Arrest for Dancing in Jefferson's Memorial

[Edort4]

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]

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]

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]

Sorry for what?

[XanBcoo]

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]

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]

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]

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:

[Sapphire]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Isn't that the very problem of this thread? A case of punks purposefully breaking the law was in this thread suddenly turned into a grand civil rights case. I'm not sure those punks even knew what they set out to do, because the moment they decided to disobey the order, they weren't anymore demonstrating against the dance prohibition, they were simply fighting against the law enforcement thereafter and creating a crime scene, which prevented other tourists from visiting the place. It really is poor manners to ruin other people's trip just so that you can make a point of something important only to you. Which is probably also the reason why dancing is counted as demonstration around the area: So that most people (who don't want to dance) can visit the place in peace. Not dancing bothers nobody, dancing will bother some. It has got nothing to do with bloody race segregation from the last century...

[Sapphire]

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, 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]

If we're going to speak on statist terms, the memorial is still a public place, 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]

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 own 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]

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]

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]

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.