Arrest for Dancing in Jefferson's Memorial [Archive]

XanBcoo

Tue, 05-31-2011, 05:06 PM

The "arrest" was for "unauthorised demonstration in the memorial". The "detainment" (spending the weekend in jail) was for something about being too far away from the city to do a citation or something... which means they had to be kept till that could happen.

He knew the protocol, but didn't know the full specifics. It was a fair warning, I thought.

It was a fair warning. I think it's ludicrous that dancing is tantamount to demonstrating, and that warrants action, but they were given warnings. I'd like to see what was going on before the video cuts in. It seems like they were probably fully aware of what they were doing and were trying to engage the police because they didn't agree with it. Stupid move.

If they wanted to challenge the law they have other options. Pushing the boundaries of what they could get away with and then pulling a :0 face when things don't go their way makes them childish. These are adults acting like 14 year-olds.

Uh, did you not see the officer say "stop resisting, stop resisting" and the guy was just standing there holding his hands up? He freaking grabbed him by the neck and threw him down twice, once BY THE NECK. And they said they weren't protesting per se, they were just DANCING.
No, they were quite clearly resisting arrest. The douchebag in the white shirt didn't follow the instructions given to him and tried to go stiff or whatever, and the douchebag in the brown shirt was trying to keep the officer from cuffing him. Not to mention that chain-link bullshit he tried to pull. They reminded me of some of my worst-behaved students.

They were told that dancing was seen as a form of demonstration, and instead of doing anything intelligent about it they tried to be cute. They accomplished literally nothing of value and can't even say that excessive force was used because they resisted arrest in the most inane way possible.

Edit: To be clear, I disagree with the means, not the end.

Sapphire

Tue, 05-31-2011, 06:49 PM

Police aren't there to think for what's right to enforce and what's not right to enforce. That's for the justice system to decide.

Wut. Police are humans with brains, too. Surely, they are tested for cognitive skills and intelligence, reasoning ability before given the badge and gun? Just because one is told to do something evil and they do it doesn't make one not evil.

I would have dance my ass off, slow and kung fu style, despite some asshole telling me I can't move my body. They should try doing that shit to people in NYC. :< *anger*

-

me: *eats a hamburger and scratches butt in memorial place. nods head to the beat of the wind in a joyous rhythm*
cop: GET ON YOUR KNEES. BITCH!!!!!! YOU ARE SACRIMONIOUSLY SANCIFYING SHIT, AND SHIT!
me: *resists telling cop to go fuck himself and continues on, peacefully, obstructing no one*
me: *is thrown up and body slammed to ground, arm twisted and arrested*

sense where?

XanBcoo

Tue, 05-31-2011, 07:56 PM

me: *eats a hamburger and scratches butt in memorial place. nods head to the beat of the wind in a joyous rhythm*
cop: GET ON YOUR KNEES. BITCH!!!!!! YOU ARE SACRIMONIOUSLY SANCIFYING SHIT, AND SHIT!
me: *resists telling cop to go fuck himself and continues on, peacefully, obstructing no one*
me: *is thrown up and body slammed to ground, arm twisted and arrested*

Except that's not what happened at all, Sapphire...

You: *dances*
Cop: Hey, just to let you know I'm giving you a warning. Dancing in this area is a form of demonstration and we'll have to arrest you if you continue. Do you understand? Does everyone here understand? Let me tell you again, you can't dance here, sorry. :/
You: *Snicker* I'll show those pigs in a surely clever way that won't backfire!! *dances*
Cop: Ok, stop dancing.
You: *I am like Rosa Parks!*dances
Cop: Alright, we're arresting you.
You: WUT DID I DUUUUUU??? UGH PIGS PIGS FASCISTS I'M NOT DANCING I'M JUST MOVING MOVING ISN'T AGAINST THE LAW PIGS UGH WUT DID I DUUUUUUUU???
Cop: Stop moving your hands so I can arrest you and you can make your case to an official higher up than I.
You: PIG FASCIST DANCING ISN'T AGAINST THE LAW POLICE STATE WUT DID I DO RONG??? UGH PIGS! *continues resisting/whining like a child sent to his room*

They really handled that immaturely. If there's an error in the system, address it peacefully and effectively. Let the cop do his goddamn job and don't make a scene when you get arrested. Those guys had no dignity whatsoever and should be laughed at.

Sapphire

Tue, 05-31-2011, 08:03 PM

XanBcoo

Tue, 05-31-2011, 08:06 PM

lolz That was funny. Even then, it still makes no sense to me. He can... NOT arrest them for doing stupid shit and be like the first cop to not make an (exceedingly violent) arrest on a senseless law.
I think continuing to dance and snicker was an immensely retarded way for them to test that theory.

Edit: I wasn't kidding before. I have 14 year-old students who when caught cheating on a test or talking loudly when I asked for silence will throw a tantrum like the one seen in that video.

Sapphire

Tue, 05-31-2011, 08:10 PM

How is snickering and being annoying basis for an arrest? That's horribly... not objective. They should get fired just for that.

Laws are supposed to protect us not oppress us.

shinta|hikari

Tue, 05-31-2011, 08:13 PM

I have to agree with Xan here. They basis of the arrest isn't the snickering or being annoying. It's that they kept on dancing, even after being warned. The law is stupid, but the police have no choice but to keep it. It's their job. It wasn't as violent as you make it sound either. They were resisting arrest so they were handled accordingly. No one was hurt. Even the guy who was body slammed was obviously fine.

Sapphire

Tue, 05-31-2011, 08:16 PM

I don't understand how you guys think this is okay.

XanBcoo

Tue, 05-31-2011, 08:16 PM

How is snickering and being annoying basis for an arrest? That's horribly... not objective. They should get fired just for that.
It's not. They were dancing. Watch it again. The cop told them to stop, explained that they could be arrested, and the stupid couple started dancing to push his buttons. They were clearly dancing and clearly wanted to be noticed, they were at this point legitimately demonstrating. The cop had a short exchange with them and they continued and were arrested. Then their douchebag friends started in, dancing in an even more obvious manner.

Laws are supposed to protect us not oppress us.
Obviously I agree. But you don't knowingly break a law and then wring your hands and cry when you suffer the consequences. Hell, I feel like I'd even have sympathy for these morons if they behaved more dignified.

I don't understand how you guys think this is okay.

Retarded means to a just end. This isn't a cop throwing his weight around, harrassing/picking on/bodyslamming/abusing teenagers/women/black people. This is a bunch of would-be activists knowingly breaking the law and throwing a hissy fit.

KitKat

Tue, 05-31-2011, 09:01 PM

I agree with Xan here. Protesting a law that you don't agree with by breaking that law is not the best way to go. It isn't the police's job to decide which laws are good and right, and which laws suck and should be broken. It's their job to uphold the law. Taking things out on them isn't going to change the law, either. They don't have that kind of power. From what I can see in this video, they gave fair warning, and followed procedure. Those people broke the law right there in front of the police, so naturally they were arrested, and when they didn't comply with the arrest, the police had to use more force. This is a product of a society that says, "If I think a law is stupid, I don't have to obey it." People who only obey the laws that suit them will find ways to justify breaking the ones they don't like. Not only that, but you'll find them being surprised and outraged like the people in this video, when they are punished for breaking those laws. The police can't pick and choose which laws they support and which they don't. They're required to uphold the entirety of the law, and when they fail to do so it's corruption.

Edort4

Wed, 06-01-2011, 06:26 AM

OMG you are pretty crazy around those parts of the world. I cant even begin to understand why this happened. It doesnt make any sense to me. Maybe before the video starts they where doing some crazy stuff. Yelling like crazies, jumping around throwing things or something like that.

Im saying that cause the cops reaction. For each action there is an oposite reaction of the same magnitude.

I'm not a lawyer and dont know anything about law in the USD (this was a typo but Im leaving it cause it makes some sense) but if you guys have a law that says that you cant slightly move your body at some memorial (one about a guy who envisioned America (hate this ussage of a full continent lest say US) as a great "Empire of Liberty" and that fought against the tirany of imperialism), hugh or kiss you have some issues to solve.

And what is all that about a warning? I mean just because some cicle-police with cool glasses comes and tells me that he is warning me I must obey to whatever nonsene he is saying or preaching? or suffer the consecuences of a public violent arrest? Thats some cool power those guys have. They should make some kind of super hero team "The Warningers".

If all of what happened was legal and you approve of it, I must say that Im sad that you have better laws to defend memorials than to defend your citizens freedoms.

Xelbair

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:45 AM

well first to evaluate this case we must know what happened before the video - if they were really protesting, and they really danced to protest - cops were right, but they used too much force. But if they were just dancing, not as any kind of protest, nor they did anything else to provoke the cops, then the dancers were right, and cops shouldn't arrest them.

But the main point of this stays still - in both cases - police used really too much force. They didn't need to bodyslam that guy, they didn't need to lay them down and put handcuffs on them - they could just arrest them in same way as they did arrest the couple - they used the just amount of 'force' - they just handcuffed her with hands behind her back.

Also even if it was demonstration or protest of some kind, it was peaceful(or so it seems). Isn't it kinda wrong for Country of Liberty and Freedom of Speech(tm) to arrest protesting people, unless they are violent? Despite the circumstances that looked similar to what corrupted totalitarian/despotic country's police would do. Protests do happen for a reason, y'know.

Buffalobiian

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:55 AM

I'm not a lawyer and dont know anything about law in the USD (this was a typo but Im leaving it cause it makes some sense) but if you guys have a law that says that you cant slightly move your body at some memorial (one about a guy who envisioned America (hate this ussage of a full continent lest say US) as a great "Empire of Liberty" and that fought against the tirany of imperialism), hugh or kiss you have some issues to solve.You CAN move your body. Look at everyone else. There's no rule that says you can't MOVE.

And what is all that about a warning? I mean just because some cicle-police with cool glasses comes and tells me that he is warning me I must obey to whatever nonsene he is saying or preaching?Yes.

If you don't believe he's upholding the country/state's laws and is spouting bullshit, ask him for his police ID number, name and tell him you're going to report him for what he's doing because you think he's throwing his weight around. And by all means follow this up.

or suffer the consecuences of a public violent arrest?It doesn't have to be violent. And it is public.

Resist and it COULD get violent.

This video (and gotwoot's response - particularly the responses from the respective people) is highly similar to that vid in the past where a girl got arrested for jaywalking, her girlfriend tried to pry the police away from her and got backhanded. Youtube and certain people here were like "How could you Mr Policeman?! She was only jaywalking" etc etc.

If you resist (or assist in resisting) and arrest, someone's going to get hurt. It doesn't matter what the arrest was for in the first place - jaywalking or murder. Resisting arrest in and of itself is an offence and the police can use the force necessary in order to proceed with his initial arrest attempt.

On the other hand, if you manslaughtered someone, owned up for it and stuck out your hand, no one's going to kick your ass.

People keep thinking this is all about police beating up people for breaking (arguably) stupid laws. It's about police beating up people for interfering with an arrest.

Wut. Police are humans with brains, too. Surely, they are tested for cognitive skills and intelligence, reasoning ability before given the badge and gun? Just because one is told to do something evil and they do it doesn't make one not evil.If you don't want to be a law enforcer you can quit.

When you join, you swear to uphold the law (kitkat's gone through this one). See the Separation of Powers.

-------------------

edit after reading Xel's post:

well first to evaluate this case we must know what happened before the video - if they were really protesting, and they really danced to protest - cops were right, but they used too much force. But if they were just dancing, not as any kind of protest, nor they did anything else to provoke the cops, then the dancers were right, and cops shouldn't arrest them.Dancing = Demonstration = Not allowed.

That's the idea. They never said you can't do it outside the memorial. If you don't like it, protest or escalate it via the relevant pathways. Xan's said this already.

In fact, whether they "provoked" the police or not shouldn't matter. Police not meant to treat people differently depending on whether they were provoked or not. If you danced, they arrested you. And let's not forget that they were told to stop before the arrest. That in itself clearly shows the cops try to talk you out of it before getting physical.

They didn't need to bodyslam that guy, they didn't need to lay them down and put handcuffs on them - they could just arrest them in same way as they did arrest the couple - they used the just amount of 'force' - they just handcuffed her with hands behind her back.The guy stiffened up and stuck his arms up. The cop couldn't cuff him. He was also taller than the cop, who subsequently asked him to get on his knees - he didn't. I don't want to have to count how many times "stop resisting" was said.

KitKat

Wed, 06-01-2011, 10:21 AM

Also even if it was demonstration or protest of some kind, it was peaceful(or so it seems). Isn't it kinda wrong for Country of Liberty and Freedom of Speech(tm) to arrest protesting people, unless they are violent? Despite the circumstances that looked similar to what corrupted totalitarian/despotic country's police would do. Protests do happen for a reason, y'know.

Yes they were really protesting, and yes they were really dancing to protest. They were protesting a law that bans dancing at the Jefferson Memorial. So to protest this law, they went and danced at the memorial. If I want to protest the law against stealing, I'm not going to protest by getting all my friends together and publicly steal stuff. The protesters could have chosen a legal way to protest, but they didn't. They thought they were above the law, because they didn't agree with the law. It was a publicity stunt which gained them widespread sympathy for their cause, ultimately.

Let me go over some ways you CAN get laws changed:
- make a petition and get lots of people to sign it
- write to your government representatives
- get all your friends and supporters to write to your government representatives
- protest peacefully in a legal way
- enter government and change the system from the inside
- hire a lawyer to argue your case in a court

Penner

Wed, 06-01-2011, 10:32 AM

That older guy that started 'slowdancing' with his girlfriend, then when broken up he started screaming shit and refused to lower his voice when told.. both he and his gf obviously heard the officer say that dancing was not allowed, then immediately proceeded to dance behind him, and he still kept saying that the officers didn't tell/warn him, then went on to scream that it was a police state and whatnot... it would have taken alot of my willpower to just keep myself from making him shut up. Cudos to the officers there :P

The guy with the glasses who got "body slammed" CLEARLY resisted the officer's attempts to cuff him by refusing to stand still and lower his hands, he simply kept walking and ignoring him, even when warned and told to stop and get on his knees.. the dude had it coming tbh.

Edort4

Wed, 06-01-2011, 11:02 AM

Sometimes I forget what country Im talking about. I understand that what those cops did is maybe for you the softest way to act while doind their jobs. Thats your standard and I must say that for me is a total offense to the civil rights of the citizens, but if you like that its your choice.

Im not defending those jerks that where at the memorial. We only get to see one part of what happened and cant tell if they where so saint as they tried to look but for me that response was way to violent. They where just a bunch of hippies but imagine something like that with a whole band of activist or whatever rightful movement (seattle). Now I understand why there is so much violence in your country. You harvest it! and you clap hands over it!

What really concerns me is your concept of resisting. If that attitude of going with the hands up, having the hands in the pockets and what the others did is a reason enough to get that kind of "soft" treatment. I hope that youd never have to get up against those rules, laws or system anywhere in the future because the repression would be awesome. A spectacle to watch on tv.

I just read the other coment kit kat made and I must say that it sounded to me like an apology of autoritarism and policial states. The end part with the corruption just cracked me up. What can be more corrupt than just following orders or taking advantage of unfair laws to shield against the pain you inflict? not even following most basic morals or human rights? I guess that some guys for example in 1945 and 1995 in central europe wrote something similar to that in blood letters.

This is just an opinion and I know that it could piss off someone but im not trying to get anyone angry over it. With all that said I have to state that im not trying to start an argument. I dont have the grammatic tools needed for that because english is my 3rd language so I cant comprehensively defend myself. And it takes me ages to write something like this ^^.

Pace & Rythm!

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 11:17 AM

Just out of curiosity, if you were the cop and you are (and they are in fact) required by law to arrest those people, how would you have handled the arrest? Don't forget to take into account how the dancers acted in the video.

Penner

Wed, 06-01-2011, 11:18 AM

The cops calmly and politely told them they weren't allowed to demonstrate or dance, and almost immediately a bunch of them starts dancing... thats just asking for it.

Buffalobiian

Wed, 06-01-2011, 11:33 AM

The end part with the corruption just cracked me up. What can be more corrupt than just following orders or taking advantage of unfair laws to shield against the pain you inflict? not even following most basic morals or human rights?Like I said earlier, as a cop you believe in the justice system, that the justice system is correct, and that the justice system is there to uphold the ideals of the general public and general society. If you don't want to do it, don't be a cop.

You can't be a cop and decide on what to enforce and what to let slide. When you do, you let personal judgement into that - ie personal justice before society's justice.

It's by no means a shield. It's part of their job, and they're willingly doing that job.

But back to shinta's question: what would you do?

Edort4

Wed, 06-01-2011, 12:13 PM

Well probably take my gun out and shoot them dead. Jokes aside you mean cops have to be like .. robots? Thats so friking terrific I hope you never get to make laws (oh well neither of us never will), no offense eh :D. Im not a cop but I have cop friends and they say that those situations are very tense and sometimes things get out of hand from both sides of the conflict, but they are paid to do that job and be profesional on those moments. Otherwise just pick some punk on the street give them a badge and let them do zangief movements.

I dont know what I would do cause im not a cop but what I have heard all of my life is that cops must subdue this kind of attitudes by first: talking sense into them (dont mix with imposing by threats) second: subdue them by the numbers, and using as little force as possible (body slams are out of the question). So here usually 2 cops are requiered to arrest someone that doesnt even resist. There are some rights that they have to guarantee too and those come first that any propertie.

If you try those things and those guys start revolting, throwing things, hitting you or whatever you can take more forcefull aproaches like batons or so but just go overkill because the guy has his hands up?!! Thats the dream of every cop in the world!! How many times have you heard "hands up, you are under arrest"??? (Hollywood does so little favor to your order forces).

I have never seen in my life a cop saying to someone: "Make my day! Put your hands up if you dare! Fatality!

KitKat

Wed, 06-01-2011, 12:27 PM

I just read the other coment kit kat made and I must say that it sounded to me like an apology of autoritarism and policial states. The end part with the corruption just cracked me up. What can be more corrupt than just following orders or taking advantage of unfair laws to shield against the pain you inflict? not even following most basic morals or human rights? I guess that some guys for example in 1945 and 1995 in central europe wrote something similar to that in blood letters.

It's been a while since we've had a good debate here at Gotwoot. Isn't it fun? ^_^ Your grammar may not be perfect, but you're doing great with making yourself understood. I really appreciate that you took the time to write such a comprehensive reply.

I thought I'd clarify my remarks here, because I think you misunderstood me. Here's what wikipedia has to say about Authoritarianism: "In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected by the people, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power." Now the difference is that in the USA, leaders are all elected, and everyone is held accountable by the judicial system. If people feel they have been treated unfairly by the authorities, they can always take it to the courts to demand justice. Those people who were arrested have likely already given complaints about their treatment, and those complaints will be reviewed to see whether the officers used too much force and should be punished for that.

It's true that I do support the authorities because for the most part they do a good job in keeping the country a safe and free place. You may disagree as to my definition of safe and free, but I know that whenever I visit the US I don't have to fear for my life, and any police officers I've come into contact with there have been polite and courteous. As long as I have an ability to affect change and give input to how a country is run, I should always use those legal means available to me first, to see that there is justice. When a political system ceases to look out for the good of its people and listen to their input, that's when you get revolutions as we've seen recently in Egypt and Libya. Those people had to defy the police because they had no other options to affect change. There was simply nothing else they could do.

As for basic morals and human rights, those are also defined by the law. Do you assume that what you think is a basic human right is an opinion shared by all of humanity? Maintaining 'rights' is always a delicate balance of keeping one person's rights from infringing on another's. I might think that I have a right to listen to my music loudly on the bus, but another person might think they have a right to enjoy the bus ride in silence. I might think that I have a right to own a pet, but my landlord might think they have a right to keep their property free of pets. We can't navigate this murky abyss of conflicting desires without some higher authority to decide which side is more valid. Otherwise, we'd be living in an anarchist state, and while some people seem to think humanity could get along with each other just fine without laws and law enforcers, I am not so optimistic about human nature.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 12:32 PM

I dont know what I would do cause im not a cop...

It was an if question. Do you mean that you don't know what to do, period?

but what I have heard all of my life is that cops must subdue this kind of attitudes by first: talking sense into them (dont mix with imposing by threats) second: subdue them by the numbers, and using as little force as possible (body slams are out of the question). So here usually 2 cops are requiered to arrest someone that doesnt even resist.

They did all these. They warned them (that was not a threat, it was a statement of fact), they subdued them with numbers (at least to the extent of what their current manpower allowed), and they used as little force as possible.

If you say that bodyslams (which is an exagerration, he was obviously unhurt since he was a big guy. I would find it appalling if the same treatment was done on a smaller, more frail person) are not allowed, how would you arrest that specific guy wearing the sunglasses?

Buffalobiian

Wed, 06-01-2011, 01:08 PM

If you try those things and those guys start revolting, throwing things, hitting you or whatever you can take more forcefull aproaches like batons or so but just go overkill because the guy has his hands up?!! Thats the dream of every cop in the world!! How many times have you heard "hands up, you are under arrest"??? (Hollywood does so little favor to your order forces).

I have never seen in my life a cop saying to someone: "Make my day! Put your hands up if you dare! Fatality!

Well if the cop asked for your hands to go up, sure.

But not this time. He asked him to get on his knees. His arms didn't budge when the cop tried to move them. Obviously he's not doing what the cop wants him to do. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Edort4

Wed, 06-01-2011, 01:34 PM

This is harassment and demolition!! (Took this from google translator) I feel so alone out here.

Fisrt Kit:

From your earlier post I understood other thing. Maybe it was a comprehesive mistake from my part. I simply understood that even if the society feel that some laws are nonsense they have to obey them. In my opinion laws should be made by society, for better or worse. And the other thing I understood is that cops have to obey any law (command) that happens to be issued regardless of its legality. If the goverment or senate or congress goes rouge and issues anti constitutional laws and they are passed bad luck! wait 4 years to change things and until then let the order forces make our will.

I talked about Authoritarianism in political science (what I understand that means) wich is that organizations or states pretend to preserve and manipulate political power through mecanisms that oppose freedom and use the instruments of the state to impose it. This would be more a political debate and is not part of the matter at hand.

Correct me if im wrong but I didnt talk about USA political system at all so I dont know why you say that about the elected leaders and those things. I hope those guys sue the cops and that the courts give the reason to them but thats out of the discussion wich is if they used excesive force.

I forgot all that about human rights and authority confidence. This could make such a long post that I will say that my trust in authorities is quite small but basically im with you in doing the things by legal means and I've never been to USA so I dont know how they treat you, only heard some things and seen some charts about delincuency.

On the Moral and Rights part is true that that one is a completely biased and personal opinion. I know few of the laws that we have here so dunno about what you have there. I would like to think that there is some kind of paragraph that says that you have the right to not being hurt when standing with the hands up in a public space. (not being serious about this exact statement present on any law eh).

Shinta: I dont think the cops followed that simple procedure. First one cop appears saying something about warning you to stop or get arrested. Then other 2 intimidating cops appear near the 1st one. This is a blatalant threat by the books. Do what I say or me and my friends are going to kick your butt. Thats not being polite and talking sense in to them is threatening with being inprisoned. The cop may be stating the obvious consecuence but still sounds like a threat and people dont react well against those, you dont need to be Freud to get this. Its an unneeded verbal and presence threat.

Then they start with the handcuffing, I must say that quite well two guys to get one of them and the girl seemed easy to subdue. And then when one of them gets rough two of them get over him. But the last one that resists with the hands up should have been done the same way, wait for the other companions to make him lower the hands and cuff him subduing him by numbers not playing some undertaker moves.

And if you lack manpower to control a situation without the security of not harming anyone you must ask for reinforcements not play lone rider.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 01:58 PM

That's just silly. Call for reinforcements in that situation? How long will that take? The cop managed to cuff the guy on his own without hurting him. Stop using hyperbole to make the action more than what it was. It cheapens the argument.

About the "threat" thing you mentioned, that is one of the most biased interpretations I have ever seen. In your 3rd sentence, you are already calling the other cops "intimidating" with no basis. Then it just gets worse from there.

Edort4

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:02 PM

He could have waited for another companion that was already there. I saw like 3 or 4 cops in the video. And just because he can cuff the guy on his own doesnt mean he has the right to use any mean he wants to. He didnt get hurt so is ok? I cant agree with that kind of thinking.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:14 PM

He knew he wasn't going to get hurt, that's why he did what he did. That's okay, isn't it?

The basic question becomes, did the cop use excessive force? Excessive force is obviously relative. You cannot treat arresting a 70 year old woman the same as arresting a big guy (who was resisting arrest) like in the video.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:24 PM

The basic question should be: Should someone get arrested for dancing near a rock. Only one right answer.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:25 PM

I agree with that answer, but I'm pragmatic enough not to blame the wrong people for it.

Edort4

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:35 PM

I have to agree on that. The root of the problem is other.

And I stil dont think that an answer like he knew he wasnt going to hurt is quite valid to me, precognitve powers dont make a factor. I have seen people twist a knee because of a 5 cm stone. It was unnecessary, period.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:36 PM

I agree with that answer, but I'm pragmatic enough not to blame the wrong people for it.

The police officers are just as guilty as the people who made the law. There's no "Oh, I'm just doing what I was told and being paid for it," or the circle jerk of blame goes on forever.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:38 PM

What would you have them do? If they don't do their job, they lose it. Not everyone can afford to lose their job over some people dancing near a rock.

@Edor - Precog- are you serious? People make judgments based on what they think will happen ALL THE TIME. He is a cop, he should know if he will injure someone with his actions. If he doesn't, then he gets sued. I'm sure if the guy DID get injured, he would sue the cop (rightly so) and maybe even win.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:39 PM

Then they should lose their job and find a career that doesn't profit in the oppression of its people. That's like saying "well, the Nazi's/murderous people in afghanistan/anyone who does something evil for money needed a job, so...."

Arresting someone for dancing near a rock seems like such a trivial thing. But, it's also a moral (subtle, but still moral) thing, and those things define us and our society.

It's like, allowing atrocious things like this to happen is a very subtle nuance of oppression, but it's still there. It's because usually, people sort of see this "wrongness" as a fiction, a blip of logic and fact, ignoring it, and going on with their day. They see that the act of arrest for dancing is wrong, but they permit it because of some arbitrary thing like a designated "rule," because its easier than feeling uncomfortable about it. Then, they even blame the victim, regardless of if the victim was in the right. But... this only legitimizes the power that forces like this have over us.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:47 PM

Penner

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:48 PM

Where should you draw the line for where you can or can't dance then?

Because that line must be drawn somewhere lol

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:48 PM

Are you saying that every cop should just quit?
Yes, and that would be revolutionary.

Besides, there's such a thing as privately managed cops.

PS - Petitioning the government to be less oppressive... via the government simply doesn't work. The government only wants more power. For example, if the government decreases taxes, they'll only increase them somewhere else, because unemployment = OMGGGGGG!!!. But I digress.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:49 PM

Well, I'm not against revolutionary changes to be honest. If you have a feasible way of doing it, then I'm all for it.

Xelbair

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:53 PM

I never knew that there was such law - preventing you from dancing at Jefferson's Memorial - it seems stupid as hell, but its a law. I agree with KitKat on this - try to change it by legal means beforehand. Cop's reaction was slightly weird, or maybe that part was cut off from the video. He could mention that law preventing you from dancing there exists. Protesters even asked for a reason, yet he stayed silent.

But i still think that they used excessive force, one guy was standing with his arms up? just wait a while, when other cops finish arresting the rest of protesters, you can easily subdue that guy without using body slams or other such takeover techniques. Both sides are at fault then, cops for using excessive force, protesters for breaking the law and taunting the cops('define dancing' for example).

Dura lex, sed lex.

poopdeville

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:57 PM

Are you saying that every cop should just quit? Because that's what your proposal entails. Every cop is required to enforce the law, even if it is stupid and oppressive. That means all of them will have to quit in your ideal world, and we all know that isn't possible.

I am not underestimating the problem of the law. I don't think the issue behind it is trivial either. I am merely stating that from those cops' point of view, it is trivial. They aren't lawmakers or freedom fighters.

You are missing a few important things.

Cops aren't trained to "enforce the law". They are trained to follow a simple training manual which covers only a few percent of cases, and arrest people if there is any doubt about what to do, so that somebody else (the Courts, at considerable expense to everybody involved) can work it out later. They are trained to use this very fact to harass and intimidate people. They are trained that their badge shields them from any repercussions. This is a classic "externality" problem. The cops can impose costs on others, and don't have to bear any. In other words, "the law" is significantly less oppressive than the people who "enforce" it.

Also, you are missing the fact that if you are not resisting, hearing somebody say "stop resisting" is meaningless. What exactly are you supposed to do if you are standing peacefully with your hands up, and a cop tells you to "stop resisting"? Break out the KY jelly?

dragonrage

Wed, 06-01-2011, 02:59 PM

Would you rather be tasered, Sapphi?

Creating public unrest and disorderly conduct is against the Law. Resisting arrest is against the law. Public parks, monuments and what not are there for everyone to enjoy not just a select few idiots. My advise to you if a police officer in any country ask to cease and desist doing something, do it. It's the law for a reason, if you have a problem with that reason take up your cause in the right way. the legal system is an ever changing machine it is not set it stone. These guys were immature idiots, they got what they deserved.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:00 PM

I never knew that there was such law - preventing you from dancing at Jefferson's Memorial - it seems stupid as hell, but its a law.

It's not even really a law. The cop interpreted it as "a demonstration". And decided that protesting at the Jefferson Memorial (ironic, because Jefferson is considered the father of free speech) is unacceptable. She's gotten charged for this before, and the charges were dropped, BTW. (Probably because it's a BS reason to be arrested.) Just because you think it's a law doesn't make it OK!

WTF is creating public unrest? Dancing silently to headphones is public unrest? Then 20% of New York would be arrested. The "cop" was annoyed and uncomfortable, but I'm pretty sure no one else gave a damn. Would you feel panicked at the site of a couple slow dancing in public? The above sounds purely like coming up with reasons for why oppression by the state is OK.

I am horrified by DSs "would you rather be tasered" question. You are saying that if someone does something peacefully, that the cops don't like, not only are the innocent party in the wrong, but they should be grateful to the cops for not being outright tazed or worse. The horrific part is a lot of people think this.

I seem to remember a "I have a Dream" speech by a certain civil rights advocate being spoken there...

I agree with KitKat on this - try to change it by legal means beforehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9kT1yO4MGg#t=14s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBPeCQzHu5w

KitKat

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:13 PM

It's not even really a law.

Well, whatever it is, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the dancing ban. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/no-you-still-cant-dance-in-the-jefferson-memorial-video/2011/05/17/AFtQJ15G_blog.html)

You'll make a wonderful political activist, Sapphi :D
I hope that you do manage to change things in your country.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:16 PM

You are missing a few important things.

Cops aren't trained to "enforce the law". They are trained to follow a simple training manual which covers only a few percent of cases, and arrest people if there is any doubt about what to do, so that somebody else (the Courts, at considerable expense to everybody involved) can work it out later. They are trained to use this very fact to harass and intimidate people. They are trained that their badge shields them from any repercussions. This is a classic "externality" problem. The cops can impose costs on others, and don't have to bear any. In other words, "the law" is significantly less oppressive than the people who "enforce" it.

I agree. The system is broken, and a lot of cops abuse it, but that was not the case in the video.

Also, you are missing the fact that if you are not resisting, hearing somebody say "stop resisting" is meaningless. What exactly are you supposed to do if you are standing peacefully with your hands up, and a cop tells you to "stop resisting"? Break out the KY jelly?

How do you define resisting arrest? He didn't allow his hands to be cuffed. He didn't kneel when he was told to. That's resisting arrest.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:20 PM

Well, whatever it is, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the dancing ban. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/no-you-still-cant-dance-in-the-jefferson-memorial-video/2011/05/17/AFtQJ15G_blog.html)

You'll make a wonderful political activist, Sapphi :D
I hope that you do manage to change things in your country.

My mind is simultaneously blown and not blown by the fact that I'm not surprised that the government actually banned dancing. Either way, it doesn't take away from my point that the arrest was wrong, violent, STUPID, and representative of our oppressive government.

If by political activist you mean member of the government, I will never do that. I wouldn't be able to live with the blood on my hands.

shinta|hikari

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:27 PM

Political activists are not members of the government. They are people who try to change it through the spread of information, demonstrations, formation of organizations, etc. I think you fit the bill.

These activities are generally legal, by the way.

Xelbair

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:28 PM

Either way, it doesn't take away from my point that the arrest was wrong, violent, STUPID, and representative of our oppressive government.
yet it was justified by law.

I'm not saying that the cops did the right thing, well from their point of view they did, but the protesters aren't the good guys in this case. Both sides did something stupid, very stupid.

Political activist doesn't equal a politician.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:32 PM

Look past the fact that it's a "law" and ask yourself if it's okay to arrest and jail someone for dancing in a public place.

Xelbair

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:34 PM

Did i ever said it is ok? no. it is stupid, irrational and totally wrong. Yet is is a law - and its the cops job to uphold the 'letter of law' which is not always the 'spirit of law'.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 03:37 PM

The fact that it's a "law" doesn't make it OK either. A law is merely something a powerful person or small group of people decided everyone else should do. Even if the "majority" gets to elect an official to decide for them, or vote on a proposition, they aren't necessarily right. Then the dissenting minority is forced to do what the majority wants. It makes no sense.

An authorized wrong deed is still a wrong deed. If this wasn't the case, philosophy, epistemology, hell, Science is just defunct.

But I really want you to answer the question and do not take into account the law: Is it wrong to be arrested for dancing in public?

For the record, I really only support two types of law: 1) Laws that protect private property 2) Laws that protect against non consensual violence, and this falls under the first category.

Xelbair

Wed, 06-01-2011, 05:39 PM

Getting arrested for dancing in public is really wrong,no matter how you look at it, but you have to remember that they were protesting against that law - which is good thing, really - but they took the wrong approach to it.

Ryllharu

Wed, 06-01-2011, 06:04 PM

Protesting a law that you don't agree with by breaking that law is not the best way to go. It isn't the police's job to decide which laws are good and right, and which laws suck and should be broken. It's their job to uphold the law.
Just to chime in on this bit, there isn't anything wrong with disobeying a law to raise awareness about a law you deem wrong. It's a cornerstone of civil disobedience.

But...it is imperative that once police officers, or federal agents, etc., declare that they will arrest you, you must comply with them in a peaceful manner. Do as they order explicitly. That way no one gets hurt, and police will (generally) treat someone in a less forceful manner if they are acting in a civilized and respectable manner. Throwing a fit and making a scene on the spot is not the proper way to conduct that kind of protest.

For what it is worth, I also agree that the officers did nothing wrong. The protesters were acting like children instead of adults.

dragonrage

Wed, 06-01-2011, 06:11 PM

Generally speaking I have never seen anyone get arrested for dancing. At Grand Central station, there is public dancing almost every month if not every week, during the summer. The cops come watch and when it is over, they make everyone disperse and that's the end of it.

Even Pants less day that happens every year at Union station/park hasn't gotten anyone arrested as far as I know. If the police say put on your pants they put it on and that's the end of it. Until the police and gone then the pants come off again ( this takes place in the middle of winter, crazy yes, entertaining yes, sane no.)

The fact of the matter is these guys were looking for attention and wanted to show they are above the law, well they aren't. The screwed it up for everyone that was visiting the memorial that day seeing as how it had to be vacated until the idiotic culprits were in proper custody for their own safety as well as the safety of others seeing as how they can't even comprehend simple English. Freedom of expression is good and all but what make your right to express yourself any more important than the rights of people that came to visit the memorial?

They didn't want to protest, they wanted to show they can do whatever they wanted. I have seen protests, even been a part of a few. But this was just a blatant display of idiotic behavior. Did the police use excessive force, it was harsh but mandated because of resistance to being arrested.

p.s. why was there a guys with a studio camera over there? where is the shots of what they were doing before? What were they doing that not only mandated memorial security to gather but also bike cops?

Edort4

Wed, 06-01-2011, 07:09 PM

I must say that I agree almost completely with what Sapphire stated. Except that about police dissapearing. We aint ready yet for that kind of system and I must say that the root problem is the master they serve cause since a long time isnt justice. Im with you when you say that laws arent done by or for the citizens, its just a ridiculous system that guards appearences.

Im trying to find some kind of chart with criminal rates to see if those countries of the 1st world with the most repressive police help to subdue crime. I still think that using overkill force only serves to sow rage in the people and relatives that suffer it. Thus creating more unrest.

About what Ryll said of obeying police I must objetc. Its true that it is the best for you from the physical perspective, cause if they want to arrest you they will end doing it dead or alive. But if you are being harrassed, falselly accused or demeaningly treated I wouldnt obey so eagerly, and more if there is a camera there. I wouldnt kneel before them just cause they say so, even knowing that would mean a whole world of pain for me, wich is usually the response of every order force in the world.

To Dragon its true that we dont know what happened before and the footage that is shown is very suspicious but I think we argued about what can be seen in that footage. I think that 2 of those molesters where being childish. The old guy and the friend that went to hold hands with his buddy (if I was his buddy I would have body slamed him, what a moron). The others acted quite pacefully and respectfully. I still cant comprehend the part of resisting, they just didnt make things easy for the cops and that pissed them off.

I was thinking that I have always seen the cops reading their rights to the arrested is that needed in this case?

Uchiha Barles

Wed, 06-01-2011, 08:32 PM

I'm pretty sure that, looking at the video, that everyone involved knew exactly what was going to happen when they started dancing. They baited the cops, and the whining and crying they were doing when they got arrested was nothing but an act. Knowing this, I can't get upset at what the cops did. I already know cops are too ill trained and educated to do their jobs while holding the highest of moral standards. I know many officers go on power trips, and I know that some officers are even corrupt. I don't need a video like this to demonstrate these things to me, and that seems to be the purpose of that entire play.

They went someplace to start trouble, were treated as expected, and got the results they expected. That's all that really matters here. Protesters win.

XanBcoo

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:02 PM

Most of the arguments against the cops seem to be conflating the two issues at hand: the law itself, and how the officers behaved.

But...it is imperative that once police officers, or federal agents, etc., declare that they will arrest you, you must comply with them in a peaceful manner. Do as they order explicitly. That way no one gets hurt, and police will (generally) treat someone in a less forceful manner if they are acting in a civilized and respectable manner. Throwing a fit and making a scene on the spot is not the proper way to conduct that kind of protest.

The protesters were acting like children instead of adults.

They didn't want to protest, they wanted to show they can do whatever they wanted. I have seen protests, even been a part of a few. But this was just a blatant display of idiotic behavior. Did the police use excessive force, it was harsh but mandated because of resistance to being arrested.

Really want to pick apart everything that's been posted since I last read the thread, but this pretty much sums up my argument and the rest of you seem to be getting caught up in the minutia.

And no, the guy in the white shirt wasn't just standing their with his hands up, he was using some silly technique to resist arrest by stiffening himself/acting like dead weight and making it harder for the cops to cuff him.

About what Ryll said of obeying police I must objetc. Its true that it is the best for you from the physical perspective, cause if they want to arrest you they will end doing it dead or alive. But if you are being harrassed, falselly accused or demeaningly treated I wouldnt obey so eagerly, and more if there is a camera there. I wouldnt kneel before them just cause they say so, even knowing that would mean a whole world of pain for me, wich is usually the response of every order force in the world.
I don't know what things are like in your country, but when you are arrested in the US you are entitled to (or provided) a lawyer. Those of us fortunate enough to have had a good education also know that you should never talk to the police because they are assholes and will try and get you to self-incriminate.

It's like, allowing atrocious things like this to happen is a very subtle nuance of oppression, but it's still there. It's because usually, people sort of see this "wrongness" as a fiction, a blip of logic and fact, ignoring it, and going on with their day. They see that the act of arrest for dancing is wrong, but they permit it because of some arbitrary thing like a designated "rule," because its easier than feeling uncomfortable about it. Then, they even blame the victim, regardless of if the victim was in the right. But... this only legitimizes the power that forces like this have over us.
This is a valid point that I totally agree with but the people in that video were literal retards. I'm sorry.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:12 PM

Sorry for what?

XanBcoo

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:16 PM

For having to paint my argument in such broad strokes so that you understand that these people were 100% in the wrong and deserved their consequences, despite the ridiculous and superfluous law they were attempting to protest.

The situation is a little more nuanced than "The cops did something I disagree with...POLICE STATE NAZIS HITLER"

Edit: I really can't believe you're trying to equate this with the Civil Rights Movement. One is a violent and systematic abuse of human rights and the other is a couple of cops saying "you can't dance here or we'll arrest you, sorry." and then arresting the people who started dancing like buffoons.

Animeniax

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:42 PM

Those of us fortunate enough to have had a good education also know that you should never talk to the police because they are assholes and will try and get you to self-incriminate. We discussed this line of thinking at work today. As a future law enforcement professional, personally if you explain yourself I'm more likely to let you go with a warning, than if you refuse to answer and appear "uncooperative" then I'll think you're hiding something or trying to get away with something. In my book, if you show some remorse and guilt over what you've done, especially in victimless or small crimes, then I'm less likely to want to punish you.

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:43 PM

For having to paint my argument in such broad strokes so that you understand that
Well I didn't get that from, "I'm sorry". Be more specific. Don't mean to be rude, but it's annoying and I perceive it as condescending when people say "I'm sorry" after making their point in a disagreement.

The situation is a little more nuanced than "The cops did something I disagree with...POLICE STATE NAZIS HITLER"

I don't care if the cops disagree with me. I care if they use violence against me for disagreeing with me, when I am doing nothing violent or threatening towards others.

Should I be arrested for disagreeing?

Edit: I really can't believe you're trying to equate this with the Civil Rights Movement. One is a violent and systematic abuse of human rights

That's exactly what this situation is.

and the other is a couple of cops saying "you can't dance here or we'll arrest you, sorry." and then arresting the people who started dancing like buffoons.

Civil rights protesters were hosed down, dogs were sicked on them, etc. I am sure a lot of other people said they were retarded for bothering to protest against something so stupid, banal and trivial, also. The fact that you think that segregation is so obviously wrong is revolutionary compared to what the majority of people thought 100, 60 years ago.

XanBcoo

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:51 PM

I don't care if the cops disagree with me. I care if they use violence against me for disagreeing with me, when I am doing nothing violent or threatening towards others.
If you don't want to have violence used against you, then don't resist arrest. How, in any way, do you think that helps the situation?

I'm not gonna repeat myself about the Civil Rights thing. I'll be the first one to take your side when I see an abuse of power from law enforcement, but that's not at all what happened here.

We discussed this line of thinking at work today. As a future law enforcement professional, personally if you explain yourself I'm more likely to let you go with a warning, than if you refuse to answer and appear "uncooperative" then I'll think you're hiding something or trying to get away with something. In my book, if you show some remorse and guilt over what you've done, especially in victimless or small crimes, then I'm less likely to want to punish you.
No one listen to this. Please.

This should be required viewing at schools in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Sapphire

Wed, 06-01-2011, 09:57 PM

If you don't want to have violence used against you, then don't resist arrest. How, in any way, do you think that helps the situation?
You just defined democracy and the government in general, "I have an irrational attachment to bullshit, and I will punch you in the face if you disagree."

8D

I'm not gonna repeat myself about the Civil Rights thing. I'll be the first one to take your side when I see an abuse of power from law enforcement, but that's not at all what happened here.
Really, that's all? How many government corruption and abuse of power videos from the last 3 years do you want me to show you? 30? 60? After some point, enough is enough, - and this isn't directed at you - but indoctrination and cognitive bias is the only thing that stops people from seeing that there's a better solution to all this.
-

We discussed this line of thinking at work today. As a future law enforcement professional, personally if you explain yourself I'm more likely to let you go with a warning, than if you refuse to answer and appear "uncooperative" then I'll think you're hiding something or trying to get away with something. In my book, if you show some remorse and guilt over what you've done, especially in victimless or small crimes, then I'm less likely to want to punish you.

This is completely true based on my experiences.

Kraco

Thu, 06-02-2011, 03:11 AM

I can't much relate to this story because over here the problem is not having enough cops as opposed to cops having so much free time they arrest a few punks dancing where they shouldn't.

Anyway, a few of the posters here should go and get an army training to get a more realistic pespective of the need to forget petty things in today's compromised society. Too many Western people already think they are the kings everywhere and anywhere they go and nobody has any authority over them. No human society would ever work like that. Jefferson's Memorial grounds must be 0.00000000000001% of the whole USA territory, so why on Earth is it a big deal you aren't allowed to dance there? Can't you just walk 100 meters to some direction and then dance in perfect peace? Might even earn a few coins from passersby if you are really good at it. It's not like they'd have forbidden all public dancing like in some third world theocracy.

Edort4

Thu, 06-02-2011, 05:36 AM

Kraco I think that the debate went past this dancing thing at the memorial. Is something most of us would never do but that doesnt mean that if you do it you will have to face such an humiliating situation with some gratuitous physical violence. What I still dont get is how dancing and demonstrating match together but thats another point.

I really think as sapphire said that this is just an example of what stupid rules and regulations can do. And if it has been done once it can be repeated with no effort opening a path that could bring some legal (even moral) aberrations. What really frightens me is the reaction of support this repression brought from some people that I consider smart and educated. It feels like peoples minds had been molded to praise the use of force against their fellow citizens. Makes no sense to me, what can be done to them can be done to you whenever they want and who will stand there for you?

I also agree with you Kraco, and from here on is just my wild opinion based on nothing than a blind faith in my analitical mind, at the point of some people thinking that none has authority over them. Basically politicians, order and security forces, bankers, CEOs, and great fortune holders.

Society as a whole decides to pledge to a moral code represented as laws. Then they elect a goberment to rule the state, they give that state the power to impose that code over its citizens and act as its guardians. You can follow the chain and see that the primal authority comes from the society.

The problem is that the connection between the society and its control over the state has been almost completely severed. Thus leaving the state with the control over those laws or code and the tools to impose it. This unbalanced all the sytem taking it to a point where the citizens are subdued to the political powers and their rotatory goverments (in most cases back & forth between A and A').

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 08:33 AM

About what Ryll said of obeying police I must objetc. Its true that it is the best for you from the physical perspective, cause if they want to arrest you they will end doing it dead or alive. But if you are being harrassed, falselly accused or demeaningly treated I wouldnt obey so eagerly, and more if there is a camera there. I wouldnt kneel before them just cause they say so, even knowing that would mean a whole world of pain for me, wich is usually the response of every order force in the world.

^A key point about peaceful resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance).

I really think as sapphire said that this is just an example of what stupid rules and regulations can do. And if it has been done once it can be repeated with no effort opening a path that could bring some legal (even moral) aberrations. What really frightens me is the reaction of support this repression brought from some people that I consider smart and educated. It feels like peoples minds had been molded to praise the use of force against their fellow citizens. Makes no sense to me, what can be done to them can be done to you whenever they want and who will stand there for you?
Great post. I teared up a little at this.

Buffalobiian

Thu, 06-02-2011, 09:35 AM

Mythbusting time:

1) The dancers were arrested for dancing in a public place.

FALSE

The dancers were arrested for (what the police and perhaps the law considered to be) demonstrating at the memorial.

If they danced on the street, I doubt the cops would have cared.
If they danced at the public library, I doubt they wouldn't be dragged away somehow.

I really don't feel like going through 2-5 since it's pretty much been said over and over already.

edit: talking about self-incrimination, I was having a chat with a colleague who worked at the Office of Prosecution for a while, transcribing testimonies from the generally bad quality tapes so that those in court can follow with their eyes as well as ears.

He told me of a a case where the guy was charged with attempted murder:

Cop: On DD day, MM month, 33:33pm at your home, you were strangling your now ex-girlfriend. Is this correct?
Guy: Yeah.
Cop: Why did you do that?
Guy: We were going to have dinner that night and I really wanted KFC. She wouldn't let me have it, so I kind of snapped.

My colleague re-winded that 3 times just to make sure he heard it right.

Kraco

Thu, 06-02-2011, 10:17 AM

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 01:00 PM

Mythbusting time:

1) The dancers were arrested for dancing in a public place.

FALSE

The dancers were arrested for (what the police and perhaps the law considered to be) demonstrating at the memorial.
If we're going to speak on statist terms, the memorial is still a public place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property), meaning it's paid for by taxpayer dollars (everyone who buys anything period) and purportedly owned by "us". The fact that my/our money is basically stolen (OK, stolen is put a bit strongly, let's say taken automatically from my paycheck/etc without my consent) to make and maintain it is a bit of a digression but still relevant.

KitKat

Thu, 06-02-2011, 01:44 PM

If we're going to speak on statist terms, the memorial is still a public place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property), meaning it's paid for by taxpayer dollars (everyone who buys anything period) and purportedly owned by "us". The fact that my/our money is basically stolen (OK, stolen is put a bit strongly, let's say taken automatically from my paycheck/etc without my consent) to make and maintain it is a bit of a digression but still relevant.
Going by that definition, your taxpayer dollars also go towards the maintenance of courthouses, where the public can come to view trials. If you tried dancing in the courtroom while a case was going on, I'm pretty sure you'd get thrown out pretty quickly. Even public places can have designated uses with laws surrounding how people behave there. Heck, on my university campus - also a public place - there's a specific fine you can be charged with for urinating off of statues. Like dancing, urination doesn't damage anything or harm anyone, but it's against the laws nonetheless. Whenever there are laws regarding the usage of a public place, there will always be disagreement because the public does not all agree on everything. So typically the laws reflect the opinions of the majority, while the minority still has to pay for it and be unhappy about it. Someone will ALWAYS disagree, because we are human, and we have different perspectives and values. Thus, to make a change, you need to change the opinion of the majority. That's the way our system works, in North America. That's democracy. If you don't like it, change the system, or move somewhere with a different system.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 02:01 PM

I don't exactly agree with the US court system, either.

Private Universities are privately owned, so they can designate their own rules. As for pissing everywhere in public, there is something to be said about putting people in harm's way through contaminating them with one's own biological waste, which would of course be more of a threat to the health and well being of others than just dancing next to them.

Someone will ALWAYS disagree, because we are human, and we have different perspectives and values.
Exactly. Someone will always disagree. The point is not putting someone (or everyone) in harm's way because of it. The notion that "someone will disagree, but oh well, most people agree, or at least the people in power, sort of," is a notion that leads to the death of millions (let's say the war) and the oppression of even more people due to the decisions of the few in power.

Thus, to make a change, you need to change the opinion of the majority.Yes, this is how society evolves. This works by exposing evil via talking, recording it, revealing it for what it is, discussion, etc.

However, that the majority has the right to control the minority is ludicrous, especially since we know that EVERYONE has a different opinion about how life should be lived. (And I'm agreement with you on the above quote)

Even public places can have designated uses with laws surrounding how people behave there.
Whenever there are laws regarding the usage of a public place, there will always be disagreement because the public does not all agree on everything.
Solution 1: Do not arrest people for non-violent crimes.
Solution 2: Eliminate public property.

Edit: By public property I am going by the statist definition of public property, not private property for public use.

If you don't like it, change the system, or move somewhere with a different system.I feel that this premise is a very slippery slope. It seems to imply that living in one's own house is a privilege, or that the state gives one permission to live here. It's almost like when an angry father says, "This is my house and my rules, if you don't like it, leave". Instead, I consider the house I own to be my (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-205.htm) own (http://pastebin.com/xEkFN6vS) private property, or the place I rent out to be a private contract between me and the tenant. The "if you don't like it, leave" idea seems to imply that the state has some sort of proprietary ownership of the land I live on.

Uchiha Barles

Thu, 06-02-2011, 02:31 PM

This debate is damned interesting xD. If I may, I'd like to step back see opinions on the matter from a different angle.

Often times, when groups are created, the individuals must give up some of their "rights" in order to partake in the benefits of being part of said group. Extrapolating this idea to societies that are generally comprised of several subgroups, I think its fair to say that there exist subgroups who find their rights restricted in order to partake in the benefits of being members of said society. At what point do the restrictions on individual and subgroup rights outweigh the benefits of being members of larger groups and societies?

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 02:41 PM

Often times, when groups are created, the individuals must give up some of their "rights" in order to partake in the benefits of being part of said group.
And this "systematic giving up of rights" was decided by a few old men hundreds of years ago, and the rest of American society is pretty much born into this (and the following bit of this sentence is an understatement) highly out-dated social contract.

Flip to CSPAN and you can see the circus of people struggling to interpret these documents to fit their own means and ends for whatever reason, by using emotional rhetoric and accusations that may or may not have to do with the issue they are fighting for.

Extrapolating this idea to societies that are generally comprised of several subgroups, I think its fair to say that there exist subgroups who find their rights restricted in order to partake in the benefits of being members of said society. Fair argument, but I find it to be a bit shaky. I feel that though the perceived benefits may outweigh the costs, it's a matter of pure perception if one of the parties doesn't consent. (Example: I am benefitting so much because there is a slave here to pick cotton for me! Never mind the costs, I am making such a profit!)

Kraco

Thu, 06-02-2011, 02:52 PM

So typically the laws reflect the opinions of the majority, while the minority still has to pay for it and be unhappy about it. Someone will ALWAYS disagree, because we are human, and we have different perspectives and values. Thus, to make a change, you need to change the opinion of the majority. That's the way our system works, in North America. That's democracy. If you don't like it, change the system, or move somewhere with a different system.

While what you say is technically correct, and while I don't want to sound like a Chinese communist party politician, but in our societies there would be less problems if those who happen to find themselves in a minority considering some minor issue wouldn't always make a huge personal problem out of it, as if it was a clandestine scheme by the majority to hunt down whatever minority. Like these dancers who looked like they felt it was a personal insult to them that dancing in a solemn public place was forbidden - despite most visitors likely finding that rule to be of zero consequence or even beneficial. Not that most visitors would ever even hear of it.

However, that the majority has the right to control the minority is ludicrous, especially since we know that EVERYONE has a different opinion about how life should be lived. (And I'm agreement with you on the above quote)

Logic dictates the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

This is the very core principle of democracy. Democracy isn't by far perfect but at the moment it's the least bad of the useful types of governments.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 02:57 PM

in our societies there would be less problems if those who happen to find themselves in a minority considering some minor issue wouldn't always make a huge personal problem out of it, as if it was a clandestine scheme by the majority to hunt down whatever minority. Like these dancers who looked like they felt it was a personal insult to them that dancing in a solemn public place was forbidden - despite most visitors likely finding that rule to be of zero consequence or even beneficial. Not that most visitors would ever even hear of it.

It's the principle of the matter, Kraco.

Logic dictates the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

That works mathematically, but taking a universal truth to achieve one's own ends at the cost of others is illogical and irrational for the health of a society.

This is the very core principle of democracy. Democracy isn't by far perfect but at the moment it's the least bad of the useful types of governments.

Agreed that it is less evil on the evil government spectrum. That doesn't mean that democracy is the be all end all, though. There are better solutions. Instead of accepting the status quo, wouldn't it be nice to try to make things better? "It doesn't matter so much where we are as where we are going..."

KitKat

Thu, 06-02-2011, 03:18 PM

I feel that this premise is a very slippery slope. It seems to imply that living in one's own house is a privilege, or that the state gives one permission to live here. It's almost like when an angry father says, "This is my house and my rules, if you don't like it, leave". Instead, I consider the house I own to be my (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-205.htm) own (http://pastebin.com/xEkFN6vS) private property, or the place I rent out to be a private contract between me and the tenant. The "if you don't like it, leave" idea seems to imply that the state has some sort of proprietary ownership of the land I live on.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was giving an ultimatum there. I just wanted to point out the options one is faced with when living in a system that they find dissatisfactory:
1) Decide to accept the system and ignore the source of dissatisfaction.
2) Take action and change the system and eliminate the source of dissatisfaction.
3) Move to where one is no longer affected by the system.
4) Complain but do nothing and be forever dissatisfied about the system.

I just don't want you to be stuck at #4 because that just leads to bitterness and anger and makes your life miserable. The last thing I want is to see you being miserable, with no end in sight. And I know that you won't take options 1 or 3, so you're left with option 2. I want to encourage you to come up with a plan to enact change. Because in all seriousness, I believe you can do it. You easily draw people to you to support the things that you're passionate about and you are a strong debater. History is made by ordinary people who stepped up because they couldn't let an issue slide and had to do something about it.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 03:30 PM

2) Take action and change the system and eliminate the source of dissatisfaction.

4) Complain but do nothing and be forever dissatisfied about the system.

I just don't want you to be stuck at #4 because that just leads to bitterness and anger and makes your life miserable. The last thing I want is to see you being miserable, with no end in sight.

you're left with option 2. I want to encourage you to come up with a plan to enact change. Because in all seriousness, I believe you can do it. You easily draw people to you to support the things that you're passionate about and you are a strong debater. History is made by ordinary people who stepped up because they couldn't let an issue slide and had to do something about it.
-

this is how society evolves. This works by exposing evil via talking, recording it, revealing it for what it is, discussion, etc.

Spreading (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4&feature=channel_video_title) the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM&feature=channel_video_title) word (http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot#p/u/12/x2_iu0qH0fY) enacts change.

Kraco

Thu, 06-02-2011, 03:36 PM

History is made by ordinary people who stepped up because they couldn't let an issue slide and had to do something about it.

That's wrong. Ordinary people are those who choose 1 or 4, sometimes 3. Those who choose 2 and succeed are judged out of the ordinary by history. But since it's the topic of the day, let's not forget that once you manage to change something, you will create a new minority dissatisfied by what your achievement created. So the vicious circle continues.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 03:45 PM

But since it's the topic of the day, let's not forget that once you manage to change something, you will create a new minority dissatisfied by what your achievement created. So the vicious circle continues.
The only people who will be dissatisfied with the destruction of oppression are the people who want to oppress you.

KitKat

Thu, 06-02-2011, 03:57 PM

Well, I wholeheartedly endorse your efforts. I admit to being somewhat emotionally detached from this debate because it's not an issue which is really pressing on my heart and mind. We all have to pick and choose our battles, because we have limited resources and there are a million worthy causes to support or areas where change is needed. I'm totally going to change the world too, so keep an eye out ^_^

Kraco

Thu, 06-02-2011, 04:16 PM

The only people who will be dissatisfied with the destruction of oppression are the people who want to oppress you.

I guess I'm the kind of guy who would want to visit a memorial site without dancers hanging around, even if it means I'm oppressing people wanting to dance anywhere and everywhere.

More seriously, I also support police being able to use non-lethal force after ample verbal warnings. Because this world is full of punks who have nothing better to do than to make other people's work harder by trying to rely on rights that weren't written with hooligans in mind. Generally speaking permits for peaceful demonstrations are rather easily granted, and that's the way to go if you want to perform proper demonstrations and not be a punk.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 04:17 PM

Applying for a permit to dance is the same as asking the government for permission to protest against its actions. Doesn't really make sense if one doesn't believe the government has the authority to decide this.

Edort4

Thu, 06-02-2011, 05:31 PM

Carnage

Thu, 06-02-2011, 06:14 PM

Wow this has reached 5 pages, Im surprised. Its not really complicated, these people were acting like pricks and were arrested for such. Its not like the civil rights movement, where an entire race was being treated cruelly. This is a simple case of of "dont dance here" and "fuck da POLICE". Usually Im on the side of the latter, but the dancers are just being annoying pricks in this case. The cops even asked the demonstrators to stop several times.

dragonrage

Thu, 06-02-2011, 08:11 PM

Sorry to say this, but i don't think Sappihire has a point to defend anymore. This has gone from one thing to another.

I guess democracy is what she thinks it to be and everything else is wrong.

Fact of the matter is "detainees" were arrested because they ignored the warning of the police but not just that, they exacerbated the situation by blatantly disregarding the warnings of the police and even provoked them.

Save the Rosa Parks civil rights quotes for something that's worth it.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 08:23 PM

I don't think you actually read anything I wrote because you failed to address anything I (or everyone else) actually said. We've passed the point of "the officers said to do it and they didn't so they got what was coming to them" and started looking at the implications of that method of thought.

Assassin

Thu, 06-02-2011, 08:28 PM

i love america

dragonrage

Thu, 06-02-2011, 08:45 PM

You're right I didn't read every single post because i got tired of reading about the glorification of a bunch of idiots like they are some martyr. What what the point of this thread in the first place?

If this was a starting point for a debate on one's right, I think you picked a poor example. There are many laws other there that are ridiculous and often made funny of; you can even find tv shows that point them out to you. But the fact of the matter is they are laws. If you have a problems with it change it, don't just go breaking it. Don't call a moronic act a protest, just because some idiot said it was.

I'm sorry for putting a damper on your little activists thread here. Just was calling an ass an ass and not trying to make it out like it was some other kind of animal.

I won't bother to post in this thread again. Now back to your regularly scheduled rant.

Edit:

AssAssIn: Fucking Canadian...... I love Canada too.

Just one last comment if you would permit. People; which includes police and other civil servants, use common sense everyday and do the right thing, you just don't see it on youtube or posted on the web.

Animeniax

Thu, 06-02-2011, 09:45 PM

I just finished reading A Clockwork Orange and it's message about crime and punishment and social control. I think you all should read it to gain a better perspective on this situation.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 10:01 PM

But the fact of the matter is they are laws. If you have a problems with it change it, don't just go breaking it.
I simply can't comprehend mindlessly following rules that I know are arbitrarily oppressive. It sounds like you're glorifying the "law" just because it's the "law," saying it's something to be obeyed NO MATTER WHAT. How can you possibly live like that in this day and age?

You're right I didn't read every single post because i got tired of reading about the glorification of a bunch of idiots like they are some martyr. What what the point of this thread in the first place?

And that you think that people deserve to be arrested for being annoying is so mind boggling that I now feel debating with you further is pointless.

dragonrage

Thu, 06-02-2011, 10:29 PM

I simply can't comprehend mindlessly following rules that I know are arbitrarily oppressive. It sounds like you're glorifying the "law" just because it's the "law," saying it's something to be obeyed NO MATTER WHAT. How can you possibly live like that in this day and age?

And that you think that people deserve to be arrested for being annoying and not bending over for the police is so mind boggling that I now feel debating with you further is pointless.

I really didn't want to post in this thread again.

It is a MEMORIAL.

Memorial:
something designed to preserve the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) memory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/memory) of a person, event, etc., as a monument or a holiday.

It is a place where people from all over the country and over the world go to visit to honor the memory of a man the helped shap America into what it was then and what it is today. I don't know if you have ever been to the Jefferson Memorial but it is a small area considering how many people visit it at certain times of the year. and at time can be very crowded and having a bunch of idiots dancing around can cause unnecessary problems, such as scuffles, such as fights and even brawls. Excluding the fact that the place is a memorial and a bit out of the way from the rest of the memorials or the fact that is a memorial and causing an uproar is distasteful and takes away from the reason it was built there it the first place or why it was built.

Why didn't the people you so adamantly defend choose the Constitution gardens, the Washington Monument or any other Memorial that has a wider area as their venue? Why didn't they just "protest" and dance all they wanted just outside of the memorial leaving it so that other people can enjoy it?

Do you support this type of behavior?

Yes I think thet should have been arrested because if one of them in their arrogance had hit or injured someone it would have escalated into something even bigger. It is called preventing a problem.

Where is your common sense?

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 10:39 PM

I really don't care what people do inside the memorial as long as it's not harmful towards others. It's public property. But in another sense I support their actions based on the implications that they reveal. Regardless of me thinking what they are doing is stupid or not, it is absolutely wrong to sick a cop on them just because they make the atmosphere more annoying.

I highly doubt that slow dancing or dancing to head phones could cause a riot.

It didn't seem crowded at all from the video, but let's say it was crowded. In that case dancing EVERYWHERE that's crowded would be banned. Does that sound reasonable to you?

XanBcoo

Thu, 06-02-2011, 10:44 PM

It is a MEMORIAL.

...words...

Do you support this type of behavior?

If you agree with that ridiculous law in any way, shape, or form, you need to reassess your perspective and stop defending the law for the sake of the law. Don't try to justify it. It's not up to the government to decide how people pay their respects in a public area.

That's what Sapphire is saying, and I am 100% in agreement with her. I had no idea the law existed and now I am somewhat glad that attention has been brought to it so that it can be thrown out.

However, the morons in question still acted childish, accomplished nothing, and resisted arrest. The police were 100% justified in EVERY action they took during that video. This is plain to see, and has nothing to do with the greater argument, nor does it have anything to do with police brutality, abuse of power, or any other legitimate violations of human or civil rights.

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 10:54 PM

I think that if you know a law is stupid but you follow it anyway, you are legitimizing and validating the power that the lawmaker claims to have over you.

shinta|hikari

Thu, 06-02-2011, 10:56 PM

What Xan said, 100%.

Assertn

Thu, 06-02-2011, 11:05 PM

Long thread is tldr; but from watching the video, my thoughts were along the lines of...
"Wow these cops are being harsh, wtf is this?"

Then, after some thought, became...
"Wait a minute, how were these guys NOT protesting?"

Apparently the guy that got choke-slammed has his own show where he spends all his time protesting about various things, so it's kind of BS that he can play the victim when clearly he's breaking a perfectly rational law (you can't just protest wherever the hell you want to, after all).

Edit: Also, the guy has a public event where people are invited to come to the monument on saturday and dance there. If this isn't a blatant display of protest then I don't know what is.

XanBcoo

Thu, 06-02-2011, 11:08 PM

I think that if you know a law is stupid but you follow it anyway, you are legitimizing and validating the power that the lawmaker claims to have over you.

On an individual level, possibly. But as you've already discussed with KitKat, the issue is more complicated and complex than your own opinion about the law. I think she made an excellent point here:

Someone will ALWAYS disagree, because we are human, and we have different perspectives and values. Thus, to make a change, you need to change the opinion of the majority. That's the way our system works, in North America. That's democracy. If you don't like it, change the system, or move somewhere with a different system.

I'm confused about the thought process behind the law in the first place, but it seems like the basic argument is that dancing is seen as a form of violating the right that others have to pay their respects in peace. Or something?

Edit: Ah, here we go...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041503414.html

"They were dancing and just generally making a distraction, and the chamber is posted that you are to remain quiet so you don't disturb other visitors," said Sgt. Robert Lachance, a Park Police spokesman. "The chamber of the Jefferson Memorial is a restricted area for demonstrations or causing any kind of activity that could distract other visitors . . . [in order] to preserve a spirit of tranquility and reverence."

Edit 2: And because the video conspicuously begins in medias res, it seems that the protesters were not arrested for "just dancing" but for continuing to act loudly and disorderly after they had been asked to stop.

Edit: Also, the guy has a public event where people are invited to come to the monument on saturday and dance there. If this isn't a blatant display of protest then I don't know what is.
And as well they should. More power to them. But don't go bitching about cops abusing their power or using "excessive force" when they inevitably get arrested or resist arrest.

Assertn

Thu, 06-02-2011, 11:15 PM

Sapphire

Thu, 06-02-2011, 11:29 PM

Wat. Is that the word you're giving it to make what the cops did OK?

Animeniax

Fri, 06-03-2011, 12:08 AM

Uchiha Barles

Fri, 06-03-2011, 12:42 AM

Fair argument, but I find it to be a bit shaky. I feel that though the perceived benefits may outweigh the costs, it's a matter of pure perception if one of the parties doesn't consent. (Example: I am benefitting so much because there is a slave here to pick cotton for me! Never mind the costs, I am making such a profit!)

Well, that's exactly what I'm asking. I make no moral implication when I make that statement, it's simply a statement of the way I think things are when it comes to the formation of groups, before considering the specific rights, and thus exists before any consideration of morality. I think most people would agree that the slaves of a society generally get the shaft when it comes to the social contract, however, between slaves and kings (so to speak) there is a wide variety of "social states" that individuals and groups can find themselves in. I'll attempt to be clear on what I mean by "Social State". Lets assume there is such a thing as the set of all rights. Then a "Social State" is just a subset of the set of all rights. The rights possessed by an individual or group (as well as those rights not possessed) are dictated by the individual or group's social state. If you have no objection to that definition and can work with it, then tell me, what set of social states do you find unacceptable? To ask in another way, more similarly to my previous post, what rights do you feel are indispensible, no matter the society an individual or group is part of (not quite the same question, but gets to the core of what I'm seeking nonetheless).

I do have a point to all this. Kit kat brought up that different people have different perspectives and different opinions, which I don't think anyone is disagreeing with. But that statement applied to this topic has consequences that can be complicated to analyze. I think that complexity is better tackled from the direction I'm starting in (I could be wrong). For example, one of the things you mention is that you don't think "the majority" should have the right to control "the minority". Ok, imagine ungrouped individuals, who then group up along the lines of common interests. Imagine that group is large enough so that there are many differing perspectives and opinions on a multitude of subjects. These seem reasonable assumptions to me.

Once that group is formed, you can already begin forming subgroups of people along the lines of shared perspectives and opinions. Some groups will be large enough to be called majorities, while others will be small enough to be called minorities. If you create these subgroups along the lines those opinions that deal with which rights are acceptable to be given up, and which are not, you now have the seed of the problem which we face. You can create these subgroups as SOON as you create the group, and thus that seed is in place as soon as the group is formed. Unless the group (society) is to remain static, that seed will blossom into the very problem we're discussing the moment the society begins to evolve. I say "static" and "evolve" in terms of adding right, removing rights, creating new rights, etc. This makes societies that evolve inherently oppressive to "the minority".

You can come up with this, without even considering a single, specific right, or rule. I do realize that there are some specific rules at the heart of this conversation though, which is why your answer to the question posed matters. Hopefully this wall of text is coherant, logically sound, and not boring...

BTW, <3 you Sapphy for starting this discourse xD. Sapphire levels up! +1000 to respect!

edit: Going to bed, stayed up way past sleep time reading this thread and responding to it. Was worth it though.

Lucifus

Fri, 06-03-2011, 01:38 AM

I just watched the video, the hippies did all they did for effect and to get exactly the reaction they wanted. The police were very professional, issued multiple warnings, and then resorted to force as they are allowed. I did not see any excessive force, including the "body slam" which was in response to multiple warnings for the guy to stop resisting arrest. Kudos to these police.

This = Yes

Really? These losers knew exactly what was going to happen. And to then turn around and cry foul?

There was no police brutality, they were causing a disturbance in a place they had no rights protesting, and were warned multiple times; and when the cops began to lay down the law, began behaving like five year olds who dropped their ice cream.

Had I been there, I would have likely applauded the law enforcement. Though I might have gotten body-slammed for clapping. ^_^ Those bastards really got under the officers skins.

If you want to live in America, respect the goddamn law.

Kraco

Fri, 06-03-2011, 02:58 AM

I truly belief that systems cant be changed from within the system. The very nature of any system is to mantain stability and the status quo for their rulling classes both political and financial. The ones that should do the voting to change the system would be the first ones affected by it, loosing priviledges and power. So its pretty infantile to hope for them to willingly take action against themselfs.

You do realise that pre-WWII Germany was a democracy and the Nazis used democratic procedures to get into power and turn the country into a monstrosity? Keeping this, very unfortunate, example in mind, it's quite hasty indeed to say that you can't change anything in a democracy because it tends to maintain itself. Besides, even that is false, as you said yourself, because old democratic countries tend to get divided between political/economic elite, who possess great influence and solid methods of keeping themselves in power, and the rest of the people having nothing but their one vote.

Sapphi has also unfortunately reached a poor territory in her arguments by strongly going against the justification of democracy yet presenting absolutely no ideas of how to replace it with a better, more just system. Simply saying everybody should be happy and nobody be oppressed is nothing but fluffy idealism on the surface, but under the surface it's tragic talk of homogenising the society so much that everbody would be happy with the exact same things.

In reality it's either that with all the jolly things that go with it like ethnic cleansings and population relocations or a rule by a majority with trust in the goodwill of the majority to keep also minorities' situation somewhat tolerable. Or a rule by a minority trusting it to keep the majority in check (usually through various means of control and force of arms). What lies beyond these traditional choices that only compete in which one is the least bad, is yet to be seen. Perhaps with the ever growing net and social networking, we will see the advent of a more direct form of governance. Assuming people will bother to take any role in it, because usually the citizens of old democracies become bored of the whole thing and voting once a year in various elections is the most they would ever do, their family, work, and hobbies claiming their time.

Sapphire

Fri, 06-03-2011, 06:01 AM

Sapphi has also unfortunately reached a poor territory in her arguments by strongly going against the justification of democracy yet presenting absolutely no ideas of how to replace it with a better, more just system. Simply saying everybody should be happy and nobody be oppressed is nothing but fluffy idealism on the surface, but under the surface it's tragic talk of homogenising the society so much that everbody would be happy with the exact same things.

Oh, my. Let's not make up solutions that I was hypothetically proposing. If you want solutions, just ask. Mentally defaulting to some sort of horrific system just because I criticize this one is exactly what the government wants you to do.

And I clearly said at least two ideas I have, so I guess you just absolutely didn't read them.

1) Get rid of public (state owned) property
2) Laws should only protect private property and non-consensual violence.
- Stop arresting people for non-violent crimes.

Simply saying everybody should be happy and nobody be oppressed is nothing but fluffy idealism on the surface, but under the surface it's tragic talk of homogenising the society so much that everbody would be happy with the exact same things.

You just said that in order to have a happy, functional society, someone must be oppressed and unhappy. And if that people AREN'T oppressed, they instantly lose their creativity and ability to live life differently from others. What a twisted, dangerous belief.

Kraco

Fri, 06-03-2011, 06:52 AM

1) Get rid of public (state owned) property
2) Laws should only protect private property and non-consensual violence.
- Stop arresting people for non-violent crimes.

I can't even imagine this kind of society. Is it some sort of corporate dystopia, where the economic elite live surrouded by walls and private armies and the common people in absolute anarchy and the rule of the strong?

You just said that in order to have a happy, functional society, someone must be oppressed and unhappy. And if that people AREN'T oppressed, they instantly lose their creativity and ability to live life differently from others. What a twisted, dangerous belief.

The alternative of the majority being oppressed is far more dangerous. Just look at the Arabic countries, North Korea and the like. Besides, with the numerous treaties, human rights, equality and all the other jazz, minorities are decently protected in the developed countries. Sometimes too well, angering the majority and benefitting racist popularists and such.

It also puzzles me how you can think the society would work better if law enforcement would be limited. Your problem with law enforcement seems to be the lack of trust in their impartiality, judgement, and decency, but in the end the law enforcement is only made of people. Surely you don't think people outside of law enforcement suddenly become saints? In fact, 99% of criminals are outside of law enforcement and it's over there you can find the real monsters.

Edort4

Fri, 06-03-2011, 06:55 AM

You do realise that pre-WWII Germany was a democracy and the Nazis used democratic procedures to get into power and turn the country into a monstrosity? Keeping this, very unfortunate, example in mind, it's quite hasty indeed to say that you can't change anything in a democracy because it tends to maintain itself. Besides, even that is false, as you said yourself, because old democratic countries tend to get divided between political/economic elite, who possess great influence and solid methods of keeping themselves in power, and the rest of the people having nothing but their one vote.

Leaving aside some comprehension mistakes I could make I dont get to see the point Are you agreeing with me or not?. Maybe I should had explained myself when I said that systems cant be changed from within the system from a citizen perspective. I always talked from a citizen perspective. Those in control of the tools of the state have a lot more space to maneuver in whatever direction they want ( basically conservadurism, or power extension). That example you made just proves my point. What people cant do by gathering sings or by demonstrating or using their ultimate power of voting the system, rulers can change by themselves.

Im not much into history but saying that nazis used democratic procedures to get into power is quite... amazing. If what they used is for you democratic procedures I can certainly say that we live in completely opposite worlds that violently collide. I suggest that you give a look to that part of history.

How the nazis lost the elections of 1932, caused mass unrest and riots forcing the unstable govermnet to collapse. Making it to power by coalition with the major party using threats of revolting. Using all the mechanisms of the state to deliver their propaganda and keep creating unrest and victimizing the comunist and socialdemocrat parties.

Calling anticipated elections that at last they won, but not even by majority so they had to pact. This wasnt enough so they had todisolve the comunist party, arrest its members and do the same with a few of the socialdemocrats parlamentaries so they could achieve the 66.6% of representatives to make germany a constitutional dictatorship.

Everyhting very democratic.

As Martin Niemöller said:

First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Buffalobiian

Fri, 06-03-2011, 06:58 AM

I simply can't comprehend mindlessly following rules that I know are arbitrarily oppressive. It sounds like you're glorifying the "law" just because it's the "law," saying it's something to be obeyed NO MATTER WHAT. How can you possibly live like that in this day and age?

Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree with this law for the fundamental reasons that this law was introduced (stated above).

Get rid of public property you say? So who builds the roads? Who pays for the defense force? Who pays for the bridge?

Answer: private corporations with tons of money build them, that's what. Then they'll charge tariffs on them because they can. Rich people will get all the access, poor people won't. Poor people feel oppressed, the gap between rich and poor widens (as does their rights), and in the end the poor revolt due to power in numbers. Sounds like the French Revolution to me.

Governments, by definition, govern. And yes, that means control. In countries where the current system of government has been put in place by its people (ie democracy), the government is the big brother that the people have decided to be the best way to run their society. Progressive taxation, social security, public health insurance.. they're all the things that the majority of people have decided to be fair and better for "all", or as much of the "all" as possible.

In the end of the day, you either have everybody divided up - leaving the weak to be devoured by the strong, or have everybody unite to form a system where they cater for the majority of "everybody".

The only way for you to opt out is to find somewhere that has no system, and build your own (or not). Even Antarctica's divided up into little bits now, so you might have to head into outer space for that. Again, do you have the resources to accomplish that?

Individual people don't have the resources to provide and build everything they want. That's why they pool together resources to achieve something greater than they can achieve individually.

The only difference between the above situation and the current government in the USA is choice(as you have said).

Kraco

Fri, 06-03-2011, 07:33 AM

Lots of details and a quote.

At the end of the day they still used the democratic system, even if they also put to use questionable methods outside of it. However, they were human-monsters so it would have been strange if they hadn't hunted down their opponents while they were at it. They did it physically, normal politicians throw dirt on their opponents or try to dig their pasts to find some mistake there causing a loss of support.

Bolsheviks of Russia were every bit as heinous as nazis, but they fought against an autocrat, so their methods of getting to power were completely different.

If your point is that with their one vote an ordinary citizen can't do much individually... Well, no shit, they really can't do much. If they could do much, they wouldn't be ordinary citizens of a democracy but some oligarchs. Their only choices, if they can get off their lazy asses, is to become politicians themselves (every citizen can) or rally support for a representative sharing their views (perfectly legal in a democracy). Most of your complaints rise from the fact most people are too lazy to give a damn and thus the same corrupt faces get elected every time and nothing changes or changes for the worse.

Animeniax

Fri, 06-03-2011, 08:33 AM

This = Yes

Really? These losers knew exactly what was going to happen. And to then turn around and cry foul?

There was no police brutality, they were causing a disturbance in a place they had no rights protesting, and were warned multiple times; and when the cops began to lay down the law, began behaving like five year olds who dropped their ice cream.

Had I been there, I would have likely applauded the law enforcement. Though I might have gotten body-slammed for clapping. ^_^ Those bastards really got under the officers skins.

If you want to live in America, respect the goddamn law.
The quickest way to get in trouble with the police is to challenge their authority in the presence of a crowd. Then you make them want/need to assert their authority, partly to maintain police authority, and partly to keep the crowd from being incited and creating a bigger mess. So dancing after the police have explained to you nicely that doing so is in violation of local statutes = arrest and legal troubles for you.

Edort4

Fri, 06-03-2011, 08:58 AM

So arresting elected representatives and killing opposite party members are just democratic questionable methods or democratic procedures huh? Questionable methods.. that phrase cracked me up. Well I think that the conception of democracy we both have differ considerably. From what I read I guess that any country that throws some short of election is a democratic one if the outcome is that some part of the population made a vote.

I dont go by that definition, maybe it worked like that in athens in 5BC but I like to thing that we have evolved enough to improve the system. And I guess that that is the main difference we have. On the other hand I have to agree with you because one vote cant do much. Most of my complains rise from the fact that the system knows that there is no real chance to make changes or rally enough support to be a threat.

Actually (2011) is really hard to enter in politics lots of the parties are family feuds. You can enter the lower ranks, youth parties, if you are good and know your way you can go up (recieving some favors from the so called benefators) as the same time all those other proffesional politicians do and maybe even end up at the top. The thing is that when you vote you vote a party, not only a person so it ends up being you with whatever morals you have left (favors cost) and lots of "proffesiona/familar" companions.

Creating a new party is even more difficult you need to gather lots of supporters (in our actual world where we are educated to live as islands and selfishness is the most inculcated value). Second you need lots of founding, every year the costs raise heavely, and if there is something harder than make people care about politics is taking money from them, so looking to the supporters for funding is meaningless. And lastly you need a lot of media coverage. You must advertise yourself widely if you want to achieve anything. This is not only expensive, sometimes is impossible because the media groups are owned by the people that support the other existing and perpetual parties.

It all ends with the illusion of having choice.

P.D: In my opinion Bolsheviks are quite a different story and things on that part of the history arent well enough documented, having great grey or even black areas. About who promoted the uprising, under what excuses and terms the movements started and who did the funding and provided the tools/weapons.

Kraco

Fri, 06-03-2011, 10:33 AM

So arresting elected representatives and killing opposite party members are just democratic questionable methods or democratic procedures huh? Questionable methods.. that phrase cracked me up. Well I think that the conception of democracy we both have differ considerably. From what I read I guess that any country that throws some short of election is a democratic one if the outcome is that some part of the population made a vote.

This wasnt enough so they had todisolve the comunist party, arrest its members and do the same with a few of the socialdemocrats parlamentaries so they could achieve the 66.6% of representatives to make germany a constitutional dictatorship.

Why did they do all that just to get 66.6% of representatives, eh? Why didn't they just march death squads into the streets like the Bolsheviks and slaughter people until there was nobody left to oppose when they declared a new government? If they strived to get 66.6% for a "valid" vote, it means they followed... let's say extra-democratic principles. Nobody denies now afterwards they used plenty of atrocious methods to get where they did, but it was within the existing political system.

It would still be possible, depending on any particular country's laws, to gather enough representatives to change laws radically. It's the citizens' duty to prevent that as much as to select representatives making beneficial changes.

Actually (2011) is really hard to enter in politics lots of the parties are family feuds. You can enter the lower ranks, youth parties, if you are good and know your way you can go up (recieving some favors from the so called benefators) as the same time all those other proffesional politicians do and maybe even end up at the top. The thing is that when you vote you vote a party, not only a person so it ends up being you with whatever morals you have left (favors cost) and lots of "proffesiona/familar" companions.

Fortunately not over here. Even our last parliamentary elections proved that, with lots of totally new people getting in, because people were getting disgusted by the old parties' foolish decisions and lack of a backbone.

shinta|hikari

Fri, 06-03-2011, 11:28 AM

In my country the easiest way to become a politician would be to enter show business or become a boxer sports star.

Of course, that is only true if you don't belong to a traditional political family which has great influence and connections. This pretty much guarantees your place in office.

Normal people have it really difficult, even if they are smart and capable. Trying to change the system from the inside is almost impossible, and the small probablity of someone causing a miniscule change relies heavily on that person's ability, resources, and courage (to face death threats to you and your family wehn push comes to shove).

Politics is reserved to the elite few, and unfortunately, most of them are corrupt, or evil (as in murderers).

Edort4

Fri, 06-03-2011, 11:54 AM

Im glad that things have gone to better there I hope things keep going that way. Here things went to better a little bit, small parties gained some weight but only in region scale, wich isnt bad but still not enough. At state scale its still a bipartidst system. 2 blocks concentrate 90% of the representatives (around 75% of the votes and this is where that majority thing starts to shake).

We have gone off topic with this debate about germany in 1930s but I think that you have to the see the whole picture. Hitler and the nazi party wanted the power to rule the state. In their minds wanted to create a great nazi country to expand and conquer other regions creating and imperium. You cant fight with your neighbours if you are fighting in your home. They wanted to look legitimated thats why the expent 4 years creating propraganda, unrest and disorder.

The last thing they wanted was to face a civil war, after all they only obtained 17 mill votes of a total population of over 60 mill. The costs of going rogue against its own people would be to great to achieve that goal of a 3rd reich imperium in a short time, weakening them. What they had in mind was, eventually in a lapse of 6 years, to face 3 or 4 of the Great powers of the world.

In my opinion it had nothing to do with democracy or or its principles. It was just a tactical move.

P.D: I still find disturbing when you say that encarcerating, vicitimizing and killing elected representatives, legal parties, and politicians is some kind of extra-democratic principle. For me is a fragrant example of what anti-democratic acts are.

Carnage

Fri, 06-03-2011, 12:33 PM

Jesus this thread just gets bigger and bigger. Why can't we all just agree that for legitimately bad laws, such as those that allow segregation, the people should have the right to protest. But for stupid unimportant shit like this, people should not be dicks just for the sake of it?

Kraco

Fri, 06-03-2011, 12:54 PM

P.D: I still find disturbing when you say that encarcerating, vicitimizing and killing elected representatives, legal parties, and politicians is some kind of extra-democratic principle. For me is a fragrant example of what anti-democratic acts are.

Haha. No, I don't consider them to be any sort of legitimate democratic methods. I'm not quite that twisted. They were crimes, through and through. I simply called them that because they used those methods to achieve a (really) superficially democratic victory. However, I should also mention here that I could almost count the American way of fabricating false stories about your competitors to be a crime equal in spirit to those the nazis used. Over here fortunately the candidates mostly keep to criticising their competitors' promises and plans, not imagined things about their background or person.

Sapphire

Fri, 11-25-2011, 07:31 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

Wowwwwwwwwwww

A friend earlier told me about the protest. Apparently kids were trying to block their faces from the pepper spray, so the cops shoved their arms out of the way and sprayed the pepper spray down their throats.

Follow up video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGf9wEIXMns&feature=related) - The students basically shame the police into leaving. Beautiful.
-
Summary: Students at UC Davis are super pissed because tuition went up because funding for the school systems is down.

That said, the school prices are going up in public schools in California because California is broke. Blame the idiot bankrupt government, not UC Davis administration.

Buffalobiian

Fri, 11-25-2011, 08:47 PM

I can only guess that the police issued multiple warnings, and that the "sitting" wasn't previous approved in the first place? (though exactly what type of protests are except from prior registration - if any, I'm not sure)

Sapphire

Fri, 11-25-2011, 08:55 PM

Protests typically aren't ever "approved" of by the people in power. People in power obviously don't want the dissenters to make noise against them. Is "approval" seriously relevant?

Anyway the Chancellor of UC Davis was crying for forgiveness about the whole thing so even she knows that this was a disgusting act of police brutality.

Animeniax

Fri, 11-25-2011, 09:22 PM

That city's budget is f*cked, several people will sue over this and the city will either spend millions on lawyers or millions on settlements. It's lose-lose for them. People are calling for the resignation of the school chancellor and the chief or police and at least that one fat officer who started spraying are all on suspension (with pay).

Sapphire

Fri, 11-25-2011, 09:49 PM

I would be shocked to see people actually be able to sue over this. I would be even more shocked if the case isn't immediately thrown out of court for "this or that" reason.

Animeniax

Fri, 11-25-2011, 10:52 PM

People sue or at least threaten sue for pretty much anything related to police use of power. They usually settle out of court, and your taxes pay their settlement.

There was a story today concerning the Black Friday yearly tradition. There was a commotion at a Walmart store in Arizona, so police body-slammed a guy face first into the ground. Video footage shows the police lifting his unconscious body up and a pool of blood is on the ground. This will be the greatest BF for this guy, he just made a lot of money when he sues. Bystanders (future court witnesses) said the guy wasn't doing anything, and that he was trying to pull his granddaughter to safety.

1088

KrayZ33

Sat, 11-26-2011, 07:13 PM

isn't it forbidden to protest/demonstrate without a permit in the first place over there?

retarted rules/laws, retarted police and retarded demonstration.

edit: horrrrry shit, replied to the first post in here, didn't notice that there are 7 pages already :/

edit:
Anyway the Chancellor of UC Davis was crying for forgiveness about the whole thing so even she knows that this was a disgusting act of police brutality.

I'm pretty sure using pepper spray is actually allowed to solve sit-ins, the same goes for water guns

Sapphire

Sat, 11-26-2011, 09:05 PM

Ryllharu

Sat, 11-26-2011, 09:18 PM

Well...some protests do have certain rules. Union strikes are one such example. The union can picket all they want, but it is illegal (and will hurt them in negotiations) if they refuse scabs anyone entry into a facility.

Sit-Ins are kind of the same way. The police can and should be allowed to arrest the protesters. Pressing charges, that's a different matter, as the protesters typically don't do anything illegal. Certainly they're not barring entry on a sidewalk. Forced eviction and arrests are pretty common outcomes of sit-ins.

Was this instance complete bullshit and the police stepping over the line? Yes.

Sapphire

Sat, 11-26-2011, 11:17 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/pepper-sprays-fallout-from-crowd-control-to-mocking-images.html?_r=1

To Kamran Loghman, who helped develop pepper spray into a weapons-grade material with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1980s, the incident at Davis violated his original intent.

“I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents,” Mr. Loghman said in an interview.

Mr. Loghman, who also helped develop guidelines for police departments using the spray, said that use-of-force manuals generally advise that pepper spray is appropriate only if a person is physically threatening a police officer or another person.

In New York, for example, a police commander who sprayed several women in an Occupy demonstration last month faced disciplinary proceedings. The New York Police Department says pepper spray should be used chiefly for self-defense or to control suspects who are resisting arrest.

@Buffalobiian: BTW, I've seen you find excuses for these wack acts of violence by saying it happened because they didn't get "permission, approval" to protest. I'll say once again that people here don't just beg their oppressors for the opportunity to protest or demonstrate against them because obviously they would say no. There is something called "freedom of assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly)" in America, where America was supposedly founded on the right to assembly (protest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_protest)). This doesn't mean you have to go through a freaking bureaucracy to protest and that isn't even something that is expected to happen in this country. They put this in our heads starting in elementary school, that it's an "inalienable right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights)", a foundation that "America" EXPLICITLY set in place during its creation.

Buffalobiian

Sat, 11-26-2011, 11:28 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/pepper-sprays-fallout-from-crowd-control-to-mocking-images.html?_r=1There is something called "freedom of assembly" in America, where America was supposedly founded on the right to assembly (protest).

If what those protesters are doing is perfectly legal, then the police have no grounds for what they did. I'll agree with that.

BTW, I've seen you find excuses for these wack acts of violence by saying it happened because they didn't get "permission, approval" to protest.

My reasons are based on the assumption that the protesters were breaking the law in some way. If those assumptions are false, then my argument doesn't hold. I'm happy with that.

If you do need prior approval however, that's another thing. The police taking action is the expected and approrpiate way for things to happen when the law is broken.

What the police do, and how they escalate their actions is another matter that can be debated.

Sapphire

Sat, 11-26-2011, 11:47 PM

Why don't look at the situation regardless of the law? Some laws are completely irrelevant to logic and yet people still blindly think in terms of the law just because they exist. You should look past the law and see what is happening for what it is because people's lives are often put on the line, and people like you turn a blind eye to it because the "law" permit it.

I don't understand how people can turn off their empathy for living, breathing people being abused just because of some intangible rules. Don't you people who automatically excuse these heinous act of violence because you assume there must be a rule somewhere that permits it realize what you are doing?

Buffalobiian

Sun, 11-27-2011, 12:28 AM

I simply look at who is accountable for such actions, and whether such actions are deemed appropriate.

If you think these actions are inappropriate, then you'll have to pinpoint where the source is.

-If the police are following standard procedures, then you have an issue with the a) standard procedure, the b) law legalising such an action, or c) the fact that such actions performed by the "victims" are illegal in the first place.
-If the police aren't following standard procedures, then d) you have an issue with incompliance and police integrity.

You can't assess situations like this without considering the law, since the law is what sets the background for society and also allows organisations like the police to exist in the first place.

Sapphire

Sun, 11-27-2011, 12:37 AM

That makes sense.

On one hand. If the police are given the benefit of the doubt, they're simply doing what they think they're supposed to do.

But if that is the case, why don't these police officers exercise their free will and make the personal decision to not harm a non-violent people? Or are they really delusional enough to think their actions are somehow justified, noble, and righteous in order to protect the community?

Or are these police officers just acting in accordance with their horrific, sadistic desires? Are they deluded enough to actually think that they can get away with it because they're "privileged" members of society? (Reminds me of 7 Seeds)

Or do they actually detest what they are doing and know that it is wrong, but still do it anyway because they think that's what they should do just because it's a rule? That is pure insanity.

Kraco

Sun, 11-27-2011, 04:34 AM

Generally speaking there also has to be a way to deal with peaceful protesters if they hurt the society's normal functions for too long. In the end these protesters are relying on that very empathy and also the laws protecting from bodily harm. But if you consider for example the trains carrying nuclear waste in France/Germany that are with 90% certainty hampered by peaceful protesters who sit on the rails or even chain themselves to them, what would you do to them? A train carrying nuclear waste can't sit in the middle of nowhere forever, nor can the particular railroad be kept blocked from all traffic forever.

While I don't view Sapphi's incident of pepper spraying appropriate, there has to be some way to allow the uninvolved continue their normal daily lives if the protesters harmed it for too long.

KrayZ33

Sun, 11-27-2011, 06:37 AM

"Solve" sit-ins? WTF? It's like you consider it to be pest-control. Gotta get the exterminators to pepper-spray out the vermin.

Whether it's "allowed" or not is irrelevant to whether it's a heinous act of initiated violence. I'm disturbed by your lack of empathy towards fellow humans.

ya, ok... how about you start thinking for a second
oh my god. its not like pepper-spray does any kind of permanent damage in the first place.

how is the police able to do shit if you take away all their means
must be fun to pay alot of cash every minute for CASTOR-transports which get blocked by sit-ins... and you have pretty much no way to stop them

Edort4

Sun, 11-27-2011, 07:06 AM

People should auto pepper-spray themselves once a day just for the fun.

Animeniax

Sun, 11-27-2011, 09:52 AM

Would that be to develop resistance to it's effects? Very clever indeed.

Sapphire

Sun, 11-27-2011, 10:09 AM

oh my god. its not like pepper-spray does any kind of permanent damage in the first place.

Police officers could easily kill someone by spraying POLICE GRADE CAPASAISIN directly into someone's eyes, throat, and nose. It is a chemical WEAPON designed to cause crippling amounts of pain upon hitting mucus membranes. Not only is it a form of torture, but anyone sensitive to pain or shock could easily die from this. And WOW, and that you justify oppression with the notion that "oh, it's not that they kill you, just cause you pain"... Why would you ever say that in an argument.

@Kraco: Because even in a stateless society, sitting on train tracks and killing yourself, the people you were with, the train conductor who didn't see you, and anyone else by the consequences of your actions is considered something along the lines of murder. If sitting on a (public, even) sidewalk and being loud was lethal then half of the New York homeless population would be incarcerated.

And let's talk about federal law that every citizen is "born" into in the country of America. If you don't want loud people on your sidewalk, go to a privately owned University, not one that is public and therefore owned by you. See the copious amounts of links that I already mentioned where America claims that its citizens have the right to protest. It's ALREADY written down in the damn federal laws that "disturbing the peace" during a protest is not something you can just say to prevent a protest, so the cops obviously breaking their own law that they claim to protect.

Ryllharu

Sun, 11-27-2011, 10:31 AM

Police officers could easily kill someone by spraying POLICE GRADE CAPASAISIN directly into someone's eyes, throat, and nose. It is a chemical WEAPON designed to cause crippling amounts of pain upon hitting mucus membranes. Not only is it a form of torture, but anyone sensitive to pain or shock could easily die from this. And WOW, and that you justify oppression with the notion that "oh, it's not that they kill you, just cause you pain"... Why would you ever say that in an argument.
'Fraid not Saph. The lethal dose of Capsaicin is 47.2 mg/kg. Most states ban a concentration of higher than 10% in a can, and most of those must be less than 60g (2 oz) total ingredients. So that's approximately 6g of capsaicin per can. Average weight in our country is an embarrassing 86.6 kg, so lets lowball it and go for 75 kg. Someone would need 3540 mg of Capsaicin to die, so the maximum police grade can would contain about two lethal doses. You'd have to spray the entire can down their throat, and you could only actually spray two people, which is not the point of using it as a deterrence weapon.

@Kraco: Because even in a stateless society, sitting on train tracks and killing yourself, the people you were with, the train conductor who didn't see you, and anyone else by the consequences of your actions is considered something along the lines of murder.Eh? What? If you sit (alone) on the train tracks and try to stop a swiftly moving train carrying nuclear fuel/waste, and the engineers can't stop in time, it would be ruled a suicide. They might get in trouble for negligence, at worst. They know well ahead of time if there is going to be a crowd of protesters blocking the trains, to prevent that kind of tragedy.

I would not be surprised if there are other countries that don't care and just run them over, and probably have regulations in place to prevent that. I'm also willing to bet if you try that shit in the US, you'll get shot at. The NRC takes fuel and waste transport and the terrorist threat (or backyard atomic energy hobbyist threat) of obtaining any nuclear material very seriously (http://www.nrc.gov/materials/transportation/shipping.html).

Sapphire

Sun, 11-27-2011, 10:38 AM

'Fraid not Saph. The lethal dose of Capsaicin is 47.2 mg/kg. Most states ban a concentration of higher than 10% in a can, and most of those must be less than 60g (2 oz) total ingredients. So that's approximately 6g of capsaicin per can. Average weight in our country is an embarrassing 86.6 kg, so lets lowball it and go for 75 kg. Someone would need 3540 mg of Capsaicin to die, so the maximum police grade can would contain about two lethal doses. You'd have to spray the entire can down their throat, and you could only actually spray two people, which is not the point of using it as a deterrence weapon.
Uh, yeah, I know. But anyone sensitive to copious amounts of pain or shock could easily die from this.

Will answer the rest after work.

-

If someone stepped in front of your car, challenging you, and you ran them over regardless, the lines between suicide and murder are blurred, I think. On one hand, in every way, you knew they were there and proceeded to drive the vehicle that caused their death. On the other hand, they threw away their own life by putting laying on train tracks. Lay in the sun, expect it to shine on you. Lay on a soil, expect ants to get on you. Lay on active train tracks, expect a train to pass through. Simple logic.

Animeniax

Sun, 11-27-2011, 01:43 PM

Uh, yeah, I know. But anyone sensitive to copious amounts of pain or shock could easily die from this.

Will answer the rest after work.

I get what you're saying. It's like the flu: someone who has a weakened immune system could die from the same flu that just makes most people feel like shit for a few days. So someone with a bad heart/respiratory problems could very well die if sprayed with pepper spray. I wonder how liable the police would be for the death in that situation?

Kraco

Sun, 11-27-2011, 03:45 PM

Sapphi's logic has totally lost me. It seems like when the police opposes protesters, everything is bad, but if a train driver mowed through a hundred protesters occupying the tracks, it'd be all good. As if there was a train driver who wanted to do such a thing. Is this talk nothing but her simple dislike for the police?

Sapphire

Sun, 11-27-2011, 04:03 PM

That's because you are equating two things that shouldn't be equated.

One is pepper spraying someone on the face (or otherwise using WEAPONS) because you don't want them to be on a sidewalk.

That is different from someone sitting on ACTIVE TRAIN TRACKS, which is like sitting in the middle of a busy a highway or on top of an airplane. If a plane comes, a car comes, or a plane decides to take off, you've killed yourself (or made someone murder you and possibly other people). You have put yourself in harm's way by placing your body in an area designated for transportation. This is obvious. Similarly, if someone steps on you because you're all over the sidewalk, that's your own fault.

Now, someone KNOWINGLY running you over while you're splayed across train tracks is iffy. Which is why I've said, for the third fucking time, in that case the the line between murder and suicide is blurred. (Clarification: I think such a thing should be determined on a case by case basis; I wouldn't be able to categorize every case like this as one or the other)

People who splay themselves across the highway are putting themselves in the position to murder other people by causing accidents and are basically committing suicide. Sitting on a sidewalk where people can easily walk around you without murdering themselves or other people is not justification to use force.

Yeah, I don't like the (current american) police. I don't like murderous, oppressive people. You've annoyed me by implying everything I'm saying is simply based off of some blind hated, as if my anger at this heinous act of violence should be disregarded.

Kraco

Sun, 11-27-2011, 05:10 PM

Sure the cases are different with the sidewalk one but not the one in the opening post of this thread. If anti-nuclear power/waste protesters are as good as dead in your eyes, surely memorial dancers can't be worth that much more.

Sapphire

Sun, 11-27-2011, 05:21 PM

Holy shit, what a straw man argument. You are irrational. (Okay, YOU'RE not irrational, but your argument is. My bad, that was rude of me).

Protestors dancing in front of an incoming train, or ANYONE dancing in front of a train is NOTHING LIKE dancing in a public space where there are no trains (ie SIDEWALK, MEMORIAL) and getting tazed/pepper sprayed by people.

I feel like you're trolling me:

category 1 - relatively safe:

sidewalk, memorial

Relatively safe until someone pepper sprays or body slams you, which is a criminal offense called physical assault.

category 2 - DANGEROUS, you will likely kill yourself and/or others:

edge of a cliff, middle of a highway, train tracks, on top of a plane.

-

If what you are doing is dangerous to others you are then committing the criminal offense.

Kraco

Sun, 11-27-2011, 06:30 PM

I guess these waste train problems don't make it to the news on the other side of the pond, so let me assure you there is 0% chance the train would ever drive over the protesters. So, it's about as safe as chaining yourself to the locomotive door so that the train driver can't board the train in the first place to drive it anywhere. It's nothing but a nuisance to the train drivers and the society trying to deal with nuclear waste. It's not a safety issue per se, aside from standing a train full of nuclear waste in the middle of nowhere. Like Ryll said earlier, they know beforehand of the protesters, sometimes even so much beforehand they can try to use a different route (if available). So, in short, the only harm the protesters might face are, surprise surprise, the angry police officers.

To borrow the famous quote, I personally know a train driver and it's offending to even think they would be so worthless people they would drive over a mass of humans. Even driving over a lone thoughtless suicider can be an emotional burden.