http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04MNf1YdNxI&
They deadass had like 10 cops just to shut down a lemonade stand.
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04MNf1YdNxI&
They deadass had like 10 cops just to shut down a lemonade stand.
Sorry I couldn't take this seriously after the guy yelled "THAT'S ASSAULT!!" when the female cop gently pushed the video camera out of her face...
The cops were courteous, non-aggressive and doing their job.
Yes, fending off the dangerous Lemonade Stand Rebels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Pushing away cameras and arresting people for selling lemonade is hardly being "courteous" or "non-aggressive."
This is pretty ridiculous, this could have obviously been handled by one or two cops.
But at the same time, this law does sort of make sense. The place is basically a tourist attraction(as well as a government facility). It would be obnoxious if there were vendors all over the place and if it wasn't illegal there would be.
Also considering the video has Adam Kokesh's name on it they were probably doing it to get arrested then acting surprised when that happened. Which is dumb and counter productive.
But this reminds me of this.
Which is just pure 100% bullshit.
The entire point of these set-ups (where a group will go out, deliberately break a law, and eventually get arrested) is to show how ridiculous certain laws are. Despite the obviously fake reactions by the protesters, they definitely do show how some of these laws are ridiculous. Can't dance at the Jefferson Monument or sell lemonade on public property?
I dare anyone to call the US government a representative one with a straight face.
The law exists for a reason, and by virtue of fairness, does not make exceptions. These lemonade vendors were there to get arrested and cause a scene, not sell lemonade. It's like saying "don't step over this line"; even if you have a good reason, someone will inevitably step over it for the sole purpose of defying you. Would you prefer the law not be enforced? If you don't agree with the law, then challenge it with legislators, not law enforcement... or at least don't be surprised with their reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Given the methods and tools at the cops' disposable, their method of dealing with these non-compliant individuals was stern but extremely non-aggressive. They used no more force than they had to.
I have to disagree with that. If you can't arrest people who are selling lemonade without getting pissed you shouldn't be a cop. I really think anger issues are common in american police. Also dominance issues. A lot of them are on power trips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
But my main complaint is that the cops made a big deal out of. Tell them they can't do what they are doing, arrest them if they don't stop. That takes 2 people, not 10+. Waste of tax money, plus it's exactly what the salesmen wanted.
Evidently they were there to sell lemonade judging by the actual sale of lemonade we saw in the video. Another goal was to show, as I stated previously, how ridiculous it is that one cannot sell lemonade of all things without permission from the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
And defy that rule they should. Ludicrous laws should be broken.Quote:
It's like saying "don't step over this line"; even if you have a good reason, someone will inevitably step over it for the sole purpose of defying you.
It's more of a publicity stunt. Surely the vendors aren't surprised themselves; the video starts with a guy saying "Let's go liberate some lemons." Rather, the people buying the lemonade are the ones who should be surprised. It's a way of raising consciousness about things like this. Can't sell lemonade in the "land of the free?" Something is wrong.Quote:
Would you prefer the law not be enforced? If you don't agree with the law, then challenge it with legislators, not law enforcement... or at least don't be surprised with their reaction.
You hold an odd definition of "non-aggressive."Quote:
Given the methods and tools at the cops' disposable, their method of dealing with these non-compliant individuals was stern but extremely non-aggressive. They used no more force than they had to.
I didn't even see the cops get pissed, hell they even threw the cuffs on while they were standing, shows how non-threatening the whole situation was...Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
As for the 10+ cops, I've been to downtown Washington and the security is intense. That's probably only a small proportion of the total police force present. If the others had nothing else to do, then why not see what the commotion was all about and try to lend a hand? The protesters were non-violent, but there were quite a few of them. If things got more heated, then I'm sure the cops would have appreciated the extra muscle.
You know as well as I do that they did not set out that day to make a small profit by selling lemonade.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
The law isn't that they can't sell lemonade, it's that you need a permit to run a business on public land. Do you think it's ludicrous to require a permit to run a business on public land? Can you think of no valid reason as to why this law could have come to be?Quote:
And defy that rule they should. Ludicrous laws should be broken.
Yes, it's sensationalist propaganda for those who can't see past their nose. Can these people not see the repercussions of this law beyond simple lemonade sale?Quote:
It's more of a publicity stunt. Surely the vendors aren't surprised themselves; the video starts with a guy saying "Let's go liberate some lemons." Rather, the people buying the lemonade are the ones who should be surprised. It's a way of raising consciousness about things like this. Can't sell lemonade in the "land of the free?" Something is wrong.
I'm sure you've seen various footage of police arrests. How could the cops have handled the situation any more peacefully without neglecting their duty?Quote:
You hold an odd definition of "non-aggressive."
I rewatched it. You may have a point, but 2 of the cops overreacted a bit. But it wasn't as bad as I thought it was from first glance.
Actually spart, if you read the text on the youtube page it says they were protesting cops harassing children who set up lemonade stands in their own yard. This I can support, though kokesh is still an asshat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Although if you're gonna protest on the capital lawn, do it right and get 1000 people to come set up a tent city. If you build it, they will come.Quote:
In response to a recent wave of lemonade stand shut downs and harassment of children over such petty regulations as are used to shut them down, several activist gathered at the west lawn of the capitol in Washington, DC to sell lemonade and were arrested. While the officers were technically on solid "legal" ground in shutting down the stand, they behaved inappropriately by any standard numerous times, using intimidation tactics on protestors and observers, and harassing members of the professional media. The willingness with which children and tourists participated by purchasing lemonade in disobedience of the police instructions is an indicator of how little respect the general public has for government in general, and specifically police when enforcing unjust laws. Gives me hope for America. For those who are complaining about the public property not being used for its intended purpose, part of the point of this that the government should not be using public property for the glorification of government when it could be better used to serve public interests. Excessive vending at the capitol (or without a permit in any public space) would surely be preferable to 22.5% unemployment. Free the economy!
Different issue that I have insufficient info to argue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
Even if that may be the case, it doesn't excuse the protesters' conduct or make the Washington cops any less obligated to carry out their duty.
Again, evidently, they did set out to sell lemonade. Another goal was to show, as I stated previously, how ridiculous it is that one cannot sell lemonade of all things without permission from the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
If they can't run a business on public land, they can't sell lemonade. I think it's ludicrous to require a permit for anyone to run a business anywhere.Quote:
The law isn't that they can't sell lemonade, it's that you need a permit to run a business on public land. Do you think it's ludicrous to require a permit to run a business on public land? Can you think of no valid reason as to why this law could have come to be?
Meg McLain (one of the vendors) answers your last question:
These permits are “required” by local governments, using excuses of ‘health and safety’; and can cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars. But, should the permitted vendor cause health or safety issues, the government that issued the permit is not liable for permitting a dangerous business. Bureaucrats face no consequences. So what is the purpose of these expensive permits? To gain more money for local governments; to force compliance and subservience to government “authorities”; and for larger businesses to cut out their competition… even if that competition is a couple of kids with a lemonade stand.
Again, Meg McLain:Quote:
Yes, it's sensationalist propaganda for those who can't see past their nose. Can these people not see the repercussions of this law beyond simple lemonade sale?
I'm sure you've seen various footage of police arrests. How could the cops have handled the situation any more peacefully without neglecting their duty?
After several hours of friendly, yet inappropriate questioning, I finally asked, “Where is your line in the sand? At what point do you say, ‘No. That goes too far, and I’m not willing to do that to peaceful people’? Because if you don’t know where that line is, you’re gonna blindly cross it one day, and regret it for the rest of your life.”
As I said: perversion of the law.
Apparently the government thinks these folks are terrorists:
After a couple of hours, a man in jeans and a blue shirt came into my room with a notepad and paper. While I don’t remember the name of his job title (Capitol Criminal Investigator or something like that), he basically explained that he investigated organizations that the government believed to be potential terrorist, and the “Lemonade Liberation” had become their newest big threat.
I don't disagree. THat's why I called the protestors dumb and kokesh an asshat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The video I posted up there is an example of these lemonade crackdowns. I've seen at least 2 others.
I would argue that this was their main, if not only goal. They knew all along that their actions would lead to their arrest and it's quite hypocritical of them to be outraged when it actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
So if 1000 business crowded the capitol lawn, you'd be cool with that? What about establishments that sell alcohol or firearms or dangerous chemicals without permits?Quote:
If they can't run a business on public land, they can't sell lemonade. I think it's ludicrous to require a permit for anyone to run a business anywhere.
That sounds like an awful lot of conjecture.Quote:
Meg McLain (one of the vendors) answers your last question:
These permits are “required” by local governments, using excuses of ‘health and safety’; and can cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars. But, should the permitted vendor cause health or safety issues, the government that issued the permit is not liable for permitting a dangerous business. Bureaucrats face no consequences. So what is the purpose of these expensive permits? To gain more money for local governments; to force compliance and subservience to government “authorities”; and for larger businesses to cut out their competition… even if that competition is a couple of kids with a lemonade stand.
What was the cop's answer? My understanding of police matters is that officers have a strict set of guidelines on how to deal with offenses of different severity, similar to Rules of Engagement in the military. Where the "line" is isn't up to the individual officer.Quote:
Again, Meg McLain:
After several hours of friendly, yet inappropriate questioning, I finally asked, “Where is your line in the sand? At what point do you say, ‘No. That goes too far, and I’m not willing to do that to peaceful people’? Because if you don’t know where that line is, you’re gonna blindly cross it one day, and regret it for the rest of your life.”
As I said: perversion of the law.
It really is, it's counter productive. It makes them look stupid. But I wonder sometimes if kokesh actually cares. It seems like he just wants to shock people and improve his ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Yes to all so long as they weren't hurting anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The more relevant parts stop before "To gain more money for local governments; to force compliance and subservience to government “authorities”; and for larger businesses to cut out their competition… even if that competition is a couple of kids with a lemonade stand."Quote:
That sounds like an awful lot of conjecture.
McLain says he didn't answer. And obviously she isn't interested in what the officer's guidelines are if she's asking him, personally, to draw a line somewhere.Quote:
What was the cop's answer? My understanding of police matters is that officers have a strict set of guidelines on how to deal with offenses of different severity, similar to Rules of Engagement in the military. Where the "line" is isn't up to the individual officer.
The police did make a good point.. there's no way to know how the lemonade is being made or what's going into it. Above and beyond the possibility of poison or drugs, kids do some crazy shit. They might drop the spoon on the floor and then just pick it up and stir away without washing it, or who knows what? Make it in the toilet. Decide lemonade would be good with some cough syrup in it... hey, cough syrup tastes good, right? We've always depended on parental supervision to ensure the lemonade gets made right, but these days, is that enough? Seems many parents don't care what their kids do.
If it's ok to sell lemonade on the street in front of your house, then is it ok for people to sell food that way too? How about on street corners and in parks? When does it reach a point that inspections and licenses do become needed? While government might get money from requiring licenses, it also ensures that at least the establishment passes periodical inspections and the food handlers are certified.
A meth lab is a good example of a business without a permit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
They are not known for their safety.
The beginning of the video actually looks a bit like a meth lab!!
The issue with the kids is really an issue of the over regulation the country has with businesses. As for the original post I know they have the same laws were I live where all the casinos are(live in Nevada). It is probably for the same reason because there are tons of tourist, and if you let people sell stuff on the street then it blocks traffic and causes all sorts of problems.
The kids just look like a bunch of petulant losers. Even if they do have a message, they're not going to convince anybody by being belligerent and ostentatious.
One should have a permit to give candy away on Halloween too.
Many people are missing the point - restriction against our basic freedoms on public property such as selling lemonade is evident that there are restrictions on our rights. Whatever purpose the lemonade was being sold for should be irrelevant to our permitted code of conduct. This is, at least, how things should be. However, if only we lived in a should world.
Same thing happened to a woman who had planted her garden of veggies in the FRONT yard. She thought it would be nice to share with the neighbors, so they could come by and help garden when she wasn't in the garden. But apparently you have to have grass in your front yard where she lives, not vegetable plants.