|
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 10:15 ShatterStorm wrote:
My 2 cents worth is that when issued with the formal warming and told that they risked arrest by continuing (to dance), they did ask the officer on what charge they would be arrested if they continued. The officer failed to verbalize what they would be charged with and totally ignored any requests for enlightenment from them. Therefore they were correct in ignoring the police direction.
Unfortunately, your opinion and belief that they were correct are both wrong in this case.
|
On May 30 2011 10:38 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:33 Mordiford wrote: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... 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
This doesn't work in terms of law enforcement in my opinion. Sure if everyone behaves then there's no issue, but then you wouldn't need to consider law enforcement at all, the consequences are created because the first party won't always react appropriately.
Essentially in my case, logically and rationally, if I choose to ignore a warning and there is no real threat of arrest, then I have no reason to listen to warnings because there's no consequence. The arrest is there to make sure people listen to the warnings, otherwise the warnings are nothing.
|
On May 30 2011 10:42 bahl sofs tiil wrote:Show nested quote +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.
plz engage the brain. they had to make a choice: how can we positively resolve this situation? becoming confrontational was relatively less positive than letting the peaceful protest just pan out. how do i know that? coz i wouldnt be wasting my fuckin life discussing it otherwise (and potentially a man wouldnt have a broken arm, a weapon wouldnt have been pulled, and further demonstrations wouldnt now be fulfilled, as well as 100page internet threads)
|
On May 30 2011 10:41 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:38 Irave wrote: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. 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
You say "fill in the gaps" but you mean "make baseless assumptions that validate my preconceived viewpoint".
How about the police said to each other "these people are breaking the law and it is our duty to ensure that the law is upheld". Then, they tried to enforce the law and the people resisted, which necessitated an escalation of force in order for the police to fulfill their required function.
There is no evidence provided for either scenario, as the video was heavily edited by the "protesters".
|
well im no expert, thats why i said "always obey the police" when it comes down to it lol.
|
On May 30 2011 10:46 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:42 bahl sofs tiil wrote: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. plz engage the brain. they had to make a choice: how can we positively resolve this situation? becoming confrontational was relatively less positive than letting the peaceful protest just pan out. how do i know that? coz i wouldnt be wasting my fuckin life discussing it otherwise
Or the protesters could have peacefully allowed themselves to be arrested according to the laws that even allow them to protest in the first place. Then both sides would have fulfilled their purpose and no violence would have occurred.
So, you know you're right because you are discussing it and you are discussing it because you know you are right?
|
|
|
On May 30 2011 10:49 FFGenerations wrote:
well im no expert, thats why i said "always obey the police" lol.
No one would have any reason to do that if all the police were armed with were empty threats...
They gave fair warning, and followed up on the warning.
On May 30 2011 10:52 FFGenerations wrote:
bye
Nice...
|
On May 30 2011 10:52 FFGenerations wrote:
bye
Good-bye!
|
Not sure about a US context, but I have been to places where you are required to do things like take off your earphones/hat as a sign of respect to whatever that place is. This seems like an analogous scenario.
|
Hmm... It's true that it's a really stupid law, but regardless of how silly the law is, it's a law and these people were knowingly breaking it. I think the policemen acted unnecessarily thuggish though.
|
all im saying is when it comes to peaceful demonstrations, the police have to weigh up the risk of disruption against the cost of enforcement
in this case the risk of disruption was nil
the cost of enforcement was physical violence and more
just common sense
pmed you this mordiford but thought id splooge it out here coz i managed to write coherently for once
|
On May 30 2011 10:44 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:15 ShatterStorm wrote:
My 2 cents worth is that when issued with the formal warming and told that they risked arrest by continuing (to dance), they did ask the officer on what charge they would be arrested if they continued. The officer failed to verbalize what they would be charged with and totally ignored any requests for enlightenment from them. Therefore they were correct in ignoring the police direction. Unfortunately, your opinion and belief that they were correct are both wrong in this case.
Ok, care to share why you think I am wrong ?
I'm not by any means and authority on US law and happy to learn from my errors, but you cant just say someone is wrong without saying why.
btw, My theory earlier comes from a certain amount of knowledge with Australian law, where it is specifically in the legislation of our various states that an officer MUST inform you what the law is they are stopping/charging/arresting you for, and while a warning is not an arrest, it carries the threat of an arrest, therefore must have some legal basis.
|
On May 30 2011 11:03 ShatterStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:44 Craton wrote:On May 30 2011 10:15 ShatterStorm wrote:
My 2 cents worth is that when issued with the formal warming and told that they risked arrest by continuing (to dance), they did ask the officer on what charge they would be arrested if they continued. The officer failed to verbalize what they would be charged with and totally ignored any requests for enlightenment from them. Therefore they were correct in ignoring the police direction. Unfortunately, your opinion and belief that they were correct are both wrong in this case. Ok, care to share why you think I am wrong ? I'm not by any means and authority on US law and happy to learn from my errors, but you cant just say someone is wrong without saying why.
you're wrong
haha just kidding
|
On May 30 2011 10:34 bahl sofs tiil wrote:
People violated the law. Police asked these people to stop violating the law. People did not stop. Police began to arrest people who were breaking the law. People resisted arrest. Police used the level of force requisite to subdue these people.
Nothing irrational here.
I agree & cant understand why some people don't agree.
Its just like getting a group of people to dance in a fast food restaurant or a movie theater. You will be asked to leave. If you do not leave the police will be called & the police will tell you to leave. If you do not leave you will be arrested. If you resist arrest/struggle with an officer be prepared to be choked/slammed/tased or shot.
|
On May 30 2011 11:02 FFGenerations wrote:
all im saying is when it comes to peaceful demonstrations, the police have to weigh up the risk of disruption against the cost of enforcement
in this case the risk of disruption was nil
the cost of enforcement was physical violence and more
just common sense
pmed you this mordiford but thought id splooge it out here coz i managed to write coherently for once
The thing is, every time a police officer makes an arrest, they risk physical violence among other things. Officers are generally required to simply uphold the law in it's entirely and when people are blatantly breaking it in front of them, you can expect that they'll get arrested.
There are plenty of non-violent ways of breaking the law, there would be so many examples we could raise if we used your logic so police officers are simply required to enforce the law, there are many tiny things that they'll overlook such as Jaywalking from time to time, but if a group of people is flat out breaking the law on purpose in front of them they're required to act. That situation could have gone along peacefully like normal peaceful civil disobedience, but the protestors decided to pretend they didn't know what they were doing and resisted.
|
they were being shit disturbers idc what they have say this isnt about dance its about retards trying to find a loophole because they have nothing better to do, there are many things that are corrupt but this does not prove anything yeah keep poking police officers with a stick and call BS wen they respond . .. fucking children do that grow up
|
On May 30 2011 11:09 Brawndo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 10:34 bahl sofs tiil wrote:
People violated the law. Police asked these people to stop violating the law. People did not stop. Police began to arrest people who were breaking the law. People resisted arrest. Police used the level of force requisite to subdue these people.
Nothing irrational here. I agree & cant understand why some people don't agree. Its just like getting a group of people to dance in a fast food restaurant or a movie theater. You will be asked to leave. If you do not leave the police will be called & the police will tell you to leave. If you do not leave you will be arrested. If you resist arrest/struggle with an officer be prepared to be choked/slammed/tased or shot.
But if police wont tell you what law you are breaking, then how can you trust they are enforcing an actual law (and therefore you are risking a legal arrest by not complying with them) ?
I'm not talking about the cops having a discussion on the law, or justifying the law, but simply stating something like "You are disturbing the peace", or "this is an unauthorized demonstration".
In the case of the video, the cops told them to stop dancing or they would be arrested.
Obviously there is no law against dancing in public, so the guys asked for more info so they would know what law was being enforced and what they may be charged with if they continued to dance there. The cop deliberately chose to not answer... so it could be forgiven for the guys to think "Hey, if the cop was enforcing an ACTUAL law, he would tell us what that is, so if he's avoiding the question, then maybe he's just being a prick on a power trip and we can ignore him"
|
This group of people were obviously trying to start trouble. The show is called Adam vs. The Man for a reason. Adam was even wearing a shirt saying "Disobey." They only start showing us film when the police come directly up to them and begin arresting. Until they release tape from the beginning of the event, I can't really comment much more, because what we see now is so one-sided.
|
On May 30 2011 11:18 ShatterStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 11:09 Brawndo wrote:On May 30 2011 10:34 bahl sofs tiil wrote:
People violated the law. Police asked these people to stop violating the law. People did not stop. Police began to arrest people who were breaking the law. People resisted arrest. Police used the level of force requisite to subdue these people.
Nothing irrational here. I agree & cant understand why some people don't agree. Its just like getting a group of people to dance in a fast food restaurant or a movie theater. You will be asked to leave. If you do not leave the police will be called & the police will tell you to leave. If you do not leave you will be arrested. If you resist arrest/struggle with an officer be prepared to be choked/slammed/tased or shot. But if police wont tell you what law you are breaking, then how can you trust they are enforcing an actual law (and therefore you are risking a legal arrest by not complying with them) ? I'm not talking about the cops having a discussion on the law, or justifying the law, but simply stating something like "You are disturbing the peace", or "this is an unauthorized demonstration". In the case of the video, the cops told them to stop dancing or they would be arrested. Obviously there is no law against dancing in public, so the guys asked for more info so they would know what law was being enforced and what they may be charged with if they continued to dance there. The cop deliberately chose to not answer... so it could be forgiven for the guys to think "Hey, if the cop was enforcing an ACTUAL law, he would tell us what that is, so if he's avoiding the question, then maybe he's just being a prick on a power trip and we can ignore him"
See, this could possibly be valid... but these people knew that they were breaking the law... This was an organized protest. You think 20 people showed up at the Jefferson Memorial and felt like dancing that day?
I don't know if an officer is required to tell you what crime you are committing in the US, but I don't think that's relevant to this case because the people knew what law they were breaking, and the police officers knew that they knew...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
