Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Let the debating begin.

Never knew bike cops were so tuff.

Good on the officers. You do have the right to protest, but you have to follow proper procedures. Really, how hard is it for someone to get off their rear and do some paperwork.

And most importantly, if you don't have paperwork you don't sass an officer. If you do that then you're being non-compliant and you look worse off in court for just that. I've gotten out of a running a red light ticket, a reckless driving ticket, and a fine for not having a city dog license because I complied, told the truth, and was overall nice to the officers. They have a job that sucks so why make it worse for them?

If the guys had simply said, "Okay we'll stop and get the paperwork done." none of this would've happened, but they had to be self-righteous ass hats and provoke them. Best of all was the part when they said that the officers hate the Constitution and that they were going against everything MIAs were fighting for. Real classy bro, I hope he broke your shoulder again.

What, just happened there?

Anyway (at least under UK law) they would get away scott free, as the officers never actually told them what they were being charged with.

They were dancing in a public place, the Jefferson Memorial to be exact which counts as a National Park. National Parks have a set of rules all on their own and their dancing was seen as a form of protest which is illegal without proper documentation and forms. The officers confronted them and told them that if they wanted to they could go get paper work done and reappear, they responded by saying "What law is that?" and "What are we being charged for?" they then went on to continue dancing thinking that the officers wouldn't respond and when they did they continued to complain.

halonachos wrote:They were dancing in a public place, the Jefferson Memorial to be exact which counts as a National Park. National Parks have a set of rules all on their own and their dancing was seen as a form of protest which is illegal without proper documentation and forms. The officers confronted them and told them that if they wanted to they could go get paper work done and reappear, they responded by saying "What law is that?" and "What are we being charged for?" they then went on to continue dancing thinking that the officers wouldn't respond and when they did they continued to complain.

Heh, maybe that's the way it works in the US, note how I said that certainly under UK law, whilst the police could've carted them away it would have been laughed out of court as the officers failed in the most basic task of telling them when arresting them what they're being arrested for.

I could only imagine the horrific outcome of allowing people to gently sway in proximity to a statue...

Crablezworth wrote:I could only imagine the horrific outcome of allowing people to gently sway in proximity to a statue...

I dunno, they looked very... Hipster-ey, that's why i'm a bit torn and confused on this....

Ultrafool wrote:Never knew bike cops were so tuff.

they have to be. Makes up for not having a car.....

Grimtuff wrote:What, just happened there?

Anyway (at least under UK law) they would get away scott free, as the officers never actually told them what they were being charged with.

Section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 states that in Britain "Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.." There is deliberate ambiguity to allow officers to contain a situation, and then inform the arrested. In this case, under UK law, I'd imagine they'd be informed in 'the van' as it were.

I have no idea about US law though. Presumably the officers acted legally- they tend to know their stuff.

Meh, people were essentially trolling the police and got done for it.

Good on the police.

CadianXV wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:What, just happened there?

Anyway (at least under UK law) they would get away scott free, as the officers never actually told them what they were being charged with.

Section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 states that in Britain "Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.." There is deliberate ambiguity to allow officers to contain a situation, and then inform the arrested. In this case, under UK law, I'd imagine they'd be informed in 'the van' as it were.

I have no idea about US law though. Presumably the officers acted legally- they tend to know their stuff.

Officers here generally neither know nor care what the law is. Which is generally a good thing actually, since there's some 10,000 laws its possible to break (not including state and municipal laws).

CadianXV wrote: Presumably the officers acted legally- they tend to know their stuff.

I agree....until they're back in their car, safely out of earshot.....

Isn't America wonderful?

Only last month the authorities were criticised for stopping a gun-toting pastor from burning a koran outside a mosque during Friday prayers.

Now it turns out to be wrong for the authorities to stop people from dancing in a National Park without the correct licence.

Kilkrazy wrote:Isn't America wonderful?

Everybody has a few skeletons....

Kilkrazy wrote:Only last month the authorities were criticised for stopping a gun-toting pastor from burning a koran outside a mosque during Friday prayers.

Not by me! they should have shot him!

Kilkrazy wrote:Now it turns out to be wrong for the authorities to stop people from dancing in a National Park without the correct licence.

well yeah. nobody likes a buzz kill, c'mon....

Am I the only one who can sympathize with people dancing, I mean it wasn't like they were damaging anything or doing offensive gestures hows that even an arrestable offense? Sure it might look strange dancing in a

park but I can think of way worse issues.

Where's Kevin Bacon when you need him?

I'm sure there is more history to it than "Hey, Man, we are just dancing here, Man...." [/Lebowski Voice]

Yeah, I really enjoy the look on the girl's face when she's pleading "OK we're stoppping, we're stopping..." as they're cuffing her.

Cop says "don't do _____ or you will get arrested." You probably should shut your face and not do _____.

Protest to those making the laws you don't like, not to those who must enforce them.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I'm sure there is more history to it than "Hey, Man, we are just dancing here, Man...." [/Lebowski Voice]

Yeah, I really enjoy the look on the girl's face when she's pleading "OK we're stoppping, we're stopping..." as they're cuffing her.

Cop says "don't do _____ or you will get arrested." You probably should shut your face and not do _____.

Protest to those making the laws you don't like, not to those who must enforce them.

The thing is there's no back-story to it so we don't actually know of the cops have a legitimate reason to be arresting in the first place.

Yes we do, there is a law preventing protests on the Park Grounds specifically dancing I believe. That's why these Asshats were doing it.

If only their fathers had paid them more attention as children...

Here, he says why they were doing it. Basically because they don't agree with the law.

I'll frame this differently:

former marine and iraq war veteran arrested for dancing at jefferson memorial

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yes we do, there is a law preventing protests on the Park Grounds specifically dancing I believe. That's why these Asshats were doing it.

If only their fathers had paid them more attention as children...

Here, he says why they were doing it. Basically because they don't agree with the law.

In that case there's better ways of going about protesting. Either way it's seems the guy is missing point that it's the police's job to enforce the law whether the said policeman agrees or disagrees with the rules. While I

don't agree on all his views I do agree that being prohibited from dancing in a national park is a silly law.

Cheesecat wrote:don't agree on all his views I do agree that being prohibited from dancing in a national park is a silly law.

I'm sure your idea of a national park must be different to ours. That seemed to be some sort of memorial (the guy mentioned Thomas Jefferson?), which is hardly a respectful place to break it down.

In Australia, our idea of a national park is that of wild, untouched, god-forsaken patches of wilderness bigger than most European countries. These nation-spanning lands are preserved, not out of forestry-loving kindness, but becuase our Government has no clue what else to do with such inhospitable arse-ends of nowhere. Dancing out there is going to do little more than convince the watching crocs that you're an epileptic as well as food, and perhaps encourage a Drop Bear attack. Hence the lack of laws here regarding this issue.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:don't agree on all his views I do agree that being prohibited from dancing in a national park is a silly law.

I'm sure your idea of a national park must be different to ours. That seemed to be some sort of memorial (the guy mentioned Thomas Jefferson?), which is hardly a respectful place to break it down.

In Australia, our idea of a national park is that of wild, untouched, god-forsaken patches of wilderness bigger than most European countries. These nation-spanning lands are preserved, not out of forestry-loving kindness, but becuase our Government has no clue what else to do with such inhospitable arse-ends of nowhere. Dancing out there is going to do little more than convince the watching crocs that you're an epileptic as well as food, and perhaps encourage a Drop Bear attack. Hence the lack of laws here regarding this issue.

I agree, I usually picture wild areas too when I think of national parks but according to halonachos the Jefferson memorial is considered a national park.

Cheesecat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:don't agree on all his views I do agree that being prohibited from dancing in a national park is a silly law.

I'm sure your idea of a national park must be different to ours. That seemed to be some sort of memorial (the guy mentioned Thomas Jefferson?), which is hardly a respectful place to break it down.

In Australia, our idea of a national park is that of wild, untouched, god-forsaken patches of wilderness bigger than most European countries. These nation-spanning lands are preserved, not out of forestry-loving kindness, but becuase our Government has no clue what else to do with such inhospitable arse-ends of nowhere. Dancing out there is going to do little more than convince the watching crocs that you're an epileptic as well as food, and perhaps encourage a Drop Bear attack. Hence the lack of laws here regarding this issue.

I agree, I usually picture wild areas too when I think of national parks but according to halonachos the Jefferson memorial is considered a national park.

We have lots of national parks like the ones you're describing (i.e. untouched patches of wilderness the size of some European countries - just look at places like Glacier National Park, and Yellowstone National Park, etc.), however, a lot of national monuments, battlefields, and other similar places are also managed by the National Park Service. I'm would guess that most people think of places like Yellowstone when they think of National Parks, rather than the smaller monuments, so overall I doubt that the Australian idea of a National Park is that much different than the idea of them in the U.S.

Clearly the fuzz were jealous of his dance moves...

The thing is, they probably didn't actually do anything wrong until they resisted arrest (maybe disturbing the peace), which the Kokesh very obviously did. You can see him use tense to resist being cuffed, which is why he got body slammed.

As a rule if you're going to protest and come under arrest you are always better off simply doing what the police say. Not only does it minimize any possible criminal charges, but prevents you from getting your head kicked in.

What's really funny is that while this protest was clearly intended to display the absence of freedom of speech in America, it actually ended up showing remarkable restraint on the part of the police. They could just as easily have tazered Kokesh, or beaten him. If anything this proves that America has become quite a bit more tolerant since Jefferson's day.

dogma wrote:The thing is, they probably didn't actually do anything wrong until they resisted arrest (maybe disturbing the peace), which the Kokesh very obviously did. You can see him use tense to resist being cuffed, which is why he got body slammed.

As a rule if you're going to protest and come under arrest you are always better off simply doing what the police say. Not only does it minimize any possible criminal charges, but prevents you from getting your head kicked in.

What's really funny is that while this protest was clearly intended to display the absence of freedom of speech in America, it actually ended up showing remarkable restraint on the part of the police. They could just as easily have tazered Kokesh, or beaten him. If anything this proves that America has become quite a bit more tolerant since Jefferson's day.

Agreed.

Dogma wrote:The thing is, they probably didn't actually do anything wrong until they resisted arrest (maybe disturbing the peace)

Well, they had posted on Facebook that they intended to have a "Dance Party" at the Memorial in protest/defiance of the law. They were approached by the police and politely explained why and how they would be arrested if they went through with it. Some did it anyway and were promptly arrested.

I am just wondering if "I've got a bad shoulder!" is going to be the new "Don't Taze me , Bro!?"

Looks like the dancers committed one of the most heinous and dangerous crimes that can be committed: contempt of cop.

Asking cops to justify their orders as lawful is almost as bad as killing someone. At least it's more likely to get you violently assaulted by the cops.