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 30 2011 04:11 ZedZin wrote: I thought I was the only one who got arrested for dancing XD
Well, I don't know about the illegality of dancing, whether it be grinding, daggering, two-steppin, shufflin, krumpin, hat tricks, water style, jump style,
but just don't pop-and-lock it to cop lights when they're busting a rave... I got arrested on the SPOT just for dancing at the red and blue cop lights.
Shit was glorious. A DJ dedicated a song to me next rave xD
On May 30 2011 04:26 Arckan wrote: They went there to incite the police. They were arrested after being warned multiple times.
I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem with a policeman picking up a person and body-slamming them into the ground and then putting their hands around the person's throat..all for dancing?
You don't see a problem with purposely misconstruing what actually happened to make it look like the cop was at fault?
On May 30 2011 04:42 zalz wrote: Ugh they might not have been right in arresting them (illegal protest is a stretch since they really aren't protesting as far as i can see) but god do i hate those fucking people.
Fighting for something is noble but being a wise-ass to a guy doing his job and pissing him off for no good reason is just annoying. The inevitable "MAH RIGHTS!" "MAH FREEDOMZ" gets yelled as these kids consider themself equall to Rosa Parks because they are defending the right to...dance in a memorial...
This world has serious problems but being able to dance at a memorial really isn't one of them. Like i said the cops probably don't have a leg to stand on and they shouldn't have arrested them but i can understand the impulse given the crowd facing you.
But sure, let's gather and protest there next time. I can't think of anything better to do or any cause more noble then fighting for your right to dance.
People dying in the streets of Syria and these damn kids want a taste of the revolutionary vibe. But ofcourse they wanna be home at 20:00. There are people that seriously fight for things like freedom but these people just make a mockery out of it all. That doesn't excuse these cops from making an unlawfull arrest (not sure if it is), but that doesn't mean i am suddenly gonna think these stupid kids are freedom fighters.
Is it really fair to say that because there are bigger injustices that this is not one worth addressing? Shouldn't people be free to put their energy where they please? I can agree with you that what they were doing is kind of silly, but the fact remains, it highlighted problems with how police handle these situations, and it is important that incidents such as these get attention in hopes of this problem happening less often. This is still fruitful, even if it is not as much so as it would be to pursue more important issues.
On May 30 2011 03:01 tkRage wrote: These kinda videos piss me off. Those people are intentionally doing shit they know they aren't allowed to do, whether or not the law itself is rational. They're doing it to incite a reaction and then play the innocent victim when that reaction comes.
It's called Civil Disobedience, and it's a useful form of protest.
No comment on the value of the actual protest.
It's really bad civil disobedience though, they go in to protest, they know what they're doing is illegal and they know they're going to get arrested for it. Instead, they flip their shit, say that they weren't warned, say that their rights are being abused and make it seem like a case of the police being unfair.
These people are seriously idiotic in my opinion, a terrible attempt at civil disobedience.
On May 30 2011 04:26 Arckan wrote: They went there to incite the police. They were arrested after being warned multiple times.
I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem with a policeman picking up a person and body-slamming them into the ground and then putting their hands around the person's throat..all for dancing?
You don't see a problem with purposely misconstruing what actually happened to make it look like the cop was at fault?
The cop was clearly at fault for using excessive force with the intent to cause physical harm to somebody that was blatently not a threat to them. Were the protesters trying to start trouble? Ya, of course they were. Does this permit the police to beat people for fun? No, it doesn't. What if the guy had died? Would you still have the same opinion of the event? In Canada, you can't get away with this kind of action against unarmed, nonthreatening civilians.
On May 30 2011 04:26 Arckan wrote: They went there to incite the police. They were arrested after being warned multiple times.
I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem with a policeman picking up a person and body-slamming them into the ground and then putting their hands around the person's throat..all for dancing?
You don't see a problem with purposely misconstruing what actually happened to make it look like the cop was at fault?
I completely understand what happened, and i still feel the cop was EXTREMELY excessive. You can't watch the video and say something like that is completely justified.
Someone on YouTube suggests that the same police officer is in another video and this is just staged. Its at 2mins. I don't know what to figure out of it, he looks similar but can't decide if its the same guy.
On May 30 2011 04:26 Arckan wrote: They went there to incite the police. They were arrested after being warned multiple times.
I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem with a policeman picking up a person and body-slamming them into the ground and then putting their hands around the person's throat..all for dancing?
You don't see a problem with purposely misconstruing what actually happened to make it look like the cop was at fault?
The cop was clearly at fault for using excessive force with the intent to cause physical harm to somebody that was blatently not a threat to them. Were the protesters trying to start trouble? Ya, of course they were. Does this permit the police to beat people for fun? No, it doesn't. What if the guy had died? Would you still have the same opinion of the event? In Canada, you can't get away with this kind of action against unarmed, nonthreatening civilians.
Not that i I live in Canda, but I'm fairly sure even cops in Canada get away with being violent and abusive. They do that in every country. No biggie.
On May 30 2011 04:11 ZedZin wrote: I thought I was the only one who got arrested for dancing XD
Well, I don't know about the illegality of dancing, whether it be grinding, daggering, two-steppin, shufflin, krumpin, hat tricks, water style, jump style,
but just don't pop-and-lock it to cop lights when they're busting a rave... I got arrested on the SPOT just for dancing at the red and blue cop lights.
Shit was glorious. A DJ dedicated a song to me next rave xD
Doesn't sound like something to be proud of. You made an ass of yourself and got arrested in front of the police? grats
This is sooo stupid, both sides are over-reacting; why do you have to make such of a big deal out of....erm....nothing at all? I know those people were deliberately trying to press the issue/provoke a reaction, but hey the police should have more discipline/self-control, I thought those were one of the first, most widely taught qualities for a law-enforcer? Both sides should find something else productive to do with their time -.-"
On May 30 2011 04:26 Arckan wrote: They went there to incite the police. They were arrested after being warned multiple times.
I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem with a policeman picking up a person and body-slamming them into the ground and then putting their hands around the person's throat..all for dancing?
You don't see a problem with purposely misconstruing what actually happened to make it look like the cop was at fault?
The cop was clearly at fault for using excessive force with the intent to cause physical harm to somebody that was blatently not a threat to them. Were the protesters trying to start trouble? Ya, of course they were. Does this permit the police to beat people for fun? No, it doesn't. What if the guy had died? Would you still have the same opinion of the event? In Canada, you can't get away with this kind of action against unarmed, nonthreatening civilians.
I saw no life threatening move taken by the cops, it's not like running into a guy and slamming him into a wall which is extremely dangerous. It was a very controlled take-down on the bald guy with sunglasses, these people came in with the sole purpose of being idiots and their civil disobedience would have gone smoothly with them dancing, being warned and asked to stop, refusing, and getting arrested. But instead, they were warned, didn't listen, flipped their shit, pretended their weren't warned, pretended they didn't know what the law was... etc...
The police may have been mildly excessive but this case was nothing serious, there are plenty of cases of police brutality and this is not one of them.
The trolls were trolling, the law is stupid, the police were doing their job. Could they have handled it better? Probably, for instance saying that they didn't want to arrest anyone, but that they had to by law, etc. Nonetheless of the 3 parties involved (trolls, legal system, police) they were the least in the wrong.
I see a guy politely warning a group of people that if they dance, they will be arrested. It's a law. He's a police officer. That's his job--arresting lawbreakers. They should have thanked him for going out of his way to find them and give them all a formal warning/heads up. Then they proceed to act like total douche bags and ruin the experience for all the other tourists, not to mention getting the place closed.
First, to the allegations of police brutality: News flash. Arm bars hurt but they rarely actually cause damage. Choking can kill, sure, but not if you're just using it to make them submit, i.e. for a very short amount of time, (in this case its relatively polite). It's really easy to just say even this kind of force is excessive in this situation. But think about it. If you're a police officer, you don't just pretend like some one is harmless. ESPECIALLY when they resist arrest. That guy Adam was not only fairly well built but clearly resisting. You don't just assume that someone like that is not a threat. I used to practice martial arts, and we use these techniques on each other all the time. The choking, the arm bars, the throw downs, everything. Even the more delicately built students can handle it. Long story short: you don't get to call police brutality unless someone was injured. Causing bodily pain to make a resisting person submit is not brutality, especially when its something as benign as an arm bar, or a choke.
About the officer's uninformative, unsatisfactory explanation: It's not the officer's obligation to explain the laws or issue warnings here in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but this is a fact that personally I'm fine with. I don't want government funds going into turning our police officers into lawyers who can argue their case or whatever when they make an arrest. That's stupid. This guy went above and beyond his obligations to ensure these people knew what they were getting into. He did his job, and to my knowledge there were no injuries.
About the law: If you really want to complain, talk about the law itself, not the police officers. It's a pretty reasonable law imo (except the part about headphones maybe). Everyone is entitled to freedom of expression. But this is sort of like dancing at a funeral. Many people go there to pay their respects to one of our founding fathers. Others expect an environment of sanctity and reverence. So not only are these people being obnoxious and disruptive, they're actually being offensive to the people who come in and take it seriously.
I went to the Lincoln Memorial once, and we were all expected to be completely silent. I haven't been to the Jefferson memorial but the environment looks comparatively laid back to say at the least.
This world is fully of terrible problems, and this is not one of them. If you're incapable of making a difference, and all you can do is condemn evil legislation in front of a computer screen, at least argue about things that are actually important. And have some fucking perspective for pete's sake.
My last comments on this topic. They are demonstrating an extremely basic right. No, they're not tackling the biggest issues of the world, and despite any personality flaws the protestors or cops may have, look at the issue at hand.
You can't dance on a piece of public property, a memorial dedicated to a man who said,
"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
They are showing that America isn't the Land of the Free. If you accept this action by the state, then do not cry foul as they take away other civil and economic rights. Government now permits whether or not to wire tap you, that you cannot smoke pot, have a gay marriage, that they can scan your body, that you may need identification online.
Lastly, if all you've taken from this is "Gee, the police are jerks" or "These bums are annoying", then /sigh. Way to dumb down the conversation.
On May 30 2011 05:04 Spicy Pepper wrote: My last comments on this topic. They are demonstrating an extremely basic right. No, they're not tackling the biggest issues of the world, and despite any personality flaws the protestors or cops may have, look at the issue at hand.
You can't dance on a piece of public property, a memorial dedicated to a man who said,
"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
They are showing that America isn't the Land of the Free. If you accept this action by the state, then do not cry foul as they take away other civil and economic rights. Government now permits whether or not to wire tap you, that you cannot smoke pot, have a gay marriage, that they can scan your body, that you may need identification online.
Lastly, if all you've taken from this is "Gee, the police are jerks" or "These bums are annoying", then /sigh. Way to dumb down the conversation.
That's largely the fault of the protestors for failing at effective civil disobedience to be honest...
When they pretended they didn't know the issue and that they weren't warned, and made a big scene, they made it about themselves and the police instead of the issue they were protesting. I don't have any real opinion on the law itself but these people failed at their protest and at effective civil disobedience.
On May 30 2011 04:04 CowMoo wrote:They allow these people to dance in a large group at TJ's memorial. From a legal point of view, this is very similar to allowing a large group of people to gather and burn an American flag in front of TJ. Not arresting these people dancing would open the way for the Westboro Baptists to protest in front of TJ with their campaign of hatred, and I don't think any sane person would like that.
By not allowing that, you're basically taking away 1st Amendment rights. The Westboro Baptists have a right to protest, even with hate. Suppressing everyone's freedoms is not the solution to safeguard against the misguided ones.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, you don't trade liberty for security.
As said before, 1st amendment rights aren't absolute. You have freedom of expression as long as it is reasonable, and the US government has a right to restrict the time, place and manner of your freedom of expression.
A court has ruled that dancing at the TJ monument isn't a reasonable use of your freedom of expression, the next step is to appeal that decision. Not harassing some cops into arresting you.
Then you don't really have freedom. They almost certainly knew they would be arrested. What they are showing is that we live in a country where you don't have inalienable rights. We live in a society where government decides your freedoms. This is an extremely basic example of larger topics, like the Patriot Act, the body screening by the TSA, prohibition of gay marriage, our drug laws, and the new internet identification bill. It's trying to address the common thread of why these laws that infringe on civil liberties get passed.
And they disagree with that court's interpretation. They are publicly demonstrating as a protest. Protesting is not harassing cops. The cops are doing their job, executing orders of the state.
You're confusing freedom with doing whatever the hell you want.
You'll never be free in the sense that you can disregard all rules that are in play in a society, some of your 'liberties' will always be infringed upon because that's simply the price you pay for being part of a country where millions of others live together in a fairly peaceful way. I don't see a real alternative, except for moving to a mountaintop somewhere deep montana. Do you?
Also, the courts interpretation wasn't new, it's been the law of the land pretty much forever. You aren't allowed to protest anything (in public space) without applying for a permit, and restrictions like this excist for a reason.
This guy is nothing but yet another tea party blow-hard carefully exploiting certain issues for his own personal gain, and if you think this qualifies as 'civil disobedience', you haven't been part in an actual protest in your life. Part of civil disobedience is knowing that you're breaking the law, owning up to that, not shouting 'this is america!' and actively trying to provoke a reaction by claiming you're not breaking a law in the first place (and being an obnoxious asshole in the process). Then again, as with most things, there's a normal way to do things and there's the tea party way.
On May 30 2011 04:26 Arckan wrote: They went there to incite the police. They were arrested after being warned multiple times.
I don't see the problem.
You don't see the problem with a policeman picking up a person and body-slamming them into the ground and then putting their hands around the person's throat..all for dancing?
You don't see a problem with purposely misconstruing what actually happened to make it look like the cop was at fault?
The cop was clearly at fault for using excessive force with the intent to cause physical harm to somebody that was blatently not a threat to them. Were the protesters trying to start trouble? Ya, of course they were. Does this permit the police to beat people for fun? No, it doesn't. What if the guy had died? Would you still have the same opinion of the event? In Canada, you can't get away with this kind of action against unarmed, nonthreatening civilians.
Do try to keep in mind that police officers are urged to use as much force as necessary to restrain someone. ANY assumptions made on the part of the police officer, which limits the amount of force they use can, and has, lead to disaster; e.g. approach someone who looks like they've willfully given-up, with your guard down, and you risk get stabbed in the gut at the last second. They do what they have to, to bring them down. No matter what the situation, make ZERO assumptions as to the intent and actions of the perp; do what you've got to do to get them restrained as quickly as possible (within reason; no need to break the guy's legs when you can just put weight on them). There is no 'aww c'mon he OBVIOUSLY was doing this/wasn't doing that'. No. ZERO assumptions.
On May 30 2011 04:42 zalz wrote: Ugh they might not have been right in arresting them (illegal protest is a stretch since they really aren't protesting as far as i can see) but god do i hate those fucking people.
Fighting for something is noble but being a wise-ass to a guy doing his job and pissing him off for no good reason is just annoying. The inevitable "MAH RIGHTS!" "MAH FREEDOMZ" gets yelled as these kids consider themself equall to Rosa Parks because they are defending the right to...dance in a memorial...
This world has serious problems but being able to dance at a memorial really isn't one of them. Like i said the cops probably don't have a leg to stand on and they shouldn't have arrested them but i can understand the impulse given the crowd facing you.
But sure, let's gather and protest there next time. I can't think of anything better to do or any cause more noble then fighting for your right to dance.
People dying in the streets of Syria and these damn kids want a taste of the revolutionary vibe. But ofcourse they wanna be home at 20:00. There are people that seriously fight for things like freedom but these people just make a mockery out of it all. That doesn't excuse these cops from making an unlawfull arrest (not sure if it is), but that doesn't mean i am suddenly gonna think these stupid kids are freedom fighters.
Is it really fair to say that because there are bigger injustices that this is not one worth addressing? Shouldn't people be free to put their energy where they please? I can agree with you that what they were doing is kind of silly, but the fact remains, it highlighted problems with how police handle these situations, and it is important that incidents such as these get attention in hopes of this problem happening less often. This is still fruitful, even if it is not as much so as it would be to pursue more important issues.
The thing is though, it didn't highlight an issue, dancing at the Jefferson Memorial ISN'T an issue, and as for cops everything that they did there seemed perfectly reasonable to me. If you go somewhere that there are a bunch of cops, and purposely break the law right in front of them, then refuse to put your hands behind your back (which btw is resisting arrest) then you SHOULD expect to get thrown to the ground, I really want to know how everyone calling this "police brutality" or some bullshit, would have forced the guys hands behind his back without hurting him.
EPT
