Thread: When life gives you lemons, better get a permit

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.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

Pushing away cameras and arresting people for selling lemonade is hardly being "courteous" or "non-aggressive."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Yes, fending off the dangerous Lemonade Stand Rebels.

Pushing away cameras and arresting people for selling lemonade is hardly being "courteous" or "non-aggressive."

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

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.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

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.

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.

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...

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.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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.

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.

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.

And defy that rule they should. Ludicrous laws should be broken.

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.

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.

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.

You hold an odd definition of "non-aggressive."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

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.

You know as well as I do that they did not set out that day to make a small profit by selling lemonade.

And defy that rule they should. Ludicrous laws should be broken.

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?

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.

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?

You hold an odd definition of "non-aggressive."

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You know as well as I do that they did not set out that day to make a small profit by selling lemonade.

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?

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?

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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

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.

Different issue that I have insufficient info to argue about.

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.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Different issue that I have insufficient info to argue about.

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.

I don't disagree. THat's why I called the protestors dumb and kokesh an asshat.

The video I posted up there is an example of these lemonade crackdowns. I've seen at least 2 others.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

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.

I would agree with you, except that inspection and liscences these days are a joke.

Big beefy fast food chains were putting Styrofoam in their burgers. STYROFOAM! Where was the oversight for this product? There was none. It takes an outside investigator to find this out.

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.

Originally Posted by Somii

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.

It is public property, and the public, embodied by the government and the laws they pass, has decided that they want to keep private businesses off of their national heritage sites.

What if Macdonalds set up a huge tent on that lawn?

Do you see how stupid this argument is now?

Originally Posted by Xei

It is public property, and the public, embodied by the government and the laws they pass, has decided that they want to keep private businesses off of their national heritage sites.

What if Macdonalds set up a huge tent on that lawn?

Do you see how stupid this argument is now?

Jeez, I had thought from then - http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/life-i...4/#post1565324 - that you'd know what an argument was by now. How can I find an argument where there is none? As for my statements, Xei, can you find any fault in them?

Originally Posted by Somii

Jeez, I had thought from then - http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/life-i...4/#post1565324 - that you'd know what an argument was by now. How can I find an argument where there is none? As for my statements, Xei, can you find any fault in them? Can you refute them or prove them stupid?

Xei, your constant display of stupidity is becoming a nuisance now. When will you ever be right? Continuation of such is unacceptable.

What an awesome debating tactic. Simply pretend the counterargument doesn't exist. It's impenetrable!

You haven't provided an argument. You said that not being able to set up private businesses on a public monument is a 'restriction of rights', and that's basically all you said. It's semantic nonsense. You haven't defined 'rights'. Implicitly you're defining a right as the ability to do anything you want. In reality many rights are actually defined by the inability of others to do certain things. This is obvious.

I'd like to hear what Philosopher and Blueline have to say.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Been drinking tonight?

Hah, I can see why you may have thought that, but no, I wasn't - just stressed. Such behavior isn't likened to me, and for that, I have retracted any negativity towards Xei, and shall give a proper response to you. It's the least I could do

Xei, your problem probably arises from my gamble of the terms 'permitted code of conduct'. When typing this I was well aware of the gamble of using it, for our code of conduct isn't permitted if the laws enacted restricted certain rights, as can be inferred from the enforcement of such probable laws seen in the video. However, in the case that such enforcement was out of regulation, then, such code of conduct may have been permissible.

Spartiate, my point was that my idea about whether or not I considered it a good idea, shouldn't matter, for I respect the rights of other people to carry out what freedoms they may have, without anyone restricting them. Good or bad, deciding one, while unaware of the many factors that are involved, couldn't be well thought out. Besides, the answer probably wouldn't be of both extremes.

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.