One more "fuck the police" from page 8 and onward is going to have an all expense paid weekend to E-Disneyland. It adds nothing to the discussion and as such please refrain from making such posts in this topic and the boards in general.
On May 29 2011 22:32 Arkless wrote: No one seems to be commenting on the laws the cops broke. It is illegal for a cop to strangle you, it is illegal for a cop to strike you, they can maneuver position and withstrain you. But you clearly see the cop give the guy 2 punches in the head (close fisted but with his palm still counts as a strike) Is this footloose? A movie made about dancing being illegal......... Like this is serious lols, Like I said before glad these 8 cops were breaking up a few people slow dancing or jiving instead of busting drug dealers/rapists/murderers/drunk drivers. And who is to determine what is and isnt dancing? What if during this some guy had the shivers quick, they think he is dancing and boom gets arrested. The violent restraint used here is the real issue, cops abusing their power not people "trolling" (Which if u had ever seen an episode of adam vs the man you would realise that it isn't really them trolling)
I really want to know where you're getting these laws from, because I am positive that police officers are allowed to strike people that are resisting arrest.
Also that is not a choke hold and it's actually absurd that you think it is, a choke hold requires choking, putting even two hands on someone's neck is not enough to make it a choke hold he wasn't even close to putting enough pressure to actually choke the guy out, he was keeping him pinned.
Ummmmmmm............ Open hand across throat, is strangulation. No matter which way u try to re word it. They are not allowed to do it. And no, they are not allowed to strike you.. No offense man but your knowledge of north american law is tedious at best, and you should probably bow out of this thread.
I gotta side with Nazgul, the intent is only to troll and antagonize.
And why do you think that its ok to try to take something out of context like this, questioning if it is illegal to dance? Its not that simple, its not black and white. It's like saying: "Its apparently illegal to spit now " when faced with a fine for spitting on a cop.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
Derez is right actually. The bill of rights is an intentionally ambiguous document; it's open to interpretation. In the time since its creation the final word on that interpretation has been given primarily by the supreme court and they have limited free speech on a number of instances. En loco parentis, can't shout fire in a crowded theater etc.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
There is an amendment that also says you can't infringe on other peoples rights of these freedoms as well. Which dancing in a memorial definitely does. They can dance wherever it doesnt impede others ability to enjoy the memorial, they can find a random parking lot and go dance there, but they didn't for obvious reasons.
How were those people impeding other people's ability to enjoy the memorial?
It appeared to me things were going fine and everyone was enjoying the monument until the cops went on their power trip and shoved everyone out.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
Derez is right actually. The bill of rights is an intentionally ambiguous document; it's open to interpretation. In the time since its creation the final word on that interpretation has been given primarily by the supreme court and they have limited free speech on a number of instances. En loco parentis, can't shout fire in a crowded theater etc.
Shouting fire in a theatre is not considered a peaceful assembly. Whereas this definatly was a peaceful assembly.
They demonstrated without a permit and can be arrested for that.
From Merriam-Webster:
"a public display of group feelings toward a person or cause."
Not sure how people can't understand this. Whether you argue that they were there to rally against the ruling of the court (which they said on the videos which happened beforehand) or if you lie and say they were doing it to honor Thomas Jefferson, it's still a demonstration and demonstrating without a permit is still an arrestable crime.
I do note, however, that many people living outside of the US are puzzled/bemused by this, so if you don't understand American politics I can't blame you, but I see an awful lot of misinformed posts by people who say they're from the United States.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
There is an amendment that also says you can't infringe on other peoples rights of these freedoms as well. Which dancing in a memorial definitely does. They can dance wherever it doesnt impede others ability to enjoy the memorial, they can find a random parking lot and go dance there, but they didn't for obvious reasons.
How were those people impeding other people's ability to enjoy the memorial?
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.
They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.
Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them.
Once again, you're making some insulting comparison. Not everyone who breaks the law is Rosa Parks, Ghandi or Malcolm X, hate to break it to you. Even if they knowingly break a law they disagree with.
Though in your analogy, yeah I would actually question the Chinese GOVERNMENT, not the soldiers. It's easy to be a revolutionary from your computer chair, but I actually doubt you'd sacrifice yourself as a martyr if you were a Chinese soldier given an order you didn't agree with.
You're the one being insulting by not being able to see the forest for the trees. The core issue here is freedom of expression in public. Nor do you seem to understand that police ARE part of the government.
I'm not Chinese (well, not a Chinese citizen anyway), but I am a US citizen and I REFUSE to join the US military because I don't want to be put in a position to execute orders that I do not believe are moral or Constitutional. If they were to reinstate the draft in order to fight some illegal and immoral war, I would refuse to serve. Put me in jail or even shoot me, I will obey my own moral code above any government's orders.
You might have an argument if there weren't other venues or mediums through which people can express free speech. There are quite a bit. The first amendment doesn't make you god. If I wanted to streak naked through the White House, the first amendment doesn't protect that. You draw the line somewhere, and where-ever YOU (as in, personally you) draw the line of where free speech ends is equally SUBJECTIVE and ARBITRARY. The law tends to be geared towards 'free speech ends when it needlessly offends or disturbs people in public.'
You can argue that's unreasonable, or uptight, but to compare it to totalitarianism or fascism is flat out retarded. If you're going to use slippery slope arguments, I could just go in the opposite direction: "So the cops should have let those protesters break the law. Fuck it, why should cops enforce ANY laws? This is a free country, I should be able to kill, steal, rape all my want."
See how dumb that sounds? Yeah, that's your argument.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
Congratulations, you have now read the first 3 lines of the wikipedia page on 'the first amendment', while happily ignoring centuries of legal interpretation and jurisprudence. Now go google TPM restrictions, and I'm sure there's excellent other wikipedia articles you can refer to aswell.
The US constitution is a living document, it's interpretation changes over time, and now courts rules that dancing in the jeffersonian memorial isn't a reasonable use of your freedom of expression. Neither is dressing up like hitler and waving nazi flags while marching down broadway. Freedom of expression isn't absolute, and never has been.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
There is an amendment that also says you can't infringe on other peoples rights of these freedoms as well. Which dancing in a memorial definitely does. They can dance wherever it doesnt impede others ability to enjoy the memorial, they can find a random parking lot and go dance there, but they didn't for obvious reasons.
How were those people impeding other people's ability to enjoy the memorial?
By dancing.
Again, is there any evidence of tourists being bothered by the dancing? It seemed like more people were bothered by the cops display of aggression than the peaceful dancing.
On May 29 2011 22:46 caelym wrote: If you're baiting to get arrested, you deserve to get arrested. that's what happened in the video. completely agree with the actions of the police.
yeah i'll agree with this one, they were baiting but they are being charged for something kind of stupid. I think dancing in the memorial should be allowed but just out of respect you wouldn't do it, just like how you wouldnt dance at arlington or any soldier's memorial
Arkless has demonstrated great ignorance, incredible bias to the point where he will never change his point of view, and simply resorts to telling people to get a life and other attacks when he does not want listen to reason. He is unwilling to compromise anything in the slightest. Everyone should just ignore him in this thread.
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.
They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.
These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation.
What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with.
The force is excessive. People are simply accustomed to violence.
Where was it excessive? The guy being thrown to the ground? Because how should he have gotten him in handcuffs, asking nicely obviously wasn't working, should he have just grabbed his arms and forced them behind the guys back, because that's about as likely to break the guys arms as do anything productive. Frankly I thought he put him down lighter than he had to. Or are you angry about the 2 guys on the ground, because I seem to recall the one the cops were on top of was the one who physically interfered with an arrest by trying to pull his cooperating friend away from a cop, and that certainly warrants force. So please, where were they excessive?
A rational appraisal of the situation would regard the act as hooliganism at worst, public demonstration at best. In either regard, there was sufficient manpower to calmly arrest all of the people involved.
The cop that did the drop and choke hold was being macho. There was no immediate need to take the man down alone.
The cops roughed up one man (the one complaining about his shoulder) on the ground because they felt like it.
The loudest man arrested was pushed around for not shutting up.
It is excessive because there was no credible threat posed by the activists, and the cops could have arrested them at their leisure rather than treating them "efficiently." Unfortunately, machoism makes it an embarrassing video for both parties.
Ok you talk about a rational appraisal, this is really silly because we can't expect cops to step back every time they're going to make an arrest and contemplate their best course of action. You basically are asking for them to act perfectly without hurting anyone and I don't think that that should be the standard, I think the standard should be that if you don't listen to a cop he get's to do what it takes to put you in handcuffs. People should be afraid of cops and they should have reason to be afraid, more good is done by deterrence than stopping people with the correct amount of force every time.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
There is an amendment that also says you can't infringe on other peoples rights of these freedoms as well. Which dancing in a memorial definitely does. They can dance wherever it doesnt impede others ability to enjoy the memorial, they can find a random parking lot and go dance there, but they didn't for obvious reasons.
How were those people impeding other people's ability to enjoy the memorial?
By dancing.
Again, is there any evidence of tourists being bothered by the dancing? It seemed like more people were bothered by the cops display of aggression than the peaceful dancing.
This, what I see is a cop being asked what law they are breaking. And then when they can't answer they just start arresting people. No one complained, and no one called them to come down.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
There is an amendment that also says you can't infringe on other peoples rights of these freedoms as well. Which dancing in a memorial definitely does. They can dance wherever it doesnt impede others ability to enjoy the memorial, they can find a random parking lot and go dance there, but they didn't for obvious reasons.
How were those people impeding other people's ability to enjoy the memorial?
By dancing.
Again, is there any evidence of tourists being bothered by the dancing? It seemed like more people were bothered by the cops display of aggression than the peaceful dancing.
They were probably bothered by the illegal demonstration caused by Adam and his gang, which the officers were forced to break up. The situation was caused by the dancers, not by the cops. Especially since there was no aggression by the cops. And it was a pity that the memorial had to close down, another problem caused by Adam that probably ruined it for the bystanders.
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law.
They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it.
Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them.
Once again, you're making some insulting comparison. Not everyone who breaks the law is Rosa Parks, Ghandi or Malcolm X, hate to break it to you. Even if they knowingly break a law they disagree with.
Though in your analogy, yeah I would actually question the Chinese GOVERNMENT, not the soldiers. It's easy to be a revolutionary from your computer chair, but I actually doubt you'd sacrifice yourself as a martyr if you were a Chinese soldier given an order you didn't agree with.
You're the one being insulting by not being able to see the forest for the trees. The core issue here is freedom of expression in public. Nor do you seem to understand that police ARE part of the government.
I'm not Chinese (well, not a Chinese citizen anyway), but I am a US citizen and I REFUSE to join the US military because I don't want to be put in a position to execute orders that I do not believe are moral or Constitutional. If they were to reinstate the draft in order to fight some illegal and immoral war, I would refuse to serve. Put me in jail or even shoot me, I will obey my own moral code above any government's orders.
You might have an argument if there weren't other venues or mediums through which people can express free speech. There are quite a bit. The first amendment doesn't make you god. If I wanted to streak naked through the White House, the first amendment doesn't protect that. You draw the line somewhere, and where-ever YOU (as in, personally you) draw the line of where free speech ends is equally SUBJECTIVE and ARBITRARY. The law tends to be geared towards 'free speech ends when it needlessly offends or disturbs people in public.'
You can argue that's unreasonable, or uptight, but to compare it to totalitarianism or fascism is flat out retarded. If you're going to use slippery slope arguments, I could just go in the opposite direction: "So the cops should have let those protesters break the law. Fuck it, why should cops enforce ANY laws? This is a free country, I should be able to kill, steal, rape all my want."
See how dumb that sounds? Yeah, that's your argument.
What law was the cop enforcing? Seems like the cop couldn't even cite it himself.
We should obey the cops all the time. If the cops harms someone, that person was probably doing something wrong, we have no right to question it. The government is always right, USA! USA! USA! BAAAA! BAAA!
See how dumb that sounds? Yeah, that's your argument.
Why is this thread still open? I hope the countries that everyone is from is a utopia. Otherwise, I can (google/wiki) probably spend 30 seconds addressing horrible shit in your country that is unethical. GL.
EPT
" when faced with a fine for spitting on a cop. 
