Arrest for Dancing in Jefferson's Memorial

[Buffalobiian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[shinta|hikari]

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

[Edort4]

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]

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]

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.