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 22:22 DisneylandSC wrote: Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit.
Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote.
Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is.
I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.
As for the excessive force I just completely disagree with that. There was no choke hold, and bringing a big guy refusing arrest to the ground is pretty standard stuff. It seems some people in this thread are just looking for reasons and grasping at straws to be judgmental of the police in the video.
I suggest you watch this before you make any further comments about excessive force.
No one seems to be commenting on the laws the cops broke. It is illegal for a cop to strangle you, it is illegal for a cop to strike you, they can maneuver position and withstrain you. But you clearly see the cop give the guy 2 punches in the head (close fisted but with his palm still counts as a strike) Is this footloose? A movie made about dancing being illegal......... Like this is serious lols, Like I said before glad these 8 cops were breaking up a few people slow dancing or jiving instead of busting drug dealers/rapists/murderers/drunk drivers. And who is to determine what is and isnt dancing? What if during this some guy had the shivers quick, they think he is dancing and boom gets arrested. The violent restraint used here is the real issue, cops abusing their power not people "trolling" (Which if u had ever seen an episode of adam vs the man you would realise that it isn't really them trolling)
On May 29 2011 22:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Then by that standard, breaking any law that you disagree with is civil disobedience (since c.d. doesn't have to be peaceful and a law being "right" or "wrong" is purely subjective). I don't think you want to deal with that slippery slope.
No. My point was to say that there is a continuum of situations where civil disobedience might or might not be waranted. As you describe further in your post the example of Rosa Parks is one where in hindisght it was waranted to be civil disobedient. In contrast civil disobedience with respect to the law against murder is obviously wrong. However it is not at all clear where the line is on this continuum. Yet because of the importance of what, for example Rosa Parks did, it is absolutely needed to have this discussion. Even if it is a slippery slope.
On May 29 2011 22:22 DisneylandSC wrote: Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit.
Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote.
Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is.
I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.
As for the excessive force I just completely disagree with that. There was no choke hold, and bringing a big guy refusing arrest to the ground is pretty standard stuff. You guys are just looking for reasons and grasping at straws to be judgmental of the police here.
I suggest you watch this before you make any further comments about excessive force.
And yes I got warned for disagreeing with you. And yes, 3:17 he open hand strangles the guy. Which is illegal
If people protest about something being wrong in America, for some reason people here seems to think they are being stupid , immature*. Just ignoring the problems and playing video games or debating them on the internet does not seem more mature to me. Is it not good that some people care enough about these things to actively try to change them? In this case demonstrating this way seems way more effective at promoting change than approaching it through court in my opinion.
*(referencing the thread about the guy protesting about the school prayer)
On May 29 2011 22:22 DisneylandSC wrote: Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit.
Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote.
Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is.
I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.
Arkless made an ad hominem attack ("Either you agree with me or you are retarded" basically) so since this gets warnings and the like elsewhere I don't see a point in overlooking this here anyway.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts.
On May 29 2011 22:22 DisneylandSC wrote: Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit.
Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote.
Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is.
I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.
As for the excessive force I just completely disagree with that. There was no choke hold, and bringing a big guy refusing arrest to the ground is pretty standard stuff. You guys are just looking for reasons and grasping at straws to be judgmental of the police here.
I suggest you watch this before you make any further comments about excessive force.
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.
Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them.
Dude, you totally should have posted about the Nazis too.
And it wouldnt be so wrong in this case. That something is in agreement with the law doesnt always mean its just. The main point is not about blaming the cops because they had to do their job and its not up to them to question law. The Point is that its totaly idiotic to ban people from dancing. Its a little piece of freedom that is limited with this ban and it will most likely harm no one at all. But why would we give up even little pieces of our freedom if its not necessary ?
And nazgul ... of course they try to provoke the cops. But not to beat them up( Its not like they were resisting or something like that). They provoke them to do their job and let everyone see how stupid a law is that justifies an arrest for dancing.
Im perfectly fine with this kind of demonstration and the drama around this just shows how random this ban is. (same situation in Germany)
On May 29 2011 22:02 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: squash those rl trolls
Apparently nazgul doesnt like people's freedoms. Squash those real life trolls? Give me a break with that shit, you should temp ban yourself for derailing the thread.
Either you aren't happy yourself and see people who are and hate it (like the cops) or you are just retarded like the cops in this video, and the law.
User was warned for this post
These sentences are probably a bit more abrasive than they need to be to get the point across. Plenty of other people getting warned on TL for similar statements.
On May 29 2011 22:22 DisneylandSC wrote: Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit.
Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote.
Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is.
I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.
As for the excessive force I just completely disagree with that. There was no choke hold, and bringing a big guy refusing arrest to the ground is pretty standard stuff. It seems some people in this thread are just looking for reasons and grasping at straws to be judgmental of the police in the video.
I suggest you watch this before you make any further comments about excessive force.
Then we simply have to agree to disagree. In my opinion he could have just handcuffed the guy and moved him away. But if it is needed to get him on the ground there are more suffisticated ways to do that other than a body slam. Which can result in serious head injury / broken bones / collapsed lungs.
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.
Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them.
Once again, you're making some insulting comparison. Not everyone who breaks the law is Rosa Parks, Ghandi or Malcolm X, hate to break it to you. Even if they knowingly break a law they disagree with.
Though in your analogy, yeah I would actually question the Chinese GOVERNMENT, not the soldiers. It's easy to be a revolutionary from your computer chair, but I actually doubt you'd sacrifice yourself as a martyr if you were a Chinese soldier given an order you didn't agree with.
You're the one being insulting by not being able to see the forest for the trees. The core issue here is freedom of expression in public. Nor do you seem to understand that police ARE part of the government.
I'm not Chinese (well, not a Chinese citizen anyway), but I am a US citizen and I REFUSE to join the US military because I don't want to be put in a position to execute orders that I do not believe are moral or Constitutional. If they were to reinstate the draft in order to fight some illegal and immoral war, I would refuse to serve. Put me in jail or even shoot me, I will obey my own moral code above any government's orders.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do.
Nope.
On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote: I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
What if they were told by whoever manages them that either they go and break up the protest, or be fired? It's highly likely. In fact I 100% doubt that those cops were just cruising by, bored, and were like "hey dude lol lets go flaunt our power this should be fun!"
On May 29 2011 22:22 DisneylandSC wrote: Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit.
Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote.
Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is.
I have not warned anyone that argues with me nor do I intend to. Even though I do not believe it would be an obvious abuse of power like you say; I do understand the sensitiveness of certain people taking notice of such a thing happening. Because I don't want to explain myself to people like you I never warn or ban people I am in an argument with.
As for the excessive force I just completely disagree with that. There was no choke hold, and bringing a big guy refusing arrest to the ground is pretty standard stuff. It seems some people in this thread are just looking for reasons and grasping at straws to be judgmental of the police in the video.
I suggest you watch this before you make any further comments about excessive force.
Then we simply have to agree to disagree. In my opinion he could have just handcuffed the guy and moved him away. But if it is needed to get him on the ground there are more suffisticated ways to do that other than a body slam. Which can result in serious head injury / broken bones / collapsed lungs.
I think he was resisting, not sure, he was a big dude anyway.
Folks there is plenty of better police abuse topics out there than this one, whats the deal?
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
On May 29 2011 22:32 Arkless wrote: No one seems to be commenting on the laws the cops broke. It is illegal for a cop to strangle you, it is illegal for a cop to strike you, they can maneuver position and withstrain you. But you clearly see the cop give the guy 2 punches in the head (close fisted but with his palm still counts as a strike) Is this footloose? A movie made about dancing being illegal......... Like this is serious lols, Like I said before glad these 8 cops were breaking up a few people slow dancing or jiving instead of busting drug dealers/rapists/murderers/drunk drivers. And who is to determine what is and isnt dancing? What if during this some guy had the shivers quick, they think he is dancing and boom gets arrested. The violent restraint used here is the real issue, cops abusing their power not people "trolling" (Which if u had ever seen an episode of adam vs the man you would realise that it isn't really them trolling)
I really want to know where you're getting these laws from, because I am positive that police officers are allowed to strike people that are resisting arrest.
Also that is not a choke hold and it's actually absurd that you think it is, a choke hold requires choking, putting even two hands on someone's neck is not enough to make it a choke hold he wasn't even close to putting enough pressure to actually choke the guy out, he was keeping him pinned.
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.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do.
On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote: I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
What if they were told by whoever manages them that either they go and break up the protest, or be fired? It's highly likely. In fact I 100% doubt that those cops were just cruising by, bored, and were like "hey dude lol lets go flaunt our power this should be fun!"
Doubtful that is how it went down, they couldn't even tell the protestors what law they were breaking.
On May 29 2011 22:09 Derez wrote: How did this thread make it to 6 pages?
It's a few obnoxious people provoking a response out of glorified mall-cops. The people 'protesting' aren't actually protesting anything, all they're trying to do is get themselves arrested over nothing on camera, and creating a nice piece of footage for a TV show where they can rail about in what a horrible state america is in.
Guess what? If you're an obnoxious jackass to police in pretty much any country, you're gonna spend a few hours at a police station, even if you're not charged with anything in the end.
Even discussing this 'breach of civil liberties' is ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing 'undemocratic' about trying to maintain a certain level of decorum at national monuments.
You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight.
To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life.
And that's where you're just wrong.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are all limited to what's reasonable. The first amendment gives government the right to regulate the time, place and manner in which free speech is expressed (TPM restrictions), just not the actual content.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Let me copy and past for you the first ammendment
he First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So...... Basically it states the exact opposite of what you just typed. Because you say Having some actual knowledge before posting never hurts. Doesnt make you right because I apparently do have knowledge and you have none.
There is an amendment that also says you can't infringe on other peoples rights of these freedoms as well. Which dancing in a memorial definitely does. They can dance wherever it doesnt impede others ability to enjoy the memorial, they can find a random parking lot and go dance there, but they didn't for obvious reasons.
EPT
