Arrest for Dancing in Jefferson's Memorial

[shinta|hikari]

What Xan said, 100%.

[Assertn]

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]

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...041503414.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]

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.

When you protest illegally, you're not protesting. You're rioting.

[Sapphire]

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

[Animeniax]

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.

[Uchiha Barles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?