[kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?

[folk devil]

Were they threatening harm (mental or physical) in anyway? If yes, why didn't the police cite them with disorderly conduct, or similar?
In the street, the majority of people would just avoid them. All this tells me is that nothing really ever changes. From Poll Tax to Gulf War. 

From: Devacor at aol.com
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 00:04:09 -0400
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?




Message body






  
  
    
      
      what I mentioned wasn't going into whether it was constitutional or 
      unconstitutional (the cops stances and reactions) but the fact of once it 
      got to the point it did, the outcome was entirely predictable. 
       
       whether it's right or wrong or somewhere in between, there is 
      just a heightened standard of conduct when you are within the 
      monuments and  inside places as such- that's just how it is (everyone 
      around here knows that)  and that is the point you arent factoring 
      in. 
      if they were in front of the monument or on the mall, no one 
      would have cared- and if something as such happened to them when they were 
      just on the front steps, well then that would have been another story. 
      
      and if they started in with their 'dance' and the cops then came over 
      and started in like that without a warning, then that would have been 
      different also. 
       
       to me this is 'activism' at its worst- to the general public it 
      makes activists come off as cheap flakes and in a deeper sense its the 
      epitome of the statement 'what you resist persists' - this just 
      feeds the machine more and reinforces the system they are trying to bring 
      light upon- its a lose lose.
       there are right ways and wrong ways at going about things- that 
      was neither, that was just dumb. 
       
      Adam
       
       
      
       
      
      In a message dated 5/29/2011 10:41:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
      saulomar1 at yahoo.com writes:
      
        > ..its just ingrained......   
         
          that, what.. despite the Constitution 
        & the Bill Of Rights (that should be 
        ingrained deeper than anything else even police may 
        'encourage'/'discourage' at any given place/moment) stating all unstated 
        rights are the People's unless expressly legislated by Congress, that 
        despite such 'quaint' and 'antiquated' principles (they are 200+ 
        yrs.old, after all) we shouldn't do, nay, we are wrong and fuckeen' 
        criminals - outlaws! - in doing!, anything that, at most, the 
        police won't like simply because they don't like? 
Is there 
        a law criminalizing "F[ucking] around and be[ing] 'cute'?" 
        That would be THE ONLY decision worthy of defending 
        then, not that (just/only) some cops just didn't like it. Right? I mean, 
        LAWS are supposed to be defended, not cops' pet-peeves, and not 
        cops just because they're cops and our love for 
        Authorit-[attach suffix of choice here]. Right? I guess.. dunno anymore. 
        
        
         
        > ..and were provoking the cops...
         
        So, being [only] a smart-ass is now illegally Criminal 
        (redundancy for emphasis)? I'm guessing if they would've actually 
        crossed the line (i.e. the Law) you wouldn't hesitate a second to 
        say so, so I may assume that you meant only a 
        smart-ass? 
        I think the comment about that misses 
      

_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20110530/1aaa1abe/attachment.html>