|
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 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:49 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:46 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:44 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:42 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:39 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:33 Derez wrote:On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote: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.
Who was "probably" bothered by it? In all the videos and articles I've seen, the only people who were bothered by the dancing were the cops, and the only time the tourists were annoyed were when the cops shut down the memorial, not at the dancing itself.
|
On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards. That guy was warned to put his arms behind his back 10 times. This video is from the US, it has nothing to do with Sweden. I'm sure the US police has a common practice they have to follow in each situation. I'm also sure you're not familiar with this law/practice. If a person doesn't comply after warnings they can use violence. What should they do? Sit there being ignored and disrespected? They displayed a lot of patience and did not really use a lot of force.
Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him. It's that simple. You can arrest someone without putting handcuffs on them, in fact in SWEDEN cuffing someone without a very good reason is considered "unlegal freedom robbery" which can give up to 6 year in prison.
Yes, this video is from US, also my reply was to someone who replied towards a Belgian regarding belgian/us differences, thus my reply was highly relevant whilst your remark is stupid as shit.
No, they can not use violence, this is not a fucking police state, Sweden is not nor is the USA you idiot, read up on your fucking rights before you vote republicans into the white house and let them put military courts unto the civilian populance.
Also Im majoring in international law so I have a huge fucking idea on what I am talking about.
Pardon my swearing but I am dumbfounded by the idiots who can defend this idiocy on any occasion; Any lawyer can tell you how fucking high the standard must be on law enforcements not to use excessive force because they have such a prodigious advantage and power over the civilian: They can not, and should never, be let to use ANY form of unnecessary force.
Even when provoked. What I find the most abhorrent by all the tossers defending these cops is that they're so blatantly oblivious to how it is to be the small person in a scenario like this, to be the person dragged away by cops, beaten up, arrested unjust fully.
YES, WE KNOW, They are just being assholes and doing stupid shit and yes they deserve a fine. BUT; This represents something bigger, and if you people can't understand this then you're not making your freedoms just.
By your stupid ass comment anyone who refuses to sign a speeding ticket or say their name to a flight attendant should be allowed to be bodyslammed against a marble floor?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 29 2011 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 22:49 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:46 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:44 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:42 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:39 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:33 Derez wrote:On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote: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. Who was "probably" bothered by it? In all the videos and articles I've seen, the only people who were bothered by the dancing were the cops, and the only time the tourists were annoyed were when the cops shut down the memorial, not at the dancing itself.
Are you actually going to blame the police? I mean blame the court ruling if you disagree, but the cops don't have a choice when it comes to enforcing standing laws (as they shouldn't) it's not their fault at all.
|
On May 29 2011 22:49 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:46 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:44 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:42 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:39 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:33 Derez wrote:On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote: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?
Yes? This one time people were at the Memorial and others were dancing and they couldn't enjoy it.
A cop doesn't have to declare a charge when trying to preserve the peace, which dancing in a memorial is definitely in breach of. If they want hold the person for an extended duration, then they have to make the charge.
|
On May 29 2011 22:52 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:48 Ocedic wrote:On May 29 2011 22:36 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:28 Ocedic wrote:On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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.
How's that anything like what I said? In BOTH my posts I point out ways to criticize the government; in my first post I even say you SHOULD question your government.
Sorry but acting like the US is an oppressed country is simply insulting to people who live in countries where ACTUAL oppression occurs (like China which you mentioned.) If you honestly don't know how to raise issues about the government without breaking the law/harassing the public/making life miserable for people then I don't know what to tell you. Somehow white supremest groups know how to make their voice heard on obviously unpopular ideas, I'm sure if you think real hard you can make your voice heard as well.
EDIT: Oh, and you keep de-humanizing cops in your posts. I imagine you and the other people who share your viewpoint in this thread are the same people who say "God bless our troops" and "Support our troops!" But those damn cops man, putting their lives on the line to protect our freedom and safety, just like those wonderful, awesome soldiers.
|
On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards. That guy was warned to put his arms behind his back 10 times. This video is from the US, it has nothing to do with Sweden. I'm sure the US police has a common practice they have to follow in each situation. I'm also sure you're not familiar with this law/practice. If a person doesn't comply after warnings they can use violence. What should they do? Sit there being ignored and disrespected? They displayed a lot of patience and did not really use a lot of force. Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him. It's that simple. You can arrest someone without putting handcuffs on them, in fact in SWEDEN cuffing someone without a very good reason is considered "unlegal freedom robbery" which can give up to 6 year in prison. Yes, this video is from US, also my reply was to someone who replied towards a Belgian regarding belgian/us differences, thus my reply was highly relevant whilst your remark is stupid as shit. No, they can not use violence, this is not a fucking police state, Sweden is not nor is the USA you idiot, read up on your fucking rights before you vote republicans into the white house and let them put military courts unto the civilian populance. Also Im majoring in international law so I have a huge fucking idea on what I am talking about. Pardon my swearing but I am dumbfounded by the idiots who can defend this idiocy on any occasion; Any lawyer can tell you how fucking high the standard must be on law enforcements not to use excessive force because they have such a prodigious advantage and power over the civilian: They can not, and should never, be let to use ANY form of unnecessary force. By your stupid ass comment anyone who refuses to sign a speeding ticket or say their name to a flight attendant should be allowed to be bodyslammed against a marble floor?
1. He was resisting arrest... so your argument is invalid (where is that Nicholas Cage picture...)
2. Why are we talking about Republicans now?
3. Chill.
|
On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards. That guy was warned to put his arms behind his back 10 times. This video is from the US, it has nothing to do with Sweden. I'm sure the US police has a common practice they have to follow in each situation. I'm also sure you're not familiar with this law/practice. If a person doesn't comply after warnings they can use violence. What should they do? Sit there being ignored and disrespected? They displayed a lot of patience and did not really use a lot of force. Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him.
Refusing to put your arms behind your back is resisting arrest in its most purest form.
It is literally saying "Im going to arrest you"
"No"
|
On May 29 2011 22:27 Navillus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:22 mmp wrote: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?
Seriously, go do some martial arts that focus on grappling. There are VARIOUS was of forcing someone to the ground without having to resort to something like a body slam -which can actually cause rib fractures- and those don't necessarily hurt that much. The only reason the cops used a body slam was because:
a) he was badly trained (very common amongst police officers, except in Tokyo, where they actually have to be a shodan in aikido which means that they're more than able to force people to the ground and restrain them while not using excessive force)
b) he was desperate
c) he got really nervous because there was a camera filming him all the time
d) he wanted to show how tough and in control he really is
Using violence (body slamming is not merely forcing someone to the ground) on people who are not attacking you is despicable, and in a police officer's case abuse of power.
Europeans tend to look differently on matters such as this (we probably wouldn't care if people were dancing at a memorial either).
|
On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards. That guy was warned to put his arms behind his back 10 times. This video is from the US, it has nothing to do with Sweden. I'm sure the US police has a common practice they have to follow in each situation. I'm also sure you're not familiar with this law/practice. If a person doesn't comply after warnings they can use violence. What should they do? Sit there being ignored and disrespected? They displayed a lot of patience and did not really use a lot of force. Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him. It's that simple. You can arrest someone without putting handcuffs on them, in fact in SWEDEN cuffing someone without a very good reason is considered "unlegal freedom robbery" which can give up to 6 year in prison. Yes, this video is from US, also my reply was to someone who replied towards a Belgian regarding belgian/us differences, thus my reply was highly relevant whilst your remark is stupid as shit. No, they can not use violence, this is not a fucking police state, Sweden is not nor is the USA you idiot, read up on your fucking rights before you vote republicans into the white house and let them put military courts unto the civilian populance. Also Im majoring in international law so I have a huge fucking idea on what I am talking about. Pardon my swearing but I am dumbfounded by the idiots who can defend this idiocy on any occasion; Any lawyer can tell you how fucking high the standard must be on law enforcements not to use excessive force because they have such a prodigious advantage and power over the civilian: They can not, and should never, be let to use ANY form of unnecessary force. By your stupid ass comment anyone who refuses to sign a speeding ticket or say their name to a flight attendant should be allowed to be bodyslammed against a marble floor? 1. He was resisting arrest... so your argument is invalid (where is that Nicholas Cage picture...) 2. Why are we talking about Republicans now? 3. Chill.
1. You do not have to cuff someone to arrest him. Cuffing someone is a stupid american standard but yes it is the standard there, but it is not necessary and any real cop with any real conflict sense could realize that cuffing people would only stir up more shit and get them lawsuit, they will end up paying those dancers alot of money, american tax dollars, because they can't keep their cop ego in check.
2. Because one does not jump into the abyss, but takes one step at a time; Defending any sort of police brutality is a step to ruin.
3. I wish I could, but this represents such a big human error and frightening problem, and to have it be defended is like watching whites defending lynches of blacks at the 60s. "They deserve it for stirring up trouble!" "They brought it on themselves!" "Those people in power have no obligation to protect them."
|
On May 29 2011 22:46 Zdrastochye wrote:
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.
Quoting because I'm quite sure it's been avoided because of the fact that it's right.
|
On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards. That guy was warned to put his arms behind his back 10 times. This video is from the US, it has nothing to do with Sweden. I'm sure the US police has a common practice they have to follow in each situation. I'm also sure you're not familiar with this law/practice. If a person doesn't comply after warnings they can use violence. What should they do? Sit there being ignored and disrespected? They displayed a lot of patience and did not really use a lot of force. Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him. It's that simple. You can arrest someone without putting handcuffs on them, in fact in SWEDEN cuffing someone without a very good reason is considered "unlegal freedom robbery" which can give up to 6 year in prison. Yes, this video is from US, also my reply was to someone who replied towards a Belgian regarding belgian/us differences, thus my reply was highly relevant whilst your remark is stupid as shit. No, they can not use violence, this is not a fucking police state, Sweden is not nor is the USA you idiot, read up on your fucking rights before you vote republicans into the white house and let them put military courts unto the civilian populance. Also Im majoring in international law so I have a huge fucking idea on what I am talking about. Pardon my swearing but I am dumbfounded by the idiots who can defend this idiocy on any occasion; Any lawyer can tell you how fucking high the standard must be on law enforcements not to use excessive force because they have such a prodigious advantage and power over the civilian: They can not, and should never, be let to use ANY form of unnecessary force. By your stupid ass comment anyone who refuses to sign a speeding ticket or say their name to a flight attendant should be allowed to be bodyslammed against a marble floor? 1. He was resisting arrest... so your argument is invalid (where is that Nicholas Cage picture...) 2. Why are we talking about Republicans now? 3. Chill.
Just because you yell STOP RESISTING doesn't mean he was resisitng. Watch the vid again man, he clearly stated IM NOT RESISTING, followd by the cop yelling again STOP RESISTING. So by your logic the first person to yell something is always in the right. They cannot strangle and close fist strike you. They are allowed to meet force with equal force, but as u see here I don't recall anyone trying to run away or body slam/strangle the cops. Nor was anyone actual resisting arrest, The lady at the beginning resisted more by trying to turn her head then the guy on the ground. Now where is the line, and who got to determine what was dancing? What if buddy in the corner shivered when all this went down and got arrested because "he was dancing"
|
I think the whole thing was silly. No one reacted correctly to the situation; regardless if a point was trying to be proven. The whole situation to me seemed unnecessary...
Those dancing folk were making quite a ruckus, and if they can or cannot, I feel like they shouldn't have anyway.
The cops on the other hand, really handled the whole thing poorly. Sometimes I wish these things wouldn't happen because it just makes me feel like this whole place feels like an awful joke. Not a good way to perceive America nor its police.
|
On May 29 2011 23:00 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:27 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 22:22 mmp wrote: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? Seriously, go do some martial arts that focus on grappling. There are VARIOUS was of forcing someone to the ground without having to resort to something like a body slam -which can actually cause rib fractures- and those don't necessarily hurt that much. The only reason the cops used a body slam was because: a) he was badly trained (very common amongst police officers) b) he was desperate c) he got really nervous because there was a camera filming him all the time d) he wanted to show how tough he really is
Yes, I agree except for d)
I was contesting that it was because people are accustomed to violence and he wanted to be a tough guy, I do think that police officers are undertrained (probably especially ones at places like the Jefferson Memorial) and that's a serious problem that I think should be fixed, I would like for police even at this level to know martial arts well enough to subdue people non-violently.
|
On May 29 2011 22:57 Navillus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 22:49 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:46 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:44 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:42 Medrea wrote:On May 29 2011 22:39 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:33 Derez wrote:On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote:
[quote]
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. Who was "probably" bothered by it? In all the videos and articles I've seen, the only people who were bothered by the dancing were the cops, and the only time the tourists were annoyed were when the cops shut down the memorial, not at the dancing itself. Are you actually going to blame the police? I mean blame the court ruling if you disagree, but the cops don't have a choice when it comes to enforcing standing laws (as they shouldn't) it's not their fault at all.
Cops don't have a choice? You mean to say they don't have a free will to disobey bad orders?
Adam is a Marine, how come he's capable of civil disobedience, but doughnut munchers can't?
On May 29 2011 22:58 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:52 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:48 Ocedic wrote:On May 29 2011 22:36 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 22:28 Ocedic wrote:On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: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. How's that anything like what I said? In BOTH my posts I point out ways to criticize the government; in my first post I even say you SHOULD question your government. Sorry but acting like the US is an oppressed country is simply insulting to people who live in countries where ACTUAL oppression occurs (like China which you mentioned.) If you honestly don't know how to raise issues about the government without breaking the law/harassing the public/making life miserable for people then I don't know what to tell you. Somehow white supremest groups know how to make their voice heard on obviously unpopular ideas, I'm sure if you think real hard you can make your voice heard as well. EDIT: Oh, and you keep de-humanizing cops in your posts. I imagine you and the other people who share your viewpoint in this thread are the same people who say "God bless our troops" and "Support our troops!" But those damn cops man, putting their lives on the line to protect our freedom and safety, just like those wonderful, awesome soldiers.
I'm not acting like the US is an oppressed country or saying that we're as bad as China. I'm acting like the cops were excessively brutal to punish something as trivial as harmless dancing in a public place.
And how come I can't compare the police cracking down on public dancing to people practicing Falun Gong in China? People said I couldn't compare dancing to black people sitting where they want on a bus, so I compared government crackdown on public dancing (moving your body) to government crackdown on philosophical exercising (moving your body). You're the one trying to trivialize basic freedoms as "lol it's just trolls doing silly dancing."
|
On May 29 2011 23:03 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards. That guy was warned to put his arms behind his back 10 times. This video is from the US, it has nothing to do with Sweden. I'm sure the US police has a common practice they have to follow in each situation. I'm also sure you're not familiar with this law/practice. If a person doesn't comply after warnings they can use violence. What should they do? Sit there being ignored and disrespected? They displayed a lot of patience and did not really use a lot of force. Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him. It's that simple. You can arrest someone without putting handcuffs on them, in fact in SWEDEN cuffing someone without a very good reason is considered "unlegal freedom robbery" which can give up to 6 year in prison. Yes, this video is from US, also my reply was to someone who replied towards a Belgian regarding belgian/us differences, thus my reply was highly relevant whilst your remark is stupid as shit. No, they can not use violence, this is not a fucking police state, Sweden is not nor is the USA you idiot, read up on your fucking rights before you vote republicans into the white house and let them put military courts unto the civilian populance. Also Im majoring in international law so I have a huge fucking idea on what I am talking about. Pardon my swearing but I am dumbfounded by the idiots who can defend this idiocy on any occasion; Any lawyer can tell you how fucking high the standard must be on law enforcements not to use excessive force because they have such a prodigious advantage and power over the civilian: They can not, and should never, be let to use ANY form of unnecessary force. By your stupid ass comment anyone who refuses to sign a speeding ticket or say their name to a flight attendant should be allowed to be bodyslammed against a marble floor? 1. He was resisting arrest... so your argument is invalid (where is that Nicholas Cage picture...) 2. Why are we talking about Republicans now? 3. Chill. 1. You do not have to cuff someone to arrest him. Cuffing someone is a stupid american standard but yes it is the standard there, but it is not necessary and any real cop with any real conflict sense could realize that cuffing people would only stir up more shit and get them lawsuit, they will end up paying those dancers alot of money, american tax dollars, because they can't keep their cop ego in check. 2. Because one does not jump into the abyss, but takes one step at a time; Defending any sort of police brutality is a step to ruin. 3. I wish I could, but this represents such a big human error and frightening problem, and to have it be defended is like watching whites defending lynches of blacks at the 60s. "They deserve it for stirring up trouble!" "They brought it on themselves!" "Those people in power have no obligation to protect them."
A guy as big as Adam? Yeah, you do have to cuff him. I think someone said he was ex-military or something too. That guy could have taken on a cop one-on-one. It was not a known fact that he wasn't going to turn violent, and cops don't take those chances. Ever. He was resisting arrest, period. He was warned several times, and he wanted to fool around.
And I don't defend lynching black people -.-'
|
On May 29 2011 23:03 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:On May 29 2011 21:39 Krehlmar wrote:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold.
You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards. That guy was warned to put his arms behind his back 10 times. This video is from the US, it has nothing to do with Sweden. I'm sure the US police has a common practice they have to follow in each situation. I'm also sure you're not familiar with this law/practice. If a person doesn't comply after warnings they can use violence. What should they do? Sit there being ignored and disrespected? They displayed a lot of patience and did not really use a lot of force. Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him. It's that simple. You can arrest someone without putting handcuffs on them, in fact in SWEDEN cuffing someone without a very good reason is considered "unlegal freedom robbery" which can give up to 6 year in prison. Yes, this video is from US, also my reply was to someone who replied towards a Belgian regarding belgian/us differences, thus my reply was highly relevant whilst your remark is stupid as shit. No, they can not use violence, this is not a fucking police state, Sweden is not nor is the USA you idiot, read up on your fucking rights before you vote republicans into the white house and let them put military courts unto the civilian populance. Also Im majoring in international law so I have a huge fucking idea on what I am talking about. Pardon my swearing but I am dumbfounded by the idiots who can defend this idiocy on any occasion; Any lawyer can tell you how fucking high the standard must be on law enforcements not to use excessive force because they have such a prodigious advantage and power over the civilian: They can not, and should never, be let to use ANY form of unnecessary force. By your stupid ass comment anyone who refuses to sign a speeding ticket or say their name to a flight attendant should be allowed to be bodyslammed against a marble floor? 1. He was resisting arrest... so your argument is invalid (where is that Nicholas Cage picture...) 2. Why are we talking about Republicans now? 3. Chill. 3. I wish I could, but this represents such a big human error and frightening problem, and to have it be defended is like watching whites defending lynches of blacks at the 60s. "They deserve it for stirring up trouble!" "They brought it on themselves!" "Those people in power have no obligation to protect them."
Oh god, more comparisons to the civil rights movement. Are you for real? Rosa Parks is spinning in her grave perpetually because of comments like yours.
I've said it twice already: Not every person who breaks the law demonstrating against the government is the next Malcolm X.
|
I've said it twice already: Not every person who breaks the law demonstrating against the government is the next Malcolm X.
And not every law is the infallible word of God.
|
Can you stop arguing about what the police did ?
Thats not what this is all about.
The police is doing their job enforcing a law. point.
Now where the discussion should start is: "Is it okay to have a law that justifies arrest for dancing?"
Or how the Thread title says "Is it illegal to dance?"
+ Show Spoiler +And for those trolls who try to bait people into a "stop blaming america your country is shit too" discussion. Germany has a ban on dancing on certain days too.
So if it makes you feel better argue on this.
|
On May 29 2011 23:05 Navillus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:00 maartendq wrote:On May 29 2011 22:27 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 22:22 mmp wrote: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? Seriously, go do some martial arts that focus on grappling. There are VARIOUS was of forcing someone to the ground without having to resort to something like a body slam -which can actually cause rib fractures- and those don't necessarily hurt that much. The only reason the cops used a body slam was because: a) he was badly trained (very common amongst police officers) b) he was desperate c) he got really nervous because there was a camera filming him all the time d) he wanted to show how tough he really is Yes, I agree except for d) I was contesting that it was because people are accustomed to violence and he wanted to be a tough guy, I do think that police officers are undertrained (probably especially ones at places like the Jefferson Memorial) and that's a serious problem that I think should be fixed, I would like for police even at this level to know martial arts well enough to subdue people non-violently.
It's always surprised me why police officers don't get a decent martial arts (grappling in their case) training.. Apart from the skills to subdue someone successfully and without harming him/her, it also teaches someone restraint because the police officer will become subject to the locks and bars himself during training. It also serves as a great way to get rid of some stress and is great for staying in shape. It could e (the moment you realize how much pain certain arm locks can cause you'll usually think twice before using it on another human being -if you're not a psychopath)ven be good for the atmosphere in the unit since training can be serious and fun at the same time (I usually laugh a lot during aikido training).
|
On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:
Aslong as he's not resisting, you're not allowed to use offensive force against him. It's that simple. You can arrest someone without putting handcuffs on them, in fact in SWEDEN cuffing someone without a very good reason is considered "unlegal freedom robbery" which can give up to 6 year in prison.
Once again, this is not Sweden and the guy that got bodyslammed was clearly resisting arrest.
Yes, this video is from US, also my reply was to someone who replied towards a Belgian regarding belgian/us differences, thus my reply was highly relevant whilst your remark is stupid as shit.
That last part is just plain unnecessary.
No, they can not use violence, this is not a fucking police state, Sweden is not nor is the USA you idiot, read up on your fucking rights before you vote republicans into the white house and let them put military courts unto the civilian populance.
Also Im majoring in international law so I have a huge fucking idea on what I am talking about.
Police are permitted to use appropriate force to apprehend a suspect. Whether you feel the level of force here was appropriate or not is certainly up for argument, but a blanket statement that they cannot use violence is just plain wrong.
Pardon my swearing but I am dumbfounded by the idiots who can defend this idiocy on any occasion; Any lawyer can tell you how fucking high the standard must be on law enforcements not to use excessive force because they have such a prodigious advantage and power over the civilian: They can not, and should never, be let to use ANY form of unnecessary force.
Unfortunately while I agree with you that they shouldn't use unnecessary force, that's just not reality. You also have to look at these situations from the side of law enforcement too. They deal with high stress jobs and are constantly dealing with smartasses like this who refuse to obey orders or comply with the law. This entire situation could have just as easily been prevented by these people taking the time to get a permit for their demonstration.
Even when provoked. What I find the most abhorrent by all the tossers defending these cops is that they're so blatantly oblivious to how it is to be the small person in a scenario like this, to be the person dragged away by cops, beaten up, arrested unjust fully.
YES, WE KNOW, They are just being assholes and doing stupid shit and yes they deserve a fine. BUT; This represents something bigger, and if you people can't understand this then you're not making your freedoms just.
I definitely know what it feels like to be the small person in this scenario, but I also know that if you're not an ass and just calmly follow directions, things will go pretty smoothly. The problem comes when people start spouting off their rights and resisting. That's not an argument for the cops. You take the arrest and then go argue it in court afterwards and if you're right, then everything will be fine. Otherwise, you'd just purposely causing a scene for attention which is obviously the point here.
By your stupid ass comment anyone who refuses to sign a speeding ticket or say their name to a flight attendant should be allowed to be bodyslammed against a marble floor?
I didn't know you had to sign a speeding ticket. Every one I've received was just given to me without me having to do anything. I do know that if you take that speeding ticket, crumple it up and throw it at the officer involved, you'll probably get arrested and if you refuse to get out of your car or put your hands behind your back, they'll probably take you down for resisting. Also why does the marble floor come into play here? The guy took him down and arrested him. I really don't see what the big issue here is. I think a lot of you guys are blowing this whole situation out of proportion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
