EPTbut this isnt news to any of us, theres many major internet incidents of this each year. chokeholds in a tent, anyone?
Is it illegal to dance ? - Page 23
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
but this isnt news to any of us, theres many major internet incidents of this each year. chokeholds in a tent, anyone? | ||
|
ShatterStorm
Australia146 Posts
I would think that if a cop is warning you something is an indictable offence, but fails to outline (even as a vague overview) exactly what the offence IS, then perhaps the officer is simply making it up that there is a law prohibiting the act (dancing). This would encourage one to therefore ignore the police direction (to stop dancing) if one was so inclined. While I agree that police should not have to debate law with the public (particularly with those involved in an incident), they DO have a duty to make you aware of the law they are trying to enforce. After all, if a cop cannot articulate what they are actually enforcing, how can you (and the cop) be sure that there is actually a governing law in place for that situation in the first place ? To use an analogy, lets say you are walking from point a to point b in a normal city street (with no restrictions applying ie roadworks etc) and you have a baseball hat on (with no offensive writing/images). Then lets say a cop comes up to you and says if you don't take your hat off, you will be charged/arrested... If the cop is unable/unwilling to tell you WHY you must take your hat of, and is unable/unwilling to tell you WHAT you will be charged with if you fail to comply... then why should you believe his story that he has the LEGAL power to arrest you for failing to comply ? Of course, police can/will arrest you anyway if they "think" they have the right to do so, and you can only really be vindicated AFTER the fact if the officer was wrong. That having been said, I think in America, if you are resisting an unlawful arrest then any charge of resisting arrest would have to be dropped too. (As Long as you are later proven right in that the arrest really was unlawful and the cop was mistaken). Also if you only used "reasonable force" to resist the arrest, then you may even get off a charge of assaulting an officer... but before going down that track you would want to be DAMN sure you are in the right AND have plenty of evidence to back up the events that occured. Edit: To get away with resisting and assaulting the officer, not only would the arrest have to be unlawful, but you would also need to be able to prove that there was no was an officer should believe that the arrest was "reasonable" either. I.e if the officer genuinely believed that he was in the right and properly executing his duties, then the matter of resisting is complicated. This is why you need to be prepared properly if you are going to resist/fight the officer. | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:04 -_-Quails wrote: Trolling is a crime worthy of violent arrest now? What would you do to those who frequent /b/? Also, that was civil disobedience. Just because the people disobeying were trolls does not make it uncivil. Eh, I've said earlier that is civil disobedience, it's just really shitty civil disobedience... I don't think they got arrested because they were trolls, they got arrested because they broke the law, I don't feel bad about them getting arrested because they were trolling the shit out of the police and got what they deserved. Also, the arrests were hardly violent in my opinion. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
idk what nutcases would get irritated and annoyed enough to want them to be dragged to the ground and put in jail. seriously some people are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo far from reality, i am seriously glad i dont live there | ||
|
bahl sofs tiil
United States233 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:15 FFGenerations wrote: wow this is crazy, its obvious they were peacefully protesting a completely unnecessary and ridiculous law. in those situations its the job of the police to prevent any dangerous situation or escalation. above all it is the job of the police to prevent harm to people. That is not the job of the police. You are wrong. The job of the police is to enforce the law. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
but if you choose to ignore a policeman in a peaceful protest - and by peaceful i mean inherently harmless - then it should be the police's duty to let the protest occur without escalating it to violence | ||
|
ShatterStorm
Australia146 Posts
On May 30 2011 02:51 Torte de Lini wrote: There's a difference between outdated laws that suggest only one form of sexual contact (hell, there's a separate age of consent for anal sex), but one that prohibits all forms of sexual reproduction? A bit of a stretch, no? I've read my fair share of stupid laws, some that don't even have any more relevance or hardly ever occur in a person's life. While the law is still "on the books" the law is legal and subject to enforcement. To my knowledge there are only two ways for a law to be repealed/removed. 1. The law must be legislated away & removed as part of the standard lawmaking process 2. The law must be challenged in court and found to be fundamentally flawed. The problem with the first option means that legislators must actively focus on and spend time dealing with these "stupid" laws. This could be considered a waste of taxpayers money, not to mention drawing ridicule to the govt for having such a stupid law in the first place (political ramifications) The problem with the second option is that for the law to be tested in court, some one needs to be charged with it, and can you honestly see the relevant state officials (DA etc) committing political/career suicide by having some poor couple charged with sex outside marriage etc ? The media would have a field day ! | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:24 bahl sofs tiil wrote: That is not the job of the police. You are wrong. The job of the police is to enforce the law. the police are allowed to act with their own initiative. this is a job requirement. that means EVERY officer has to do it. its also essential for a peaceful and functional society. if your initiative, when confronted with a handful of quiet slow peaceful dancers who are not causing any disruption/financial loss/emotional and physical harm, is to escalate the demonstration into physical violence and public disruption, then you kinda fucked up using your initiative and probably succumbed to your animal retardedness rather than being rational and producing a positive outcome | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:25 FFGenerations wrote: i dont think you should ever ever ignore a policeman (unless you want to go to jail and then to court and have your name in the paper and lots of your friends start hating on you and your DNA permanently recorded) but if you choose to ignore a policeman in a peaceful protest - and by peaceful i mean inherently harmless - then it should be the police's duty to let the protest occur without escalating it to violence That doesn't make sense to me... So you should never ignore a policeman's warning, but if you do... They shouldn't do anything about it. They were protesting at a memorial, there are tons of places to protest, they expressly chose that location so they could put the police in a position where they'd either have to sit there watching people break the law, or do their jobs and risk looking bad. They gave them fair warning and approached the issue in a pretty decent manner, I don't think it makes sense to say, Well, if they're breaking the law right in front of you and you've warned them, you should just let them do what they want... | ||
|
bahl sofs tiil
United States233 Posts
Nothing irrational here. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13422 Posts
Is it a stupid law? - Yes Is it pointless to arrest someone for it? - Yeah I think so (they won't actually end up in jail or fined its just a waste of resources to house them for a night) Was the police response over the top? - Yeah in a way I think so Did the police do anything wrong? - No. They did what they felt they had to do at the time and it is understandable regardless of how you feel about it. | ||
|
CGI
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
POSITIVE OUTCOME let them protest for a while until they go home, no disruption occurs NEGATIVE OUTCOME get riled up and territorial, attack them, cause a massive public disturbance, cost a lot of tax money, risk physical injury, risk physical and emotional escalation culture of righteousness and confrontation or culture of mutual understanding and peaceful co-habitat | ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:35 ZeromuS wrote: Im surprised people are reacting the way they are. Is it a stupid law? - Yes Is it pointless to arrest someone for it? - Yeah I think so (they won't actually end up in jail or fined its just a waste of resources to house them for a night) Was the police response over the top? - Yeah in a way I think so Did the police do anything wrong? - No. They did what they felt they had to do at the time and it is understandable regardless of how you feel about it. It is understandable what the police did, they did give fair warning to what they were going to do. At the same time though, I thought in America there was a legal right to protest or demonstrate, which is what these people were doing by dancing? (I'm no lawyer just wondering  ) | ||
|
Irave
United States9965 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:36 CGI wrote: IMO The takedown was unnecessary. The guy was just walking with his hands up trying to bait an excessively violent arrest for the cameras and he got it. But the cop could have seriously hurt the guy if he landed wrong on concrete and that would have made this whole situation even more of a PR mess. Sure it looks bad, but how many final warnings did he get to stop resisting before he was taken down. Obviously the guy knew that this was an issue, and got the reaction he wanted. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:33 Mordiford wrote: That doesn't make sense to me... So you should never ignore a policeman's warning, but if you do... They shouldn't do anything about it. They were protesting at a memorial, there are tons of places to protest, they expressly chose that location so they could put the police in a position where they'd either have to sit there watching people break the law, or do their jobs and risk looking bad. They gave them fair warning and approached the issue in a pretty decent manner, I don't think it makes sense to say, Well, if they're breaking the law right in front of you and you've warned them, you should just let them do what they want... well i said "rationally you shouldnt risk arrest but if you choose to then the police shouldnt risk unecessary escalation" . it makes sense because the police and The People are separate entites and can have conflicting courses of action. ie its not black and white | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:36 CGI wrote: IMO The takedown was unnecessary. The guy was just walking with his hands up trying to bait an excessively violent arrest for the cameras and he got it. But the cop could have seriously hurt the guy if he landed wrong on concrete and that would have made this whole situation even more of a PR mess. It seemed like a very controlled takedown to me, there is little risk of injury in such a takedown unless you royally fuck it up and throw your back dropping the person on their head. The police officer executed the arrest adequately in my opinion. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:38 Irave wrote: Sure it looks bad, but how many final warnings did he get to stop resisting before he was taken down. Obviously the guy knew that this was an issue, and got the reaction he wanted. this is called a Risk Assessment. most jobs involve them.... this is where you ask yourself "should i do THIS or should i do THIS". you figure out which is the most beneficial and positive course of action. hypothetically, the police guys all had a chat with one another. it could have gone like this: "okay these guys arent going away. lets just keep an eye on them and make sure nothing gets out of hand." or it could have gone like this "okay these guys arent going away. lets take them down. full force police bro five!!" you know? you can fill in some of the gaps there | ||
|
bahl sofs tiil
United States233 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:36 FFGenerations wrote: look im dumber than a 4 year old and i can see that POSITIVE OUTCOME let them protest for a while until they go home, no disruption occurs NEGATIVE OUTCOME get riled up and territorial, attack them, cause a massive public disturbance, cost a lot of tax money, risk physical injury, risk physical and emotional escalation culture of righteousness and confrontation or culture of mutual understanding and peaceful co-habitat The disruption comes from the "protest". That is the reason that the act was ruled illegal. So, your "positive outcome" is: Allow people to willfully violate the law and cause a disruption in a national monument. That is not a positive outcome. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On May 30 2011 10:39 Mordiford wrote: It seemed like a very controlled takedown to me, there is little risk of injury in such a takedown unless you royally fuck it up and throw your back dropping the person on their head. The police officer executed the arrest adequately in my opinion. um.............. he picked up the guy and let him fall to the ground under his own bodyweight. you think having 180 lbs of force smashed into your body is reasonable? dude, watch less american wrestling, you know its not real right? | ||
| ||
