Police Assault Citizens for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

stephinrazin: Got Tyranny?






" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ---Declaration of Independence. Signed by Thomas Jefferson himself

StuckInTheSixties: It would appear that there was an organized demonstration of some sort. It would also appear that this organized demonstration in the Jefferson Memorial was likely a violation of law (My guess is that a permit was required, but not obtained.) It was plainly obvious that the demonstrators were given the opportunity to avoid arrest, but chose to continue their demonstration. It was also plainly obvious that those being arrested were "resisting arrest." (You don't need to be doing anything violent in order to resist arrest.)

The most noteworthy thing I saw, or rather, DIDN'T SEE, in these videos was what happened leading up to when the videos began.

If you want to put this in proper context, I'd suggest that you provide information on the disposition of the case. If there was a trial, there'll be a transcript available that should actually tell the entire story, not just the edited version of the story these videos provide. If those charged pleaded guilty or nolo contendre, that would also be telling.

It's pretty obvious what the intent behind the posting of these videos is. It's meant to portray the government as being "tyrannical." The tactic being used is also quite obvious:

~ present only part of the information required for a complete understanding of the story.

There's a word for this: "propoganda."

Malobear: From the Washington Post
No dancing at Jefferson Memorial, judge rules
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit that alleged the National Park Service violated the rights of a District woman who was arrested in 2008 for dancing with 17 others at the Jefferson Memorial.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled in a 26-page opinion on Monday that the interior of the memorial is not a public forum where people may dance, even if they are silently boogying to music on headphones.

“The purpose of the memorial is to publicize Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, so that critics and supporters alike may contemplate his place in history,” Bates wrote. “The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain ‘an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.'”

“Prohibiting demonstrations is a reasonable means of ensuring a tranquil and contemplative mood at the Jefferson Memorial,” the judge added.

The suit stems from a dance by Mary B. Oberwetter and her friends inside the memorial at 11:55 p.m. on April 12, 2008, the eve of Jefferson’s birthday.

Oberwetter and the others were listening to music on headphones and engaging in expressive dancing to honor “the individualist spirit for which Jefferson is known,” Oberwetter’s attorney, Alan Gura, wrote in court papers.

That’s when U.S. Park Police Officer Kenneth Hilliard showed up and told them to stop. When Oberwetter refused and asked why he was demanding they stop their jigs, Hilliard arrested and charged Oberwetter with demonstrating without a permit and interfering with an agency function. The charges were eventually dropped.

Oberwetter then sued the Park Service in March 2009, alleging that it violated her rights to free expression and asked Bates to block the government from taking such steps in the future. She also sought monetary damages against Hilliard and the Park Service for violating her rights. The Justice Department argued for the Park Service that the government had the right to regulate activities inside the memorial because it is seeking to maintain a quiet atmosphere.

“The Memorial is, has long been, and is intended to be a place of calm, tranquillity, and reverence—a place where visitors can go to celebrate and honor Jefferson and enjoy and contemplate the Memorial itself without the distraction of public demonstrations and other expressive activities,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in court papers. “The Memorial is akin to a temple or a shrine (both in terms of its purpose and its physical characteristics), not a place of public expression.”

Malobear: That was 2008,you would figure some would learn some places are off-limits
NBC Washington
A handful of dancers got cuffed on Saturday for doing what they say the Founding Fathers would have wanted them to do - expressive dancing in National Parks.
A court recently ruled that expressive dancing was in a category with picketing, speech making, and marching - a banned activity at national memorials.
A small group came out on Saturday to protest the ruling, by dancing together inside the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial.
But after a few minutes, their moves got busted by Park Police.
Five were arrested, while listening to earphones and moving rhythmically in the shadow of Thomas Jefferson.
"The founders understood that the only thing that was going to make the American experiment succeed was the people standing up for these rights," Jared Denman, a demonstrator, told NBC Washington.
The memorial was shut down while demonstrators got arrested.
Some visiting from out of town were less than impressed with the protesters' interpretive moves. "I think its ridiculous," said Edward Kelly of Richmond. "We just traveled up the steps and we've been waiting for 15 minutes."

StuckInTheSixties: We can thank stephinrazin for (inadvertantly) providing the Forum with a valuable lesson:

Free expression has reasonable limitations.

In the case of the videos, and legal cases cited by Malo, the demonstrators' right to free expression doesn't supercede that of the general public visiting the Jefferson Memorial.

stephinrazin also provides the Forum with a good example of one way that propoganda can work. This sort of tactic - providing carefully selected depictions of an event while omitting other vital information (skewing the context) - is pretty common. It's not limited to any political persuasion. This kind of propoganda is two-edged, and risky, though. If the proper context is revealed, it reveals the cynical and ethically bankrupt motivation of those that use it, and destroys their credibility. Using this propogandistic technique is essentially being a baldfaced liar.

In all fairness, we can't indict stephinrazin for using those tactics. He deserves the benefit of the doubt. We should only assume he was ignorant, and unable to sufficiently be skeptical enough to figure out what was obviously going on.

But Adam Koresh, the person behind the videos, deserves nothing but scorn.

stephinrazin: I do not consider a judge to supersede the First amendment. Sadly there are many statutes on the books in direct contradiction to the documents our form of government is based on. I consider the worship of these laws a grave mistake. If you worship laws instead of justice and human rights you are one step into tyranny.

I suppose we don't know what happened the minutes before the police took these people down. What could they have done? Danced, or protested and been told to leave. Does that change anything? A publicly funded officer given the duty to protect and serve fellow citizens told them they were unable to exercise the inalienable rights every person has? On public property no less? What could they have done short of violence to necessitate assault arrest? Nothing.

Call it propaganda, but I call it what it is. Tyranny. Militarized police who fear any challenge to their authority so much they will break the law to prove they are in control. We can make excuses, but it is one more straw on the camel's back in our creeping fascist state.

StuckInTheSixties: stephinrazin says:
"I do not consider a judge to supersede the First amendment."

I went to your profile to see what country you were from, figuring you didn't understand how the US constitution works, and how the justice system works, because you were from a different country. Surprise, you're from Georgia. You need to brush up on your civics.

Judges constantly make rulings on cases based on the First Amendment, and other sections of the constitution. This doesn't appear to be exceptional in any way.

stephinrazin says:
"A publicly funded officer given the duty to protect and serve fellow citizens told them they were unable to exercise the inalienable rights every person has? On public property no less? What could they have done short of violence to necessitate assault arrest? Nothing."

It would appear that you believe so long as citizens do not commit violence, they should be able to express themselves in any way at any time in any public place.

Is that your argument?

MrSteveA67: I agree that what led up to the arrests would be quite relevant. From the video itself, if there were problems, the police appeared to be causing most of it.

Were there people who'd complained about the dancing or were they doing something quite distracting to devaluing the memorial?

I'd have to say that likely from the selections available there, they sure picked the right memorial to dance by!

Something to consider as well is what motivated the actions? Would they have been dancing if the police response wasn't semi-predictable? I'd assume not, so in a sense the video was good in showing the problem.

Another issue involved is that when property becomes "public" then who should really be determining what's an appropriate use of that property? If it was private property then it's much easier, but in the case of public property, who is it that represents the publics efforts and interests and should determine what the correct use of the property is?

I'd assume the best judge would be the people at the memorial itself and my guess is that a random selection of them as jurors wouldn't be in unanimous agreement that they committed a crime.

StuckInTheSixties: This all revolves around a simple fact:

The US Park Service has regulations prohibiting demonstrations within the interior of the Jefferson Memorial.

There are many kinds of restrictions to free expression, nearly all of them reasonable, such as this one. Had the dancers simply walked to the outside of the memorial for their dance demonstration, they would, in all likelihood, have been in compliance with those regulations, and no trouble would had occurred. Provoking trouble was their obvious aim. It wasn't the most Ghandiesque of civil disobediences.

StuckInTheSixties: MrSteve says:
"Something to consider as well is what motivated the actions? Would they have been dancing if the police response wasn't semi-predictable? I'd assume not, so in a sense the video was good in showing the problem."

The problem is simply knotheads trying to cause a ruckus, at the expense of reasonable people simply trying to enjoy the solemn and reverential atmosphere of the Jefferson Monument, and apparently doing so to provoke the response they got. Of course that response was predictable. So?

MrSteve says:
"Another issue involved is that when property becomes "public" then who should really be determining what's an appropriate use of that property?"

It's the public that has made that determination in this case. That determination has been made by electing public officials that act on behalf of the public that elected them, in this case, by establishing the US Park Service, and implementing the regulations that were violated by those idiots in the video.

MrSteve says:
"... in the case of public property, who is it that represents the publics efforts and interests and should determine what the correct use of the property is?"

Our publically elected representatives.

MrSteve says:
"I'd assume the best judge would be the people at the memorial itself and my guess is that a random selection of them as jurors wouldn't be in unanimous agreement that they committed a crime."

If you're going with that line of logic, you should be consistent with it. By that logic, any time a law enforcement officer observes a law being violated, s/he should immediately conduct a poll of anyone in the vicinity and enforcement should be predicated on that poll. Well ... that would be just stupid, wouldn't it? But for the sake of argument, I'd disagree with your assessment. My guess is a random selection of the people people at the memorial as jurors would result in quick delberations and convictions.

MrSteveA67: Is "the public" something schitzophrenia with multiple personalities? Does "the public" represent individuals/people?

Can the public be something that fights with itself?

Is "the public" something desirable to maintain?

>> It's the public that has made that determination in this case.

Ok, so "the public" is what made the determination of the proper use of the memorial ... let's see what you define "the public" to be more specifically:

>> That determination has been made by electing public officials that act on behalf of the public that elected them:

You say the determination was made by officials, so these officials must then be "the public", because of your above definition.

You additionally state that "the public" (a.k.a. "elected public officials" act on behalf of "the public" (or themselves), and that they also elected themselves.

>> in this case, by establishing the US Park Service, and implementing the regulations that were violated by those idiots in the video.

So these same people also established the US Park Service (did these officials also build the monuments?) and I assume "implementing regulations" refers to the fighting that ensued? If they implemented those regulations, then I assume the uniformed men were all of these:

1) "the public"
2) (self) elected officials
3) establishers of the US Parks Service
4) Implementors of regulations

Who defines those regulations? Let me guess, it's once again "the public" ... can we add that to the list?

Does "the public" include everyday people like you, me, the dancers etc. or is "the public" some elite club that goes around beating people up?

What's the purpose or benefit of having "the public" around?

Should the dancers have been responsive to the people at the monument and various desires of those who built them? Yes.

Were the people at the monument and those who devoted time and energy into building them "the public"? That's a good question.

Realistically, I understand that it can be difficult for a police officer to know what to enforce or not, but does there tend to be a general trend of having too many laws and overly aggressive police actions? Well, in comparison to much of the rest of the world, the U.S. has become a police state ... is that desirable or beneficial for people? Yet again, another great question.

(BTW, I almost received an award in Government in High School so yes, I know how the story is suppose to go. My comments are aimed at reconsidering the value of that)

Here's another video along similar lines:

StuckInTheSixties: In my humble opinion, you're wrecking the thread in your normal style of writing ad absurdum a bunch of unrelated, masturbatory, self absorbed fluff.

I'll ignore you now.

MrSteveA67: Oops, I was editing it while you were reading it.

Maybe try again on the read and see if it's at least marginally better. Also, I'd be interested in knowing how you felt about what happened in the video I posted too.

Malobear: MrSteve the bottomline is if you breaking the law,then your arrested. These people plan on another event soon and they make it public on the net. My guess is the law enforcement knowing this is going to beef things up. These protesters will be whisked off so quick, I hope their cameramen are fast.

franklin1950: this group / groups of people gathered with the intention of faunting the rules/laws and creating an altercation with an agenda in mind.
the law/enforcent officers opperate by proceedures and proticols .
as shown in another politics forum the respoding officer could have stated the rules/laws that were being broken . i think this would have been a courtacy and not an obligation

will the aclu take on this case ?

MrSteveA67: There are many people that break laws all the time and don't get arrested. Not all laws apply to everyone either. Can any of you tell me what the laws are?

There are also many laws that are simply bad and should be ignored or opposed etc.

*******-*******-*******-----

A good idea is to relook at what government should be in the first place. Why do people retain government and invest effort into supporting it? What's the desire and is there an ideal that works better than many current implementations?

Malobear: “There are many people that break laws all the time and don't get arrested.” lol,the only ones that don't get arrested are the ones that don't get caught.
“Not all laws apply to everyone either.” Another crazy statement,I suggest you try that logic and break the law in front of a law enforcement official. As far as He/She is concerned its a simple A/B question to them.
“ Can any of you tell me what the laws are?” I have to assume you are asking about the Jefferson Memorial, Federal Judge Bates wrote “The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain ‘an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.” and thats exactly what these folks are doing,demonstrating.
“There are also many laws that are simply bad and should be ignored or opposed etc.”
Steve,its your right to oppose any law in this land,but until its changed,you would be wise to obey them.Ignore the law?Steve,you really cant be serious. You do this,then you take your chances of spending some serious time behind bars.

StuckInTheSixties: I admit to being a bit peeved that these "dancing demonstrators" (and stephinrazin) attempt to hold themselves in such high moral regard. What they're doing is cheap, sleazy and dishonest. Look at the title of this thread: "Police Assault Citizens for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial." There was no "assault." The police in the video were simply conducting business with as little fuss as possible, the point being to minimize the disruption within the monument and remove the uncooperative demonstrators as quickly as possible.

It would appear that the dancers want to demonstrate the "tyranny" (Stephinrazin's word) of the police and US Park Service for simply enforcing the law. It's a shallow tactic. Breaking the law for no apparent reason other than to provoke police isn't in the best tradition of civil disobedience. I suspect that Martin Luther King would shake his head sadly at this display.

We are a nation of laws, and thus, civil disobedience, even for the most noble of causes, has a certain ethical ambiguity. Those practicing it with any sense of dignity or purpose do so carefully. This was simply a moronic, misguided and immature attempt to be disruptive. Tactically, what have they gained? The dialogue here, as well as in the comments in YouTube, are, for the most part, pertaining to whether or not the dancing protestors are idiots or not.

MrSteveA67: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. " - Thomas Jefferson

>> “Not all laws apply to everyone either.” Another crazy statement.

So you believe any law someone makes somewhere automatically applies to everyone else in the world without any consent? Amazing ...

http://www.bored.com/crazylaws/

>> I suggest you try that logic and break the law in front of a law enforcement official. As far as He/She is concerned its a simple A/B question to them.

It's a question that extends beyond enforcement officers.

>> “ Can any of you tell me what the laws are?” I have to assume you are asking about the Jefferson Memorial.

No, I refer to "the laws" in general. As far as I know there are supposedly many laws around and they're often conflicting too.

Is there some intent behind laws that resolves those conflicts or are people suppose to attempt to take every law as literally as possible and apply every law in all manners that appear applicable?

>> Federal Judge Bates wrote “The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial, in order to maintain ‘an atmosphere of calm, tranquillity, and reverence.” and thats exactly what these folks are doing,demonstrating.

I agree that there is an intended value to the monuments, though it appeared no physical damage was done and as I said, the only apparent harm or benefit involved would be regarding others visiting the memorial and it would be interesting to know if there were any significant complaints in that regard.

I read something as well that said the monument was a non-public display. In that case, I have little problem with a private owner determining lots of specifics regarding appropriate actions/use of the memorial by visitors, though if that's the case, little of any public resources should have been used in its construction.

>> “There are also many laws that are simply bad and should be ignored or opposed etc.” Steve,its your right to oppose any law in this land,but until its changed,you would be wise to obey them.Ignore the law?Steve,you really cant be serious. You do this,then you take your chances of spending some serious time behind bars.

It would be worse to have a more tyrranous system by simply following the leader. There are examples in history of how that DOESN'T work out well.

Would you feel any obligation to resist following a law that you felt was harmful to yourself and/or others, or do you believe in doing what you're told even if you believed it was harmful and undesirable?

Anyway, I think the video summarized things well and though police broke it up, it was still a nice tribute to Thomas Jefferson.

Malobear: “So you believe any law someone makes somewhere automatically applies to everyone else in the world without any consent? Amazing ...” Whats amazing is your lack of understanding how laws are made from the beginning Steve and you supposedly being from L.A.Calif I would figure you would know better,my bad. Laws are not made by “Someone” and laws made here are not made for the rest of the “World” you should have paid more attention in school Steve.
“No, I refer to "the laws" in general. As far as I know there are supposedly many laws around and they're often conflicting too.” Specifics please,pertaining to this situation. Your statement is way to broad and factless.
“ I agree that there is an intended value to the monuments, though it appeared no physical damage was done and as I said, the only apparent harm or benefit involved would be regarding others visiting the memorial and it would be interesting to know if there were any significant complaints in that regard.”
You still don't get it do you ? “The Park Service prohibits all demonstrations in the interior of the memorial,” this is EXACTLY what they were doing,breaking the law.
“It would be worse to have a more tyrranous system by simply following the leader. There are examples in history of how that DOESN'T work out well.
Would you feel any obligation to resist following a law that you felt was harmful to yourself and/or others, or do you believe in doing what you're told even if you believed it was harmful and undesirable?”
Harmful to yourself and/or others? You got to be shittin me,rofl Your only asked to behave yourself while your in a landmark.Well if nothing else you fools will keep the lawyers busy. Its a shame the taxpayer has to pay the bill for all this BS.
The founding fathers wrote a bill of rights,but they didn't take it farther. They should have wrote a bill of responsibility. Its leaders would run the country better and its people would have to accept their responsibility for their own actions.