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 21:42 johanngrunt wrote: So if it's ruled to be illegal, why didn't they challenge it in a court of law, instead of breaking the law by dancing? That's completely counterproductive.
You fucking americans keep trying to hurt my brain XD.........
Because they are a bunch of rebellious young adults in need of attention who have to go against what they're told not to do. There is no logic to it other than going against what you're told. Kind of like a little kid who plays with his food when you tell him not to.
On May 29 2011 21:46 Tenz wrote: I find myself filled with such rage when I see a couple who are merely swaying back and forth while cuddling arrested.
I'm not a "fuck da police" kind of person... but those officers are absolute filth. The civilians at the memorial should of gone Egypt on their asses and risen up together in unity. That little fucking badge on your chest doesn't give you the right to oppress freedom, it gives you the right to protect it.
It was his job. He shouldn't have to risk getting fired (especially with this economy as it is) just because some idiots want to "fight the man".
Here's the invite video which provides some background info. There's gonna be another one next Saturday if anyone wants to show your support. Sadly, I'm too far away from DC
Go Adam!
Sounds like some ignorant guy who just wants to break laws and get other people into trouble to be on television. I don't know why the courts have made the ruling they did, but when the people go out of their way to be idiots, they're just asking for trouble. I doubt Adam did any research on the court case before doing his illegal demonstration. Seems pretty immature to me. "We found a weird law, so let's break it and wonder why we're getting arrested!"
Sure, people are more than welcome to disagree with the courts' ruling, but breaking the law and then being stupefied is not how you go about displaying your opinions in a professional manner. Take it up with the courts; don't go breaking the law first. What morons.
Actually he's an Iraq War veteran who is now anti-war, a former congressional candidate from New Mexico, and now hosts a television show which had an episode on Friday which talked about the court case and why he was calling people to dance at the Jefferson Memorial. Here's the 5 minute segment.
I guess Rosa Parks was immature for not moving to the back of the bus then. She should have taken it up with the courts instead of disobeying the law.
Forget arguing with Darkplasmaball, the guy have yet to understand that the "law" is not always something you got to follow. I remember him trashing a homeless woman who got arrested for lying to the school bureaucratie about her adress.
You mean the thread where the majority of people who read the article agreed with me? Oh yeah. Just let bygones be bygones These dancers are not Rosa Parks. It's ridiculous to compare the two.
Current American society allows you to appeal court rulings and approach these judiciary cases in a professional manner. You don't go out of your way to break a law and then claim that *it's a stupid law anyway*.
The majority doesn't make you right, but that is something you gotta learn too I think. And I certainly don't think the majority was ok with you, you must remember the fact, you just spammed the whole thread with wall of texts until nobody was there to argue with you anymore. It is ridiculous, but that's liberty. Pretty pointless to stop people from dancing, especially this way (slamming a guy on the ground like all the impotant cops like to do). There are ways to do things, like asking people to leave the memorial, or even pushing them gently. Puting handcuf is something else you know...Don't you see the type of power you are giving to the police officer ? Do you think he actually know the law that he should defend ? Do you know the average salary / grade of that kind of police officer ? You're a sheep. People like you are dangerous, because you need to criticize the society you live in, always and for ever.
I'm well aware that the majority opinion is not always the correct one. However, you posted my opinion as that of an absurd and outcasted one (not to mention the fact that your description is ridiculous). Furthermore, I have a background in education and actually did recent research in the laws surrounding education, and so my "walls of text" in the other thread were well-researched explanations and valid defenses of my position... which is probably why people agreed with me and not the ridiculous one-liners that other people wrote.
But thanks for calling me a sheep. Can we please focus on this thread and not the other one that happened weeks ago? Thanks again.
There was one phrase about the old topic (and you're wrong, people were not agreeing with you) and the rest was about the actual case. You don't like when people call you a sheep, but it's okay to say that those guys are morons because they dance and get arrested violently ?
On May 29 2011 21:54 Batssa wrote: I'm sorry, did someone die here? Did someone suffer extreme treatment for injuries? An instance that happens everywhere. I don't know why this thread is still going.
And bullshit arguments about WWII, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks can go suck a dick.
Anyone who compares the people in the video to Rosa Parks is basically spitting on her grave and legacy.
yo DarkPlasma , it is merely impossible to go in court and fight with the system , it is protected by literally hundreds of thousands of statues . And more and more of these are put in place every year , so the system can live on ...
On the same page , if you are accused of a crime that does not concern the interest of normal human beings , you can simply get f***ed over hard by the law . And most of these stuff are not even teached in college , only judges gain the whole knowledge of things like the 4 quarter stones or special equity , in the case when you invoke these particular thing , the judge will imediatly dismiss the case because they will not want to confrunt you on the same level . Ofcourse if you get into this without the whole knowledge of how to use the particular rights , and without all the safeties put in place , you'll get f***ed hard again . I can't elaborate here , because of stupid laws that forbids me to reveal my special trust . However if one person cares to research more into it , is very well for his legal health .
It's all crazy man , the entire legal system is extremly complicated .
On May 29 2011 21:54 Batssa wrote: I'm sorry, did someone die here? Did someone suffer extreme treatment for injuries? An instance that happens everywhere. I don't know why this thread is still going.
And bullshit arguments about WWII, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks can go suck a dick.
Anyone who compares the people in the video to Rosa Parks is basically spitting on her grave and legacy.
I wouldn't jump to this sort of conclusion. I think that is a misinterpretation of the comparison. Charity granted, they are just using an obvious example to convey a more subtle principle. It's just a tactic, not a comment on Rosa Parks.
On May 29 2011 22:02 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: squash those rl trolls
This is ridiculous. 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.
Did you actually watch the video and see how violent they were over people fucking dancing? or when the husband/wife couple were hugging and had a kiss?
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.
In the USA there's a misdemeanor called "disorderly conduct." Part of its definition is "conduct that has no... useful purpose." The police can arrest you for just about anything and call it disorderly conduct. Failing to follow police instructions is another one.
I think this being a major monument some kind of decorum is enforced by the police who patrol it and whether that is right or wrong official or unofficial officially legal or not it's just the way things are, and some cops will be dicks and arrest you about it. Especially if you're obnoxious aka "rl trolls"
On May 29 2011 21:57 Ghostcom wrote: What you are doing is basicly the equivalent of me saying you are an idiot because you come from the Netherlands and thus obviously must agree with Gert Wilders? I'm not willing to go in to such a discussion as it is pointless and I see no reason why I should be held accountable for the actions of other people (whom I might not agree with in the first place). So, thanks but no thanks, I won't discuss with you.
I implicitely state you are not responsible for other people their actions.
On May 29 2011 21:52 DisneylandSC wrote: Also you mist my point about you being from Denmark. I am not attacking the cartoons but instead condemning the reactions by many government around the world on those cartoons. as these actions were precisely the point I made in my previous post.
So why are you so mad? Also you still haven't adressed my point.
Oh and btw, I find it offensive if people other than myself use the letter "e". So please be responsible with your freedom and refrain from using it in your answer.
On May 29 2011 21:42 johanngrunt wrote: So if it's ruled to be illegal, why didn't they challenge it in a court of law, instead of breaking the law by dancing? That's completely counterproductive.
That's a very good question!
The simple answer that many people on this thread are giving is:
Rosa Parks.
...Which makes absolutely no sense.
It does make sense. Laws are not fixed known entities that somehow follow from the natural order. But are in fact an everchanging set of rules made up by people. Sometimes these rules make no sense and can even be harmfull.
But if you want a more clear example. In occupied europe during WWII it was illegal to hide jews in your house. Moreover it was the law that you had to turn them in to the police. Are you saying people should have just indiscriminately executed these laws whilest trying to alter them through politics / the court?
What are you talking about? I'm well aware that laws aren't fixed.
I'm certainly not talking about WWII or racial equality or comparing today's government to sixty years ago. That's what you guys are doing, and it's a faulty analogy.
I don't even claim to agree with this dance law. I have no idea why it exists. But in today's society, you don't show a law is unjust by breaking it. You can present your case for a law being wrong in a more professional manner than being abhorred by police officers doing their jobs when you do something illegal.
And I'm getting tired of reading posts that say that the cops were using excessive force. Seriously.
On May 29 2011 21:42 johanngrunt wrote: So if it's ruled to be illegal, why didn't they challenge it in a court of law, instead of breaking the law by dancing? That's completely counterproductive.
That's a very good question!
The simple answer that many people on this thread are giving is:
Rosa Parks.
...Which makes absolutely no sense.
It does make sense. Laws are not fixed known entities that somehow follow from the natural order. But are in fact an everchanging set of rules made up by people. Sometimes these rules make no sense and can even be harmfull.
But if you want a more clear example. In occupied europe during WWII it was illegal to hide jews in your house. Moreover it was the law that you had to turn them in to the police. Are you saying people should have just indiscriminately executed these laws whilest trying to alter them through politics / the court?
What are you talking about? I'm well aware that laws aren't fixed.
I'm certainly not talking about WWII or racial equality or comparing today's government to sixty years ago. That's what you guys are doing, and it's a faulty analogy.
I don't even claim to agree with this dance law. I have no idea why it exists. But in today's society, you don't show a law is unjust by breaking it. You can present your case for a law being wrong in a more professional manner than being abhorred by police officers doing their jobs when you do something illegal.
And I'm getting tired of reading posts that say that the cops were using excessive force. Seriously.
It's not an analogy (at least not for me). Im using it as an argument to show that there exists a continuum of situations were civil disobediance can be the right thing to do. You might argue that in this case the situation wasn't urgent enough to allow for such actions. Others might disagree. These Rosa Parks comments were simply a reaction to people saying it was wrong to dance there because it was illegal without adressing this issue of urgency and civil disobedience.
Here's the invite video which provides some background info. There's gonna be another one next Saturday if anyone wants to show your support. Sadly, I'm too far away from DC
Go Adam!
Sounds like some ignorant guy who just wants to break laws and get other people into trouble to be on television. I don't know why the courts have made the ruling they did, but when the people go out of their way to be idiots, they're just asking for trouble. I doubt Adam did any research on the court case before doing his illegal demonstration. Seems pretty immature to me. "We found a weird law, so let's break it and wonder why we're getting arrested!"
Sure, people are more than welcome to disagree with the courts' ruling, but breaking the law and then being stupefied is not how you go about displaying your opinions in a professional manner. Take it up with the courts; don't go breaking the law first. What morons.
Actually he's an Iraq War veteran who is now anti-war, a former congressional candidate from New Mexico, and now hosts a television show which had an episode on Friday which talked about the court case and why he was calling people to dance at the Jefferson Memorial. Here's the 5 minute segment.
I guess Rosa Parks was immature for not moving to the back of the bus then. She should have taken it up with the courts instead of disobeying the law.
Forget arguing with Darkplasmaball, the guy have yet to understand that the "law" is not always something you got to follow. I remember him trashing a homeless woman who got arrested for lying to the school bureaucratie about her adress.
You mean the thread where the majority of people who read the article agreed with me? Oh yeah. Just let bygones be bygones These dancers are not Rosa Parks. It's ridiculous to compare the two.
Current American society allows you to appeal court rulings and approach these judiciary cases in a professional manner. You don't go out of your way to break a law and then claim that *it's a stupid law anyway*.
The majority doesn't make you right, but that is something you gotta learn too I think. And I certainly don't think the majority was ok with you, you must remember the fact, you just spammed the whole thread with wall of texts until nobody was there to argue with you anymore. It is ridiculous, but that's liberty. Pretty pointless to stop people from dancing, especially this way (slamming a guy on the ground like all the impotant cops like to do). There are ways to do things, like asking people to leave the memorial, or even pushing them gently. Puting handcuf is something else you know...Don't you see the type of power you are giving to the police officer ? Do you think he actually know the law that he should defend ? Do you know the average salary / grade of that kind of police officer ? You're a sheep. People like you are dangerous, because you need to criticize the society you live in, always and for ever.
I'm well aware that the majority opinion is not always the correct one. However, you posted my opinion as that of an absurd and outcasted one (not to mention the fact that your description is ridiculous). Furthermore, I have a background in education and actually did recent research in the laws surrounding education, and so my "walls of text" in the other thread were well-researched explanations and valid defenses of my position... which is probably why people agreed with me and not the ridiculous one-liners that other people wrote.
But thanks for calling me a sheep. Can we please focus on this thread and not the other one that happened weeks ago? Thanks again.
There was one phrase about the old topic (and you're wrong, people were not agreeing with you) and the rest was about the actual case. You don't like when people call you a sheep, but it's okay to say that those guys are morons because they dance and get arrested violently ?
Violently? No. The couple who was dancing were handcuffed without any violence whatsoever, because they didn't resist arrest. The one big guy (was that Adam? Same sunglasses) who was resisting arrest had to be sent down to the ground. Because he was resisting arrest. All we need is for riots to start because cops can't handle people like him. Great.
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.
On May 29 2011 21:42 johanngrunt wrote: So if it's ruled to be illegal, why didn't they challenge it in a court of law, instead of breaking the law by dancing? That's completely counterproductive.
That's a very good question!
The simple answer that many people on this thread are giving is:
Rosa Parks.
...Which makes absolutely no sense.
It does make sense. Laws are not fixed known entities that somehow follow from the natural order. But are in fact an everchanging set of rules made up by people. Sometimes these rules make no sense and can even be harmfull.
But if you want a more clear example. In occupied europe during WWII it was illegal to hide jews in your house. Moreover it was the law that you had to turn them in to the police. Are you saying people should have just indiscriminately executed these laws whilest trying to alter them through politics / the court?
What are you talking about? I'm well aware that laws aren't fixed.
I'm certainly not talking about WWII or racial equality or comparing today's government to sixty years ago. That's what you guys are doing, and it's a faulty analogy.
I don't even claim to agree with this dance law. I have no idea why it exists. But in today's society, you don't show a law is unjust by breaking it. You can present your case for a law being wrong in a more professional manner than being abhorred by police officers doing their jobs when you do something illegal.
And I'm getting tired of reading posts that say that the cops were using excessive force. Seriously.
Specifically you claim there is a 'professional manner' to argue a law is unjust and ought to be changed. Firstly, this assumes it is exactly the law the protesters want attention brought to. they could be protesting a trend in court rulings, or specifically targeting the court ruling itself as unjust. Albeit the protesters were not very articulate, we cannot assume their motives. Secondly, I am just curious as what you have in mind when you say 'professional manner' in changing the law.
yo Navillus I would appreciate if you'd give me a book or a refference for your college psychology textbook so I can you know , expand my superficial knowledge on stuff . I guess I eventually have to start hardcore research on basic stuff .
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.
Anyone going "oh dem kids hate the law with their potsmocking" just watch the footage, Adam gets bodyslammed against the ground and held with a chokegrip whilst holding his hands up. That's a huge deal, chokegrip is (atleast in sweden) a huge overstepping of violence. EDIT: To put it in perspective, you could get 6 years in prison in Sweden for that. And yes, it does not have to be with the intent of killing or choking you, just holding a chokegrip is bad enough.
Bodyslamming and chokeholding a person who's not even attacking you.. Isn't that straight up assault?
Then again, this is the US of A...
Would you please actually watch the first video and read the thread before responding? Or is that above you amazing Belgians? Either way you're not even worth a new response so here.
uhuh uhuh, this is why you get original's not videos from news sources, Fox seems to have muted the guy they were talking to yelling the entire time, the guy who was thrown to the ground was only thrown down after being told to put his hands behind his back a half a dozen times, oh and you think he was holding his hands up? Cause I saw him holding his hands away from the police officer who was trying to do his job and arrest him (seriously to everyone yelling at the cops are they supposed to NOT enforce the law as it stands?) Also, just because the news announcer on fox called what he did a "choke hold" does not make it a real choke hold, he put his hand on the guys neck, that was nothing close to an actual choke hold and if you're going to make a point of saying a choke grip is a big deal learn what it actually looks like.
As to the second guy, he was pulling his friend away from a police officer who was putting handcuffs on him (the friend was not resisting) that is absolutely interfering with police and resisting arrest.
I really don't get people who defend fascist ways without any real insight on how laws work:
Firstly, a police officer should warn, then warn again, then try to evict the person from the area (pushing him away etc), after that he can arrest him. He may never use force unless the person resists, even if he resists slightly you are still not allowed to bodyslam him and take a stranglehold. You're a huge idiot if you'd ever defend a police officer using a stranglehold on anyone ever. And you might not consider two hands across a mans throat as a strangehold, but atleast swedish law does and here you'd get fucked for doing shit like that.
I'm a law student, and I got guardian rank education aswell as a bouncer license. I can easily testify that what they're doing is amazingly wrong in swedish standards.
That's great, except in America we like to judge by American standards (funny how that works)
First (firstly is 1. a stupid word, and 2. you don't actually get to a "secondly" so useless as well) he did warn, in fact he warned clearly multiple times.
Second no he should not try to evict the person because under US law (it's weird how we follow US law in the US I know, but try to bear with me) if you demonstrate without a permit, especially after being warned and clearly doing it intentionally you will be arrested not evicted.
Third that never use force thing isn't there in US law AND frankly the guy did resist, the officer told him to put his hands behind his back numerous times and he was holding his hands in front of him to stop the officer from arresting him, there aren't actually any good ways of forcing someone's hands behind their back without hurting them, and after rewatching that I have to say he put him down much lighter than he could have (it was absolutely not a body slam that's just ridiculous).
Fourth people need to learn what choke holds and strangle holds actually are, two hands on a neck does not a stranglehold make, he put 2 hands on the guys neck for literally about 3 seconds then kept one hand there to keep him down, a choke hold actually involves, well choking (more weird linguistics) and if you thought that that was him actually choking the guy you have clearly never seen what an actual choke hold looks like and what a person looks like who is getting choked.
And finally the only reason to bring legal credentials in is to look at the legality of the situation, and there I think I actually have the edge knowing what the actual laws are.
On May 29 2011 22:02 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: squash those rl trolls
This is ridiculous. 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.
Did you actually watch the video and see how violent they were over people fucking dancing? or when the husband/wife couple were hugging and had a kiss?
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
Yep, thats also the 100% logical conclusion I came to after reading that post - either Nazgul is sad and hates happy people or he is retarded. Makes sense.
Oh and apparently everyone who disagrees with you needs to "get a life"
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.
EPT
These dancers are not Rosa Parks. It's ridiculous to compare the two. 
Thanks again. 
