|
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. |
They werent dancing in a public place they were purposly causing shit at a national monument. theres a big difference they know they are in the wrong its just they are exploiting a loophole yeah these people really give a shit about thier country... this helps no one proves nothing changes nothing helps nothing
|
On May 30 2011 11:22 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 11:18 ShatterStorm wrote: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...
I totally agree, the protestors were the ones being moronic
|
On May 30 2011 11:20 Lavalamp908 wrote:
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.
Hey, I totally agree. That they were being trolls is not in question.
Doesn't make them automatically wrong though in light of the actions of the police during the event.
They went there with the intent of flouting authority, sure, but this should indicate to the cops on site that they should ensure they do everything totally "by the book & above board".
You are right, maybe the cop did actually tell them that there was a by-law regarding dancing and this part was not on the video we saw...but we can really only comment on what was actually shown, everything else is pure speculation.
|
I'm normally pretty anti-cop but in this case, the dancers were just being trolls. You can argue that they might have the right to be trolls, but you can't deny that they were out looking for a reaction.
And a reaction they got. If you want to get arrested for something, dancing inside a federal monument is not it.
|
Those law officers would've looked a lot better had they planned a response to the simple question "what are you charging me with" before they walked up and informed the people they might be under arrest. Indeed, I hope people who are arrested in this manner can do something within the legal system to punish the officers for being so incompetent, and to some degree, calling the rights of citizens into question. On the other hand these protestors were obviously looking to cause a big stir however they could, a) for the fun of it and b) to bring lots of attention to this law in hopes that politicians would actually be pressured to change it. Provoking the police on purpose and then crying that their rights are being abused is probably a good way to do this.
I wonder if all new laws should be written in just temporarily and up for review in two years or so. That way a law would be junked by default if it was so irrelevant that it didn't seem to be worth the attention of the politicians anymore, unless it was written in permanently with a bit of extra complications to that process.
|
everyone was wrong in this case, it's lose-lose for all
the original court ruling was dumb
the guy calling for people to break the law was dumber
the couple claiming ignorance that they weren't warned was facepalm-worthy
the guys who continued to dance after being warned were dumb
the guy in brown who tried to pull his friend away from being arrested was a fucking moron
the big guy with glasses resisting arrest was really dumb
the cops were dumb for using that much force
i just don't really see what anyone proved here. sure the cops were being massive dicks, but so were the dancers. if you're going to protest to prove a point, don't resist arrest and play dumb when you get arrested
|
Any news on what happened on saturday??
|
On May 30 2011 11:22 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 11:18 ShatterStorm wrote: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...
I can see that working in court. "Sorry your Honor, I admit they did ask me what they were doing wrong but I didn't tell them because I knew they knew already"... I also didn't read them their Miranda rights, because hey... I know they already knew those too"
|
On May 30 2011 11:32 ShatterStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2011 11:22 Mordiford wrote:On May 30 2011 11:18 ShatterStorm wrote: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... I can see that working in court. "Sorry your Honor, I admit they did ask me what they were doing wrong but I didn't tell them because I knew they knew already"... I also didn't read them their Miranda rights, because hey... I know they already knew those too"
Can you please source me to something that says police officers in the US are required to direct exactly to what law you're breaking? I understand this may be the case in Australia but I'm not sure if it's the case in the US.
Regardless, if we're judging it from a legal standpoint(and there is such a law), I'm pretty sure the officers would be reprimanded for not following procedure but I don't think there'd be any real legal action taken because it's clear that these people knew what law they were breaking, from this and earlier videos. So, from a legal standpoint, you sort of have a point provided this is actually a law in the US(which I'm not sure it is) but even then, it's not much.
Other than that aspect, the police officers did nothing wrong really, and these people are idiot trolls.
|
Baltimore, USA22253 Posts
Misleading title, sensationalist "news", baseless police/country/protestor/etc. bashing... Good thread guys!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
