|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Actually, YES THEY DO. In a public space, as long as it is peaceful. The cops do not have the right to arrest people whenever and however they please. |
No, they don't. You need a permit. No permit--->illegal protest.
| visitorq wrote: |
There is no law. And even if there were, the cops have the obligation to obey the constitution. "Just obeying orders" is no excuse. |
There is a law. The police have an obligation to enforce the law. I never said anything about "just obeying orders." If you continue to put words in my mouth then there will be no point in me continuing this discussion.
| visitorq wrote: |
Actually it starts with the policeman walking up to them and telling them they will be arrested if they dance. If something illegal had happened before that then the police wouldn't be strolling up all macho-like giving them a "warning". This is obvious. |
No, it's not obvious, the video starts with the police already talking to them. Actually, the video in the OP starts with a person already arrested.
| visitorq wrote: |
More apologetics. Those dirt-bag cops had no right to even lay a finger on any of them without cause (and clearly there was no cause). They should all be fired and/or charged with assault. |
I'm not making any apologies. I think that frivolous and overly charged language is detrimental, so I correct it. If you think that's a body slam, you've never been body slammed before. It's also worth mentioning that the man was in the process of resisting arrest when it happened.
| visitorq wrote: |
It seemed pretty obvious that your questions were meant to excuse the cops' behavior. |
I'm not making excuses; I wanted more information. I'm not the type to just jump to a conclusion because it fits my world narrative.
| visitorq wrote: |
Why were the police called there in the first place?
- Apparently to enforce the make-believe law against dancing  |
It's not a make-believe law. See Kuros' post.
| visitorq wrote: |
Why was it being videotaped?
- Why not? It's (supposed to be) a free country and that's a public space.
|
Fair enough.
| visitorq wrote: |
What happened before the video started?
- Nothing happened. Perhaps they were dancing? So what? Obviously if they had been doing something illegal like vandalizing property or threatening people, then the cops wouldn't have strolled up and gave them a 'warning' not to dance. |
You cannot possibly know that from the video.
| visitorq wrote: |
Why were so many additional people involved?
- There was a group of them. Again, so what? Is there a law against a bunch of people assembling at a national monument and quietly dancing? Or a law against them talking back at their lord and masters, the police? Give me a break. |
Yes; there are actually.
Again, if you want to argue the merits and demerits of these laws, okay. But they are laws, they were violated, and the police enforced them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Actually, YES THEY DO. In a public space, as long as it is peaceful. The cops do not have the right to arrest people whenever and however they please. |
No, they don't. You need a permit. No permit--->illegal protest. |
Nonsense. You don't need a permit. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US, and any made up law that says you need a permit to protest is null and void. You may need a municipal permit for certain large gatherings (like if you want to have a street parade or something), but absolutely not for political protests in public places. If you need a permit to protest, then it's not a free society, obviously.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
There is no law. And even if there were, the cops have the obligation to obey the constitution. "Just obeying orders" is no excuse. |
There is a law. The police have an obligation to enforce the law. I never said anything about "just obeying orders." If you continue to put words in my mouth then there will be no point in me continuing this discussion |
I didn't put words into your mouth. That remark was mine. But it does apply directly to what you've said in this context (about the police having a duty to obey 'the law'). The police do not have an obligation to enforce unconstitutional laws (quite the opposite).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Actually it starts with the policeman walking up to them and telling them they will be arrested if they dance. If something illegal had happened before that then the police wouldn't be strolling up all macho-like giving them a "warning". This is obvious. |
No, it's not obvious, the video starts with the police already talking to them. Actually, the video in the OP starts with a person already arrested. |
It starts with the police officer warning them they will be arrested if they dance. If there had already been something illegal happening, then why would the cop be giving them a warning? Again, it is completely obvious (and I'm not sure why you're even debating this point).
| Quote: |
| I'm not making any apologies. I think that frivolous and overly charged language is detrimental, so I correct it. If you think that's a body slam, you've never been body slammed before. It's also worth mentioning that the man was in the process of resisting arrest when it happened. |
"Resisting" illegal arrest by an out-of-line, power tripping scum bag cop? What a joke. Talk about frivolous and overly charged language... he wasn't resisting anything, the cop just took walked him around a bit and then threw him onto the pavement (all for no reason).
Side question: do you think it's okay to resist police if they are acting outside the law? Or do we always have to bow down to our lords and masters no matter the circumstances?
| Quote: |
| I'm not making excuses; I wanted more information. I'm not the type to just jump to a conclusion because it fits my world narrative. |
I think it's pretty obvious that you have taken the side of the police here. What more information could you possibly want?
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Why were the police called there in the first place?
- Apparently to enforce the make-believe law against dancing |
It's not a make-believe law. See Kuros' post. |
See the US Constitution.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
What happened before the video started?
- Nothing happened. Perhaps they were dancing? So what? Obviously if they had been doing something illegal like vandalizing property or threatening people, then the cops wouldn't have strolled up and gave them a 'warning' not to dance. |
You cannot possibly know that from the video. |
Yeah I can. The cop warns them first, then arrests them in the video, after they start dancing. It's very clear.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Why were so many additional people involved?
- There was a group of them. Again, so what? Is there a law against a bunch of people assembling at a national monument and quietly dancing? Or a law against them talking back at their lord and masters, the police? Give me a break. |
Yes; there are actually.
Again, if you want to argue the merits and demerits of these laws, okay. But they are laws, they were violated, and the police enforced them. |
More nonsense. The right to protest is not something can be legislated away. There is no actual law that can trump our basic Constitutional right.
And saying the police have to enforce the law (implying any law) is asinine. If a law is passed for them to start shooting protesters, do they have a duty to obey that law too? Just think about what you're saying here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodemas2
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
There is no law. And even if there were, the cops have the obligation to obey the constitution. "Just obeying orders" is no excuse. |
There is a law. |
| Quote: |
| It's not a make-believe law. See Kuros' post. |
YOU are the one who needs to see Kuros' post. There is NO law, only a judge's ruling.
| visitorq wrote: |
It truly amazes me that people can watch such a disgraceful video and still come out defending these scumbag cops Seriously, have you no spine? Why is your gut reaction to lick the authorities' boots instead of feeling outrage? One day that'll be your face they're slamming into the pavement, shouting at you while they're cuffing you like a common criminal.
Seeing this sort of thing makes me very angry... Apparently a whole bunch more people are organizing to go back there and dance again and show those bastard cops that they have no authority to stop people from doing harmless, peaceful activities in public spaces. I wish I could be there. |
x 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Nonsense. You don't need a permit. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US, and any made up law that says you need a permit to protest is null and void. You may need a municipal permit for certain large gatherings (like if you want to have a street parade or something), but absolutely not for political protests in public places. If you need a permit to protest, then it's not a free society, obviously. |
You need a permit to protest on/in a monument. Whether that is an unnecessary limitation on a free society is a separate debate.
| visitorq wrote: |
I didn't put words into your mouth. That remark was mine. But it does apply directly to what you've said in this context (about the police having a duty to obey 'the law'). The police do not have an obligation to enforce unconstitutional laws (quite the opposite). |
The police don�t determine the constitutionality of a law.
| visitorq wrote: |
It starts with the police officer warning them they will be arrested if they dance. If there had already been something illegal happening, then why would the cop be giving them a warning? Again, it is completely obvious (and I'm not sure why you're even debating this point). |
They are breaking a law. Officer requests them to cease. They refuse. They are arrested. I�m not sure what you are debating.
| visitorq wrote: |
"Resisting" illegal arrest by an out-of-line, power tripping scum bag cop? What a joke. Talk about frivolous and overly charged language... he wasn't resisting anything, the cop just took walked him around a bit and then threw him onto the pavement (all for no reason). |
A police officer is attempting to subdue the man, the man walks/runs away and has a friend help him try to break free from the officer. How is that not �resisting�?
| visitorq wrote: |
Side question: do you think it's okay to resist police if they are acting outside the law? Or do we always have to bow down to our lords and masters no matter the circumstances? |
In principle, I think that a person should resist if the police are outside the law. However, I think that there are mitigating factors; such as if a person�s life is in danger perhaps it�s best to submit and fight the battle in court.
| visitorq wrote: |
Yeah I can. The cop warns them first, then arrests them in the video, after they start dancing. It's very clear. |
So you admit that the officer informed them, when they failed to comply, they were arrested. I�m glad that�s now clear to you.
| visitorq wrote: |
More nonsense. The right to protest is not something can be legislated away. There is no actual law that can trump our basic Constitutional right.
|
I think that that is a valid point. Like I said, if you want to discuss the law, that�s fine. A police officer�s job is to enforce the law, though.
| visitorq wrote: |
And saying the police have to enforce the law (implying any law) is asinine. If a law is passed for them to start shooting protesters, do they have a duty to obey that law too? Just think about what you're saying here. |
If such a law were ever passed in my country, I�d either be dead from protesting against it, or it�d no longer be my country.
Now here is my main point. Please try and understand it, and don�t dissect quote it:
These people broke a law (protesting without a permit). The police reasonably tried to deal with these people. Is the law they broke evil? No. Is it misguided and in need of either amending or annulling? Yes, I think so. Is it the job of the police to either choose the laws in which they wish to enforce, and/or modify the laws as they deem fit? Absolutely not. If people wish to be angered by this situation, I don�t think it serves anything to be angered with the police because that does absolutely nothing to help matters. It only further pushes things around. Instead, we should be focusing on what laws or statutes were the police enforcing, and how should we fix them to better serve the people and the Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure there is a regulation (I'm doubtful Congress passed a law) governing behavior in the Jefferson Memorial. The question is whether it is Constitutional. That is where the Federal justice's ruling comes in.
Remember that the judge ruled that the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum. Constitutional First Amendment protection varies depending on the forum. If the forum is public, as it would be on the open Washington Mall, then speech regulations must be (1) content-neutral (time, place, manner only), (2) substantially related to an important gov't interest, and (3) leave open alternative avenues for communication.
But here the judge ruled the Jefferson Memorial is a non-public forum. Thus speech regulations must only be (1) viewpoint-neutral (can suppress speech about entire topics, but regardless of viewpoint) and (2) reasonably related to a legitimate gov't interest. This standard is much easier, and can be used to justify a no-dance policy on the grounds that the gov't has a legitimate interest in allowing people to visit the Jefferson Memorial free of distractions. Although as a judge I personally would find that silent dancing of the kind displayed here would be permitted. I think if they were being loud (I mean before they got arrested), it would be another story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodemas2
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| These people broke a law (protesting without a permit). The police reasonably tried to deal with these people. Is the law they broke evil? No. Is it misguided and in need of either amending or annulling? Yes, I think so. Is it the job of the police to either choose the laws in which they wish to enforce, and/or modify the laws as they deem fit? Absolutely not. If people wish to be angered by this situation, I don�t think it serves anything to be angered with the police because that does absolutely nothing to help matters. It only further pushes things around. Instead, we should be focusing on what laws or statutes were the police enforcing, and how should we fix them to better serve the people and the Constitution. |
Dress it up, talk circles around it, and rationalize all you want, but in the end, peaceful people got body-slammed. Any liberty-loving decent citizen should be outraged, or at least moved to say something is seriously wrong here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodemas2 wrote: |
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| These people broke a law (protesting without a permit). The police reasonably tried to deal with these people. Is the law they broke evil? No. Is it misguided and in need of either amending or annulling? Yes, I think so. Is it the job of the police to either choose the laws in which they wish to enforce, and/or modify the laws as they deem fit? Absolutely not. If people wish to be angered by this situation, I don�t think it serves anything to be angered with the police because that does absolutely nothing to help matters. It only further pushes things around. Instead, we should be focusing on what laws or statutes were the police enforcing, and how should we fix them to better serve the people and the Constitution. |
Dress it up, talk circles around it, and rationalize all you want, but in the end, peaceful people got body-slammed. Any liberty-loving decent citizen should be outraged, or at least moved to say something is seriously wrong here. |
Agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's absolutely no excuse for that slam at 1:03. None whatsoever. That cop should lose his job, pay the stupid college kid he assaulted, and then spend time in jail.
As for whether those kids should have been forced out, well, that depends entirely on what happened before this footage. I have a feeling something else happened, because I can't imagine even a bored-out-of-his-mind cop arresting and assaulting a group of college students for quietly dancing like idiots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
You guys should do some more research.
First, the whole thing was planned. It was being done by Adam Kokesh, a guy who has a TV show "Adam Kokesh vs. The Man" on RTV, the Russian English language tv station.
Some people were arrested a few years ago for dancing at the memorial. They were told to leave and didn't, and one of the women was arrested. The charges were never pursued and the case was dropped. HOWEVER, she sued the individual park ranger for excessive force. The CIVIL suit was recently dismissed and THAT is what the judge was ruling on. His ruling said that the cop was justified in removing her and he did his job.
SO, last week, this group of people from the TV show decided to go and dance. They announced it to the public. They wanted as many people to show up as possible. In fact, they actually waited longer to start so more people would be there.
The people who were filming were told to turn it off because they had no permit for commercial filming, which is required to film COMMERCIALLY. The people who were dancing were told to knock it off, and when they didn't, they were arrested. They didn't apply for or receive a permit for their protest/free speech demonstration.
The parks department grants something like 6000 permits a year for the Mall. There is a 50 dollar processing fee, UNLESS it is a First Amendment issue, then the fee is waived. The whole point of the permit system is so that everyone can enjoy the Mall.
So, what happened here? Recap -
You need a permit for groups of 25 or more, which the woman a few years ago failed to get, which this group failed to get.
You need a permit for commercial filming, which this group failed to get.
This group knowingly ignored the rules and went out of their way to cause a disturbance.
The ONLY thing I have a problem with is the way the cops handled it. The cops should be able to tell you exactly what rule you are breaking, and they should NEVER put a hand on someones throat like that. Other than that, these idiots got what they deserved. Had they actually applied for a permit and been denied, I'd support them, but this - this is their own fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
You guys should do some more research.
First, the whole thing was planned. It was being done by Adam Kokesh, a guy who has a TV show "Adam Kokesh vs. The Man" on RTV, the Russian English language tv station.
Some people were arrested a few years ago for dancing at the memorial. They were told to leave and didn't, and one of the women was arrested. The charges were never pursued and the case was dropped. HOWEVER, she sued the individual park ranger for excessive force. The CIVIL suit was recently dismissed and THAT is what the judge was ruling on. His ruling said that the cop was justified in removing her and he did his job.
SO, last week, this group of people from the TV show decided to go and dance. They announced it to the public. They wanted as many people to show up as possible. In fact, they actually waited longer to start so more people would be there.
The people who were filming were told to turn it off because they had no permit for commercial filming, which is required to film COMMERCIALLY. The people who were dancing were told to knock it off, and when they didn't, they were arrested. They didn't apply for or receive a permit for their protest/free speech demonstration.
The parks department grants something like 6000 permits a year for the Mall. There is a 50 dollar processing fee, UNLESS it is a First Amendment issue, then the fee is waived. The whole point of the permit system is so that everyone can enjoy the Mall.
So, what happened here? Recap -
You need a permit for groups of 25 or more, which the woman a few years ago failed to get, which this group failed to get.
You need a permit for commercial filming, which this group failed to get.
This group knowingly ignored the rules and went out of their way to cause a disturbance.
The ONLY thing I have a problem with is the way the cops handled it. The cops should be able to tell you exactly what rule you are breaking, and they should NEVER put a hand on someones throat like that. Other than that, these idiots got what they deserved. Had they actually applied for a permit and been denied, I'd support them, but this - this is their own fault. |
Yeah, it looked like the place was packed with protesters clearly stopping people from enjoying the mall....I mean really, its very reasonable the government should be able to charge you 50 dollars if 25 or more people wish to dance in a given public area You argue that he didn't have a commercial license to film, he should have to pay the government to video taping them acting like thugs? Hows that conversation go, "Hey, we asked a bunch of people to come down to the Jefferson memorial to dance and we know you guys are gonna come through and arrest them so we'd like a filming permit to demonstrate what thugs you all are. That cool?" This whole argument we have to defend the exact rule of law is bunk. The police here aren't protecting anyone's freedom, they are squashing it and only generating revenue for the states. I am not some sort of crazed libertarian but this is exactly the sort of stuff that shows what is wrong when you let government regulate too much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodemas2
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
You guys should do some more research.
First, the whole thing was planned. |
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it was planned or not. So i only have rights when I do unplanned stuff? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
You guys should do some more research.
First, the whole thing was planned. It was being done by Adam Kokesh, a guy who has a TV show "Adam Kokesh vs. The Man" on RTV, the Russian English language tv station.
Some people were arrested a few years ago for dancing at the memorial. They were told to leave and didn't, and one of the women was arrested. The charges were never pursued and the case was dropped. HOWEVER, she sued the individual park ranger for excessive force. The CIVIL suit was recently dismissed and THAT is what the judge was ruling on. His ruling said that the cop was justified in removing her and he did his job.
SO, last week, this group of people from the TV show decided to go and dance. They announced it to the public. They wanted as many people to show up as possible. In fact, they actually waited longer to start so more people would be there.
The people who were filming were told to turn it off because they had no permit for commercial filming, which is required to film COMMERCIALLY. The people who were dancing were told to knock it off, and when they didn't, they were arrested. They didn't apply for or receive a permit for their protest/free speech demonstration.
The parks department grants something like 6000 permits a year for the Mall. There is a 50 dollar processing fee, UNLESS it is a First Amendment issue, then the fee is waived. The whole point of the permit system is so that everyone can enjoy the Mall.
So, what happened here? Recap -
You need a permit for groups of 25 or more, which the woman a few years ago failed to get, which this group failed to get.
You need a permit for commercial filming, which this group failed to get.
This group knowingly ignored the rules and went out of their way to cause a disturbance.
The ONLY thing I have a problem with is the way the cops handled it. The cops should be able to tell you exactly what rule you are breaking, and they should NEVER put a hand on someones throat like that. Other than that, these idiots got what they deserved. Had they actually applied for a permit and been denied, I'd support them, but this - this is their own fault. |
Excellent post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodemas2 wrote: |
Dress it up, talk circles around it, and rationalize all you want, but in the end, peaceful people got body-slammed. Any liberty-loving decent citizen should be outraged, or at least moved to say something is seriously wrong here. |
So if someone doesn't agree with you and/or see things your way, there is something wrong with that person.
That's an interesting set of democratic principles you have.
| shifter2009 wrote: |
Yeah, it looked like the place was packed with protesters clearly stopping people from enjoying the mall....I mean really, its very reasonable the government should be able to charge you 50 dollars if 25 or more people wish to dance in a given public area You argue that he didn't have a commercial license to film, he should have to pay the government to video taping them acting like thugs? Hows that conversation go, "Hey, we asked a bunch of people to come down to the Jefferson memorial to dance and we know you guys are gonna come through and arrest them so we'd like a filming permit to demonstrate what thugs you all are. That cool?" |
How about, "we are staging a peaceful protest at the Jefferson Memorial against a judicial decision. The ruling involves freedom of speech and expresion. We would like to film our protest and post it on our website."
| shifter2009 wrote: |
This whole argument we have to defend the exact rule of law is bunk. |
Pray tell, who then determines what and how we implement and defend the law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a result of the "desperate need for attention" that people seem to be infected with. That combined with a lack of respect for authority and a disregard for social graces.
Just get the bloody permit. And guess what? We don't care to see you dance. You're not that interesting.
Not that people need to be chokeslammed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
