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.
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?
This is absurd, first he wasn't disobeying in his capacity as a marine and I guarantee that he would have been severely punished had he. But you saying that police should disobey is absolutely ridiculous, first had these police chosen not to they would have lost their entire livelihoods (you don't stay a cop long when you disobey orders) for some morons who think that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is a god-given right. On a broader scale it's unbelievably stupid to try to say that police should be choosing which laws to enforce, that would actually undermine the entire legal system, it is not their job to decide nor should it be. Hell that goes against democracy at it's core, you're actually giving the police more power when you say that they should decide what laws to enforce, that what you want?
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"
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom.
On May 29 2011 23:03 Krehlmar wrote: 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."
And to have people saying it's wrong to have cops arrest someone for something illegal, you might as well be saying that it's wrong to arrest rapists and murderers too for doing illegal things.
See? I can provide ridiculous counterpoints that have no relevance too!
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 22:14 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."
1. Public dancing isn't an 'oppressed right.' I would argue you can actually dance in the overwhelming majority of American soil legally. Go outside in the street and start dancing. Let me know when the SWAT team arrives to oppress your freedoms.
2. If you're going to argue that public dancing is metaphorical for freedom of expressing, I've already pointed out that there are PLENTY of venues for expressing yourself. The Tea Party actively speaks out against the government, yet they are still free to express themselves.
So yeah, that's why it's insulting to compare this dancing bs to, oh I don't know, not having the right to vote/being second class citizens/having your government kill you for expressing yourself. You know, that kind of stuff.
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"
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom.
Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............ 2:30 in the cop says put your hands behind your back where immediatly he does without any bickering/ resisting. 2:39 not sure what the other dude that grabs his shoulder is doing. 2:40 two go down, cop punches buddy in the brown shirt in the head 2x 2:42 with one of two arms behind his back the cop starts yelling STOP RESISTING. While the other cop has his other arm pinned.
.......
Then they try to opress the other guys freedom of speech, telling him to shut up........
They violently arrested people without telling them exactly what for, and did not read them their rights. Among other things we all probably missed off video...
On May 29 2011 22:57 Navillus wrote: Show nested quote +
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?
This is absurd, first he wasn't disobeying in his capacity as a marine and I guarantee that he would have been severely punished had he. But you saying that police should disobey is absolutely ridiculous, first had these police chosen not to they would have lost their entire livelihoods (you don't stay a cop long when you disobey orders) for some morons who think that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is a god-given right. On a broader scale it's unbelievably stupid to try to say that police should be choosing which laws to enforce, that would actually undermine the entire legal system, it is not their job to decide nor should it be. Hell that goes against democracy at it's core, you're actually giving the police more power when you say that they should decide what to enforce, that what you want?
He did disobey in his capacity as a Marine and was discharged, and they tried to retroactively downgrade his discharge to something other than honorable after he told an officer to go fuck himself.
It's kind of sad that you say that this goes against democracy at its core, when the government was set up to have checks and balances. Police are supposed to execute laws, and are supposed to refuse to execute unjust orders. Police are supposed to swear to protect the public, not oppress the public.
On May 29 2011 22:57 Navillus wrote: Show nested quote +
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?
This is absurd, first he wasn't disobeying in his capacity as a marine and I guarantee that he would have been severely punished had he. But you saying that police should disobey is absolutely ridiculous, first had these police chosen not to they would have lost their entire livelihoods (you don't stay a cop long when you disobey orders) for some morons who think that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is a god-given right. On a broader scale it's unbelievably stupid to try to say that police should be choosing which laws to enforce, that would actually undermine the entire legal system, it is not their job to decide nor should it be. Hell that goes against democracy at it's core, you're actually giving the police more power when you say that they should decide what to enforce, that what you want?
He did disobey in his capacity as a Marine and was discharged, and they tried to retroactively downgrade his discharge to something other than honorable after he told an officer to go fuck himself.
It's kind of sad that you say that this goes against democracy at its core, when the government was set up to have checks and balances. Police are supposed to execute laws, and are supposed to refuse to execute unjust orders. Police are supposed to swear to protect the public, not oppress the public.
The police are agents of law enforcement. It's not their place to decide what is a good or bad law. That's the job of the courts.
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"
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom.
Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............
All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest.
On May 29 2011 22:57 Navillus wrote: Show nested quote +
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?
This is absurd, first he wasn't disobeying in his capacity as a marine and I guarantee that he would have been severely punished had he. But you saying that police should disobey is absolutely ridiculous, first had these police chosen not to they would have lost their entire livelihoods (you don't stay a cop long when you disobey orders) for some morons who think that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is a god-given right. On a broader scale it's unbelievably stupid to try to say that police should be choosing which laws to enforce, that would actually undermine the entire legal system, it is not their job to decide nor should it be. Hell that goes against democracy at it's core, you're actually giving the police more power when you say that they should decide what to enforce, that what you want?
He did disobey in his capacity as a Marine and was discharged, and they tried to retroactively downgrade his discharge to something other than honorable after he told an officer to go fuck himself.
It's kind of sad that you say that this goes against democracy at its core, when the government was set up to have checks and balances. Police are supposed to execute laws, and are supposed to refuse to execute unjust orders. Police are supposed to swear to protect the public, not oppress the public.
Yes but they are not in a position to decide that this, which is actually a pretty reasonable law if you read the court's decision, should not be enforced, and it would be silly if they did. Some judge somewhere with years of legal experience and knowledge decided that what these people did fell under the category of demonstration, some cops should not be going against that because they think it's unfair. The fact that the law is even debatable means that the police should by default enforce it, they should only disobey for something serious. Sure if the government starts to ACTUALLY oppress people I think police should disobey but pretending that this is a serious issue just takes away from situations where governments are actually harming their people.
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"
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom.
Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............
All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest.
A body slam is force which Adam was clearly not using any force other than walking away. As was stated before an officer needs to have a direct reason to use THAT kind of force.
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.
Well I stand by my statement, and I think it simply comes down to professional training, as evidenced by the comments of some Europeans in this thread that this kind of behavior wouldn't fly in their country -- it's simply a matter of a culture's tolerance for violence that dictates what action is proportional.
As for respecting authority, I think silly laws ought to be protested. I also think you should be prepared to reject authority when it gets in the way of what you believe are legitimate civil actions. Such is democracy.
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"
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom.
Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............
All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest.
A body slam is force which Adam was clearly not using any force other than walking away. As was stated before an officer needs to have a direct reason to use THAT kind of force.
He needed to arrest Adam. Adam's huge and a military man. Adam was resisting arrest. Problem?
You don't just *walk away* from getting arrested. lol. Try it, see what happens. Adam was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick and putting on a show for his camera crew. Do you *really* think he got hurt? lol.
In Germany, I've witnessed people gathering to dance in a monument while playing classical music from a cd player. Other people gathered to watch and the police didn't care at all. In the USA, people are arrested for hugging and kissing in a monument... God bless the land of the free!
edit: It's quite stupid (and serves to purpose whatsoever) to go to the monument with the sole intention to provoke the police. However, the passed law is far beyond retarded and the action of the police was too aggressive and unnecessary...
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.
Well I stand by my statement, and I think it simply comes down to professional training, as evidenced by the comments of some Europeans in this thread that this kind of behavior wouldn't fly in their country -- it's simply a matter of a culture's tolerance for violence that dictates what action is proportional.
As for respecting authority, I think silly laws ought to be protested. I also think you should be prepared to reject authority when it gets in the way of what you believe are legitimate civil actions. Such is democracy.
Silly laws should most definitely be protested against, breaking just isn't the obvious route to take when there are so many other (legal) ways to protest against them..
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"
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom.
Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............
All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest.
Ummm no, I hope one day a cop tells you to put your arms behind your back. And then when you respectfully and immediatly do I hope he picks u up and tosses you to the ground. The SECOND the cop said hands behind your back, he turned around with his hands behind his back with 0 problems.
On May 29 2011 23:31 ggrrg wrote: In Germany, I've witnessed people gathering to dance in a monument while playing classical music from a cd player. Other people gathered to watch and the police didn't care at all. In the USA, people are arrested for hugging and kissing in a monument... God bless the land of the free!
Are you ready for the incoming wave of Nazi counterpoints?
Seriously, different countries have different laws. Surely, some are unjustified. Regardless, that's not exactly the context or the extent to which the entire court ruling or OP is based around.
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"
lol Yelling "I'M NOT RESISTING" while resisting doesn't mean you're not resisting. He was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick. To get someone as big as Adam (who has military training too) to put his hands behind his back by force- since Adam wasn't doing it voluntarily- they had to put him down and hold him there.
I'd like to find a murderer who shot someone while yelling "I'M NOT KILLING YOU" and see you argue for their freedom.
Ummmm, I'm not talking about adam. He says nothing WATCH THE VIDEO. The guy before adam who commented on his shoulder............
All right then... the only force done by the officers were to Adam though o.O The force done to the guy with the shoulder problem was caused by the interloper who wasn't a cop. He caused problems. The cry regarding the shoulder was because that random man was interfering. Adam was resisting arrest, and was dealt with accordingly. The shoulder guy was dealt with appropriately as well, despite the fact that someone (another dancer, it looked like) tried interfering with the arrest.
A body slam is force which Adam was clearly not using any force other than walking away. As was stated before an officer needs to have a direct reason to use THAT kind of force.
He needed to arrest Adam. Adam's huge and a military man. Adam was resisting arrest. Problem?
You don't just *walk away* from getting arrested. lol. Try it, see what happens. Adam was purposely keeping his hands up in the air and refusing to put his hands behind his back. He was warned over and over again. He was just being a dick and putting on a show for his camera crew. Do you *really* think he got hurt? lol.
He was trolling the cops.
You do when he can't tell you what he is arresting you for. "Hey you, sitting in your own home, you're under arrest" "What for?" "I don't know, but sitting is illegal" "Derp......OK....."
On May 29 2011 22:57 Navillus wrote: Show nested quote +
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?
This is absurd, first he wasn't disobeying in his capacity as a marine and I guarantee that he would have been severely punished had he. But you saying that police should disobey is absolutely ridiculous, first had these police chosen not to they would have lost their entire livelihoods (you don't stay a cop long when you disobey orders) for some morons who think that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is a god-given right. On a broader scale it's unbelievably stupid to try to say that police should be choosing which laws to enforce, that would actually undermine the entire legal system, it is not their job to decide nor should it be. Hell that goes against democracy at it's core, you're actually giving the police more power when you say that they should decide what to enforce, that what you want?
He did disobey in his capacity as a Marine and was discharged, and they tried to retroactively downgrade his discharge to something other than honorable after he told an officer to go fuck himself.
It's kind of sad that you say that this goes against democracy at its core, when the government was set up to have checks and balances. Police are supposed to execute laws, and are supposed to refuse to execute unjust orders. Police are supposed to swear to protect the public, not oppress the public.
The police are agents of law enforcement. It's not their place to decide what is a good or bad law. That's the job of the courts.
Again, checks and balances exists. Those who enforce the law can choose not to enforce the law as a check on those who make the laws.
By your logic, the Obama administration should be fired because they said they would not be enforcing DOMA.
On May 29 2011 22:57 Navillus wrote: Show nested quote +
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?
This is absurd, first he wasn't disobeying in his capacity as a marine and I guarantee that he would have been severely punished had he. But you saying that police should disobey is absolutely ridiculous, first had these police chosen not to they would have lost their entire livelihoods (you don't stay a cop long when you disobey orders) for some morons who think that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is a god-given right. On a broader scale it's unbelievably stupid to try to say that police should be choosing which laws to enforce, that would actually undermine the entire legal system, it is not their job to decide nor should it be. Hell that goes against democracy at it's core, you're actually giving the police more power when you say that they should decide what to enforce, that what you want?
He did disobey in his capacity as a Marine and was discharged, and they tried to retroactively downgrade his discharge to something other than honorable after he told an officer to go fuck himself.
It's kind of sad that you say that this goes against democracy at its core, when the government was set up to have checks and balances. Police are supposed to execute laws, and are supposed to refuse to execute unjust orders. Police are supposed to swear to protect the public, not oppress the public.
Yes but they are not in a position to decide that this, which is actually a pretty reasonable law if you read the court's decision, should not be enforced, and it would be silly if they did. Some judge somewhere with years of legal experience and knowledge decided that what these people did fell under the category of demonstration, some cops should not be going against that because they think it's unfair. The fact that the law is even debatable means that the police should by default enforce it, they should only disobey for something serious. Sure if the government starts to ACTUALLY oppress people I think police should disobey but pretending that this is a serious issue just takes away from situations where governments are actually harming their people.
The fact that the law is even debatable means that the police should question enforcing the laws in the first place. How often do you see cops enforcing jaywalking laws? Should these cops be fired for not doing so?
EPT
