Thread: Is this how USA police work?

Originally Posted by Raphael

I don't even know what to say to that. You're bringing a civil rights movement into an argument about the right to walk nude in public? I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're really stretching here.

It's exactly the same basis. I wasn't talking about walking naked, I meant the video. Dancing/hugging should not be prohibited anywhere! It's a public place. Private institutions can have their own rules that aren't in accordance with the constitution, not public areas.

How can you understand my point, but not see that they are exactly the same. I'm not "stretching it" at all.
They are both shite laws and both need to be protested against; purposefully defied constantly.

Disturbing the peace is also a load of shit. Yelling should not get you arrested either.

Originally Posted by poopman

why is it not excessive force to cuff someone for hugging?

They weren't cuffed for hugging, they were cuffed for ignoring a simple warning and undermining what he was saying by dancing in front of the officers when they were told not to (which galvanized the rest of the idiots to follow suit). Cuffing them was supposed to serve as an example for the rest of the group.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

They weren't cuffed for hugging, they were cuffed for ignoring a simple warning and undermining what he was saying by dancing in front of the officers when they were told not to (which galvanized the rest of the idiots to follow suit). Cuffing them was supposed to serve as an example for the rest of the group.

im glad you are in canada stay there

Originally Posted by tommo

Dancing/hugging should not be prohibited anywhere! It's a public place.

The discussion here isn't about whether or not it's a good law.

They are both shite laws and both need to be protested against; purposefully defied constantly.

In this specific situation, the "protesters" resisted arrest. That's not okay. If you're going to protest, obviously you know that you're in violation of a law and are going to be arrested, so you should do it peacefully. The police had every right to cuff those people (and throw that one guy on the ground for resisting arrest) because they were in violation of a law, and were warned beforehand that they would be arrested if they continued to dance. So how were the cops in the wrong? They did their job well.

Originally Posted by poopman

why is it not excessive force to cuff someone for hugging?

Because by definition, cuffing someone is not excessive force.

Originally Posted by poopman

im glad you are in canada stay there

Jealous of mah freedomz? =D

You're just America's hat.

Originally Posted by Raphael

You're just America's hat.

You're Canada's Mexico.

You're in North Korea, nuff said.

*censored*

Originally Posted by Raphael

Wait--- what? Since when is cuffing someone excessive force? Maybe if she had glass arms.

The cop in the beginning kind of looks like James Cameron now that I think of it.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

They weren't cuffed for hugging, they were cuffed for ignoring a simple warning and undermining what he was saying by dancing in front of the officers when they were told not to (which galvanized the rest of the idiots to follow suit). Cuffing them was supposed to serve as an example for the rest of the group.

I am glad you both read my whole text so I don't have to explain this twice. Oh, wait.

Cuffing actually can be use of excessive force if you could have handled the situation with lesser means. Cuffing is used against a violent customer. You can put a person in an arrest without cuffing him, it is totally normal in a democratic country. Considering the seemingly poor expertise level of these cops, I am not surprised they resorted to physical force immediatly. As I said, other half of me was expecting batons and shit. I don't see any reason whatsoever to justify the cuffing in this case.

They were given a warning, but police started to act almost immedieatly with physical means without giving them a proper time to even get out. This wasn't an armed robbery, they weren't violent, why were the policemen so hasty to take them into custody? You say they broke the rules, fine. Remove them from the place. Again common in DEMOCRATIC country. You don't put them jail for weekend. Actually, you cannot even do that here. This sounds more like fascist Germany than a western wellfare state.

Now again for comparison what is a different view of proper law enforcement :

The holding time limit of arrest is 6 hours if you are not being suspected for crime.
12 hours if you are suspected of a mild crime and you have given your personal information.
24 hours if you are being suspected of a crime, which has minimum sentence of at least 1 year.
Also 24 hours if you are being arrested in order to find out your identity and it cannot be done in time.

In all cases after 24 hours police must release you. Now, if they wish to keep you into custody they must have been made a petition for the person to be imprisonment. Unless they have done so, they are committing a restriction of freedom.

Now the reasons the police can arrest you :

* to find out your ID if you are being suspected for a crime
* if you are being suspected to be danger for yourself or others
* if you are suspected for a crime
* if you are suspected to be a danger for public safety
* if you have warrant on you
* if you are ordered to appear in a hearing

So what I am trying to say is : what crime they actually contributed to? If it was a disturbance of public order, you usually get a ticket around here, if even that. Usually you are just removed from the public area if your disturbance is not severe. What we here call severe is that you are being hostile, drunk or are violating property. I see nothing of a sort. I don't care if it is in memorial's rules, that doesn't make it any more sever. A mere removal would have been enough.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

After doing a bit of research it appears the police officer's are pretty much justified in their arrest. The protesters were charged and released for demonstrating on a federally regulated facility without a protest permit. See in the U.S. you just can't wake up one day and say, "hmmmm I think I'm going to start a rally and protest at the Jefferson Memorial today." You need to give advance notices for inside demonstrations (specifically for those that are affiliated with the U.S. federal agencies) and await for the approval. You do not necessarily need a permit to demonstrate outside of the facility i.e., side walk or parking lot. This is something so basic with demonstrators that they've should have been aware of this before initiating such a demonstration.

Here it is a constitutional right to hold a demonstration. While there is a sort of thing as "permit", or moreso a notification that must be given to the police 6 hour prior, even without it police has no right to stop ongoing demonstration UNLESS it promotes other crimes ie. violence or material destruction. What they want is only the name of one person who is willing to call himself upstarter of demonstration. After the illegal demonstration they usually just take the leader to the hearing and fines are the most I have ever heard no one has gotten. Different thing is a violent demonstration where bottles are thrown etc. In that case police will apprehend those who are involved in such crimes. Also, if there is no one willing to take the title of upstarter, police may break the demonstration. Funniest thing here is that this is how USA goverment sees demonstration in a first place. You cannot expect field workers to do any good if the whole law system if laughable.

Still one has to be a moron not to see how unprofessional and poorly trained those officials are. Apart for their decision to cuff everyone, their use of force is laughable. What, you really take a body slam takedown on a perfectly calm customer and then threathen with a strangle hold? But is the real problem the hammer or the hand that holds it? I am doubt both very strongly at this point.

I will not take much part on discussion considering the laws of USA, because I am not familiar with them and I don't have much of respect for American law enforcement at all.

The land of freedom, where you can be anything you aspire. Even a professional thief. Granted, you have to have a good lawyer and you don't have to worry a thing.

Now, would anyone who knows kindly state me how long does it take for USA field policeman to be trained? I would like to have knowledge of that before I continue.

The constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Incorrect, it is FEDERAL. It's actually an extension of the 5th and 6th amendments in the bill of rights. Cops MUST recite them under federal law. And the Supreme Court has ruled on that MULTIPLE times: Miranda v. Arizona, California v. Prysock, Berghuis v. Thompkins. Not only do they have to recite them, they actually have to be sure the defendant understands them, several cases dealing with Spanish speaking people have gotten cops in a TON of trouble because they read them in english.

The only person who is incorrect is you and you obviously do not know anything about how this process works. First you need to read up on Miranda v. Arizona before you cite it.

Originally Posted by Miranda Warning

It is important to reemphasize that the duty to warn ONLY arose when police officers conduct custodial interrogations. The constitution does not require that a defendant be advised of the Miranda rights as part of the arrest procedure, or once officer has probable cause to arrest, or if the defendant has become a suspect of the focus of an investigation, Custody "AND" interrogation are the events that trigger the duty to warn.
MIRANDA WARNINGS

A police officer have to read you your Miranda rights when you are under arrest AND you are being questioned for a crime you are suspected of committing. They DO NOT have to be read to you simply because you are being placed under arrest. Most people go through the entire process of being arrested and being sentenced without once hearing their miranda rights.

Secondly don't twist my words, I am not saying they do not have to be mirandized, what I'm explaining to you is the simple fact that if they are to be mirandized it doesn't have to happen right then and there when they are slapping cuffs on the perpetrators and while in the process of trying to maintain some sort of order within the establishment. Also note that they can even be mirandized in writing. All that stuff you put in up there was for nothing, you're obviously not reading anything I'm saying.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It doesn't matter how nicely they asked, if it's legal to do something, the cops SHOULDN'T ask. Execution doesn't mean anything, as long as it's legal, the cops have no right to do anything.

Bottom line is you cannot demonstrate inside a nonpublic fora. This is why there is a difference between a traditional public fora (sidewalks and parks etc.) and nonpublic fora. Speech on sidewalks and in parks is generally broadly constitutionally protected; speech inside government buildings is not so protected, and can be restricted, by U.S. Park Service Authorities considering the restriction is viewpoint-neutral and reasonable.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

U.S. District Judges don't mean shit when a SUPREME COURT says dancing is protected by the first amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_v._Pap's_A._M. Supreme Court is the final word, they said its protected, it's protected. The case was about nudity, but it extended to ALL dancing.

It is the U.S. District Court Judges that are empowered by Congress to exercise original jurisdiction pertaining to civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. If a U.S. District Judge bans and prohibits demonstrations inside a non-public fora then the he is empowered by congress to exercise that. It's evident this is fact, as this has already been established.

Look at this way in the sense of public areas. Libraries are public spaces, however, that doesn't mean you can go in there and start acting like an idiot and making noise does it? It's the same with a Memorial.

A ladies restroom is a public space but can you go in there? No. Are your rights in violation because you cannot go in there? No

The Grand Canyon is public space. But cannot set up a huge set of amps at the ring and blast your favorite music. Because you cannot do this, do you think your Freedom of Speech is in violation? I would hope not.

These people were making a spectacle inside a Memorial. They were intentionally acting like jerks and trying to piss off the authorities. This is what code-pink does. They could care less about the constitution.

Perspective is not and evasive insight nor is it hard to maintain, it's a Memorial, not a playground. They can go right outside the Memorial and dance all they want. and no one would say a word. Inside the Memorial, they need try to act like mature adults please. But then again this is code-pink we're talking about. So much for that advice. We'll see what transpires on Saturday when they return.

Originally Posted by Raphael

Wait--- what? Since when is cuffing someone excessive force? Maybe if she had glass arms.

LOL

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.

Unsubstantiated Bush quote.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Unsubstantiated Bush quote.

The only one I might agree with. Sort of makes me feel dirty.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.

So are laws.

Originally Posted by Unelias

Here it is a constitutional right to hold a demonstration. While there is a sort of thing as "permit", or moreso a notification that must be given to the police 6 hour prior, even without it police has no right to stop ongoing demonstration UNLESS it promotes other crimes ie. violence or material destruction.

I'm thinking you have never been to the Jefferson Memorial before. The Jefferson Memorial, or in a publicly owned cemetery, would be constitutionally restrictable as speech in a nonpublic forum. Speech on a street outside either place would be generally much more protected, as speech in a traditional public forum.

What you do not know is the fact that there is a bright line that demarcates the areas off-limits to demonstrations like this at the Jefferson Memorial as well as other DC memorials that are administered by the Park Service it’s called The Code of Federal Regulations, specifically 36 CFR 7.96. sec.(g) It’s available at any library or you can order a copy on line and it even has a map of the memorial outlining where people CAN and CANNOT demonstrate. Code-pink is very aware of this and specifically engineered this whole stunt hoping for a conflict with the Park Police regarding the dismissal of Oberwetter's lawsuit from 2008.

Originally Posted by Unelias

What they want is only the name of one person who is willing to call himself upstarter of demonstration.

Exactly and if you notice in the video when the officer requested for this individual they said it was Thomas Jefferson. What kind of idiotic response is that? Thomas Jefferson wasn't even there.

Originally Posted by Unelias

You cannot expect field workers to do any good if the whole law system if laughable.

What's laughable is you trying to dictate a law system in which you are obviously ignorant of.

Originally Posted by Unelias

Still one has to be a moron not to see how unprofessional and poorly trained those officials are. Apart for their decision to cuff everyone, their use of force is laughable. What, you really take a body slam takedown on a perfectly calm customer and then threathen with a strangle hold? But is the real problem the hammer or the hand that holds it? I am doubt both very strongly at this point.

One has to be a moron to think that code-pink is justified in any of their actions. Do you even know anything about this group? Or are you just talking just to be talking? You do not need to tell a grown man over and over and over again to cease and desist. He was warned he did not take heed to the warning. I'm sure the officer was wondering why was he sizing him up in the first place. The officer saw him as belligerent and decided to take counter measures. Did you even watch the video?

Originally Posted by Unelias

Now, would anyone who knows kindly state me how long does it take for USA field policeman to be trained? I would like to have knowledge of that before I continue.

Google it.

Originally Posted by Unelias;1669973
Cuffing actually can be use of excessive force if you could have handled the situation with lesser means. Cuffing is used against [B

a violent [/B]customer. You can put a person in an arrest without cuffing him, it is totally normal in a democratic country.

The cuffing was justified because they were resisting arrest (some of them). The ones who weren't resiting simply had to put their hands behind their back, I don't see how that's a big deal. Yeah, they could have arrested the people without the use of handcuffs, but they did. They are policemen so I trust their judgement. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference if they were cuffed or not.

I don't see any reason whatsoever to justify the cuffing in this case.

They were trying to control the situation, they arrested people who were warned repeatedly that they would be arrested if they didn't stop.

They were given a warning, but police started to act almost immedieatly with physical means without giving them a proper time to even get out. This wasn't an armed robbery, they weren't violent, why were the policemen so hasty to take them into custody? You say they broke the rules, fine. Remove them from the place.

Proper time to get out? They were given plenty of time to leave after they were issued warnings, when they continued to dance, they were arrested. The cops weren't interested in removing them from the place, they were going to cuff them and take them down to the station. This is exactly what the cops warned would happen.

A mere removal would have been enough.

They broke the law, so they were arrested. That's the way it works.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm thinking you have never been to the Jefferson Memorial before. The Jefferson Memorial, or in a publicly owned cemetery, would be constitutionally restrictable as speech in a nonpublic forum. Speech on a street outside either place would be generally much more protected, as speech in a traditional public forum.

What you do not know is the fact that there is a bright line that demarcates the areas off-limits to demonstrations like this at the Jefferson Memorial as well as other DC memorials that are administered by the Park Service it’s called The Code of Federal Regulations, specifically 36 CFR 7.96. sec.(g) It’s available at any library or you can order a copy on line and it even has a map of the memorial outlining where people CAN and CANNOT demonstrate. Code-pink is very aware of this and specifically engineered this whole stunt hoping for a conflict with the Park Police regarding the dismissal of Oberwetter's lawsuit from 2008.

No, I have never been there. Despite the laws and regulations which apply on this case I still see no reason to handcuff or arrest a person. As I explained before, from our point of view it is not valid. They could have removed the persons from the memorial and it would have been enough. Maybe fined too if that is such a great blasphemy, but not arrested. Apparently not in USA.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Exactly and if you notice in the video when the officer requested for this individual they said it was Thomas Jefferson. What kind of idiotic response is that? Thomas Jefferson wasn't even there.

I offered my points just to show differences between USA and ie. Finland ( you could replace Finland with quite many European country and still get nearly same result) . To raise questions, to raise pondering about the state of things. I don't know if such regulations apply in USA, but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What's laughable is you trying to dictate a law system in which you are obviously ignorant of.

I have actually had many interesting conversations with couple of my friends which both are lawyers here. There is so huge difference in law system between USA and my country that it is worth of getting a bit familiar with. The greatest difference, I have gathered, is that USA law system being common law, based mainly on precedents rather than civil law. Also, if I am right with this you have numerous layers of law, which differ greatly from each other. Each state has its own, individual law. In addition of that, you can have county laws or local laws? Then above all that looms the federal law, which reaches the whole nation? Then, after that you even have two separate ( time to time layered) courts of law, who continiously bicker each other about their range of jurisdiction over a single case? So basically, it is just a hell of a mess, nobody can stay clear about, except maybe public servants. Do they give you free state lawbook when you cross state border?
At least here people generally know almost all the important laws that apply and thus they won't accidentally break them all the time.

No wonder lawyers are so popular choice of career there.

On top of that, I doubt people would take all kinds of idiocy to the court, if they had to pay the winning side their court expenses. Some lawsuits I have read or seen are close to madness. There is even a social board game here in which you must guess which laws or lawsuits are true or false regarding America.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

One has to be a moron to think that code-pink is justified in any of their actions. Do you even know anything about this group? Or are you just talking just to be talking? You do not need to tell a grown man over and over and over again to cease and desist. He was warned he did not take heed to the warning. I'm sure the officer was wondering why was he sizing him up in the first place. The officer saw him as belligerent and decided to take counter measures. Did you even watch the video?

I had to do a little digging regarding this code pink thing. I am not supporting any group here, I am merely talking about the situation in the video and how it was handled, in addition of question it raises about USA police and law system.

What police did to the dancing men was still handled poorly. My greatest concern, however, was the hugging couple. That was arbitrary decision from the police man. Even if you were in a god damn White House you shouldn't get to thrown in the jail or even taken to custody for hugginh. If that behavior is against rules and is not allowed ( which also is ridicilous as a law, in my opinion) your first move is to remove them from this area. Not to bash them in chains and lock them up for weekend. I don't buy that dance crap when applied to couple. The latter guys yeah, but the couple was just hugging each other.

I posted my reasoning why I think this whole thing is a farce.

The next topic :

So I googled how long it takes for policeman to be out in patrol and results I got were couple of months. Months? Be it with a superior or not, it is still ridicilous. I knew it cannot be much, but this is... well you can see it in the results. You don't even have a time to see if that man is suitable in that time. Unless you have blind fate on the man and the tests you do before the training. Let's not even mention the things they have time to train him with...

Just for comparison , its 2,5 years here before you have finished your basic policeman degree which includes field work period with a superior. ( if I recall right it is at least 8 months or so). After 3-4 years of work experience you can resume your studies to become a sub-officer or officer.

Originally Posted by Raphael

The cuffing was justified because they were resisting arrest (some of them). The ones who weren't resiting simply had to put their hands behind their back, I don't see how that's a big deal. Yeah, they could have arrested the people without the use of handcuffs, but they did.

You clearly have no idea what a real resist of arrest is all about. I have dealt with 50x angrier customers without touching them and I am just mere personal security. These guys are supposed to wield a legal power and use it responsibly. Again, from reasonable point of view they had no reason to arrest the couple in the first place.

Originally Posted by Raphael

They are policemen so I trust their judgement. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference if they were cuffed or not.

That is a very dangerous way of thinking. And actually it does. I have reasoned it before. I would not trust those kind of cops in any circumstances. Luckily, I don't live there.

Originally Posted by Raphael

Proper time to get out? They were given plenty of time to leave after they were issued warnings, when they continued to dance, they were arrested. The cops weren't interested in removing them from the place, they were going to cuff them and take them down to the station. This is exactly what the cops warned would happen.

Yeah, I'd say the sergeant showed the mark for arrest after... erm.. well 10 seconds or so before the couple had even understood what happened. I am still talking about the first arrest that ignited the whole case. The dancers were a bit foolish to provoke the policemen, but I don't wonder they did that after what policemen did first.

What they did give to the couple was far from proper warning. Then suddenly they jumped to arrest them. Yes, after that they warned the dancers to get them to jail because that seemed to be only way they knew to solve the situation. Just throw everyone in jail.
My point is that they are not executing their duties in the way policemen should. As part of a legal system. They want you to jail, they don't even want to think there is a more easier solution, like REMOVING them from the place. Just like a kid who resorts to punching when he could talk. It just shows how poor their judgement and expertise is. Or if shows how unclear their orders or knowledge of the laws they are supposed to enforce are.

Originally Posted by Raphael

They broke the law, so they were arrested. That's the way it works.

Again, I see no reason to arrest them or cuff them. They broke the regulations of a memorial place? That surely can't mean years of prison? Maybe a fine or a warning. This is no reason to arrest no one. Do they lock you up for weekend if you are speeding too? Or take a wrong turn? Or litter? Don't they usually write a ticket and let you go after that?

This whole circus is comparable to the case where you unknowingly feed ducks in a park where you are not allowed and they arrest you and hold you for weekend.

Here in the US they always cuff you. I don't think they even place people under the arrest without cuffing them. Even if you are peaceful and go with them willingly, they usually cuff you.

It is funny that someone mentioned walking around naked. If you walk around naked because you enjoy being naked it is against the law. If you walk around naked as a form of protest, it is actually legal. In which case you will still probably get arrested but then you will be released.

Which goes to ninja's point. In most cases like this the people get held but don't get formally charged, and if they get charged they can almost always get it dismissed. Getting arrested for illegal protesting is easy, getting convicted of illegal protest is a lot harder, especially if you know anything about law.

The officer didn't seem to know law very well, which isn't a surprised. When they asked him what law they were violating and what charges were they breaking, he should of just told them. Though I suspect he didn't because he wasn't sure what law it was. Had he knew the law and told them, they might have stopped.

Originally Posted by Unelias

No, I have never been there. Despite the laws and regulations which apply on this case I still see no reason to handcuff or arrest a person. As I explained before, from our point of view it is not valid. They could have removed the persons from the memorial and it would have been enough. Maybe fined too if that is such a great blasphemy, but not arrested. Apparently not in USA.

Well if your countries point of view is a mere slap on the wrist after several warnings of breaking the law then your country is the one that's screwed up. You break the law in the U.S. you get arrested.

Originally Posted by Unelias

I offered my points just to show differences between USA and ie. Finland ( you could replace Finland with quite many European country and still get nearly same result) . To raise questions, to raise pondering about the state of things. I don't know if such regulations apply in USA, but I doubt it.

And your points are noted. Now that you've gotten that off your chest you can focus back on the country that you 'live' in.

Originally Posted by Unelias

I have actually had many interesting conversations with couple of my friends which both are lawyers here. There is so huge difference in law system between USA and my country that it is worth of getting a bit familiar with. The greatest difference, I have gathered, is that USA law system being common law, based mainly on precedents rather than civil law. Also, if I am right with this you have numerous layers of law, which differ greatly from each other. Each state has its own, individual law. In addition of that, you can have county laws or local laws? Then above all that looms the federal law, which reaches the whole nation? Then, after that you even have two separate ( time to time layered) courts of law, who continiously bicker each other about their range of jurisdiction over a single case? So basically, it is just a hell of a mess, nobody can stay clear about, except maybe public servants. Do they give you free state lawbook when you cross state border?
At least here people generally know almost all the important laws that apply and thus they won't accidentally break them all the time.

That's because this is the "United States". We have 50 separate sovereigns states, each encompassing their own state constitutions, state governments, and state courts which is not limited to state supreme courts. Each state retain plenary power to assemble laws covering anything NOT preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate. The nation as a whole carry codified and uncodified forms of law. However, the Constitution and federal law are the "supreme law" of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws within the fifty U.S. sovereign states. I don't necessarily agree with most of the judiciary procedures but for the most part they do seem to work and therefore justice is served.

Originally Posted by Unelias

No wonder lawyers are so popular choice of career there.

Not sure where you've gotten this from, nevertheless you're highly mistaken. The most sought after degrees in my country usually are those pertaining to the fields of business, social sciences, computer sciences, health sciences and education. Criminal Justice is not even in the top 3. It's not even in the top 5 on the masters degree level or doctoral degree level.

Originally Posted by Unelias

I had to do a little digging regarding this code pink thing. I am not supporting any group here, I am merely talking about the situation in the video and how it was handled, in addition of question it raises about USA police and law system.

There was nothing wrong with the way the situation was handled. Let me ask you this. The officer warned the guy several times and the guy did not do what the officer requested him to do, what do you think the officer should have done at that point?

Originally Posted by Unelias

What police did to the dancing men was still handled poorly. My greatest concern, however, was the hugging couple. That was arbitrary decision from the police man. Even if you were in a god damn White House you shouldn't get to thrown in the jail or even taken to custody for hugginh. If that behavior is against rules and is not allowed ( which also is ridicilous as a law, in my opinion) your first move is to remove them from this area. Not to bash them in chains and lock them up for weekend. I don't buy that dance crap when applied to couple. The latter guys yeah, but the couple was just hugging each other.

They were not a "real" couple that was Medea Benjamin who is the co-founder of code-pink, dancing with another demonstrator. The cops knew who these people were. Also as I stated before, if someone is given several warnings to disperse and they do not do stop what should the next step be?

Whether or not the cops were justified in the arrest, I think the really outrageous part is that when asked repeatedly to state what law they're violating, the cops didn't respond. If he had just said "under section XYZ, it is prohibited to do a rally without prior notice, and is punishable by ABC" I bet you most of those people would not have been arrested. Not stating the reason behind a warning is absolutely unacceptable. Maybe it's my childhood anger with so-called authority figures who like to say "because I said so" coming out, but that just got me pissed.

It doesn't matter if the cop told them at the moment when he was talking to them or later during process. They were in violation nonetheless and they already knew this. They would not have stopped regardless, because their intentions were to go to the memorial, get rowdy and start a rally, the officers quick response to diffuse the situation before it escalated was on point to me. This group has a history of non-peaceful protest demonstrations.

ITT: People defending police brutality. I'll pretend not to be enraged.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

It doesn't matter if the cop told them at the moment when he was talking to them

Sure it does. Not being told what law you're violating suggests that the police officer is ignorant of the law, thereby setting the stage for a series of arrests for bogus charges that could never stand up in a court of law. In this way police can deter people from exercising their rights just through threat of temporary jailing.

because their intentions were to go to the memorial, get rowdy and start a rally

What part of exercising their rights on public property was getting rowdy, pray tell?

Originally Posted by Raphael

They are policemen so I trust their judgement.

Oh, ok.



Please take your appeal to authority and shove it up your ass, thank you.

That dancing couple was as close to peaceful as a protest gets. I think in all cases where someone doing something non-violent is being threatened by a cop, the cop should be legally required to inform them of the nature of the warning.

I agree that if I'm doing something innocent-sounding (whatever it may be), and a cop warns me to stop, I'll stop, cause I don't want to spend time in jail just cause I felt like being rowdy. But after stopping, it is my basic expectation that the cop tells me exactly what the reason behind it is.