|
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 23:35 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:04 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:
[quote]
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.
Dancing at the Thomas Jefferson memorial.
Duh?
And Adam and his gang were well-aware of this ahead of time.
The average cop doesn't need to know why every court ruling exists, or why every law is in place. He needs to know when someone is doing something illegal. Look it up on your own time if you care enough to go break the law and get arrested over it. Debate it on your own time it you have ethical issues with it. The cop was doing his job.
|
On May 29 2011 23:32 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:29 mmp wrote:On May 29 2011 22:50 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 22:41 mmp 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? 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..
By refusing to break the law, you consent to the authority that imposed the law. Such is tyranny.
|
On May 29 2011 23:36 Perseverance wrote:
So it was legal for the arrest?
Yes.
|
On May 29 2011 23:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:22 LegendaryZ wrote:On May 29 2011 23:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 Navillus wrote: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. Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:25 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 23:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 Navillus wrote: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?
Cops are aloud to use discretion, why do you think some people getting warnings on speeding tickets? Now I could fully understand if they showed up, and saw people break dancing and back flipping off of the statue ( Which would have been awesome!!!! but besides the point) But what did they see? A few people slow dancing, and a couple other jiving. I have a 5 year old nephew, he jives, and dances everywhere. What if he was doing a jig infront of the statue? Should he be arrested and slammed to the ground too? Did anyone say PLEASE BREAK UP ALL THE DANCING!!! THE HUMANITY!!!! No? No on complained about it, no one was hurting anyone. So yes, the cop could have easily had said they are just having a good time I don't see any reason to break this up, which any person with common sense should.
|
On May 29 2011 23:36 Perseverance wrote:
So it was legal for the arrest?
Arrest was legal, but irregardless of the people already knowing what they were doing was illegal the officer still has to tell them at the time of the arrest what for which was clearly not done.
|
On May 29 2011 23:35 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:04 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:On May 29 2011 21:49 greenlander wrote:
[quote]
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....." Fuck that......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You're welcome.
Anyways, I need to go. Boy, this was fun.
|
Canada13389 Posts
I think the craziest part was "if you drive more than 50 miles away... you will be arrested". Its ridiculous. I don't get the way this works.
Public demonstrations? Is that what they are going to lump this in under? They were there. And after they said dancing is illegal they decided to dance to see what would happen. Well they did go against what they were told but to be honest I dont see how it can be illegal to dance in a public place. Then they temporarily close it to keep control of the situation? Man these park police lost way too much control way too fast for such a stupid thing.
I dont live in the states and for that I am glad. This is crazy. Seriously crazy :/ I don't see how this can go unnoticed for too long.
|
On May 29 2011 23:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Nazi counterpoints? Those have lost relevancy some 60 years ago.
Was the court ruling posted in this thread? I'd be interested to read the explanation.
The question in the thread title prompted me to give an example of how a very similar situation is handled in another Western country. I believe this to be of interest.
|
On May 29 2011 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:35 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:04 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 22:55 Krehlmar wrote:
[quote]
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....." Fuck that...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYou're welcome. Anyways, I need to go. Boy, this was fun.
Glad to see there is still a full herd of sheep in this world. Ghandi, AND the founding fathers among others are rolling in their graves
|
I find the arrests ridiculous, but I find the behavior of the people there just as ridiculous. The cops are just doing their jobs, following orders, and these douches are sitting there with cameras in their faces trying to make them look like dicks. I'm not a huge cop supporter, but that was drawn out of line.
|
On May 29 2011 23:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
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.
Police officers on an individual level are not part of the checks and balances system and for good reason. They are not in any position to determine the validity of a law aside from their own personal opinion of it, which is irrelevant. If police officers start getting the permission to apply the law as they see fit, you run into exactly the type of problems you're arguing against.
The Obama administration is not responsible for enforcing anything. The executive branch of government does not exist to enforce laws. This is basic stuff they teach in grade school. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about it.
These people clearly knew that what they were doing was illegal (from the invitation video) and they all probably went in with the mindset that they could potentially be arrested. I don't understand why they suddenly start acting like little bitches when it happens. You want to argue? Take the arrest quietly and go argue in court rather than going out of your way to make a scene.
|
On May 29 2011 23:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:22 LegendaryZ wrote:On May 29 2011 23:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 Navillus wrote: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. Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:25 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 23:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 Navillus wrote: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?
Go walk in front of patrolling police officers all day while crossing every street with red lights. At some point they'll warn you not to do it, and if you do it again you'll end up with a ticket. That isn't an infringement on your civil liberties either. Cops have some discretion when it comes to fining/arresting people, but if you just keep being an obnoxious bastard, they have no choice anymore, especially if you're filming it on camera to make them look like idiots.
How are people not seeing this for what it really is? This is nothing but a group of obnoxious people provoking a response?
Trying to frame this as a civil liberties issue is ridiculous, this is not some major consitutional debate. You don't have the right to express yourself however you want in every situation, and we should all be glad that's the case.
Public debate in the US has been reduced to a group of monkeys shouting something is unconstitutional while what they're really trying to say is that they don't agree with something, don't know why, have never read the constitution, but assume that it always agrees with their worldview. The same thing is happening here.
|
"They just banned dancing at the Jefferson Memorial!"
"Oh? Really? Interesting."
"No, this is an outrage! We must protest this."
"We must?"
"Yes, we must all go there and dance until we get arrested and act shocked when we do. Think of all the times we have gone to the Jefferson Memorial and danced, why do they want to take that away from us?"
"You raise a good point, wait a minute we danced at the Jefferson Memorial before?"
The least they could have done was got naked or something. Well upon further review the least they could have done was put on more clothes.
|
Isn't this fake? They randomly start recording with a good camera and people start getting arrested.
|
simply, free speech does not mean the right to say whatever you want and to demonstrate whatever you want. there's always been a debate in america's history between freedom and equality. in their purest forms, the two cannot stand together, as total freedom of individuals would limit and conflict with equality of others.
with that being said, there must be a check and balance between freedom and equality. this is where laws come in. the reason for a law banning dancing at a memorial (or rather, demonstrating without permit) is that its disrespectful to the person as well as those trying to pay their respects. if dancing is a way of expressing yourself, then you can express it without breaking the law. however if you knowingly and deliberately break these laws in front of police, then you should by all means be dealt with.
the reason dancing at the memorial is nowhere near as valid as what Rosa Parks did lies in the fact that jim crow laws and segregation limited BOTH the african's freedom and equality, while the law against dancing at memorials is completely trivial and stupid.
people always take the idea of freedom of speech and blow it way out of proportion, which can be seen in all protests, such as with the westboro baptist church. when you clearly cross the line, something must be done
|
On May 29 2011 23:42 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:35 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:27 Aurious wrote:On May 29 2011 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:18 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2011 23:04 Arkless wrote:On May 29 2011 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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....." Fuck that...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manYou're welcome. Anyways, I need to go. Boy, this was fun. Glad to see there is still a full herd of sheep in this world. Ghandi, AND the founding fathers among others are rolling in their graves
If I were Ghandi and I was being compared to this "Adam" douchebag trying to get attention by intentionally breaking laws he knows exist, I'd be rolling in my grave, too.
|
On May 29 2011 23:48 SiN] wrote:
Isn't this fake? They randomly start recording with a good camera and people start getting arrested.
No. The people recorded are well known career activists. Nothing in the video is particularly out of the ordinary.
|
You have to consider motives when you judge people's actions. That's why this doesn't compare to Rosa Parks or Ghandi lol.
|
On May 29 2011 23:45 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:22 LegendaryZ wrote:On May 29 2011 23:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 Navillus wrote: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 23:25 Navillus wrote:On May 29 2011 23:19 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On May 29 2011 23:13 Navillus wrote: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? Go walk in front of patrolling police officers all day while crossing every street with red lights. At some point they'll warn you not to do it, and if you do it again you'll end up with a ticket. That isn't an infringement on your civil liberties either. Cops have some discretion when it comes to fining/arresting people, but if you just keep being an obnoxious bastard, they have no choice anymore, especially if you're filming it on camera to make them look like idiots. How are people not seeing this for what it really is? This is nothing but a group of obnoxious people provoking a response? Trying to frame this as a civil liberties issue is ridiculous, this is not some major consitutional debate. You don't have the right to express yourself however you want in every situation, and we should all be glad that's the case. Public debate in the US has been reduced to a group of monkeys shouting something is unconstitutional while what they're really trying to say is that they don't agree with something, don't know why, have never read the constitution, but assume that it always agrees with their worldview. The same thing is happening here.
Wait till the 4th of July and watch how many private fireworks shows happen. My friend lives across the street from the police station and his whole street shoots fireworks. They don't care as long as you're not being excessively loud or obnoxious with them. You even say yourself, cops have discretion in the application of the law, these people were clearly bothering no one except for the power tripping cops.
How is it ridiculous to frame this as a civil liberties issue when the original court case they were defying was a CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUE? Geez, some people here have no critical thinking skills whatsoever...
On May 29 2011 23:43 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:35 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
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. Police officers on an individual level are not part of the checks and balances system and for good reason. They are not in any position to determine the validity of a law aside from their own personal opinion of it, which is irrelevant. If police officers start getting the permission to apply the law as they see fit, you run into exactly the type of problems you're arguing against. The Obama administration is not responsible for enforcing anything. The executive branch of government does not exist to enforce laws. This is basic stuff they teach in grade school. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about it. These people clearly knew that what they were doing was illegal (from the invitation video) and they all probably went in with the mindset that they could potentially be arrested. I don't understand why they suddenly start acting like little bitches when it happens. You want to argue? Take the arrest quietly and go argue in court rather than going out of your way to make a scene.
You fail at civics. Go look up the role of the executive branch. The executive branch has a check on the legislative branch by choosing whether or not to enforce its laws. Go back to 1st grade social studies class because you've clearly learned nothing there.
|
On May 29 2011 23:56 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 23:48 SiN] wrote:
Isn't this fake? They randomly start recording with a good camera and people start getting arrested. No. The people recorded are well known career activists. Nothing in the video is particularly out of the ordinary.
They play it twice from two seperate angles as well. And I am sure their is more footage before hand but nothing noteworthy more or less. The just edited it to start where it needed so we don't have to wait for 20 minutes or w/e.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
