Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
from the sweet,-we're-puritans-again! dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Irony
No, of course not. They're cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony
These fuckwits are thugs, and have forgotten the face of their father.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony
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 chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flat disgusting
These cops and their superiors need to be flogged.
No excuse at all for their behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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.
"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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And if your family member was Jefferson, and he was actually buried there, I might entertain your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
After all, Land of the Free has the most people incarcerated per capita in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/6081/mlko.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, I just realized we may not be speaking about the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you should before commenting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So my constitutional rights and freedoms are dependent on whatever does and does not "tick you off"?
Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .
Woe. They now threaten each other with their irrationality.
Daniel J. Lavigne
"The Tax Refusal"
http://www.TaxRefusal.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Forgive me, but a patriot does not stop rightful activity just because his/her government tells them to....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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".
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't wonder that anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
Nowadays I boogie as soon as they are in sight. And I don't mean dance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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/.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
Before someone launches an ad hominem grammar attack..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
I hope you're not an American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
What does happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
Pick up your trophy for showing up on the way out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: 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 chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: Disruptive
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 chronology ]
Re: 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Disruptive
But then I was brought up to mind my own business and not judge others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Grrr*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
I wasn't aware we needed permits and licenses and permission from the government to protest the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't aware we needed permits and licenses and permission from the government to protest the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
God, I hate this country sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the law is being used to take away freedoms from technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
No, seriously. You need to cite a law that actually says that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Ruling
> 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Ruling
That was the 1960's. Things have totally changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ruling
The Supreme Court has done a 180.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ruling
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 chronology ]
Re:
I think dancing is a far step from what would be proper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pissed off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
It's another thing entirely to do what these "police officers" did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because people who cringe like cowards in the face of overbearing authority never accomplish anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know it's not the one I live in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it's a "state of mind".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
> 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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
Except it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually disrespecting the police is completely protected speech. The Supreme Court ruled it so long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you considered moving to North Korea? I hear it's beautiful in Pyongyang this time of year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Until those eyewitnesses come forward, all we have to go on is what the cameras have shown us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
> 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 chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who antagonizes authorities deserves whatever they get, eh? You're either a troll, one sick individual or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
Freedom of expression ends when you start drawing attention or acting goofy? Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
READ THE ARTICLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Take your proselytizing, bible-thumping, altar-boy-molesting drivel somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
You should have stopped there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
"...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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Supporting the actions of these cops seems pretty non-Christian, to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
I believe this is who they are referencing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
And you are wrong.
Cuz one man's stupid is another man's truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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. 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
> 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
"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 chronology ]
Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
> 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
What would you call it when they said "the memorial is closed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
When did they say that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
...crickets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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. Good old "selective enforcement" at work. Well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
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 chronology ]
Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
> 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 chronology ]
Short-sighted fool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might as well shoot em dead on sight right? You people lack logic, reasoning and intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you're talking about someone else?
And I don't see the kick...do you have a time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
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 chronology ]
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.
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
The original issue in 2008 proves you 100% wrong....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
"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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
http://dcist.com/2008/04/14/woman_arrested.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xGw2e7P8g-s#at=15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
And if he tried to get on the funeral grounds? Guess what, he'd be body slammed by the police too.
Hitler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did u watch it dumbass? They didn't body slam that guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
The chokehold after was probably a out of line but not the slam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
(the court saying the memorial isn't a public place doesn't make it so)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
"...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 chronology ]
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. 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
"Yes, Sir"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
Thank you for being a selective ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Re: dancing at the Jefferson Memorial
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 chronology ]
Jeez...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the Police State...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the Police State...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is the Police State...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
Someone called them there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Police State...
Arrested for Epilepsy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Religion is for the weak and scared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Or is it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is china or north Korea ???
What the hell has happened to freedom of speech, when did USA become a totalitarian police state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is china or north Korea ???
What the hell has happened to freedom of speech, when did USA become a totalitarian police state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kokesh the fool
So...Kokesh happily provides such antics...same as Fonda did.
Move on...nothing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
The end result is they wanted to provoke the cops and get it on video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They got what they wanted.
And Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus where she (legally) belonged...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/05/bizarre-dance-party-protest-at-jefferson-memorial-ends-wi th-violent-arrests/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The original issue in 2008 proves you 100% wrong...."
Exactly, hes a clown!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course! but we arent arguing with bright people here! Simple and closed minded really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Over and over again the clown is proven to look foolish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
I cringed but these clowns didn't. Cops were just doing their jobs man....right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
"We take the ability of choice out of the equation so you have to do as we say"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have never meant this more: WTF?
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 chronology ]
Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have never meant this more: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to these clowns yes. They forget this isnt a police state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bullshit you fool
No slow dancing? Get the fuck out of here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This could get ugly...
So it's now the move of the government...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops did use excessive force
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 chronology ]
Re: Cops did use excessive force
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Could Be a Great New Media Reality Show...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Could Be a Great New Media Reality Show...
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 chronology ]
Re: This Could Be a Great New Media Reality Show...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Icecream protest
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 chronology ]
-- Thomas Jefferson
You have to fight to be free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It only ever gets worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Reacting to the wrong thing
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 chronology ]
Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
So they were just following orders, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
"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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
"There all going to laugh at you" -Carrie comes to mind the theme to there chants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
"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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reacting to the wrong thing
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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. Some upped the ante. So, they got arrested. The more obnoxious ones got mildly (yes, mildly) thumped.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What more needs to be said than from the man whos memorial this is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Style Guide Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Style Guide Update
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh*
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 chronology ]
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.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh*
They can't be both well intentioned and just seeking attention, unless seeking attention is a good goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
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 chronology ]
Part 2 not in the Mainstream news
http://www.infowars.com/hundreds-gather-at-jefferson-memorial-to-protest-court-ruling -and-thuggish-cops/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Gregory L. Little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gregory L. Little
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 chronology ]