If there were warnings first, then maybe.
The article on the first page says that before they entered that disobeying the laws would result in an instant arrest without warning.
That in itself was a warning.
"Don't break this law or you will be arrested" That's being warned.
These people knew what they were doing...
Exactly. They're morons. They had a little fun with it on top of that. Oh well, I've no sympathy for that group. They were goin out of their way to *** w/ the cops.
Like this, for example. You can't try to pull a cop away because he is trying to put handcuffs on your cousin. *** deserved that punch, lol and I'd like to see it in slow motion
If there were warnings first, then maybe.
The article on the first page says that before they entered that disobeying the laws would result in an instant arrest without warning.
That in itself was a warning.
"Don't break this law or you will be arrested" That's being warned.
Formal charges were never explained or brought up post arrest.
The only knowledge was that they couldn't dance. Which frankly is pretty asinine.
Between deliberately dancing and going beyond means necessary to enforce said law that was broken, I would put the police in the wrong more so than the folks dancing.
If there were warnings first, then maybe.
The article on the first page says that before they entered that disobeying the laws would result in an instant arrest without warning.
That in itself was a warning.
"Don't break this law or you will be arrested" That's being warned.
Formal charges were never explained or brought up post arrest.
The only knowledge was that they couldn't dance. Which frankly is pretty asinine.
Asinine or not is irrelevant. Don't dance on a damn memorial. Is it really gonna effect your trip that much that you cannot post on Facebook "AW YEAH I DANCED ON TOMMY JEFF LOL ***WAS SO CASH" ?
If there were warnings first, then maybe.
The article on the first page says that before they entered that disobeying the laws would result in an instant arrest without warning.
That in itself was a warning.
"Don't break this law or you will be arrested" That's being warned.
Formal charges were never explained or brought up post arrest.
The only knowledge was that they couldn't dance. Which frankly is pretty asinine.
Between deliberately dancing and going beyond means necessary to enforce said law that was broken, I would put the police in the wrong more so than the folks dancing.
If memory serves me correctly, they aren't required to tell you what you're being charged with until you're being booked. They don't have to tell you on the spot.
I'd understand forcibly and physically enforcing a law that holds potential to harm or alienate others, but I'm surprised so many people support cowardice than confrontation over the ridiculous.
Alas, civil disobedience will push legislation faster than posting in video game forums will; and interesting discussion nevertheless.
If there were warnings first, then maybe.
The article on the first page says that before they entered that disobeying the laws would result in an instant arrest without warning.
That in itself was a warning.
"Don't break this law or you will be arrested" That's being warned.
Formal charges were never explained or brought up post arrest.
The only knowledge was that they couldn't dance. Which frankly is pretty asinine.
Asinine or not is irrelevant. Don't dance on a damn memorial. Is it really gonna effect your trip that much that you cannot post on Facebook "AW YEAH I DANCED ON TOMMY JEFF LOL ***WAS SO CASH" ?
It's like singing in a library. People go there for peace and quiet.
People go to a memorial to pay respects in a peaceful manner. Someone dancing and singing can effect that peace and quiet for others.
If there were warnings first, then maybe.
The article on the first page says that before they entered that disobeying the laws would result in an instant arrest without warning.
That in itself was a warning.
"Don't break this law or you will be arrested" That's being warned.
Formal charges were never explained or brought up post arrest.
The only knowledge was that they couldn't dance. Which frankly is pretty asinine.
Between deliberately dancing and going beyond means necessary to enforce said law that was broken, I would put the police in the wrong more so than the folks dancing.
If memory serves me correctly, they aren't required to tell you what you're being charged with until you're being booked. They don't have to tell you on the spot.
Even so, they failed to explain or give detail to bystanders that questioned their methods of enforcement. It's as if they did what they did for the sake of being able to more so than finding it appropriate to enforce. Poor judgement call.
It's like singing in a library. People go there for peace and quiet.
People go to a memorial to pay respects in a peaceful manner. Someone dancing and singing can effect that peace and quiet for others.
I'm not saying they're not in the wrong, but what bugs me most is why weren't they simply 86ed rather than being choke slammed, let alone arrested?
Not everything is black and white, thinking in absolutes can lead to problems.
Why challenge the law and say "you are inhibiting my freedoms"... Start from the top and work your way down. Reason the law through before becoming rabid about an apparent "injustice"
I would suggest to begin with "why does this law or guideline exist?" Obviously there are many factors in determining something like this. Laws are usually generalized.
In this case, is there a ban on demonstration here? Before complaining and setting up a staged situation to proclaim injustice, investigate why the ban is there. Is it there to cover situations which can be significant disturbances of peace? If so, then is this benefit of the law better than its cost? If so then you have a problem where you cannot have both benefits at once without making a list of situations in which you can and cannot demonstrate--it's much easier to make a sweeping rule that covers the important aspects positively and allows for dumb situations like this to be handled similarly.
Here's a question that is not so easy to answer (unless you are ignorant or can't think through the entirety of its scope): Are there situations in which freedom and comfort are mutually exclusive? And if so, which is more important? We're a society of luxuries and we really do take those for granted.
If the law is so ridiculous for such an unimportant situation, why not go through the lawful (and usually more effective) process to have it changed? Protests and demonstrations (and staged situations) are good measures against grossly unjust laws, not minutiae like this. It really is a waste of the power and effectiveness of demonstration.
If there were warnings first, then maybe.
The article on the first page says that before they entered that disobeying the laws would result in an instant arrest without warning.
That in itself was a warning.
"Don't break this law or you will be arrested" That's being warned.
Formal charges were never explained or brought up post arrest.
The only knowledge was that they couldn't dance. Which frankly is pretty asinine.
Between deliberately dancing and going beyond means necessary to enforce said law that was broken, I would put the police in the wrong more so than the folks dancing.
If memory serves me correctly, they aren't required to tell you what you're being charged with until you're being booked. They don't have to tell you on the spot.
Even so, they failed to explain or give detail to bystanders that questioned their methods of enforcement. It's as if they did what they did for the sake of being able to more so than finding it appropriate to enforce. Poor judgement call.
They're not required to in any way shape or form. They don't have to say a word to bystanders.
It was a demonstration to criticize the 2009 ruling that you are not allowed to demonstrate inside the Jefferson monument. Those people were warned and willfully being disobedient.
That being said I believe that from the videos that I saw the demonstrators weren't being clear on what the purpose of the demonstration was. To what end they were being vague is a different question.
But given certain conditions, you are allowed to break the law to demonstrate against it under certain circumstances.
Women demonstrating the freedom to be topless in public comes to mind. Women are (at least in some areas) allowed to be topless in public while they are demonstrating and protesting for their right to be topless in public. They are only allowed to be topless when they are protesting, to prove a point, and they are subject to being arrested at other times.
If the protestors at the Jefferson monument made it clear what exactly they were protesting, they may have been within their rights to be breaking the law and protesting the law that prevents them from demonstrating inside the monument if they were directly protesting that law.
IE If the protestors were explicitly protesting the law that says you cannot demonstrate on the Jefferson monument, they might have been in the clear. However, just arguing about free speech likely wouldn't cut it.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on constitutional law, or a lawyer, so I can't really say for sure that these are analogous situations. The law about public decency has some logical similarities to this situation, but the rights guaranteeing public forum may not apply in this case, where they do in others.
Not everything is black and white, thinking in absolutes can lead to problems.
Why challenge the law and say "you are inhibiting my freedoms"... Start from the top and work your way down. Reason the law through before becoming rabid about an apparent "injustice"
I would suggest to begin with "why does this law or guideline exist?" Obviously there are many factors in determining something like this. Laws are usually generalized.
In this case, is there a ban on demonstration here? Before complaining and setting up a staged situation to proclaim injustice, investigate why the ban is there. Is it there to cover situations which can be significant disturbances of peace? If so, then is this benefit of the law better than its cost? If so then you have a problem where you cannot have both benefits at once without making a list of situations in which you can and cannot demonstrate--it's much easier to make a sweeping rule that covers the important aspects positively and allows for dumb situations like this to be handled similarly.
Here's a question that is not so easy to answer (unless you are ignorant or can't think through the entirety of its scope): Are there situations in which freedom and comfort are mutually exclusive? And if so, which is more important? We're a society of luxuries and we really do take those for granted.
If the law is so ridiculous for such an unimportant situation, why not go through the lawful (and usually more effective) process to have it changed? Protests and demonstrations (and staged situations) are good measures against grossly unjust laws, not minutiae like this. It really is a waste of the power and effectiveness of demonstration.
my 2 cents.
Are you suggesting dancing wasn't happenstance with these folks?
It would seem silly if it was deliberate by means of protest from the initial purpose of being at the memorial.
in any other circumstance you would be correct.
Except putting people on a plane surrounded by other people who refuses that right would intrude on my right to have the protection.
in the end we all suffer minor at the cost of our safety.
The protest in this discussion has nothing to do with safety
Instead of derailing this further im gana choose to just stop feeding you
It's like singing in a library. People go there for peace and quiet.
People go to a memorial to pay respects in a peaceful manner. Someone dancing and singing can effect that peace and quiet for others.
I'm not saying they're not in the wrong, but what bugs me most is why weren't they simply 86ed rather than being choke slammed, let alone arrested?
I cannot view Youtube videos since my Flash keeps crashing left and right, so I cannot see exactly how 'brutal' it was. I agree that a choke-slam would be a bit too far, unless those teens really, really did something to aggravate the cops. In that case:
Are you suggesting dancing wasn't happenstance with these folks?
It would seem silly if it was deliberate by means of protest from the initial purpose of being at the memorial.
My limited knowledge of the entire situation suggests yes but obviously I can't know for sure.
Are you suggesting dancing wasn't happenstance with these folks?
It would seem silly if it was deliberate by means of protest from the initial purpose of being at the memorial.
My limited knowledge of the entire situation suggests yes but obviously I can't know for sure.
Apparently it wasn't chance. They were gathering to protest the 2008 arrest and 2009 ruling.
Are you suggesting dancing wasn't happenstance with these folks?
It would seem silly if it was deliberate by means of protest from the initial purpose of being at the memorial.
My limited knowledge of the entire situation suggests yes but obviously I can't know for sure.
Assuming their dance was a matter of happenstance and being in the moment of being a couple, it seems rather obscene the manner in which this law was enforced. If this was some assembled protest to call out how juvenile the law is, then they executed it quite poorly. Besides, why not perform civil disobedience on more pressing matters than dancing at a memorial?
Figures. So feeling up little kids is fine by you, but demonstrating in a place where demonstrations are prohibited is fine. Makes perfect sense.
Huge difference between public grounds and privately owned institutions with policy regarding your purchased patronage.
Airports are public property, try again.
To operate privately owned businesses.
The TSA is merely a federally enforced safety commission that comes with the territory. If you're not flying, you won't have to worry about it.
