Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What was the protest about?

He wasn't body slammed/choked for dancing. He was body slammed/choked for repeatedly ignoring police who told him that organizing a disruptive mob at the Jefferson Memorial was illegal. Still excessive but very different.

Originally posted by jaden101
What was the protest about?

I think some woman went to court for dancing at this place a few years ago and lost the case, so these lot wanted to protest against that.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
I think some woman went to court for dancing at this place a few years ago and lost the case, so these lot wanted to protest against that.

I think they should do another protest where they don't dance but just thrust violently with their tongues out and an angry, dirty look on their faces.

How I see it: they are perfectly within their rights SPECIFICALLY because they were protesting on Federal Property.



They were not doing any lewd or devious behaviors.



The video pissed me off.



Also, he was body slammed and choked for not allowing the police to unlawfully arrest him. From how I understand it, you can resist and physically defend yourself up to and including killing the arresting officer (only if it is necessary to maintain your life).


The thing is: most police are not douches like that. MOST are not.

Edit - Anybody notice the officer telling that one dude to "shutup". That made me lol. You can't tell a person to shutup when they've been arrested.

You can if you're Vic Mackay.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How I see it: they are perfectly within their rights SPECIFICALLY because they were protesting on Federal Property.

Except that it's a tourist site. Why should they be allowed to trample on other people' right to enjoy it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, he was body slammed and choked for not allowing the police to unlawfully arrest him. From how I understand it, you can resist and physically defend yourself up to and including killing the arresting officer (only if it is necessary to maintain your life).

You're just about always allowed the kill someone if they're TRYING TO KILL YOU, it has nothing to do with resisting arrest.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that it's a tourist site. Why should they be allowed to trample on other people' right to enjoy it?

If they had a city license to protest (some cities require it) and because it's federal property, it's perfectly within their rights.


And, I hardly see how dancing in an unoffensive way, is somehow "trampling" on other people's rights to enjoy it.

It's not like they were smoking.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're just about always allowed the kill someone if they're TRYING TO KILL YOU, it has nothing to do with resisting arrest.





And you thought that that wasn't what I was talking about?

Originally posted by dadudemon
If they had a city license to protest (some cities require it) and because it's federal property, it's perfectly within their rights.

Did they have a permit? I was looking on some other sites. People said the protest was legal specifically because they didn't have a permit. Abandon all sanity ye who enter here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, I hardly see how dancing in an unoffensive way, is somehow "trampling" on other people's rights to enjoy it.

If I want to see the Memorial without people in my way (which is the way everyone wants to go see it) they would prevent that. So who defends my rights?

Oh yeah, the police.

Its exactly the same way that you can hold a rally on the sidewalk but can't spill out into the street and block traffic. The law does not say that you can "do whatever the hell you want so long as you call it free speech".

Originally posted by dadudemon
And you thought that that wasn't what I was talking about?

I've met people who believe its legal to kill repo men for "theft" and that a visit by a tax collector is an act of war by the government so I tend not to rule anything out.

they used to call this kind of thing a "rave"

You can't resist an arrest, ever. Like, you can resist someone trying to kill you, but you can't resist an arrest. All you can do is get arrested, then sue for false imprisonment.

So in other words.... resistance is futile?

The court is America's arena. And Dancing with the Stars.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did they have a permit? I was looking on some other sites. People said the protest was legal specifically because they didn't have a permit. Abandon all sanity ye who enter here.

Did they not have a permit?

If they didn't and you're saying it was "legal" specifically because they didn't have one, that makes no sense.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If I want to see the Memorial without people in my way (which is the way everyone wants to go see it) they would prevent that. So who defends my rights?

And their dancing "magically" makes it to where you cannot see the memorial versus standing there?

This line of reasoning it just ridiculous. If you are "distracted" by their dancing, you have another problem that isn't their fault: a severe form of ADD.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh yeah, the police.

Yeah, the police there to rescue you from people gently dancing (versus just standing there). Thank GOD man.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its exactly the same way that you can hold a rally on the sidewalk but can't spill out into the street and block traffic. The law does not say that you can "do whatever the hell you want so long as you call it free speech".

This is a non sequitur, to the max.

You just compared a rally spilling into streets to harmless slow dancing at the Jefferson Memorial.

Is there danger and/or death to be had by slow dancing at the Jefferson memorial?




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've met people who believe its legal to kill repo men for "theft" and that a visit by a tax collector is an act of war by the government so I tend not to rule anything out.

K.



Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You can't resist an arrest, ever. Like, you can resist someone trying to kill you, but you can't resist an arrest. All you can do is get arrested, then sue for false imprisonment.

I hate to be like this...but...

You're wrong: Miller v. State, Runyan v. State, Plummer v. State, and Housh v. People.

I can see why dancing about at a memorial might be annoying, especially if someone decides to bring a boogy box and have a rave there, the question is where to you draw the line?

The law is maybe too black and white, and those who inforce it have no choice but to judge it that way.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I hate to be like this...but...

You're wrong: Miller v. State, Runyan v. State, Plummer v. State, and Housh v. People.

Could you extrapolate? This crappy mechanism with which I am using to surf the internet refuses to make love with Google.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Could you extrapolate? This crappy mechanism with which I am using to surf the internet refuses to make love with Google.

Constitutionally you can resist arrest if you're unlawfully being arrested. It's a grey-zone though, as you'd have to prove it was unlawful and you're likely to end up in more trouble doing so.

All in all, it's safer to just let the dick-head cop arrest you and then deal with it later.

logically though, if you resist arrest you are going to get your ass kicked, regardless of what rights you have

man, ive seen so many underage kids beaten for just dancing....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Most of the time, that's true. There are a few instances where the "arrestee" can quite nicely defend himself against 2 or 3 "arrestors." The cops in the video? They looked like "regular everyday normal guys."

no, I agree, but I don't see this as one of those situations

the cops said outright, and I agree they shouldn't have the right to do this, that dancing would not be allowed

whether legal or not, they drew the line, and it is in the job description of police officers not to back down. As stupid as it sounds, dancing was an escalation, even though I can't agree more that it shouldn't be.

most times when you deal with cops, they don't care about what your rights should be, is all I'm saying

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I agree, but I don't see this as one of those situations
Every last one of those people looked like tree-hugging hippies that spend more time smoking weed than they do practicing MMA and lifting weights...so I'm inclined to agree.

Originally posted by inimalist
the cops said outright, and I agree they shouldn't have the right to do this, that dancing would not be allowed

Which made me lol. "Dancing"? Really?



Originally posted by inimalist
most times when you deal with cops, they don't care about what your rights should be, is all I'm saying

That's true, sometimes, but not all of that time. Some people join the force to, literally, protect and serve the people they love. They think that the idiot criminal busting into granny's home and robbing/raping her needs to be protected. They think pulling people out of burning cars in traffic accidents is what they want to do.


Then there's the bunch that want to constantly exact their power and control over the people around them. They get strong feelings of satisfaction and even euphoria from a successful power-trip. I hate these types.