Dancing silently cause arrest at the Jefferson memorial.

[larvidchr]

Allegedly a woman has been convicted of demonstrating illegally when she was celebrating Jefferson's birthday by dancing at his memorial silently to music in earphones, people protesting against the conviction was forcefully arrested as seen in this video.

Is this taking things to far, what say you.

[FailSafe]

It's pretty convenient that whatever preceded the initial police action wasn't shown...

There are no permits issued for demonstrations inside the memorial. They did this because that girl got arrested for dancing inside back in 2008 and the judge ruled that National Memorials are places of reverence and dancing is one of the things that is not allowed.

If they want to have an organized demonstration (which is what this was- it wasn't merely 'dancing')- let them do it at the Mall with all the other protestors- allowing 'dancing' as a form of protest opens the door for all kinds of other protestors to air their grievances inside memorials, and that isn't the place for that kind of thing- there are other, more appropriate outlets nearby.

Look at the military funeral protestors- they are allowed to stage their 'events', but they have to keep their distance.

[Takeovers]

Is this taking things to far, what say you.

I would say yes, they are going too far.

But you have to consider too, that the memorial is not the open street. Probably other rules apply inside.

[OhOh]

The video shows a very good response to the event. The policeman's body language looks appropriate.

No guns, no tasers, no swat team.

Good policing of a historic site.

[Neo]

You have to be joking... an event? how is dancing 'demonstrating'?
Where are the speakers? Where are the banners? Where is the crowd?
Who is being disturbed by this?

The irony that this is in front of the Jefferson memorial, shows just how far the US has changed from the land of the free. And the US wants to be the policeman of the world..?

[OhOh]

The video doesn't show what the "event" was. I am commenting of the response by the police. That seemed to be a reasonable response to a low key problem, to me anyway.

[Takeovers]

After reading FailSafe's comment it makes a lot of sense.

The whole thing was a carefully staged event. Those detained made an effort to resist detention that was not violent but clearly designed to get the police response they were getting.

So yes considering it is not in the street but inside a memorial and a calculated repeat action of something deemed illegal before, the police response was well within limits.

Simply ignoring the idiots might have been a good response though. It would have stolen them the show they were aiming at.

[Neo]

Dancing peacefully with headphones on.. how is that offensive to anyone?

If this was a 'protest' I think it was quite effective in showing what a ridiculous law it is, and I'm surprised at what an unquestioning stance you have all taken, they broke the law therefore forceful arrest is justified...?

[OhOh]

It appears again as a pre-arranged event. The participants knew what they were doing, they were advised to stop as it appears to be against the "law". They refused and were taken into custody.

The problem they caused was to the rest of the people there, it spoilt their visit.

Very selfish of the event participants. If they had made thier protest, been taken inot custody, charged, taken to court and had their day in court that would be something. That may have had the affect of getting the law changed.

To video the protest and not allow the policemen to handle it quietly smacks of the youtube/twitter world where anything is acceptable as long as it's put up on the internet.

[FailSafe]

Dancing peacefully with headphones on.. how is that offensive to anyone?

If this was a 'protest' I think it was quite effective in showing what a ridiculous law it is, and I'm surprised at what an unquestioning stance you have all taken, they broke the law therefore forceful arrest is justified...?

How about the homeless protestors who basically live on the Mall? Should they be allowed to move into the Jefferson Monument? I don't mean to minimize the plight of the homeless, but a line has to be drawn- allowing one form of expression (that is currently prohibited) opens the door for other kinds that will be detrimental to people who just want to visit, enjoy, and learn from the history of the monument itself. How about allowing radical Muslim protestors to set up camp (or radical Christians protesting abortion, etc)?

Protesting and demonstrations should be allowed, but they have to have their place.

[Neo]

Protesting and demonstrations should be allowed, but they have to have their place.

A semi hysterical reaction that allowing people to dance with headphones (defined as a protest which in itself is absurd) will open the door to protests from radical muslims is a ridiculous outcome to consider. It basically puts any kind of protest into the realms of potential subversion or anarchy.

As for your last line which I have quoted, do you not see any irony in it?
I don't mean to be belligerent, but how far away from effective and relevant exposure do you think protests should be?

It an unfortunate turn of events that has taken us to give away our liberty, and then to be convinced that liberty is potentially harmful to us.

[FailSafe]

A semi hysterical reaction that allowing people to dance with headphones (defined as a protest which in itself is absurd) will open the door to protests from radical muslims is a ridiculous outcome to consider. It basically puts any kind of protest into the realms of potential subversion or anarchy.

Wrong- you've basically missed the point in your attempt to minimize what was done- it was an organized protest in the Jefferson Memorial- there are no permits issued (and yes, you need a permit for that sort of thing) for any type of protest in any memorial in Washington DC- you can protest on the Mall, which isn't far away.

Both kinds of protests legally have their place. How about if 500 couples show up at the Jefferson Memorial tomorrow and start dancing, and basically shut it down? Of course that sounds absurd, but it's obviously not beyond the bounds of possibility- if you're going to allow that kind of protest, you have to legally allow any other type of protest (even radical Muslims)- that's a logical extension of the even application of law, not 'hysteria'.

As for your last line which I have quoted, do you not see any irony in it? I don't mean to be belligerent, but how far away from effective and relevant exposure do you think protests should be?

So nothing and no place is sacred? I disagree. There's no 'irony' in that- memorials are places of respect, and a certain level of decorum isn't too much to ask for being able to access them.

It an unfortunate turn of events that has taken us to give away our liberty, and then to be convinced that liberty is potentially harmful to us.

'Liberty' is not being able to do whatever you want wherever you want to do it- it doesn't mean living without rules, but rather living without oppression- having rules of conduct inside a national memorial doesn't seem oppressive to me.

[Butterfly]

and they say there is no police brutality

America is one big police state,

[Butterfly]

the judge ruled that National Memorials are places of reverence and dancing is one of the things that is not allowed

they are taking their historical site too seriously though, as it was some kind of religious site, no different from the Muslim nutters we like to make fun of in their backward shithole

not trashing an historical site is a given, but going that far as not allowing any sound or body expression is zealous in a religious manner

stupid Americans,

[FailSafe]

the judge ruled that National Memorials are places of reverence and dancing is one of the things that is not allowed

they are taking their historical site too seriously though, as it was some kind of religious site, no different from the Muslim nutters we like to make fun of in their backward shithole

not trashing an historical site is a given, but going that far as not allowing any sound or body expression is zealous in a religious manner

stupid Americans,

Come on, BF, you possess the intellect to grasp the point that allowing it in small doses means allowing it in not only larger doses, but also in other forms.

The 'dancing' shown on the video was not really indicative of what the law intended to prevent, but it was done as a form of protest (and as a way to seek publicity) with the intention of causing a scene and instigating arrests- they got what they wanted (and they were certainly warned beforehand and had every opportunity to cease the behavior and challenge it in court if they felt it necessary).

This all stems from a case where a woman put on a dance exhibition at a memorial (which took up space and was a distraction and public nuisance given the chosen location), was told to stop, refused to do do, was arrested, and took the case to court- a federal judge ruled against her, and in doing so banned certain forms of physical expression such as dance at all memorials (though not at the nearby Mall)- it was either ban it all or allow it all- by banning it there is no 'gray line' to be taken advantage of.

[Butterfly]

This all stems from a case where a woman put on a dance exhibition at a memorial (which took up space and was a distraction and public nuisance given the chosen location), was told to stop, refused to do do, was arrested,

but that's not what they were doing, and that's exactly why the police over reacted as usual,

yes, they did stage it and the police fell into the trap by following blindly their "orders"

and that's exactly the textbook definition of a police state, overzealous interpretation of the "orders"

[FailSafe]

This all stems from a case where a woman put on a dance exhibition at a memorial (which took up space and was a distraction and public nuisance given the chosen location), was told to stop, refused to do do, was arrested,

but that's not what they were doing, and that's exactly why the police over reacted as usual,

yes, they did stage it and the police fell into the trap by following blindly their "orders"

and that's exactly the textbook definition of a police state, overzealous interpretation of the "orders"

Actually, it's a police officer's job to enforce laws, not interpret them- the law states that there is no dancing allowed at a memorial, and the police officers shown in the video politely informed the protestors of that fact, gave them every opportunity to cease the illegal behavior without further incident, and only intervened when their lawful instructions were not obeyed.

In a 'police state' you are not allowed the free expression of your opinions in any forum- in this case you are not allowed free expression at a particular place (a national memorial) due to the disruptive nature of some forms of protest (where your actions can infringe upon the rights of others to have free and safe access to a public space)- there's a difference- if the law went further and outlawed protests at the Mall or other areas where protests have been traditionally allowed, I would say you have a valid point- in this case you do not.

[Travelmate]

Americans, much ado about nothing.........

[Butterfly]

Actually, it's a police officer's job to enforce laws

to enforce the laws on a reasonable basis, which basically means to interpret their implementation. Obviously they failed here, as you would expect from a police state.

The US has always been a police state, that's a given.

[Butterfly]

In a 'police state' you are not allowed the free expression of your opinions in any forum

not true, it's a bit more subtle than that

[FailSafe]

that's exactly the textbook definition of a police state, overzealous interpretation of the "orders"

not true, it's a bit more subtle than that

So first it's a 'textbook definition' and now it's 'subtle'- is it also 'nuanced'? Up to individual interpretation, perhaps? How about subject to personal biases?

The US has always been a police state, that's a given.

Soviet Russia was a 'police state'- the US has law and order, but there isn't a real comparison.

In any case, as I said before, police don't interpret laws (which is the job of a judge)- they only enforce them- what they can do is vary the degree of that enforcement- watch the video again- how many times did the police ask the group to cease their illegal behavior? Several. If they had complied, the issue would have been over with- no arrests, no fines, nothing (hardly the actions of a 'police state')- the group wanted to be arrested, so they pushed the issue.

The police who patrol the historical and governmental areas of Washington DC are specially chosen- they don't overlook infractions, and they end potential trouble immediately and decisively- they gave the group a more than fair chance- once that chance was thrown back in their faces, the amazing patience they exhibited evaporated and arrests were made.

[Neo]

Again Failsafe you extrapolate that allowing this action (peacefully dancing with headphones) opens the door to any type of protest and that is the premise to your argument.

You are asking that we use intelect to understand your point, but there is a lack of rationality to your point.

[Butterfly]

So first it's a 'textbook definition' and now it's 'subtle'- is it also 'nuanced'? Up to individual interpretation, perhaps? How about subject to personal biases?

I was referring to your simplification of "freedom of expression" to characterize a police state, but again you failed to read my exact quote

a police state doesn't have to restrict freedom of expression on every forum, it can be more subtle than that (plenty of examples)

however, applying the law in an overzealous manner is a textbook case of the a police state

[FailSafe]

Again Failsafe you extrapolate that allowing this action (peacefully dancing with headphones) opens the door to any type of protest and that is the premise to your argument. You are asking that we use intelect to understand your point, but there is a lack of rationality to your point.

It's not a matter of 'peacefully dancing with headphones' (it's not some person swaying to music- it's a group who are acting in an intentionally provocative way)- it's a matter of something illegal being done as a form of protest (and it was made illegal due to someone causing a disruption by dancing at the memorial back in 2008)- if you allow that, you have to allow other forms of protest (I don't think that's an out-of-line extrapolation, and it's certainly not irrational)- if you allow the behavior in its most benign form, you have to allow it in its extreme form as well- you can't have a 'gray line' as it opens the law up to interpretation- by banning the behavior entirely, that ceases to be an issue- memorials have been ruled places of reverence, and those entering them are bound by certain (and very minimal- 'no dancing' at the Jefferson Monument certainly isn't going to ruin anyone's day) codes of conduct.

however, applying the law in an overzealous manner is a textbook case of the a police state

How is giving several verbal warnings and explanations that what they were doing was unlawful before actually arresting them 'overzealous'? An immediate arrest without a chance to stop what they were doing would prove your point, but that wasn't done- instead, these protestors (who intended to be arrested) pushed the officers (by disobeying their lawful instructions) into action- the policemen did their jobs, and policemen doing their jobs and having a 'police state' in place are not the same thing.

[ShilohJim]

Greens to Failsafe for patiently trying to explain some simple facts to this forum. Washington DC is our nations heart (maybe not our soul), there are hundreds of historical venues to see. The police there seem to be very tolerant of the thousands of different people who visit the various monuments. Unless you have visited DC and personally seen the multitude of offbeat and/or colorful characters who appear at the various sites you really don't understand the enforcement procedures of the security people there. America seems to be slipping in regard to being a "police state" but I agree with Failsafe, common rules of conduct and courtesy are necessary to prevent actions deemed unsuitable because of the many cultures involved by the visitors.

Shiloh Jim