1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Arrested for dancing

Discussion in 'Politics' started by radpug, May 30, 2011.

  1. radpug

    radpug Monkey+

    YouTube - ‪Adam Kokesh body slammed, choked, police brutality at Jefferson Memorial‬‏

    I happen on to this from a link from here form another post.

    I really not sure what to think about it. On one hand looks like the people wanted a confrontation for some reason, not sure what they were suppose to be protesting. Kind of looks like just because they cant or is that could.

    On the other hand seems a bit over board to be arrested, cant figure what the charges would be, disturbing the peace maybe?

    Whats most disturbing at least to me is at 5:20 on the video a police man?
    Asks every one if they have permits for the videos?
    Permits for the videos?

    So what worse thought policing or video policing?
    Brokor likes this.
  2. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    in some places now it is illegal to film or photo others without permission
    its the govts way of protecting crooked cops
    be warned before you click eh
  3. radpug

    radpug Monkey+

    In Va, its illegal to have video with audio, some sort of wire tapping laws applied to the audio of a video. Which I have always thought was an odd way to interpret a wire tapping law. Its like some one thought we dont have anything on the books, so we will use this one to arrest people if they video tape. That's why stores and banks just have video and no audio
  4. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Thumbs down on Virginia for that law. That is about the most convoluted stupid law I have ever heard of. The crooks must love it. Think about all the info that is lost in the commission of a serious crime with video and no audio.
  5. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    It's to be expected in a police state. I watched this when it was first released by RT, and I wasn't shocked, but I was definitely angry to see such an abuse of privilege by the police. Far too many people simply OBEY every command, and now it's to the point at which their own "policies" override the Constitution and common law. Most cops don't even cite law, they just point and bark orders and do whatever they want to. After the citizen has been beaten, interrogated, jailed and humiliated they are released -"Oh, my bad. I guess there is no law which permits us to do that." Sorry, too late. Want to sue the cops, good luck. I hope you have plenty of time and money, otherwise, you go back to being another serf with a boot pressed to your face.

    YouTube - ‪The Nation's Deathbed - Full Film‬‏
    Even Canada is going through serious gestapo issues. The police in Canada are just as brainwashed and evil as our own. Even though there may be 5% to 95% good cop to bad cop ratio, or whatever the actual numbers may be, the number of bad cops far outweigh the good. We are a people divided and conquered...but some of us will NEVER give up the fight for liberty. They can call us "terrorists" and classify us as "domestic terrorists", even treat us like threatening "terror suspects" and "perps", but we will always know WHO WE ARE and WHAT THEY HAVE BECOME.

    It's revolting.
  6. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    They did want to get arrested. It's not unconstitutional for the Parks service to regulate what happens in park...

    This all started when the wealthy daughter of a diplomat and lawyer was arrested for demonstrating inside the Jefferson Memorial on April 12th:
    Dance Off: Court rules against birthday dance at Jefferson Memorial - WTOP.com

    The regulation they broke is clear on demonstrating. You can't have 17 people dancing inside the Jefferson memorial while other tourists are trying to enjoy the memorial. It's just ridiculous. Here is the regulation:
    I don't think they knew that it was illegal. There is a big sign at the Jefferson memorial that tells you no demonstrating. They chose to ignore it. The NPS acted within their authority to manage parks. The case was appealed as it states in the above link, but they lost. Dancing along with 17 people was deemed demonstrating. If they wanted to dance on the street, they could. The NPS keeps a list of open demonstration areas in DC. They could have danced at any of those by making a simple phone call and asking which was open. The SC decision:

    This brings us to the current arrest from the OP:
    Five People Arrested in D.C. for Dancing At U.S. Monument - FoxNews.com
    Does this prove a police state? NO. All it proves is that idiots will do anything for attention. The first arrest may be able to use ignorance as an excuse. This d*ck is just looking for attention. What did he think they were going to do? They even gave fair warning to stop. They instigated the park service by breaking the regulations, which are posted and recently affirmed by the SC, and they got arrested. I don't see any wrong by the NPS here. You break the law, you pay the consequence.

    The NPS regulations are there to protect the rights of all those that want to visit the memorial for the intended purpose. No one has mentioned the rights of the people that were visiting the monument on those two days. What about them? Their rights don't mean sh&t to us? I don't want to take my kids there to watch some idiots bump and grind in a large group.

    Not everyone who gets arrested is an indication of a police state. Some actually deserve it. If this was indeed a police state, we would not be having this conversation on Monkeys. 95% of us would be in prison.

    For reference, you can find the NPS regulations here:
    Related Regulations NPS Office of Policy
    BTPost, kckndrgn, ghrit and 1 other person like this.
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Extended appropriately. Don't blame the dog for biting you when you poke it with a stick.
  8. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    Let me swing it back at you a bit and play devils advocate here. Lets say I didn't want to be around a bunch of stiffs just walking and talking in the memorial; and I wanted to sing a tribute song. Do my rights as a human to engage in celebration at a memorial mean nothing as well? I have to respect your rights but you don't have to respect mine? Should our rights just cancel each others out or something? balance is hard, isn't it.
    Brokor likes this.
  9. Witch Doctor 01

    Witch Doctor 01 Mojo Maker

    let me put it this way... we are each responsible for our actions (or should be) if i choose to do something that is illeagle i need to be aboe to deal with the consequences... if i can't handle the consequences then i better not do the act... in short if you can't do the time , don't do the crime.... the situation in this case is determined to be a crime/infraction... so yep if the singing is against the regs... do it elsewhere or see if you can get a permit/exception... i'm not saying it's the best way to handle it but it works...
  10. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    begging the sir's pardon, but since when does my 1st amendment require a permit? thanks :)
    Brokor likes this.
  11. Witch Doctor 01

    Witch Doctor 01 Mojo Maker

    Why sir, ever since we lost the right to yell fire in a crowded Theater...;)

    Apparently the right to Free speech is still allowed ... just limited as to where you can have it... the Jonesboro church can have it during a funeral if they have the proper permits... and stay in their specified location... as verifyed by the current supreme court... [stirpot]
  12. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    and we come full circle..
  13. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    If execution of your right impedes the rights of others, where does it end? Like I said, there are many places to express your free speech all over DC. Based on that along, YOUR right is not being infringed. You still have freedom of speech. With the right permit, you can sing at the Jefferson Memorial. Hell, have LadyGaGa come out and sing in Lincoln's lap if you want. Just go get the permit first.

    It may be of help to actually post the 1st Amendment:
    I guess the part in question here is freedom of speech which according to hundreds of studies on the question means the freedom to express yourself. You can track it all the way back to Europe. No where in the first amendment does it say that you have the right to express yourself wherever and whenever you want. There is order in a society and what we are discussing is a part of it unless we are advocating a chaotic, anarchist-type rule society, not a democracy.

    Let's say that Congressmen no longer believe that there is such an order. This is the sort of BS you get:

    Free speech is not about who is louder. Its about expression. Express yourself to your heart's content. Hell, I'll probably come and rally with you. Just do it where and when its appropriate.

    This is upheld by the SC as early as mid-1800s:
    The point to the licensing and the permits are to allow anyone to express themselves without trampling the rights of others. To put it another way- the permit for the demonstrators v. the disruption they may cause for others. They sorta cancel each other out. This piece:
    Its how we can live in harmony and each and every person can express themselves without disrupting peace.

    Unless, of course, some idiot wants to sensationalize something to try to prove a non-existent point.
  14. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    I guess my point is that you don't need a permit to express your 1st on public grounds. Permits are like renting your rights.. which is complete and utter ********.
    Brokor likes this.
  15. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    And you would be right. You don't need a permit... to express yourself in the appropriate place.

    If expression was banned in public without a permit (PERIOD), I could see your point and would agree. That is simply not the case. No one says you can't express yourself in any of the areas that are designated for demonstration or in any of the areas you have obtained a permit. You can rant on the internet as we are now, you could rent a billboard, rent a commercial spot, become a radio talk show host, or anything else your heart desires.

    Despite what the CTs and doom-and-gloom types say, we are indeed free to express ourselves. Too many people are jumping on bandwagons without thinking through the entire problem set. In this age of rapid-fire information, people are spun up quicker and never take the time to think through how this situation has come to be. A sensationalized "4th Amendment is Gone with SC Ruling" headline with half the back story gets people fired up even though its based on half truths and a complete lack of understanding of the document they espouse.

    If my last statement is incorrect and they do understand, then what they are driving towards isn't democracy. Democracy doesn't mean one has the freedom to walk all over others and there is no authority to stop it. Reminds me of Cartmam- "I do what I want"
    YouTube - ‪Cartman On Maury‬‏

    Just like communism, it works great on paper. Unfortunately, man is selfish and the rules of society must be stated, codified, and enforced. Do you want to rely on the people that did this to be "cooperative" with the rule of society?:
    YouTube - ‪Los Angeles Riots 1992‬‏
  16. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    I think that if you want to express yourself, there are hundreds of MILLIONS of Acres of National Forest, that are available for you to do so IN. You can even use your "Al Sharpton Bullhorn" should you choose to. But you say, "No one will hear me" So? You certainly would be expressing your 1st Amendment Rights, without infringing on others Rights, not to have to listen to you, or your drivel. In England, they have a Park, where ANYONE can bring their "Soapbox" and stand on it, and express any thoughts that they choose, PERIOD. We here in this country have MANY, MANY places where this is allowed. If that isn't good enough, for you, then register an Internet Domain, and put your ideas, and thoughts, online, in a BLOG or Website. You can be the NEXT "Alex Jones" If enough folks "Like your "Schtick" you will have your following, and maybe be the NEXT "Rush Limbaugh" ....... YMMV.....
  17. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    we aren't a democracy.. correction.. we shouldn't be a democracy. let me further my point. One should not have to rent his rights but one should know that overwhelming the rights of others is unacceptable <= this last part is what you're driving at and I get it. But hardly think a handful of people dancing is going to step on the toes of others. Aside from that, having designated areas to protest is absurd when not on private property. There is also the "Peaceably assemble" part of it that needs to be injected here. That makes the difference in all of these situations. Obviously, if you're protesting, and you're obnoxious about it and thusly disturbing the peace.. a re-assessment of the expression session needs to take place.
    Brokor likes this.
  18. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    And this is exactly why we have permits for certain places. It's not like you need one for anything close to *most* places in America. There are just a few that are off limits, without a permit, and for good reason. The issue is that these idiots choose these places and only for the single reason that they are off limits without a permit. They are looking for attention really. If they thought the regulation was wrong, they could have gone through the channels to get that changed as well. Instead, they poked the bear, as indicated above, to get a response. Then, they sensationalize that response and leave out the part about the regulation and the fact it is posted.

    A permit doesn't make you a "slave" or "servant" as some of the guys around here like to casually throw around. To say that, grossly marginalizes the reason for such laws and regulation. For example, do you really want every redneck spotlighting wildlife until there is nothing left or is it better to create licensing and bag limits? Would you rather have 12 year old kids driving 90 mph down the road or would you rather have licensed young adults test to drive? Would you obtain a camping permit at your favorite park or have idiots leaving trash, camping anywhere, and keeping you up all night?

    People tend to separate democracy and regulation like they can't go hand in hand. If freedom = anarchy, then that may be true, but I don't think *most* Americans want anarchy. It all goes back to the Declaration of Independence:
    What regulation does is keeps those "pursuits of happiness" from running over each other.

    So, I answer you with: democracy does not equal "no regulation" and freedom as in Cartman's "I do what I want" only spells anarchy (unless we are eating rainbow stew). If the Founders never meant for regulation, then the word would never be in the Constitution.... oh, but wait.... it is.

    It's a great document. To understand it means to understand more than just what the "generalized bill of rights are".
  19. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King Site Supporter

    I have to say I am pretty surprised to see some of the people defending the Park Police doing so.

    When, even in this group, so many people seemingly accept the "right" of the government to make laws criminalizing expression, it truly makes me doubt there is any future that includes the US Constitution...

    Not that I thought one was likely when I got up this morning...this thread just says we are farrther down the road than I thought...
    Brokor likes this.
  20. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    I read the first sentence and skipped the rest. No offense intended.. but you cannot just blanket use "permit" for something as fundamental as a "right". By using permits, you are now moving that right to a "privilege". Permits are nothing more than a crutch for the government AND the people who don't want to be citizens enough to stand up for their own rights.

    moving to the rest of your post, I reiterate. If you use democracy as you do, then are you are farther removed than I thought. We're not a democracy.. PERIOD. I can't spell it out any more than that.. this is NOT mob rule and I think we agree on that point.

    Rights come with responsibility. If you cannot use them properly, then there are repercussions. Again, we agree on that. But those repercussions are guided by LAW, not obsession and control by the gov't (read: Permits).

    Part of the fundamental breakdown from a republic to a democracy is lack of responsibility and excessive abuse of ones' rights. And we wonder why we're in the place we're in? You can't control the people by pre-empting their rights and the avenues of proper lawful flow to handle abuses. That's just lazy and that's the Progressive way of doing things.

    We are not children...
    Brokor likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary