going to arrest you if you do something and you still do it, well then you are telling that cop you don't care. If they felt that they had a right to dance and the cop had no ground to stand on then they should have seeked out a lawyer.

And Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus where she (legally) belonged...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:25pm

I have never meant this more: WTF?
I'm confused. There are over 250 comments here, and a quick skim of them suggests that some Americans are actually happy about a situation in which people got physically subdued and arrested for dancing. In front of the Jefferson Memorial. In your nation's capital.

Perhaps the Canadian education system has let me down, but I learned America was founded on the right to protest, and is itself essentially the product of a giant bitchin' trans-atlantic protest launched by some of history's ballsiest dissenters. And that Jefferson was pretty big on the freedom thing, and is one of your country's most revered figures.

So seriously, how do you think this was okay? All the details you are bickering about seem kind of extraneous to me, because a bunch of people were arrested for dancing. Is this fucking footloose? I always tell Canadians that one of the things I respect most about America is that the average citizen (and even the dumb citizen) seems to have a solid understanding of his rights and what they mean, and also of the gravity and importance of "rights" as a concept. Please don't make me stop saying that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
Looking it over again, it seems that they were, in fact, arrested for dancing. They received that warning when the police first arrived.

However, you don't have to be told the law before you're arrested. While it wasn't in the video, there was plenty of time while they were handcuffed (and while everyone else was sent out) for them to be told their rights and such.

Like I said several times before, you may not like the law, but the blame does not fall on the Police when they are asked to enforce it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:28pm

My god. When you will Americans put your pants on and DO SOMETHING?? You have the most abusive govt. in ANY civilized country and you're fine with that? Your liberties getting taken away, innocent people being arrested... what's next? How far will you people let your gov sodomize you before you do anything?

This is just sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:32pm

Re:
Holy crap. I spit my coke when I read that. LMAO!!!!! Damn that was good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:33pm

Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
I am also Canadian, and I've also had a very minor education for the foundation of the legal system (both ours and the US's).

I don't know about the other people supporting a lot of this, but my argument is solely that the police are not to blame for this incident, and that there was no "police brutality". Once we get past that, I'm fine with arguing about the propriety of a law outlawing dancing at a specific location.

If this was solely about the laws surrounding the memorial, this discussion would be vastly different, but Tim incorrectly made this about poor police conduct, and I am personally sick the hyperbolic BS about "police states" and "corrupt pigs".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:37pm

Re:
You've got to be kidding me.

So you must get government approval and a permit in order to protest the government?

Move back to Tehran if that's the life you want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:44pm

Re:
where are you from troll?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hothmonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:47pm

Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
Hopefully a few thousand people show up to the next protest and encourage you to have a little faith in us again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 4:54pm

We live in a police state with these corrupt pigs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re:
So basically, you're just described this:

"We take the ability of choice out of the equation so you have to do as we say"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:06pm

Re: Re: Re:
If you think actively resisting arrest and getting physically harmed doing so is accomplishing something, all the more power to you.

But these people were not actively resisting at all (except, perhaps, the one guy pulling the other guy away from the cops), they were mostly doing nothing after the cops started touching them.

Does not obeying a police officer's every command now instantly equal resisting arrest? Scary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
I was raised to be a citizen, not a coward.

Pick up your trophy for showing up on the way out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:12pm

Re: Re: Re:
*Sigh*...

Honestly, there's absolutely no point in arguing this if you're not even going to listen.

We take choice out of the equation so that using Hacking laws to trump up jail sentences is not an option, and will be overturned.

Once again, you assume that "using your best judgment" will always turn out well, whereas this site itself has condemned several cases of "following your morals instead of the law", such as Lori Drew.

Do you need more explanation, or are you actually going to stop and think about this critically for a moment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:32pm

Does not obeying a police officer's every command now instantly equal resisting arrest? Scary.

According to these clowns yes. They forget this isnt a police state
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) The same can be said of how we dealt with Environmental protection before the 70's. it was called Private Property rights.
3) The only freedom we have in life is choice.
4) Gwiz pointed this out already. So not complying with police is now punishable by resisting arrest? Scary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chrug, 2 Jun 2011 @ 5:53pm

Re:
police state sux
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:01pm

Re: Re:
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/93983-fry-looking-squint-fry-squint
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:09pm

Re: Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
Just to point out the definition of a police state is defining where the police draw the line with common sense and morality, two things which contradict having laws in the first place but are constantly at odds. They've done it before in the immigration debate.

For perspective if Canada ever goes to war with the U.S. and a female soldier has a baby here the infant is now the enemy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
No, I'm not wrong. My belief is what it is. I hear you have a different belief. It's not wrong or right. It's my belief. It just happens to also be right. :-)

Seriously, though, I don't think we have to tolerate KKK rallies in order to preserve the ability of our citizens to have constructve exchanges. Granted, these demonstrators were mostly just annoying spoiled children who obviously didn't get enough (or got way too much) attention from their own parents, and not the KKK. However, it think the principal holds.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it's not like they were screaming and setting things on fire, but the Jefferson Memorial was not built to be a dance hall, and I really do think the context of the location can play a valid role in determining what is appropriate speech there.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:12pm

Then people wonder why I have infowars in my link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:15pm

Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
We use the term "hero" WAY too much to basically describe someone who shares the same values we do.

Did these boneheads evey TRY getting a letter-writing campaign going to demonstrate that there are a LOT of voters who care about this - as opposed to a dozen or so wannabes who just can't bear the fact that they were born too late for a 60s sit-in?

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
And you know what? Places that ban photography SAY SO on the door or other clear informative means.

There is *no* 'no dancing allowed' sign anywhere around this or any other memorial.

The officers we're telling them something that wasn't specifically banned. Should they have cooperated with the officers? Perhaps, but 'protest demonstration' generally doesn't mean cooperation. The guy who got body slammed was clearly resisting arrest, so sadly he gave them the excuse to get physical - doesn't make it right, just the excuse they used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:29pm

Re: Re: Irony
My problem with the reporting on this is those people were taunting the police and then resisting arrest. The host of the thing was walking away from an officer attempting to arrest him. They probably used more force than what was necessary but the behavior of the people is just as much to blame. The ruling, it's pretty ridiculous. People absolutely should be allowed to dance where ever they want. I don't blame police for doing their jobs, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:41pm

Re:
> Read that, have you ever, ever heard anything so insane?

Yeah, who knew the limit on the 1st Amendment was the point where you draw attention to yourself?

"You have the right of free speech and free assembly, only to the point where people start to notice and pay attention. Then you must stop."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
> And there are places that ban photography.

Apparently those cops in the video think the Jefferson Memorial is one of them.

Watch the end, where he tells one of the guys with the cameras that "videotaping in here is forbidden".

Really, officer?

One of the major tourist attractions in the nation's capitol and videotaping is prohibited? Funny how you and your fellow officers haven't stopped THE MILLIONS OF OTHER TOURISTS from videotaping in there. But the moment you decide to go apeshit on a couple for the horrific offense swaying in place while standing in each others' arms, suddenly videotaping in the memorial is prohibited?

Seems rather self-servingly convenient to me.

These guys were basically talking out of their ass and making up the "law" as they go along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 6:50pm

Re: Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
Honestly, for a long time I was very much on your side. I was always the one standing up for police while decrying the laws that led to their actions. But after the events of the G20 in Toronto (where the police and the provincial government were clearly working in concert to deceive the public, and where the police autonomously went far beyond their mandate, and where over 1,000 of my fellow Torontonians were imprisoned, most of them without cause) I am less forgiving of law enforcement. What happened in Toronto that weekend was very, very wrong. The complacency I have seen from people ever since has chilled me to the bone, and it highlighted the belief I mentioned above, about average Americans having a better grasp of their fundamental rights than average Canadians. This thread, to me, is eerily reminiscent of the many conversations I had after the G20, where people offered various lyrical versions of "whatever" as justification for a horrible violation of people's rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 7:19pm

"Jefferson Memorial was not built to be a dance hall, and I really do think the context of the location can play a valid role in determining what is appropriate speech there."

bullshit you fool

No slow dancing? Get the fuck out of here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 7:36pm

This could get ugly...
Probe of the police officers and their conduct

So it's now the move of the government...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 7:44pm

The monument is open 24 hours a day but park rangers are there only until 11:30 p.m.

Dumb fools
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O, 2 Jun 2011 @ 7:59pm

Re:
But they have a point!
If you want to make something illegal, you must be able to define it in clear terms. Look at the first couple to be arrested, they didn't even really look like they were dancing, more like hugging while moving a little.

It IS important to define 'dancing' if it is going to be outlawed, and the very fact that those cops arrest people for doing something they can't even define clearly shows how stupid this is.

The dancers were also peaceful at first. Only when the cops decided to go Gestapo on them did they become vocal. And really, once cops start acting like Nazis, it's only fair to get vocal and protest loudly. Because cops should never act that way, and when they do it's important to make sure people around notice.
If the cops had been more moderate or just wiser in their behavior, I wouldn't condone the behavior of the dancers. I'm also quite sure the dancers did not even expect the cops would escalate things that much... They probably were not planning on making all that noise until the cops behaved like fascists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vbevan (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:00pm

Cops did use excessive force
Wow...just wow.

If they had laws like this passing here in Aus, I'd be dancing there as well.

Based on the law, the cops weren't in the wrong for arresting the dancers. Their job is to uphold the law, whether they agree with it or not (within reason of course). But the protesters aren't in the wrong either. It's their job to question the governments laws and civil disobedience is one of the most effective and safest ways to do it.

Based on the way they executed their job, wow, that was just over the top. They jumped from talking to knee in backs with no middle stage. Wouldn't you first try to handcuff/remove other protesters etc. without having to resort to that? Especially in this case, where there was no threat of violence etc. from the protesters?

I mean, don't they get trained in this? I'm not a cop, but based on common sense and to avoid legal troubles, wouldn't you use these steps, only moving on if people don't obey each one. Especially given the passive resistance faced.:

1. Warn people to disperse, as they are breaking the law.
2. Tell them they are under arrest and them attempt to handcuff them etc.
3. Warn them that if they don't comply you will be required to use more force to subdue them.
4. If they still don't comply, then yes, now you can wrestle them to the ground, reasonably, and handcuff them.

As opposed to:

1. Try to arrest them.
2. Wrestle to ground and put knee in back with 3 other big strong men.
3. Release it to show the world how America takes it's freedoms seriously.
4. ???
5. <> PROFIT

I hope those cops get a massive lecture on reasonable force. Wouldn't want to have them answer a domestic dispute call. They seem to only be trained in escalating the problem. There would be blood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:07pm

Re: Re:
The Gestapo would gladly explain to you how you should respect a body of authority that dumps on your basic rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:20pm

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
The Westboro Baptist Church are really extremists of the worse kind.
I'm an atheist myself, but I heard even Christians strongly dislike the WBC. I heard many Christians say WBC are not even Christians, more like a cult based on Christianity.

They protest homosexuality, soldier burials... They have signs that say "God hates America" "Thank God for the dead soldiers" and I heard they claim 9/11 was God's punishment because the USA is a bad country. They also believe they are the only true Christians and only they will go to Heaven.
There is no valid reason to protest military burials, but they seem to hate the USA and like to strike where it hurts most: people's patriotism. Nothing annoys patriots more than disrespecting dead soldiers.

Again, they're strongly extremist so I guess they really just want to hurt people's feelings as much as they can, and normal people won't find much sense in what WBC does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this day and age, with the Internet, you'd have heard about it by now had something fishy been going on prior to the video shown here.
At least the assumption which is the most likely to be true is that there was nothing important that was not shown in the video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:30pm

Re: Ruling
> The appeals court found that dancing was not allowed at the
> memorial, because while it is open to the public, it is NOT a
> public forum

Which is one of the reasons this decision may likely be reversed on appeal.

The ruling that memorials are not public places flies in the face of well-settled 1st Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court ruled back in the 1960s that streets, sidewalks, parks, monuments, and memorials are "traditional public places" where free speech is given heightened protection. So for this court to suddenly say, "No, they're not" is both surprising and ripe for challenge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:34pm

Re: Re:
A choke is potentially lethal. If not done properly, if the victim has a medical condition, if the grip of the attacker is not right, if it's too tight... If the attacker is stressed (and when in a physical altercation, you ARE stressed) the choke can go wrong.

Cop endangered the guy's life.
The victim was not violent, at most he was resisting but he was not threatening the cop at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:34pm

Re:
Yeah, I lived in DC for many years and have been to the Jefferson hundreds of times and never once could it have been described as "somber", "serene" or "contemplative" when I was there.

It's always a raucous nightmare with dozens of tour groups all shouting to be heard over one another, little kids racing around, screeching at each other, and just generally like any other crowded place. It's no more serene than your average shopping mall at Christmas time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:35pm

Re:
> Don't like being told to leave a public place? Fine. Take it up in
> the courts where it will actually make some difference.

You can't take it up in the courts without standing, genius. And you can't get standing unless you're charged with violating the law you want to challenge in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:40pm

Re:
> Its kind of like the concept of yelling FIRE!! in a public place,
> when there is obviously no fire.

Except that example is completely inapplicable. The "fire in a crowded theater" cliche is generic shorthand for the Supreme Court's "clear and present danger" test.

In order for restriction on speech to be justified under that test, there must be a clear and present danger of death or serious bodily injury as a direct result of the speech. Such would be the case with a false claim of emergency in a crowded place. Such is *not* the case with two people silently swaying in each other's arms in front of a statue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:41pm

Re: Re: Re:
> Disrespecting cops is not another one of those freedoms...

Actually disrespecting the police is completely protected speech. The Supreme Court ruled it so long ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:44pm

Re: Re:
> It IS important to define 'dancing' if it is going to be outlawed

Absolutely. In order to define "dancing" as a demonstration and therefore an illegal act, the principles of law that have been in place for 200+ years require that citizens be able to inform themselves of the parameters and legal definitions of the prohibited conduct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:49pm

Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
> The cops actually seemed pretty calm and straightforward.
> The first cop seemed to try to not escalate anything

The best way not to escalate it would be to ignore them. Since the behavior actually *wasn't* disruptive and harmful in any meaningful way, it would have been best just to let them have their 10 minutes of dancing. If they weren't able to provoke a reaction, they'd get bored and leave. Instead, the cops gave them the very reaction they were hoping for.

> I would also note that the cops all seemed to do just fine
> with the videotaping going on.

Well, right up until the end when the cop starts telling people that videotaping inside the memorial is prohibited, despite the fact that literally millions of people videotape there every year and it's clearly perfectly legal to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:50pm

Re: Re:
["So based on your logic, if he would have run away would it be ok for the pig to shoot him in the leg to subdue?"
No but he can tackle him. Or possibly take out his knees with a nightstick.
"Simply because he's under arrest do we subdue at any cost, even though he was arrested for dancing?"
We should subdue with the minimal amount of force needed, but we should subdue.]

Read that last sentence "we should subdue". If I understand you right, we should always subdue, no matter what it takes, but we should use the minimum force required.
So I'll ask that first question again: should the cop shoot him in the legs? Assuming shooting his legs is the only possible way of subduing him and therefore it is "the minimal amount of force needed".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:51pm

Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
> I would have gladly helped the police SLAM as many of those
> morons faces right down the stone steps.

Of course, then you'd be in cuffs on the floor right next to them-- and charged with something a lot more serious than demonstrating without a permit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
teka, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:56pm

Re:
That's right folks, you heard it here first.

Implied jailhouse sexual assault and violence is "good news" and the proper outcome of any protest, statement, public hugging or odd way of walking that a police officer does not like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 2 Jun 2011 @ 8:57pm

Re:
1. what law?
2. what public were 'disturbed'
3. 'wrong'. Explain how dancing is wrong.
4. explain how the cops response causing no threat to anyone is an appropriate next step. Or am I mistaken and the law does mean that any Officer can administer their own brand of justice for disobedience?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:07pm

Re:
Great idea protesting on a Saturday. That means you will have two fun-filled days and nights in the DC City Jail before a bail hearing. May I suggest you ready yourself for your weekend's lodgings by reviewing the shower scene in "American History X", "Deliverance" or just about any episode of "Oz". The actions of the cops in the video will seem like a game of paddy-cake compared to being locked up in DC. Have fun and don't forget to come back on Monday and let us know ow it went.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
O, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:10pm

Re: Re:
The cops should have explained which law the dancers were breaking. In fact I think... IT'S THE LAW!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:25pm

Cops are people too. How long can you suffer a dickhead whose agenda is to break your balls and make your life difficult? Around here the cops used to give wise asses a "screen test". Basically, when a prisoner is mouthing off in the back seat, spitting, telling the cop how he liked fucking his wife last night or whatever, the cop takes his cruiser up to about 70 and slams on the brakes. The dickhead goes face first into the security screen between the back and front seats. Problem solved. The guards at the jail are even less tolerant of some self-righteous pussy demanding his rights. You keep running your mouth he'll simply transfer you to the general population. Then you'll be to busy using your mouth for other things to pop off about your stupid right to dance at the Jefferson Memorial. I'm all for free expression but I question the worth of spending a weekend doing a sword swallowing act at the DC City Jail to make a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
A lot of people should plan to dance there as a protest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:37pm

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
You forgot to tell that Osama bin Laden was linked with the CIA... and that War on Terror is a fraud... and that 9/11 was an inside job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:38pm

Re: Re:
@teka: Grow up. The utopia you seek doesn't exist. The world is the way it is. And stop the "odd way of walking" bullshit. Those people were there to pick a fight over an adverse ruling they were unhappy about. They provoked the cops and got what they deserved. These aren't innocent victims, they're professional provocateurs. They know the risks walking in the door. And hopefully they're aware of the considerable danger they face being jailed over a weekend in DC. That jail has a reputation for violence and sexual assault. That bunch of candy asses will not fare well in there, but I presume they have considered it before they decided to make their point. Just because you may have freedom of speech doesn't compel you to use it unwisely and to your likely personal detriment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
That "patriot" bullshit is so tipical from brainwashed (North) Americans (from USA (yes, Americans != USA citizens). You should stand up for Freedom of Humanity not just for Freedom in your country. USA != the World.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
War is profit. USA invades other countries so they can STEAL natural resources. "USA government" (the Elite) is creating an empire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 9:46pm

Humanity is more divided than ever!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techinabox (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly the Park Service used to stand up for Civil Rights. They desegregated even in states that had banned it and the officer guarding King during his iconic "Dream" speech was a Park Ranger (see image below).

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/6081/mlko.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
"War is profit. USA invades other countries so they can STEAL natural resources. "USA government" (the Elite) is creating an empire."

What fucking natural resources are there in Afghanistan? Vietnam? Somalia? Even if we turned Iraq into the world's largest Exxon station, it would take forever to recoup the money wasted there from taxes on gasoline and oil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:26pm

This Could Be a Great New Media Reality Show...
They were there to provoke the cops. I'm looking forward to the video's sequel after Saturday's event, where "Disobey" shirt gets some help learning to breakdance courtesy of an officer's taser. Mr. "I Won't Shut Up" will probably get a free sample of Sgt Sanchez's homemade salsa recipe (pepper spray) and brown shirt will almost certainly the first one raped in jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cheers to a heroic effort green guy. Police use force to do their job if they have to. That is what we pay them to for, to do their job. We can't get bent out of shape about every use of force, it only weakens our argument when they do step out of line, and they certainly do use excessive force a lot. But when a cop says "you are under arrest" you either comply or they make you comply. They can't take it back. We have to honestly look at the scene and say, did they only use enough force to accomplish that goal or did they abuse their power. You don't expect them to just give up. But you do expect them to not go too far.

From the first time a cop touches you until you are in the police station, or he lets you go, he must remain in control. They don't know if one of those guys is batshit crazy and liable to bite them or stab them or try to take their gun. But they know after they touch them they have to maintain control or something can go terribly wrong, even if it isn't likely to. The question is did they give you an option to not have them touch you, and did they give you fair warning they were going to touch you and the option to have that be a peaceful interaction? And most importantly are they upholding the law?

We don't want cops making a moral decisions all the time. A supreme court just said this is the law and its not a cops place to take it back. You can say that you want cops to always "do the right thing" or only uphold "morally just" laws but you are talking about objective things and life is full of gray. What if a cop doesn't think that guy hit his wife enough to get arrested, or that she deserved it. What if a cop honestly and truly believes that torrent=theft. What if a cop thinks you deserved to die and your murderer should walk? Their job is to follow the law and make you do the same, forcefully if necessary, not to make moral and ethical decisions.

That is not to say we shouldn't closely monitor the amount of force or that we should obey unjust laws we just shouldn't jump down their throats for doing their job. Please jump down their throat if they injure people they don't have to or force people to do stuff that isn't the law. But if someone resists them expect them to use force. If someone is resisting and not doing anything illegal the cop is in the wrong but the standard should remain is it illegal not is it moral/ethical. If they resist and the cop only uses enough force to accomplish their job we can't attack them for that.

I'm glad people are protesting this stupidity. But cops don't decide to change the law because of protest, they arrest people and hopefully judges do their job and make sure the law is constitutionally just and humane. You know Rosa Parks did get arrested. The cops on that bus didn't just call the president and let him know that they would no longer be upholding that law. It takes people going into the court system to spark the debate and force people to look critically at the issue. Hopefully in the end we correctly answer "is this right?" and "is this worth it?"

But don't get mad at cops enforcing the law and doing it as nicely as possible. Realize that they are people, doing their job. Yes there is a line between doing your job and maintaining your humanity as plenty of people have brought up nazis(and no spellchecker i will not give that word the privilege of being capitalized) to point out. But this wasn't over that line and its counter productive to claim that it was. No one was injured, no one lost a life, no one was forcibly abused. The situation escalated because the protesters escalated it, the cops used enough force to detain them and take control of the situation and no more. They were not tasked to kill, or racially segregate, or commit genocide. Of course there is always that line where not backing down could mean people get killed or seriously injured and at that point I do hope every [wo]man on both sides asks if it is worth it. But again that line was not crossed in this incident. People were arrested, some force was needed to arrest those people and an adequate and just amount of force was used.

Hopefully people protest and are arrested and go to court until this stupid law is overturned. Hopefully that doesn't take long. Hopefully in that process no one is hurt, protester or police.

Cops that step over the line and abuse their power or act outside the law should be punished, swiftly and severely. But the public has to look at their actions calmly, logically, rationally, then realize they probably didn't have time to do the same and the person they are dealing with probably wasn't either. If you think this was over the line I don't think you are doing that.

Its no wonder cops don't want to be filmed when the public acts this way about them doing there job as peacefully as the situation allowed. If good cops new the public wouldn't freak out seeing them do what is necessary to accomplish their job maybe they would be more eager to allow us to catch the bad ones at work. I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to film them, a public servant enforcing the law should expect no privacy, but situations like this make me see why even a good cop would be hesitant to be filmed. And that only allows the bad cops to hide their actions and stifles public knowledge of ridiculous arrests and abuse of power.

P.S. any cops that read this disregard everything I said and let me go no matter what I am doing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:37pm

Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
"I don't think we have to tolerate KKK rallies in order to preserve the ability of our citizens to have constructve exchanges."

And just where is the line over what is and isn't acceptable? or will you "Know it when you hear it."

How about the West Baptist protests at funerals? That's downright 'hate' speech in my book. But it's allowed because we have freedom of expression.

"I really do think the context of the location can play a valid role in determining what is appropriate speech there."

Completely agree, and the THOMAS JEFFERSON Memorial is just about as perfect a place for emphasizing free speech as you can get...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:39pm

Re: This Could Be a Great New Media Reality Show...
Wow, there is a line you just crossed.

Yes you shouldn't be a dick to cops when they follow the law and should expect resistance to be met with enough force to make you comply. But you should not despise people for standing up to unjust and unconstitutional laws.

Could the protesters been more compliant while still effectively protesting? certainly. Did resisting until force was used increase media coverge? of course. Could the cops have used less force? probably. Did the resistance irritate the cops on a personal level? most likely. Are you just as bad as all the people jumping down the cops throats? definitely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:41pm

Re: Cops did use excessive force
Watch the video. After everyone has been asked and then told to stop. The couple is calmly arrested. The guy in the white shirt is about to be calmly arrested. You see the cop run up, the guy starts to submit and the cop slows down. Then brown shirt trys to lock arms and ends up hanging in off the guy and generally trying to prevent the cop from doing his job. Force is used to remove brown shit and subdue him. No one beats him, or wounds him, or continues to use force on him when he is down. He is forcibly subdued after he he willfully and purposefully tries to interfere with a calm and peaceful arrest. That is what is going to happen. Then sunglasses fights having his hands pulled behind his back until the cop puts him down, backup comes over from the brown shirt incident and assists.

No one was trying to comply and got hit. No one was randomly assaulted. Everyone had the option to be arrested peaceably.

No, they should not have backed down when the cops told them to stop. But part of protesting is getting arrested. The cops gave them the option for that the be peaceful or not. That is all you can expect of them. The option for your being arrested to be peaceful and non-abusive. If someone is denied that option than that cop should be strung up but you can't get upset about cops using force to arrest people if the do not submit to being arrested.

There are plenty of reasons to protest but none of those are because it will make the cops back down and everything will change in that instant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, yes you do if you wish to do so legally. You missed his pretty straightforward explanation of why.

You (and they) are completely allowed to protest at the TJ Memorial, but you are required to coordinate that protest with the entity in charge of the jurisdiction - in this case the Park Service. They can deny the permit and you can sue them to get it allowed. That's how our legal system works.

Of course you obviously can just go protest like these people did too. But there are likely consequences of that.

And note I'm not defending the cops here, just that we are a nation of laws that we all agree to and have the ability to petition for changes to those rules if we don't like them. Simply not obeying the rules, even if they boneheaded and wrong is not the ideal way to react, unless you're willing to take the consequences of those actions.

Sometimes the latter is the best way to get your point across though. And here we are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 10:49pm

Re: Re: Re:
You mean this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/55659362/10-5078-1308285

No the cops couldn't explain the law or define it. Because its stupid but that is not their job. It was made illegal to dance there they told people that, gave them the option to stop and made sure they understood the consequence of not stopping. I am not saying the law makes sense or is constitutional but it is a law and its the cops job to enforce it, not decide if its a sound law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
Cops have radios and back-up, shooting is never the only option.

Shooting someone is only ever the minimum force required if you are stopping them from harming yourself or someone else and that danger is immediate. Even then it should be tough decision.

But in your hypothetical situation did the runner just dance at a monument or arm a nuclear weapon that he alone can disarm before it goes in the center of a major metropolis between a convent, an orphanage, an old folks home and a hospital? Because what should the lone stranded cop, all alone for miles, last chance at saving millions, do it that situation? You can create a hypothetical situation in which anything is justified.

These cops didn't shoot anyone, they didn't hospitalize anyone. They didn't physically or emotionally abuse anyone. They used no weapons.

Do I think extreme force should be allowed in non-extreme situations? of course not. Do I think cops should be allowed to do use force to do their jobs? Yes. I also think their actions should be judged on a case by case basis not with broad generalities and hypotheticals. I also think that in this case the cops used the amount of force necessary to accomplish their job and it is not part of their job to decide what laws are worth upholding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vbevan (profile), 2 Jun 2011 @ 11:40pm

Icecream protest
So dancing is illegal in certain places.

Is dancing defined in a statute somewhere? As being charged implies the activity is clearly defined somewhere.

And what if they move onto standing around eating icecreams in protest. Or smiling at each other.

The police then go beat on everyone standing around smiling together?

You really want to live in the People's Republic of America?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:06am

Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it's not like they were screaming and setting things on fire, but the Jefferson Memorial was not built to be a dance hall, and I really do think the context of the location can play a valid role in determining what is appropriate speech there.

I'm sorry, but the First Amendment does not separate out "appropriate speech" and "inappropriate speech". In fact, that's kind of the point.

I'm really scared by this thread and how many people are so willing to give up the First Amendment because they don't like the speech involved. That's freaking scary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:09am

Re: Re:
Yeah, I lived in DC for many years and have been to the Jefferson hundreds of times and never once could it have been described as "somber", "serene" or "contemplative" when I was there.

It's always a raucous nightmare with dozens of tour groups all shouting to be heard over one another, little kids racing around, screeching at each other, and just generally like any other crowded place. It's no more serene than your average shopping mall at Christmas time

I was thinking exactly this. For all those claiming that the dancing was "disruptive," I've been to the Jefferson Memorial a bunch, and the mobs of elementary school kids running around are a hell of a lot more disruptive than anything these folks were doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:12am

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
The Westborough Baptist Church is lead by a man named Fred Phelps. He goes to military funerals with his church/family and heckles the grieving by holding signs and yelling things like "God hates fags", and suggests that soldiers die because they protect a country that supports (some) basic human rights for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. If you google Fred Phelps, I'm sure more information will pop up. I hope this answered your quesion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HothMonster, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:14am

Re: Re: Re:
Right, people seeking utopia should be raped. The world would be a better place if everyone either shut up and did what they were told or got raped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:16am

Re:
Cops are people too. How long can you suffer a dickhead whose agenda is to break your balls and make your life difficult?

So they should use intimidation and bullying tactics, violating people's rights and endangering their safety, in order to ensure that people instantly comply with any orders given to them by a cop?

Yes, cops are people too, and all too often, they let their anger get the best of them instead of acting in a professional manner.

What if every person doing a job was allowed to act like that? I once saw a customer giving the girl behind the counter of a fast food restaurant a real hard time because her french fries weren't hot enough. Should the clerk have been allowed to pepper spray her for being abusive?

This is supposed to the country where you're innocent until proven guilty and even guilty people have rights. It's not supposed to be the country where cops can pretty much do whatever they want and people get hurt for not immediately asking "how high?" when a cop says "jump!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:38am

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

You have to fight to be free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:47am

Re: This Could Be a Great New Media Reality Show...
Wow. I'm sorry you got raped in jail. Maybe you should seek professional help instead of talking about it in every post you make here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:52am

Re: Re: Re: Irony
If not allowing yourself to risk having bones broken is 'resisting arrest' then I don't know what 'violently resisting arrest is. And having been arrested multiple times, I can tell you that at no point wewre the police ever anything less than polite, courteous and apologetic.

These fuckwits are thugs, and have forgotten the face of their father.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:16am

Re: Re: Re:
The world is the way it is. And stop the "odd way of walking" bullshit. Those people were there to pick a fight over an adverse ruling they were unhappy about. They provoked the cops and got what they deserved.

Buck, why does it not surprise me that you are so anti-First Amendment?

Protesting the government means they "got what they deserved"? How do you call yourself an American?

And hopefully they're aware of the considerable danger they face being jailed over a weekend in DC. That jail has a reputation for violence and sexual assault. That bunch of candy asses will not fare well in there, but I presume they have considered it before they decided to make their point.

So now your condoning forced rape? Just the other day because one commenter on our site made sick comments you insisted it reflected all of our positions here. Yet here YOU are, condoning violent rape.

Shall I point out to the people in "policy circles" that apparently everyone who supports things like PROTECT IP is pro-rape? After all, that's your logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:18am

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Exactly. Speech that everyone is OK with does not need any protection from laws or constitutions.

It is the speech that dissents, irritates or offends that needs protection.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:19am

Re:
Cops are people too. How long can you suffer a dickhead whose agenda is to break your balls and make your life difficult?

So, your argument is that if a cop feels offended, it's okay to violate people's rights? You're a sick man.

I'm all for free expression

That, clearly, is untrue, given the rest of your comment.

That you repeatedly support violent rape of people you don't like is freaking scary man. I'm very seriously considering reporting your IP address to law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:21am

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, public disturbance. If I went to my family member's gravestone and there were weirdos dancing in front of it, I would be ticked off.

Is that your standard for "public disturbance", being "ticked off"? Really? Well, guess what: you probably just ticked off a lot more people that were ticked off at the memorial. I know you certainly ticked me off. So how about you give us your name and address so that we can pay you a little visit and give you some of that "appropriate" response in return? Surely you would have no objections to that, would you?

Right. Hypocrite. You should be flogged right along with those cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't watched the video, so forgive me if it is obvious on tape,...

Perhaps you should before commenting on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:30am

Re:
Sorry the TSA claimed my pants for the cavity search and they haven't returned them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:31am

Re: Re: Re:
Why do I get the feeling that we have a growing population of people who have not matured emotionally beyond "follow the law because they tell you to", and have moved into "do what is right, because it is right".

What we have are a growing number of gov't agents and apologists trolling message forums defending the actions of the gov't and its agents no matter what. Your tax dollars at work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From a martial artist's perspective, that choke hold had to be a psychological "establish dominance" type of thing. It is a move that occupies both your hands (i.e. no guard) and leaves the other guy both hands free at punch distance. Not a move you make if you are expecting a real fight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:06am

Re: Re: Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled back in the 1960s...

That was the 1960's. Things have totally changed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:10am

Re: Re: Re:
I've been to the Jefferson Memorial a bunch, and the mobs of elementary school kids running around are a hell of a lot more disruptive than anything these folks were doing.

Yeah, but those kids weren't protesting a government ruling. Running around screaming is alright if you aren't protesting some government action. If you are, then just silently swaying is enough to get you roughed up and arrested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:18am

Re: Re: Re:
If you think actively resisting arrest and getting physically harmed doing so is accomplishing something, all the more power to you.

Thank you.

Here's a tip. As soon as the police show up and you refuse to comply with them you have immediately lost. Perhaps not the war, but you have lost that battle.

No, you haven't. Unless you're a sociopath that cares only about yourself, that is.

You will not win. They cannot let you win. They will continue to escalate until you comply.

You will win the moral war. They cannot win, though they will continue to escalate, not realizing that they are defeating themselves.

It is just not worth it.

For a sociopath? No. For someone with a conscience? Yes. And then some.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:23am

Re:
The dancers were antagonizing and they got what they deserved.

Anyone who antagonizes authorities deserves whatever they get, eh? You're either a troll, one sick individual or both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:47am

Re: Re: Re: Ruling
"That was the 1960's. Things have totally changed."

The Supreme Court has done a 180.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:21am

It only ever gets worse.
The more insane laws, the more militarized police... its all only goes one way, from bad to worse. They won't back off, they will only get more aggressive. Thats the problem with government. Any power they take, they are loathe to ever give up. Simple traffic stops in some states are done now at gun point with screamed instructions and terror. Imagine in another 10 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:24am

Re:
Correction: Religion is NOT for the weak and scared.

Weak and scared are reserved for atheists who haven't the guts to believe in something because they fall for anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:44am

I would have liked to have seen what took place before all of that to-do, but from what we can see, I see fault on both sides - but all provoked by the blue-shirts-going-brown.

I don't see why they couldn't have politely asked the people to finish their dance and quietly leave the premises. They bullied and provoked those people, putting them on the defensive and then added insult to injury by arresting them. That, IMHO, was way out of line.

I don't want my tax dollars paying blue-shirts-going-brown to arrest dancers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SassyAnon, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:00am

And if he tried to get on the funeral grounds? Guess what, he'd be body slammed by the police too.
You know who else would be bodyslammed by police?
Hitler.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference is that if Rosa Parks kept on sitting and grab onto the seat when the officer told her to stand up to be arrested (Not go limp, but actively resisted the order), then the cop even back then would have been in the right to force her to get into the cuffs.

Did anyone notice (I don't know which video this was as I'm at work and it's blocked) the cop in one of them ask the protester to put his hands behind his back and gave him 3 warnings before taking him down? 3 warnings. That's way more then reasonable.

Yes, it's a stupid law. Yes. I'm all for the protest. Yes. The cops acted reasonably to the situation. I didn't see any kicking while they were down, any tasers, any takedowns without plenty of warnings. If you want to protest peacefully, then when the cop tells you that you are under arrest, go limp and let them cuff you and drag out your body. Don't be a dick like these people (most of the people. The Woman and the older man IMHO weren't resisting).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
"Yes, what happens if you don't abide is you are told to leave the premises. You are not body slammed to the ground and handcuffed."

No. That only happens if you refuse and then actively work against (note I said actively) being put under arrest.

Also, it wasn't a bodyslam. It was a takedown move, yes. But it's not like the cop lifted the protestor over his head and threw him down to the mat and hit him with a chair... oh.. wait.. Sorry.. Got off tangent there. It wasn't a bodyslam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The difference is that if Rosa Parks kept on sitting and grab onto the seat when the officer told her to stand up to be arrested (Not go limp, but actively resisted the order), then the cop even back then would have been in the right to force her to get into the cuffs."

Let's be careful w/our words here. No, that cop wouldn't have been "right". He would have been enforcing the law, yes, but that isn't the same as "right". Human beings have a responsibility to refuse to obey bad orders, no matter their vocation.

"The cops acted reasonably to the situation. I didn't see any kicking while they were down, any tasers, any takedowns without plenty of warnings."

You didn't see the cop punching the guy in the stomach AFTER he'd been taken down? And please don't come back w/the "that's what they're trained to do" nonsense. If that's what they're trained to do in situations like this, then their training is horribly wrong....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Saying "telling those of us that don't believe in imaginary sky fairies that you are" is not respectful... this is a very ignorant statement. I do not shun you for accepting evolution which, in my opinion, falls into the "imaginary sky fairies" category...

a) Not one of the "fallen" and therefore better than everyone else
Everybody is fallen, no exceptions. The difference between you and me is that I recognize I am fallen and can do no good in and of myself. So as Paul (an Apostle of Christ) says in Acts (paraphrased): I am the worst of the worst... all of my achievements/deeds are worthless and count for nothing (he had all the religious credentials that would make those of his time think he was a "good" religious person). Christians who claim they are better than anyone else are false christians.

b) Delusional
I dont think others are delusional. Just mal-informed. I was in the same position at one point. So my heart goes out to those in this position because I understand what it is like.

c) In utter contempt of everything non-Christian. Or even better, that doesn't adhere to your exact interpretation of Christianity.
God calls us to a high standard. One that no one can fulfill but Jesus Christ. No one can live up to the 10 commandments except him, because he is perfect. But if someone saved your life, wouldn't you want to please him the best you can? Have you ever lied, stolen, lusted? I know I have. This is crime against God. The punishment is death (which is why all must eventually die). However, if you accept that Christ died in our place, you'll go to heaven and not hell. Christ's death however is not a license to sin. We are to strive to abide by God's will, to lead a guiltless life as best as we can. So yes, we TRY to abide by God's will, but not always possible. And there are things that are left for us to decide, what things we enjoy to do that aren't necessarily Christian, but aren't considered sinning either.

"You're delusional, ignorant and disrespectful. You get "persecuted" because you're a self-righteous asshole, not because you're a Christian." I may be delusional, ignorant and disrespectful at times, and I apologize. But I try my best to present Christianity to the world in a manner that comes across as respectful, logical, and in love for that is what Christ did. I will not deny that I have been an asshole (just ask my wife, haha... she endures so much that comes out of me). And if what you mean by "self-righteous" as TRYING to live a life that is honoring to God and Christ, that is what a Christian is to do. If that comes off as self-righteousness Im sorry that it does. Christianity is not about promoting self, it is about promoting God's righteousness as He is the only righteous one. TRYING (emphasis on trying) to live a lifestyle that is good must go hand in hand with Christianity (they are inseparable) and, therefor, is why Christians will be persecuted. So if this is what you mean by "self-righteous", that and Christianity should be one in the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:01am

Re:
"To be brutally honest, at the point they start making sarcastic responses about 'what is dancing', 'what if you're out of time when making movements...', etc etc is when I lost total respect for these 'dancers'. What response did they expect out of the cops? "Oh we're sorry, carry on!"... hardly!"

The entire point of them asking those questions, sarcasm or not, was to get the officer to provide more information. If the officers can't even site the law that they are going to be arrested for, then those officers have no grounds on which to arrest the dancers. Another point with questioning "what is dance" is that it is such a broad definition. The first couple arrested were practically swaying, there was no noticeable footwork. If they went onto "So You Think You Can Dance", they would be on the gag reel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Let's be careful w/our words here. No, that cop wouldn't have been "right". He would have been enforcing the law, yes, but that isn't the same as "right". Human beings have a responsibility to refuse to obey bad orders, no matter their vocation."

By right, I should have said, "He was acting as per the directions of the police force at the time. He was performing his job as described". I did not mean ethically right. But he would not have gotten in trouble for it.

"You didn't see the cop punching the guy in the stomach AFTER he'd been taken down? And please don't come back w/the "that's what they're trained to do" nonsense. If that's what they're trained to do in situations like this, then their training is horribly wrong...."

I did not notice that. As I stated, I can't go back and rewatch it. But I will be doing so when I get to a non-secured computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re: Ruling
> That was the 1960's. Things have totally changed.

Umm... no they haven't. We have 50+ years of Supreme Court precedent which has affirmed and built upon that ruling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:57am

Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
> Seriously, though, I don't think we have to tolerate KKK rallies
> in order to preserve the ability of our citizens to have constructve
> exchanges

The Supreme Court says we do. (American Nazi Party vs. City of Skokie, Illinois) You may disagree with that decision, but it's nevertheless the law. And if the Nazis have a legal right to march through a town filled with Holocaust survivors, you'll have a hard time convincing me that swaying silently in place is somehow beyond the pale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cdaragorn (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:52am

Reacting to the wrong thing
I can't even begin to read through all these comments, but I can't pass this up without giving my piece.

First, the cops in these videos did absolutely nothing wrong. Yes, they used force to subdue the individuals. Every single thing they did follows what they are trained to do to subdue a person resisting arrest with the least amount of injury and risk possible. Anyone complaining at the force they used is pretending the problem is something other than what it really is.

These officers were doing what they're supposed to do: defend the law. The people protesting were breaking the law and refused to follow their instructions, and then went further by resisting arrest.

Do I agree with what the law says here? No, of course not. Do I think these people were wrong in protesting? No, of course not. The only thing they were wrong in was refusing to follow law enforcement.

Our legal system needs to be followed. If there are laws we don't agree with, we need to work to get them changed. This kind of protest could have been done without breaking the law it was protesting.

Organizing and participating in protests is legal. Breaking the law is not. Do not pretend that because it was a protest that they should somehow be allowed to break the law.

Does the law need to be changed? Definitely. But we need to go about it without breaking the law. It can be done.

If we think that breaking the law is ok just because we don't agree with it, we are no better than those who removed our freedom by making that law in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
As a christian,...

Supporting the actions of these cops seems pretty non-Christian, to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:11am

Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
I do not believe that you have to allow all sorts of stupid speech in order to protect valuable speech.

So the first amendment should only apply to speech you approve of, huh? Typical (for you).

I would also note that the cops all seemed to do just fine with the videotaping going on.

Wow. The cop jostling the cameraman and telling him to go away was very evident in the video. Even after being told that the cameraman was a member of the press, the cop's response was "doesn't matter". Looks like you got caught not telling the truth (again), doesn't it? What, you thought no one would call you out on it? Think again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
He lifted him up and threw him to the ground. How high does he have to lift him for it to be a bodyslam?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you're still missing it. These people were protesting the court decision that says they need a permit to protest at the Jefferson Memorial. Getting a permit would defeat the purpose of their protest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They don't know if one of those guys is batshit crazy and liable to bite them or stab them or try to take their gun.

Yep, I understand that and that's why I'm always armed. You just never know about someone in the public. I'm not a cop, but I strongly believe in "personal responsibility" and "taking care of oneself". So, if I happen to find myself alone with a stranger somewhere, I'm just as likely to shoot or stab them as to look at them. If I don't get them *first*, there's just no telling what they *might* do to me. You can just never be too careful these days.
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:32am

�Did anyone notice (I don't know which video this was as I'm at work and it's blocked) the cop in one of them ask the protester to put his hands behind his back and gave him 3 warnings before taking him down? 3 warnings. That's way more then reasonable.�

I think the problem with that statement is that it doesn�t seem reasonable to ARREST them for what they were doing, in the first place. If I am speeding in my car, putting other people at potentially serious risk� I still only get a citation for the infraction. I do not necessarily get arrested. So how on earth can you, or any reasonable person, say that �swaying back and forth with your arms around each other� � or even jumping about like fool� is an arrest-able offense? I would, as it is stated, agree that giving 3 warnings is �more than reasonable� compared to giving no warning at all, but it�s a moot point� Arresting them was not reasonable in the first place. The police in this event did NOT act �reasonably� in any sense of the word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:33am

Re:
I agree a little non-disruptive dance (no music, no wild actions or attention getting movements, ie slow dancing in a non-goofy manner) is no reason to arrest someone, but that is clearly not what was being done in the video.

Freedom of expression ends when you start drawing attention or acting goofy? Wow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:41am

Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
These officers were doing what they're supposed to do: defend the law.

So they were just following orders, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
There's plenty of natural resources in Afghanistan, as it turns out. Clearly Vietnam and Somalia (though we never really invaded Somalia) were not about natural resources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
Here are the details and video of the 2008 event.

http://dcist.com/2008/04/14/woman_arrested.php
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:52am

"If a law is unjust, then a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

What more needs to be said than from the man whos memorial this is?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cdaragorn (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:44am

Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
Yep. And you know what the best part is?

They were YOUR ORDERS.

We decide who gets into political office. We let them know whether we agree with the laws they put in place or not. We get rid of them if we don't.

The buck stops here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cdaragorn (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:18am

Re:
If you're speeding in your car, and pull over for the cop when they tell you to by flashing their lights at you, yes, all you will get is a ticket.

Your analogy fails at that point.

Tell you what, try this the next time a cop tries to pull you over:

Don't stop. Just keep driving as you were. Totally ignore what the cop is asking you to do. Then complain to him while he's wrestling you to the ground that he's using unnecessary force.

They were NOT arrested for breaking the little law about not dancing there. They were arresting them for refusing to follow the officers instructions when they were caught breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:37am

Re: Re:
You are wrong... ignorantly wrong.

They were telling them they would be arrested, BEFORE they ever resisted. In what world is it reasonable for "swaying back and forth with your arms around each other" to be an arrestable offense.

The anology was to express that I do not get arrested if I'm speeding therefore why would they be arrested for DANCING?

You are putting the cart before the horse, genius.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
tl;dr

Take your proselytizing, bible-thumping, altar-boy-molesting drivel somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The courts are not always correct, and are far from infallible. Hopefully this will be challenged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's what's being taught in school. As the parent of three school-aged children, I see it every day: no questioning of authority is allowed. Teachers/principals are always right. You can't even choose to walk away from a problem without permission (that actually happened to my daughter)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teddy_Bear, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:25pm

Stupid hippies looking to make a stupid point and get their stupid behavior to go viral on the interwebs. They got what they were looking for, they should be happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, way to pull one line out of context. Bravo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:28pm

I wonder if we were all in a tavern in 1773 talking about the criminals that just dumped tea into the harbor, which side would everyone choose?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:53pm

Re:
^THIS X 9000
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
Sure, and voting in a different president will totally solve this problem, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:17pm

Re: Re:
Also, there is no law (of any size) prohibiting dancing there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
tl;dr

You should have stopped there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
There are all sorts of limitations. You can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Schools can prohibit the wearing of t-shirts with obscenities or other disruptive messages. You can be required to get a permit and limit your speech to certain loctions/times in the case of public property and streets.

Here, the police seem to be saying that the demonstration (which is exactly what it was) was disruptive to others trying to enjoy the memorial. Sure, it was silent, but that's certainly not dispositive. They were doing the equivalent of torturing your little brother by holding your fingers right in front of his face and chanting, "I am not touching you! I am not touching you!" and trying to tell Mom that you couldn't possibly be bothering your little brother if you weren't actually touching him.

I actually think the First Amendment is plenty strong enough to support the high ideals it is meant to support without having to tolerate childishness as a side effect.

Seriously, these protesters totally reminded me of the annoying "college know-it-all hippies" on South Park. More interested in making minor points in a dramatic fashion than in actually making a diference.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:39pm

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Not sure what you mean about getting "caught not telling the truth (again)". Wasn't aware I had lied once (let alone caught at it), much less multiple times.

I saw the cops clearing out the entire memorial at the end, but don't recall the exchange with someone who claimed to be with the press. I don't deny it. I just don't remember it. I didn't have the sound on too loud. In any case, I was focusing primarily on the first cop, who had multiple camers trained on him and he was very calm and did not engage with them.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If by Communist, you mean: Slightly left of Attila the Hun, then yes, all were communists. If by communists you mean in agreement with the ideologies of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc, then you don't know what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
What state would that be? (If you don't mind sharing)

I know it's not the one I live in...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DataShade (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 9:43pm

Style Guide Update
Can we all agree that, from now on, the phrase "cop-killer" is to be used to denote a police officer who has taken the life of a citizen? It's time for society to start treating cops like barely-controlled thugs and rabid dogs; let the 'good cops' prove that they're good, this is not a profession worthy of respect any more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:16pm

Re: Style Guide Update
Nah, I don't think I can agree to that at all.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
I am not sure I heard everything clearly, but I was under the impression it was not "dancing" specifically, but "demonstrating" that was the offense.

They were there to demonstrate, which, arguably, was disruptive to others wishing to visit the memorial. When the cops warned them that their demonstration was not permitted, and directed them to cease, they refused. Some upped the ante. So, they got arrested. The more obnoxious ones got mildly (yes, mildly) thumped.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Not sure what you mean about getting "caught not telling the truth (again)". Wasn't aware I had lied once (let alone caught at it), much less multiple times.

The power of cognitive dissonance at work, huh?

In any case, I was focusing primarily on the first cop, who had multiple camers trained on him and he was very calm and did not engage with them.

Initially. Later he was not so calm and tried to stop the cameras. You kind of left that part out (again).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What state would that be? (If you don't mind sharing)

Maybe it's a "state of mind".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They were there to demonstrate, which, arguably, was disruptive to others wishing to visit the memorial. When the cops warned them that their demonstration was not permitted, and directed them to cease, they refused.

In that case, the cops *could* have claimed that everyone there was secretly demonstrating *something* and arrested them *all*. They didn't. Instead, they seem to have just picked out the ones they didn't personally like for a little "selective enforcement".

(By the way, I should mention that Mike has previously supported the idea of selective law enforcement. See what that can bring, Mike?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From what I saw, and as I understand the situation, it was pretty clear that there was a group of people there engaged in a coordinated activity intended as a demonstration. Those were the people arrested when the refused to cease the activity. So, it was SELF-selective law enforcement. Only the ones who chose to break the law were singled out for arrest.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Yeah, I guess several minutes of very calmly putting up with the cameras counts for nothing when the decision is ultimately made to direct everyone to leave - whether they have a camera or not.

Boy, you've sure got my number. I sure thought I was getting away with something pretty sly until you caught on to me. My, how observant and intelligent you are. I bow in submission to your obviously superior moral and intellectual prowess.

You should probably not bother to respond to my comments again, because I am clearly incapable of standing against you, and I know your highly-evolved mental and emotional abilities are wasted on the likes of me.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm

*sigh*
To those who state they should have just 'done as they were told,' it stands that you need to be reminded of this country's history. This country was not founded by people who were meek in the face of unjust law and brutal authority. The meek may inherit the Earth (if you're of a Christian bent), but those who stand for what is just and proper are the ones who make their mark in history, and in the hearts and minds of the people.

We, as a country, have the right to change our government when it gets out of hand. We have a right and a duty to stand before our government and its authorities without fear and declare what we think is wrong, and to work against our own elected officials to correct these wrongs.

If you do not have the moral integrity, or the intestinal fortitude to put yourself in harm's way for what you believe in, then stand aside and let those who do, do so. Decrying those who would stand for your rights is counterproductive, to say the least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 2:50pm

Re: *sigh*
. . . so, it's just not possible that someone can look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion - i.e., that it was the demonstrators themselves who caused the problem and it's not unreasonable to put controls on group demonstrations at places where other, non-demonstrating members of the public are also trying to enjoy the site?

I'm all for recognizing and lauding those who actually ARE putting themselves in harm's way for just causes, but I do not think the fact I disagree that this was a just cause means I lack moral integrity or intestinal fortitude. It just means I think those people were perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately just immature attention-seekers who have wrung more out of their fifteen minutes than is really warranted.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re: *sigh*
It just means I think those people were perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately just immature attention-seekers who have wrung more out of their fifteen minutes than is really warranted.

They can't be both well intentioned and just seeking attention, unless seeking attention is a good goal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:42pm

Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
Sure they can. That's where the immaturity comes in. They convinced themselves they were upholding high ideals against all odds, but they were really just making a mess on the floor.

If it helps, I don't insist on giving them the beneift of the doubt about being well-intentioned.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 4 Jun 2011 @ 6:20pm

Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
Does the law need to be changed? Definitely. But we need to go about it without breaking the law. It can be done.

If we think that breaking the law is ok just because we don't agree with it, we are no better than those who removed our freedom by making that law in the first place.

Are you in the US? Do you still consider yourself a British citizen? After all, the colonists broke British laws by revolting. The US government was formed by criminals who broke the law and revolted against the rightful ruler of this country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:06pm

Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
If ya read further down ya may have made a stronger point but I'll copy it since it hits home on this so well.

"If a law is unjust, then a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

What more needs to be said than from the man whos memorial this is?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:14pm

Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
Rekrul, tell me that was a joke. That's so far out there I'm laughing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
So much cognitive dissonance here all I'm to the point where all these people like Jeni's Ilk have this viewpoint on anybody doesn't follow the law to the letter;

"There all going to laugh at you" -Carrie comes to mind the theme to there chants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 2:30am

Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
"Rekrul, tell me that was a joke. That's so far out there I'm laughing."

Yeah, claiming that "the colonists broke British laws by revolting" and "After all, the colonists broke British laws by revolting." What a bunch of bull. None of that's true. The U.S. was founded on strict law and order and obedience to authority! Always has been, always will be. It's just the criminals that think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 2:32am

Re: Re: *sigh*
Seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to protest. If you give in, you are not protesting. If they mete out violence for peaceful protest (note: only one actively resisting, but more than one being drug to the floor?), then I cannot ever agree with you.

Standing for first amendment rights has you labeling them as immature, and that is where the contentiousness seems to come.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 2:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Yeah, I guess several minutes of very calmly putting up with the cameras counts for nothing...

Gee, you mean if I "put up with" something I don't like for "several minutes", it is then okay for me to assault whoever it is that is annoying me? Hey, I never knew that! /s

...when the decision is ultimately made to direct everyone to leave - whether they have a camera or not.

There you go again. That didn't happen. They did not "direct everyone to leave". You and the truth just don't get along, do you?

Boy, you've sure got my number.

It's not hard, you're pretty blatant.

I sure thought I was getting away with something pretty sly until you caught on to me.

Are you really that dumb?

I bow in submission to your obviously superior moral and intellectual prowess.

And here I was, thinking that you only bowed to tyrants and their thugs. Well, I'm afraid that I must refuse your bows as they would put me in with company that I do not want to be in with.

You should probably not bother to respond to my comments again, because I am clearly incapable of standing against you, and I know your highly-evolved mental and emotional abilities are wasted on the likes of me.

I agree that my responses are likely wasted on the likes of you, but they aren't really so much for your benefit as they are for the reading enjoyment of others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel J. Lavigne (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 3:10am

Re: We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .
Absent a decision by all Americans to develop spine and integrity sufficient to refuse to support a society that would be party to mass murder for political purposes, America will never be able to deal with the collapse that now threatens the very nature of their (Claimed) fundamental freedoms.

Woe. They now threaten each other with their irrationality.

Daniel J. Lavigne
"The Tax Refusal"
http://www.TaxRefusal.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
What vile, weak, narrow-minded, cowardly comments. Consider putting your name behind your statements if you're so proud of being hateful, would you, please?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
If you had any clue regarding the meaning of respect, you wouldn't say:

"...believe in imaginary sky fairies that you are"
all three "a, b, c points"
"You're delusional, ignorant and disrespectful. You get "persecuted" because you're a self-righteous asshole, not because you're a Christian."

Respect is a 2-way street.

Now give me a good reason to show you an iota of respect much less any credibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:47am

Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Please provide us with proof of these allegations. I've never heard them before and no longer believe anything just because someone "says so". Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:52am

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
"Instead, the cops gave them the very reaction they were hoping for."

Exactly! And subsequently, a LOT of nationwide attention to the whole issue. Doesn't help the "cause of the cops" any, that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 5:14am

Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
I don't know how anyone can compare a funeral to this instance.

Funerals are deeply personal and painful to the mourners. They should not have to deal with fringe kook protesters in their time of loss and grief. That's cruel and inhumane, IMHO.

This is a stone memorial, there are no mourners and it's not a funeral. Quite a different scenario.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 5:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
I have an "ilk"? *scratches head*

"Carrie"? You ARE funny.

By the way Chris in Utah, interesting profile there - did you create InfoWars.com or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
You should mentally add "/sarcasm" at the end of that post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:19am

Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
He wasn't comparing a funeral to the Jefferson Memorial, you misunderstood the entire comment. He's saying that if hateful bigoted noisy speech at a military funeral is protected, why not peaceful respectful silent protest at a public memorial?

(the court saying the memorial isn't a public place doesn't make it so)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 8:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
I see what you're saying, nasch. I should have been a bit more clear - I've been seeing repeated comparisons to that Baptist church group and just don't see how there can be any comparisons. Perhaps I did misunderstand. If so I apologize.

But I agree with the point - if it IS okay, as the Supreme Court says, for those fringe kooks to disrupt such a somber occasion, certainly a little quiet dancing in a public place is harmless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 9:58am

Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
You must be very careful when you use phrases like "stupid speech" and "valuable speech." You see, the danger is that YOU don't get to decide what is stupid or valuable ...

But I'm sure he thinks he should be the one that decides. That's the way these types always are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
They did not "direct everyone to leave".

What would you call it when they said "the memorial is closed"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 1:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
What would you call it when they said "the memorial is closed"?

When did they say that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mississippi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 8:43pm

Part 2 not in the Mainstream news
I wonder if this will be filtered. One week later and the dance begins again on a bigger scale and swat was called out to back everyone to the steps. People wonder why I have infowars.com in my URL, its stories like these that you wont see in mainstream news short of Judge Napolitano.

http://www.infowars.com/hundreds-gather-at-jefferson-memorial-to-protest-court-ruling -and-thuggish-cops/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:13pm

Re: Re: *sigh*
I'm all for recognizing and lauding those who actually ARE putting themselves in harm's way for just causes, but I do not think the fact I disagree that this was a just cause means I lack moral integrity or intestinal fortitude. It just means I think those people were perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately just immature attention-seekers who have wrung more out of their fifteen minutes than is really warranted.

Curious, Hugh, if you could, please point us to where it was determined which protests are "okay" and which protests are too childish and deserve people being slammed to the floor?

Last I checked, the Constitution did not distinguish, but it also didn't mention where Hugh Mann got to decide what demonstrations were okay, and which were officially childish, so I recognize it may have been updated recently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
When did they say that?

...crickets...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Viln (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:28am

Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
I think it's exactly because you can't easily make a top-down determination on what protests or actions are and are not appropriate that the court ruling went the way it did. Agreed, it's a slippery slope, but nobody wants to be bombarded with street performers and demonstrators inside a national monument. Would you feel it was appropriate if someone stood around the Lincoln Memorial and quietly whispered to visitors his beliefs that the United States would have developed into a more secure and powerful nation had they not abolished slavery and "forced" the secession? Are you going to want a televangelist trying to convert you at the Ground Zero memorial?

You can't have a court stationed at the top step of each memorial ready to rule on every attempt at individual expression. You have to rely on the duly-assigned government agents, in this case the park police, to use proper judgment and act professionally. I'm sure the court wanted officers to exercise restraint the way they did on Saturday... give some leeway for a few individuals calmly slow-dancing or the like, respond slowly and politely to larger and obviously staged demonstrations by calmly directing people out of the memorial.

Unfortunately we are seeing a rash of grossly inappropriate actions by police officers lately. That sense of scumbag entitlement has always existed selectively on every force... society determines how much it's accepted or rebuked and muted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:27am

Re:
Going about it properly? Have you read ANY US history? The PROPER way to protest, based on our history, would involve guns.

I think dancing is a far step from what would be proper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 9:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
At 4:45, 4:49, and 4:56.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phillip Vector (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
Above the waist I think is a good measure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 1:44pm

Re:
Have you looked up public distrubance? http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-disturbance/ How are the people in the video creating a public disturbance?

What evidence leads you to believe that 'The people involved know it is wrong'? It seems just the opposite, it seems that the people involved think that what they are doing is right.

What law did they break? When asked about statues or laws they were violating none of the authorities responded with anything appropriate. They didn't even claim a public disturbance.

What activity was illegal?

It appeared that most of the people involved followed officer instructions. Who resisten arrest and how?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 1:48pm

Re: Disruptive
There is a difference between what you find disruptive and the legal definition of a public disturbance.

Have you looked up public distrubance? http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-disturbance/

How are the people in the video creating a public disturbance?

It seems you feel entitled to make your opinion a legal basis.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Irony
How were the people taunting the police?

If the peoples actions were illegal then what the police did was appropriate, but if the action were not it is totally inappropriate. When asked what law they were breaking, the officers seemed to have no response.

Just what law or ordinace were they breaking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 3:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
True, and thanks for the precedent citation. But me and many others on this site probably don't want to argue using the tautology that "It is the law, and thus it is right. We've all seen laws that we don't think are right.

"You may disagree with that decision, but it's nevertheless the law"

Letting the odious nazi's march is correct, not just because it is the law, not just because it is one of the founding tenets of this nation, not because it was first scribed by our great thinkers, but because it is fundamentally true and important reality for human co-existence. Man cannot be free if his ability to express his beliefs is limited.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 3:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
Glove removal, necessarily, implies recent arrival?

Recent arrival, necessarily, implies that someone actively called them?

Someone actively calling them, necessarily, implies that a law was broken and the police MUST act?

I read your comment with this argument elsewhere, got annoyed, but chose not to bother with someone with such a trifling grip on logic and causality.

Your use of deductive reasoning is simply to apply your observations to the pre-constructed narrative you hold. Smart people, in stark contrast, tend to consider other explanations for trivial details like glove removal, we see many other potential explanations, and since no conclusion can be drawn from glove removal, put that bit of trivia in the bank, should it be useful at a future juncture.

See here, Sherlock, people remove gloves because they are warm occasionally. Police arrive on bikes because they are riding bikes and happened by, sometimes, even without having been called. People call police to complain about things when no law has been broken, so the police don't need to act just because they've been called.

The police are obligated to perform their job...but not your interpretation of it.

If I, now, call the police to go to your home to arrest you because you are "bullying me" on the Internet, do they have the obligation to arrest you? Or would they be allowed to look at the facts, and make a case-by-case decision on how they will act?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
Hmmm, I'm tempted to respond with something around "Dance Dance Revolution", but instead I'll go with:

a) Yay for you. I, also, have a string of family members who fought, died, served as PoWs, etc. IF you trace most people's linage, you are sure to find some who died at war. And it doesn't make one whit of difference as to the quality of my arguments, nor yours.

b) Dancing does not make one revolutionary. Dancing in front of the authorities, who have said that you may not dance, does. Doing so to protest an abrogation of our constitutional rights - and ones so essential to a free society, makes them heroes. It is self-sacrifice for the defense of a free society. Must one be a soldier to do so? Please advise Rosa, MLK, the Chinese guy standing in front of the tank, Gand...oh, why the fuck even bother with a list. Hopefully, you get the point.

Your effort at trivializing these heroes is sad. You are mocking the frivolity of 'dance' in a deliberate effort to ignore their obvious intention: civil disobedience.

The fact that we owe a debt to those that risk mere beatings and jail for our rights does nothing to diminish the debt we owe to those that risk far more. Pity that you think so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony
When asked what law they were breaking, the officers seemed to have no response.

The only response I heard was "you'll see". It should be a red flag in an officer's mind that if they don't actually know why they're arresting someone, it might not be a legitimate arrest. And it's not like this was some kind of clear and present danger situation, the officers had plenty of time to think it through.

With that said, I appreciate the officers were in a nearly impossible situation. Their actions could be just a symptom of the real problem. Interesting that they didn't arrest anyone when hundreds showed up a couple of days ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
Hero = deliberately and willingly risk your well being or undergo loss or suffering, for the sake of others.

We're not talking about sports heroes, "my mom is my hero", my math teacher is my hero...cliches that sometimes may be true but probably aren't.

We're talking about civil disobedience in defense of First Amendment rights.

Instead of criticizing THEIR methods, if you think a letter-writing campaign is more effective, go for it. BTW, how do you know these dancers aren't also doing that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
"It is NOT an option for a police officer to use his or her own judgment to decide which laws are worth enforcing."

That's just not a valid observation of what police actually do, and what they are trained to do. Do you even know any police officers? That's what was so radical about Arizona's recent Senate Bill 1070. It was a bill that requires police to arrest undocumented immigrants. The "require" part is a radical departure from the norm, where officer judgement is applied.

Police make judgement calls ALL THE TIME. And they probably should.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 9:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
Would you feel it was appropriate if someone stood around the Lincoln Memorial and quietly whispered to visitors his beliefs that the United States would have developed into a more secure and powerful nation had they not abolished slavery and "forced" the secession? Are you going to want a televangelist trying to convert you at the Ground Zero memorial?

The 1st Amendment is to protect speech we don't like, not to protect speech we do like.

You can't have a court stationed at the top step of each memorial ready to rule on every attempt at individual expression.

Right, it would be better to just have an extremely strong presumption of protected speech by everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
Police make judgement calls ALL THE TIME. And they probably should.

As to which laws to enforce and against whom? That's probably why there are so many bad laws on the books. The people writing them are assured that those same laws will not likely be applied to themselves. It's the "laws are for the little people" or "let them eat cake" mentality. Then we wind up with ridiculous copyright laws that get applied to grandmothers but not record companies because the cops don't think that would be "appropriate". And you think that's a good thing, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
At 4:45, 4:49, and 4:56.

And although many people still did not leave, it's interesting to note that the only ones arrested were the dancers. Good old "selective enforcement" at work. Well done!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:22am

Re:
Youre right, you are a coward. No help for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
And although many people still did not leave, it's interesting to note that the only ones arrested were the dancers.

The only people I could see still inside after that were police and people sitting on the floor in cuffs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin C., 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:43pm

Re: Disruptive
>> Frankly, I'd find that hipsters dancing in front of a crowded monument to be more than a little disruptive.

And clearly the momentary disruption of your precious day calls for someone to go to jail. God help the barrista who ever spills your coffee.

>> This sort of Gen Y entitlement makes me embarrassed for my entire generation.

Indeed. Disgusting these folks who are so encapsulated in their own sense of entitlement that they can't withstand a disruption of their little pleasures of the day. You'd hope that they'd be made of sterner stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:12pm

Re: Re: Disruptive
I know ... was thinking about that, too. If I went to the Memorial and saw people quietly dancing, and didn't know the story behind what they were doing, I might find it a little odd but I would simply smile and move on. I don't see that they were harassing or following or tormenting anyone else in the vicinity.

But then I was brought up to mind my own business and not judge others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:44pm

This is more a matter of property rights than free speech. Whether or not the protesters were in the wrong would depend on the rules of the park. As stated before, this is not a public park. If you violate a rule on a private owned park then you are violating the property rights of the owner. It's no different if somebody did something you didn't like on your property. Personally though, I don't think Thomas Jefferson would mind if people were dancing at his memorial; especially with the intentions these protesters had.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 10:28am

Re:
You can't have someone arrested for doing something you don't like on your property. The only reason police would get involved is if you tell someone to leave and they don't, in which case it becomes trespassing. Anything else is a private matter between you and your guest (or whatever you call them).

The only reason there were police involved in this case is because it's government property, which completely changes the situation. And I don't see how this is not a public park. It's owned by the government (ie, the public) and open to the public 24 hours a day. It doesn't get much more public than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:51am

Exactly, if someone is disturbing you on your property and they don't stop, or leave if you want them to, you can call the police to handle it. Obviously if somebody just walks on your grass and you don't like it you can't have them arrested.

The founding fathers spoke highly of responsibility and rationality. When exercising your rights in the constitution you must have that in mind, rights can be abused to the point where your just being a nuisance to others around you. There are still rules you have to follow in any place whether it's public or not, you have to be respectful to others. Is it ok to dance at a public museum just because it's public? There's a time and place for everything. I personally see the Jefferson Memorial as a place of reflection, where dancing could most definitely be viewed as disrespectful; whether your intentions are good or not doesn't change that. If you have a problem with the government take it to them directly.

As far as the video goes, the people did get warned. I do believe the situation could have been handled better though. The police could have been more respectful, it's not like it was an angry mob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:57am

Re:
Is it ok to dance at a public museum just because it's public? There's a time and place for everything. I personally see the Jefferson Memorial as a place of reflection, where dancing could most definitely be viewed as disrespectful; whether your intentions are good or not doesn't change that.

The problem is, if we use our armed police force to suppress expression because it could be viewed as disrespectful, we may as well just repeal the First Amendment. It is there precisely to protect speech that might otherwise be suppressed because it's unpopular. These people were protesting exactly the censorship that you're supporting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 9 Jun 2011 @ 10:24am

I find it kind of hypocritical to say that you are for the people but yet you don't care about how abusing your rights can affect others around you. That's just selfishness in my eyes. I will forever defend the right of freedom expression but wish others to practice it with common sense and in respect to others. Just because you have the right do something doesn't make it appropriate to do it. A memorial is not the ideal place to be dancing, had they done it just outside the memorial I think would be more appropriate; again the intentions don't matter in this sense.

I don't think police should be allowed to punish people for exercising their rights, they should inform the people of the results of their actions. Perhaps the police need more educating as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 5:52pm

Re:
It would be better if you use the "reply to this" link so that in threaded mode it's clear who you're responding to.

I find it kind of hypocritical to say that you are for the people but yet you don't care about how abusing your rights can affect others around you.

I don't see where I said anything like that.

Just because you have the right do something doesn't make it appropriate to do it.

Definitely. However, inappropriate speech should be met by oppositional speech, not by government coercion.

A memorial is not the ideal place to be dancing, had they done it just outside the memorial I think would be more appropriate;

The root of the problem here is whether this is a public place or not. The court ruled it's a private place. If so, then the owner (the government) can make more or less what rules they want to, including what activities are and are not allowed. I find it amazing that the court can rule that a government owned facility designed for use by the public and open to the public 24 hours a day is not a public place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 8:26am

Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
My takeaway from the videos was that it was "demonstrating" that was a problem at the Jefferson Memorial, not merely "dancing". There was no need to determine whether this particular dancing protest was childish (though it was). If the rules do not permit protesting at a national monument, then the protest that is not OK is the one that doesn't break up when the cops direct the protesters to do so.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
If the rules do not permit protesting at a national monument, then the protest that is not OK is the one that doesn't break up when the cops direct the protesters to do so.

That rule is what they're protesting. So you want them to protest the rule by obeying it? And why does the government get to tell us when and where we can protest and assemble, anyway? I don't remember anything about that in the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
The Constitution doens't prohibit reasonable controls. That's why, for example, you often need a permit to hold large events or parades, etc.

This was a group who held an organized demonstration. Sure, this time it was silent dancing, but why should that be treated differently from a group waving signs and chanting slogans? For those who have been critical of comments regaridng determining which demonstrations are acceptable and which aren't, it works both ways. If you feel the need to regulate larger, noisier demonstrations, fairness may require regulating smaller, less-noisy ones as well.

And, in any case, I still question whether this group tried anything less melodramatic (and more constructive) before launching into a narcissistic exercise. I sorta doubt it.

Frankly, I'd find it perfectly reasonable to require that each public place have a designated spot for those wanting to exercise First Amendment rights that is close enough so interested passersby can listen, but not so close that it's going to cause a disturbance. You want to dance silently? Gyrate as much as you want, just over here, off to the side, so that people who are NOT interested in your message don't have to deal with it if they don't want to.

We don't grant enough protection to that part of the public who does NOT want to hear your exercise of your First Amendment rights. It's not always that "the government" doesn't want you speaking out. Quite often, it's the public itself that's not particularly interested in such demonstrations, so why should they have to step around the speakers? Make the speakers get out of the way.

In any case, I really question the value of such demonstratoins. They're WAY overused. I'm not aware of a single issue EVER in which blocking traffic changed anybody's mind on an issue. "Well, I had given thtis issue quite a bit of thought and came out on Side A. However, a hundred screaming people who blocked the street and made me late to work seemed to think Side B was the better way to go, so I'm reversing my position!" I don't think so.

HM

HM
HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 12:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
We don't grant enough protection to that part of the public who does NOT want to hear your exercise of your First Amendment rights. It's not always that "the government" doesn't want you speaking out. Quite often, it's the public itself that's not particularly interested in such demonstrations, so why should they have to step around the speakers? Make the speakers get out of the way.

Right and instead of asking them they ask a higher power. Seems the Christian thing to do.

Use of force needs to be only used when there is risk of bodily harm, period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 12:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
Out of sight,out of mind right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Jun 2011 @ 3:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
For those who have been critical of comments regaridng determining which demonstrations are acceptable and which aren't, it works both ways. If you feel the need to regulate larger, noisier demonstrations, fairness may require regulating smaller, less-noisy ones as well.

Personally I would err strongly on the side of allowing demonstration, even disruptive demonstration (which this was not), in public places. It's better than needlessly suppressing expression.

And, in any case, I still question whether this group tried anything less melodramatic (and more constructive) before launching into a narcissistic exercise. I sorta doubt it.

However, we are not required to try the least disruptive, most widely acceptable type of speech first and only change our speech if that doesn't get the result we want. So I don't think that really matters.

We don't grant enough protection to that part of the public who does NOT want to hear your exercise of your First Amendment rights.

Does the Constitution have some kind of guarantee of not hearing speech we don't want to hear (or seeing expressions we don't want to see) that I'm not aware of?

I'm not aware of a single issue EVER in which blocking traffic changed anybody's mind on an issue. "Well, I had given thtis issue quite a bit of thought and came out on Side A. However, a hundred screaming people who blocked the street and made me late to work seemed to think Side B was the better way to go, so I'm reversing my position!"

I'm guessing the target audience is not people who have given the issue a lot of thought and made up their minds, but on the vast majority who had never even heard about the issue, many of whom now have heard of it and are discussing it. Such as us, for example.

HM

Yeah, you're signed in, we know who you are.

HM

Sure, OK.

HM

All right, I get it!!

;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 4:05am

Re: Re:
Jeni, I generally respect what you say, but I find that rather unnecessarily offensive.

Many atheists disbelieve in what they are told despite the propaganda constantly spouted around them, and despite a society that often is disrespectful (in this very way) of their beliefs (which are fully as deserving of respect as any others). Many atheists have even died in the name of not having to profess a belief in some deity or other. How is that weak and scared, or gutless?

Absolutely, there is no cause to be unnecessarily hostile to religious people, as some ACs have been, or even some prominent atheists, but equally, there is no cause for you to be so insulting back, in a way that is simply parroting a poorly conceived fundamentalist line.

Most atheists want to just live-and-let-live, and only get hostile because of the amount of intolerance and proselytising that gets rammed down their throats. There is no call to call all of them all ridiculous playground names. Otherwise, one could equally accuse religious people of being 'gutless' by not questioning what they are told and 'blindly' following the 'voice of authority'.

Besides, by this same argument, it is 'gutless' to actively not believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, the infallibility of the Pope, the infallibility of Chairman Mao, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 4:17am

Re: Re:
Somewhere that can look down on your apparent spinelessness with contempt? ;)

(Not that anywhere else is really much better, just the US keeps shouting to everyone else about how wonderful and special they are, so people actually pay attention when your government is as corrupt and incompetent as any other.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeni, 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
Niall, sorry you found my comment disrespectful; however, I disagree. It's the way I feel. It is what I believe - I am not one to waver from my belief's because someone doesn't like them, sorry.

I have taken such horrendous hits for my faith that I guess my skin has just gotten very "thick" - it doesn't phase me one bit. My savior took far worse, after all ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squid Lips, 3 Jan 2012 @ 2:51pm

Gregory L. Little
Greg Little: Who the hell is he, and how was he able to take down this video based on copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2012 @ 4:59pm

Re: Gregory L. Little
A google search seems to indicate that it's an author of a couple of books, how exactly he owns the copyright to anything in the video I can no longer view is a mystery though. Hell, for all I know perhaps he's one of the cops shown in the video, and figures anything he's in is owned by him copyright wise.

Also of interest is the fact that apparently youtube can't tell the difference between one person sending in multiple takedown requests, and multiple people sending in one each.
[ link to this | view in thread ]