[kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?

[folk devil]

Yes, but the Police in the US, are not above the law. Obviously many think they are. A person has every right to question their motives AND the reason as to why they are being arrested. And the police in turn should be able to explain their reasons.
Maybe the policeman should have cited disorderly conduct, instead of dancing. It would have been a little more 'valid'. 
I know what I have just written is however, not the reality, but I have, and still will question certain actions by the police, which I know will have certain consequences.
If you've got rights, don't lose them to crap like the Patriot Act.

Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 10:16:29 -0700
From: angrytomhanks at yahoo.com
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?




Of course, they weren't causing a threat to anyone at any point at all. Any rational person would agree with you. Even those cops know that there was nothing wrong with what was going on. The facts remain though: If some cop tells you "If you do this, you will be arrested" and you start doing it, provoking them and being all cute, well guess what? In Washington DC on a national monument, no less. It's really not hard to avoid trouble, with cops or otherwise, so long as a person can keep their desperate need for attention at bay. For these people, it's a battle they clearly can't win.
 
Leigh
 -- 



http://www.streetmeat.bandcamp.com
http://www.tstat.org
http://www.daiquiri.bandcamp.com
http://www.lauderdale.bandcamp.com 






From: folk devil <folk.devil at hotmail.com>
To: gathering at misera.net
Sent: Mon, May 30, 2011 1:00:23 PM
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?



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?








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 
_______________________________________________
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/20110530/7975e674/attachment.htm>