If this doesn't say police state, I don't know what does.

[greg1647545532]

What I find amazing is how some people in this thread go into other threads and side with people being wrongfully arrested, etc....

 

You can't change your perception of what is right and wrong just because you don't like the people who are being wrongfully arrested. Quite honestly the cops in this scenario, were in the wrong. It is a protected right to assemble peacefully, period. You don't have follow any procedures, it is a protected right (1st Constitutional Amendment).

 

 

 

You can't not let people Assemble Peacefully. And since I didn't see any Assembler be violent in nature towards a Police Officer, any charges brought forth on these kids would have been dropped as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

I just can't honestly believe the contradictory people in this thread. Abuse of power is abuse of power no matter when or where it is done. You can't be okay with it, one time and not okay with it another. Quite honestly that is why we are in the scenario we are in, with rights in this country. People are willing to forgo their rights because of their personal opinions on issues (Patriot Act).

 

Just as the right to free speech doesn't absolve you of guilt for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, neither is the right to assemble absolute. Courts have long held that governments can restrict one's right to assemble in the name of keeping good order. Interpretation of this has generally been very strict, in that governments can't create overly broad restrictions; however, requiring a permit to assemble (as long as the process for acquiring a permit is fair, easy, and timely) is not unconstitutional.

 

I don't know specifically why the cops were called, or what law they believe they were enforcing, but I can easily see this being a case of douchebags assembling to protest without a permit and, in doing so, getting in the way of a popular tourist destination. The police are certainly within their rights to break up that kind of malarky.

 

That's not to say that this specific enforcement was kosher, but it's silly to go around yelling "I've broken no laws" when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Littleguy]

Another reason why I wouldn't even bother spitting on a cop if I saw one on fire.

[iwashmycar]

Just as the right to free speech doesn't absolve you of guilt for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, neither is the right to assemble absolute. Courts have long held that governments can restrict one's right to assemble in the name of keeping good order. Interpretation of this has generally been very strict, in that governments can't create overly broad restrictions; however, requiring a permit to assemble (as long as the process for acquiring a permit is fair, easy, and timely) is not unconstitutional.

 

I don't know specifically why the cops were called, or what law they believe they were enforcing, but I can easily see this being a case of douchebags assembling to protest without a permit and, in doing so, getting in the way of a popular tourist destination. The police are certainly within their rights to break up that kind of malarky.

 

That's not to say that this specific enforcement was kosher, but it's silly to go around yelling "I've broken no laws" when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

:fuckyeah:

[Guest Hal]

Just as the right to free speech doesn't absolve you of guilt for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, neither is the right to assemble absolute. Courts have long held that governments can restrict one's right to assemble in the name of keeping good order. Interpretation of this has generally been very strict, in that governments can't create overly broad restrictions; however, requiring a permit to assemble (as long as the process for acquiring a permit is fair, easy, and timely) is not unconstitutional.

 

I don't know specifically why the cops were called, or what law they believe they were enforcing, but I can easily see this being a case of douchebags assembling to protest without a permit and, in doing so, getting in the way of a popular tourist destination. The police are certainly within their rights to break up that kind of malarky.

 

That's not to say that this specific enforcement was kosher, but it's silly to go around yelling "I've broken no laws" when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Because you seem to have ignorant thoughts in most thread you post in, I'll just say one word; jurisprudence. You don't seem to have a strong grasp on constitutional law or constitutional history. I'm not going to try to change your mind but you should really do some research before forming opinions and trying to sound logical.

[greg1647545532]

Because you seem to have ignorant thoughts in most thread you post in, I'll just say one word; jurisprudence. You don't seem to have a strong grasp on constitutional law or constitutional history. I'm not going to try to change your mind but you should really do some research before forming opinions and trying to sound logical.

 

Did I say something incorrect? Quit dancing around it and school me, big boy.

[Guest Hal]

Did I say something incorrect? Quit dancing around it and school me, big boy.

 

Yes, you have no real understanding of the high court's rulings on the 1st amendment. I thought that was pretty clear when I said "jurisprudence." Unless you don't know what that means, it was obviously referencing your statement that the courts "have long held." You have only a very high level understanding of what that means. You are ignorant of constitutional law and constitutional history, like I said earlier. Obviously, you need something beyond a high school government class, go crack a book and learn for yourself, big boy.

[greg1647545532]

OK, so we've established that you think I'm ignorant, but I don't see any argument in that post that establishes that I said anything incorrect...

[Guest Hal]

OK, so we've established that you think I'm ignorant, but I don't see any argument in that post that establishes that I said anything incorrect...

 

You wouldn't, moron. You don't have enough of a clue to figure out where you're wrong. Apparently you have failed in both history and reading.

 

I have said:

"I'm not going to try to change your mind but you should really do some research before forming opinions and trying to sound logical."

"Yes, you have no real understanding of the high court's rulings on the 1st amendment."

"Obviously, you need something beyond a high school government class, go crack a book and learn for yourself, big boy."

 

I think I was pretty clear where your statement was incorrect. If not, I'll say it here. You were incorrect when you stated what the courts have ruled. That leads me to my next point; I'm not going to explain to you why you were incorrect. You need to do your own research (I was explicit in that). I'm not sure why you think I'm just going to come around to what you want and post various case studies and essays which illustrate your failure. It's clear that is not my goal. Sometimes people need to learn for themselves, this is one of those times.

 

When it comes to abstract history (i.e., linking Roman history to the current US) I'm happy to provide examples as it is difficult to know where to start researching. When it comes to something as basic as constitutional law as it pertains to the 1st amendment, you can find that yourself.

[oh8sti]

Yes, you have no real understanding of the high court's rulings on the 1st amendment. I thought that was pretty clear when I said "jurisprudence." Unless you don't know what that means, it was obviously referencing your statement that the courts "have long held." You have only a very high level understanding of what that means. You are ignorant of constitutional law and constitutional history, like I said earlier. Obviously, you need something beyond a high school government class, go crack a book and learn for yourself, big boy.

 

Your not proving anything other than you like to think everyone is wrong but you. Every fucking thread you post in is always the same "you don't know anything about this blah blah blah...educate yourself blah blah blah...Cody is cool blah blah blah". Enough is enough man. Maybe you should take a chapter out of your own book and just lurk more.

 

On a side note. Those protesters knew the cops were gonna come and arrest them. They wouldnt have cameras if they didn't think that. The issue is there are designated places where one can protest if they choose. Being within a certain distance from a national monument and tourist attraction is not one of those places. Sorry but shave your legs and quit wearing flip flops you fucking hippies, you were in the wrong and deserve to be removed from the monument and it's surrounding area.

[Guest Hal]

Your not proving anything other than you like to think everyone is wrong but you. Every fucking thread you post in is always the same "you don't know anything about this blah blah blah...educate yourself blah blah blah...Cody is cool blah blah blah". Enough is enough man. Maybe you should take a chapter out of your own book and just lurk more.

 

On a side note. Those protesters knew the cops were gonna come and arrest them. They wouldnt have cameras if they didn't think that. The issue is there are designated places where one can protest if they choose. Being within a certain distance from a national monument and tourist attraction is not one of those places. Sorry but shave your legs and quit wearing flip flops you fucking hippies, you were in the wrong and deserve to be removed from the monument and it's surrounding area.

You sound mad.

 

It's not my fault that CR is filled with some of the dumbest people to grace the planet. I also don't care to spend my time looking up articles for you idiots to pretend to read. Every single time anyone posts something that is actually well researched and useful, the populace ignores it. Why should I waste my time on people like a 31 year old that probably couldn't pass my sister's 7th grade social studies course?

 

I guess in short, I'm just wondering, why you mad?

[Guest Hal]

Your not proving anything other than you like to think everyone is wrong but you. Every fucking thread you post in is always the same "you don't know anything about this blah blah blah...educate yourself blah blah blah...Cody is cool blah blah blah". Enough is enough man. Maybe you should take a chapter out of your own book and just lurk more.

 

Oh hey, I just looked at my recent posts and it seems I don't follow the formula you accused me of following. That being said, go educate yourself on the range of my posts. You may need a mod or admin's help to get through the thousands I made while not lurking. :dumb:

[kshymkiw83]

On a side note. Those protesters knew the cops were gonna come and arrest them. They wouldnt have cameras if they didn't think that. The issue is there are designated places where one can protest if they choose. Being within a certain distance from a national monument and tourist attraction is not one of those places. Sorry but shave your legs and quit wearing flip flops you fucking hippies, you were in the wrong and deserve to be removed from the monument and it's surrounding area.

 

It is a US Park - which is considered Public Domain for Rallies and Assembly, unless otherwise posted. The only way you can not Assemble in any area, is if it is Private Property. National Parks/Monuments are NOT private property. What these kids did, was the same as me going out in front of my house on the PUBLIC road, and dancing around. The cops can't arrest me for doing that, period. You think the people who stand in front of the Statehouse downtown, ask for permission? Unless the crowd is going to number in the thousands, where you could interfere with services to others, you have all the right in the world to stand in front of a building and assemble.

 

If you don't like BP Gas, you could go stand on a sidewalk in front of a BP Gas Station and hold your sign up. As long as you are not stopping patrons from using the facility (blocking the entrance or pestering) there is nothing that BP Gas Station could do to you...it is your RIGHT to be able to do this. Just like it is your right to REFUSE searches, REFUSE to give a drivers license or state id to an officer (All you have to do is identify yourself, there is no law that states you have to give them an ID Card), etc.....

 

I am in shock, by how many people think what was done by the Park Police in this video was acceptable.

[greg1647545532]

blah

 

Go crack open a book and look up narcissism. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, nor do I have any interest in being one. However,

 

1) The right to assemble is not absolute, and

2) Courts have upheld government restrictions on the right of assembly,

 

are both factual statements that you haven't even attempted to disprove. If you have an issue with something else in my post, or the way I presented the info, then that's fine, but I'm not going to go back to grad school and get a civics degree just to understand what your beef is.

 

Like speech rights, the right of assembly is not absolute. It is even somewhat weaker. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not giveas much protection to assembly as it does to "pure speech," a distinction observed in cases such as Cox v. Louisiana (1965). Lawmakers thus have regulated assembly in numerous ways, from requiring the issuance of permits todeclaring when, where and for how long public demonstrations may occur. The Court has often recognized the importance of these reasonable regulations. InCox v. New Hampshire (1941), it upheld a state law whose permit requirement for parades was intended to keep sidewalks and streets open for traffic. Government limits on assembling in particular public sites have been upheld, too, as witnessed in the decision Adderley v. Florida (1966), whichallowed a state to ban demonstrations on jail premises. By the 1980s, courtsrequired that such regulations must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, not control the content of the proposed assembly, andleave open alternative means for public expression.

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12433/Freedom-Assembly.html

 

There's a cite backing up both things I said. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if you show me evidence to the contrary, but I'm the sort of person that's going to trust general summaries of the first amendment from websites like that because that's where my ability to give a shit stops.

 

And while we're at it, drop this "I just want you to better yourself" schtick and admit that all you really want to do is make me look dumb so you can feel awesome about yourself. And once you admit that, go ahead and make me look dumb. Lord knows it won't bother me, and if it will help you stroke your own cock, knock yourself out.

[kshymkiw83]

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12433/Freedom-Assembly.html

 

There's a cite backing up both things I said. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if you show me evidence to the contrary, but I'm the sort of person that's going to trust general summaries of the first amendment from websites like that because that's where my ability to give a shit stops.

 

And while we're at it, drop this "I just want you to better yourself" schtick and admit that all you really want to do is make me look dumb so you can feel awesome about yourself. And once you admit that, go ahead and make me look dumb. Lord knows it won't bother me, and if it will help you stroke your own cock, knock yourself out.

 

I can back up quite a few as well:

 

Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), in an 8-to-1 decision, the high court overturned the breach of peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally over-broad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly.

 

Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), the Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws.

 

Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.

 

Illustrative of this expansion is Hague v. CIO,1353 in which the Court, though splintered with regard to reasoning and rationale, struck down an ordinance which vested an uncontrolled discretion in a city official to permit or deny any group the opportunity to conduct a public assembly in a public place. Justice Roberts, in an opinion which Justice Black joined and with which Chief Justice Hughes concurred, found protection against state abridgment of the rights of assembly and petition in the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”1354 Justices Stone and Reed invoked the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the result, thereby claiming the rights of assembly and petition for aliens as well as citizens. “I think respondents’ right to maintain it does not depend on their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or non-existence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act. It is enough that petitioners have prevented respondents from holding meetings and disseminating information whether for the organization of labor unions or for any other lawful purpose.”1355 This due process view of Justice Stone has carried the day over the privileges and immunities approach.

 

De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S 353 (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the right to peaceably assemble "for lawful discussion, however unpopular the sponsorship, cannot be made a crime." The decision applied the First Amendment right of peaceful assembly to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

All of these back up what these kids are doing and have done. They Peaceful, Weren't interfering with business, and were in a PUBLIC Forum/Domain. If these kids were arrested, they would be let go the second a competent attorney got a hold of this case.

[Guest Hal]

Go crack open a book and look up narcissism. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, nor do I have any interest in being one. However,

 

1) The right to assemble is not absolute, and

2) Courts have upheld government restrictions on the right of assembly,

 

are both factual statements that you haven't even attempted to disprove. If you have an issue with something else in my post, or the way I presented the info, then that's fine, but I'm not going to go back to grad school and get a civics degree just to understand what your beef is.

 

 

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/12433/Freedom-Assembly.html

 

There's a cite backing up both things I said. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if you show me evidence to the contrary, but I'm the sort of person that's going to trust general summaries of the first amendment from websites like that because that's where my ability to give a shit stops.

 

And while we're at it, drop this "I just want you to better yourself" schtick and admit that all you really want to do is make me look dumb so you can feel awesome about yourself. And once you admit that, go ahead and make me look dumb. Lord knows it won't bother me, and if it will help you stroke your own cock, knock yourself out.

 

You are seriously dumb. You are not even close to looking in the right places and under the right context. Did I ever say that the right to assemble is absolute? No? Interesting, stop arguing without no one about that point. You don't seem to understand the limitations the court has ruled on. You don't seem to understand basic research principles. You don't seem to understand how many times I said I'm not going to give you an answer. You even admit that you're not even close to an expert and that your interest ends with websites.

 

Why should I waste any time disproving your comments when you have already displayed that you are not a credible source?

 

Narcissism:

 

–noun

1.

inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.

2.

Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

 

Interestingly enough, I don't fit that basic definition. Did you crack open a book or did you just hear someone say that word before?

[Guest Hal]

I can back up quite a few as well:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of these back up what these kids are doing and have done. They Peaceful, Weren't interfering with business, and were in a PUBLIC Forum/Domain. If these kids were arrested, they would be let go the second a competent attorney got a hold of this case.

 

Don't start going in depth. Didn't you know, the right to assemble is not absolute?!

 

This guy is content with a high level overview of civil rights. He doesn't seem too interested in digging any deeper into a contextual understanding of constitutional law.

[greg1647545532]

If these kids were arrested, they would be let go the second a competent attorney got a hold of this case.

 

No doubt this is true, and I was careful not to defend this specific police action in my post, as I'm not familiar with DC's permit laws, whether the protesters had a permit, or if any park visitors had legitimate complaints about the dancing.

 

I just wanted to correct your assumption that all protests are legal. Police can and do enforce permit laws, and there was nothing in that video that suggests either way whether or not the arrests were legal.

[greg1647545532]

You are seriously dumb.

 

Srsly. Dumb.

[kshymkiw83]

No doubt this is true, and I was careful not to defend this specific police action in my post, as I'm not familiar with DC's permit laws, whether the protesters had a permit, or if any park visitors had legitimate complaints about the dancing.

 

I just wanted to correct your assumption that all protests are legal. Police can and do enforce permit laws, and there was nothing in that video that suggests either way whether or not the arrests were legal.

 

Permit laws are a way for the Government to deny you, your right to protest/picket/assemble. Not having a permit, is not an arrestable offense. It may generate a citation, but it is certainly not an arrestable offense.

[Guest Hal]

Srsly. Dumb.

 

Yep. It becomes really clear when one realizes that you are 31 years old, drive a 1990 Integra, and still use internet lingo like "srsly." You can't even formulate your side of an argument without completely discrediting yourself.

[greg1647545532]

 

/wrists

[TTQ B4U]

They didn't break any law. There was no signage posted, as to not allow people to loiter or assemble. A Park is a public place in which anyone can loiter and assemble as they choose.

 

Yes they did. No sign is needed, where the hell did you get that requirement?? Look up The statute 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(3)(ii)© demonstrating without a permit. Public parks like here in Columbus at say Leatherlips down the street from my house are not the same as the Jefferson Memorial.

 

It's already been very clear that the ban is in line with a the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision upholding the conviction of the five that were arrested for dancing. They clearly ignored the warning by police and chose to ignore that warning.

It's also been clearly noted that the court ruled specifically on the act of dancing and found no infringement of First Amendment rights to free speech or free expression.

 

Quote all you want, when it goes to court that is how it will go down. A Park is public domain, and in public domain you can loiter and assemble, without any consequences. Hence why employees rally and strike right outside of company property and grounds

Not correct. The inside portion of the Jefferson memorial is not considered the same public domain as say the street side property outside an employer such as Chase or Huntington. The U.S. Court of Appeals and the Lower Court of the District of Columbia have ruled that the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum.

 

These knuckleheads will be charged just as Oberwetter was with demonstrating without a permit and interfering with park police. Only in their case, I doubt they will drop the charges given the courts latest ruling and upholding of the statute.

 

If you don't break a law you can't be arrested. You can't be arrested for simply not listening to a law enforcement officer. If that was the case then you could be arrested for not letting an officer in your house, even if they ask to come in. I have and never will allow an officer inside of my house without a search warrant, period.

Again, they were breaking the law and as a result the cops were cool enough to tell them to stop without arresting them right there. They chose not to thus the cops were within the law to arrest them for interfering.

 

If you feel they broke any law other than "not listening", please show me what it is.

Look up the statute. Again, 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(2) I can pull it up in Westlaw or Lexis if you like. Ask me how I know

 

Want case law? Tons of it. Want another famous one, look up Cindy Sheehan and how she faired while trying to do the same on the White House sidewalk. Another dumb ass.

 

The National Park Service has control over the monuments in Washington. They decide the proper use & management the property including the cultural resources such as those associated with the Jefferson memorial. In a nut shell, it's not the side of the road as you imply it is. The NPS determines the hours of operation, closure dates, permits for activities, etc....and all that is under their own discretion. Don't like not being able to dance? Then get a fucking permit to do so. All you have to do is show convince them to grant you one.....and just because you think you should be allowed to dance there won't cut it.

 

Again, these knuckleheads can't even play the game according to the rules in motion. How seriously is anyone going to really take them. They do their cause zero good and lose credibility every time they do this shit.

Edited June 17, 2011 by TTQ B4U

[Mr. Jones]

I hate most people today, I really really do.

Get a job and stop being a fucking hippy bastard causing trouble for people.

[bmwohio]

here's the follow up vid from just two Saturday's ago....

 

[TTQ B4U]

It is a US Park - which is considered Public Domain for Rallies and Assembly, unless otherwise posted. The only way you can not Assemble in any area, is if it is Private Property. National Parks/Monuments are NOT private property. What these kids did, was the same as me going out in front of my house on the PUBLIC road, and dancing around. The cops can't arrest me for doing that, period. You think the people who stand in front of the Statehouse downtown, ask for permission? Unless the crowd is going to number in the thousands, where you could interfere with services to others, you have all the right in the world to stand in front of a building and assemble.

 

"Survey says.....XXX, Wrong" Washington Monuments and State Parks are not the same as public property in front of your house. Every pay a fee to walk on the property outside the Ohio State House? You will if you go visit nearly 100 state parks that do. NPS controls them. You can buy a yearly pass though. I have one for 2011. $80 and I can go to any of them without paying. We have a sweet vacation planned including some camping. Maybe I should dance around the camp fire in celebration of all the knuckleheads at the Jefferson Memorial.

 

Oh, and I dare you to get a bunch of buddies to dance in a public road and say it's your version of public assembly. Then spout off to the cop that they can't arrest you for that PERIOD. I'll come record that shit for free. Blocking traffic and or causing what a LEO determines is a serious public disorder can be stopped. Don't like his judgement and choose to ignore him/them and you will be arrested. Want to fight that arrest, great. Let us know how that works out for you. I bet quite costly. I can help you retain counsel though.

 

If you don't like BP Gas, you could go stand on a sidewalk in front of a BP Gas Station and hold your sign up. As long as you are not stopping patrons from using the facility (blocking the entrance or pestering) there is nothing that BP Gas Station could do to you...it is your RIGHT to be able to do this.

Again, your example talks of land not controlled and regulated by the NPS nor containing a National Monument. Apple meet Orange. National monuments and parks have been theirs for over 100 years. They decide, not you, me or these knuckleheads. Don't like that, then go change it but don't bitch when you break the laws that stand and get arrested.

 

• When they say GTFO they mean it.
  
• When they say no dancing because you're acting like a fool in a place of solitude and remembrance, have some respect and class and don't do it.
  
• When a LEO with any dept. offers to cut you a break by asking you to leave or stop, do it. Arguing is dumb and getting arrested a stupid waste of my tax dollars to process your dumb ass.
  

Edited June 17, 2011 by TTQ B4U