Arrest for Dancing in Jefferson's Memorial

[Sapphire]

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]

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.

[Penner]

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

Because that line must be drawn somewhere lol

[Sapphire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[KitKat]

It's not even really a law.

Well, whatever it is, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the dancing ban.

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

[shinta|hikari]

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]

Well, whatever it is, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the dancing ban.

You'll make a wonderful political activist, Sapphi
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?