Wow....that's really....not a happy way to start my day. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
not sure if this been posted here yet, but was wondering what folks thoughts are on this and if it would happen in the UK? ...........ps and no its not for bad dancing
Wow....that's really....not a happy way to start my day. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
I could understand some people on here being arrested for their dancing
OMG that is unreal!
I'm so glad I live in the UK
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
Being arrested for dancing in a public place in the UK? Could it happen here? I suppose the answer is yes because it could either be considered to obstruction or disturbing the peace.
In the follow up youtube clip which shows the Fox news report of the case the dancers were billed as protesters and indeed they were because there was a previous case where someone had been arrested (the actual charge for that offence I might have missed) they lost their case and the appeal against that conviction. So this group of people turned up to make their point at the Jefferson memorial. They got arrested. Even the news camera man got arrested (surely he wasn't considered to be dancing - perhaps his "crime" was considered to be gathering evidence of the polices actions for their later prosecutions).
So the police and the justice system have thier point of view. Dancing, even hugging and swaying on the spot, without music, is an act of protest within the national memorial to the person that embodies the liberty of the individual from the control of the state.
The protestors have their point of view. Dancing is a form of free expression that is guaranteed in the constitution and where better to excercise that right than in the memorial to one of the founding fathers of the country.
The expression of individual rights is absolutely fine until they get in the way of everyone else being able to enjoy thier lives as well, eg dancing in the street is fine until you block a traffic junction for 2 hours.
Could it happen here? Yes. We already "kettle" protestors (and people going to their own houses orplaces of work) for several hours (when does that become imprisoment without charge) and when they have to answer a cal of nature in the street they are arrested for public indecency (at least they are then really arrested for an actual offence, have access to medical treatment, a toilet, food, and legal representation. They then have far more "rights" than they did out in the street. We do not have a written constitution in this country and as such did not have any enforacble rights until we accepted the european convention on human rights.
Our police sometimes seem to do the wrong thing in an effort to protect the whole of the public. We as a nation have the right to call them to account and require them to justify what they are doing via our legal system and elected representatives. Sometimes police officers and elected representatives get criminally prosecuted for abuses of their office or power, although it is my personal view that they seem to get afforded a range of leniency that a member of the general public would not and that in itself brings the whole of their offices (although not all the officers) into disrepute.
So the "protesters" at the Jefferson memorial had already lost both their case and the appeal and some more people came along to press their point. The park police decided that they were in the right and were going to stamp on this activity and arrest these people (I still do not understand why the officer could not explain what the arrested person was being charged with - I thought that was a legal requirement). Were the police heavy handed or did they use uneccesary force? From the video it looks like it to me in some cases. Could that happen here? We already know it does but that they are isolated cases in a hugely professional police force. We call those cases to account in our own legal system just as I am sure the US case will. Everyone havinga video camera these days makes evidence gathering on both sides more impartial.
The really scary thing about he US events is that they have the right to bear arms, some of those armed people view their rights very seriously, and deeply distrust (even hate) the officers of the state. I just hope the next youtube clip is not a report of a number of park police being gunned down on the steps of the Jefferson memorial, or their offices bombed during shift change over. One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter - but people die no matter what and usually they are people who just don't care about anybodies cause.
Last edited by Chef; 3rd-June-2011 at 09:33 AM. Reason: more typos than I can shake a stick at
Thanks for the context Chef. I too was stunned by the clip until I read the background. Just shows that we shouldn't judge without having relevant information.
There's some more context here. These weren't dancers, they were protesters.
This was a protest, and the guys protesting knew it was against the rules to do so - they expected to get arrested, which is precisely why they had so many recording devices up and running.
So the police were correct to warn the protesters, and to ask them to leave - the police were simply enforcing the law. The police were even then probably correct to take further action - if someone's breaking the law, I'd expect the police to arrest them for it. The protesters were clearly warned, several times, that they'd get arrested, they then asked stupid questions like "What is dancing?" (if you don't know...), and they clearly wanted to get arrested for publicity.
That said, it does look a little excessive, but blimey, it's not like they were clubbed senseless or something. And the police are being investigated for use of excessive force.
So, basically, the whole story is "protesters provoke police and get arrested for it."
Plus, they were rubbish dancers.
I looked at the clip in complete disbelief that the police were being so heavy handed with regard to harmless "dancing", and thought that the police had just taken it upon themselves to take them to task for no particular reason. With the context that Chef gave it, I could see that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the "dancers" to be provocative, to make a point.
I didn't say whether or not I agreed with either party (I actually disaprove of the behaviour of both). But my shock at the apparently random events was reduced by understanding the context behind the events, and that the events themselves were actually a protest.
Although why anyone would want to be dancing in that particular memorial is beyond me
Because dancing is self expression and Thomas jefferson was supposedly kinda big on those kind of things being free.. (He may even have put in an amendment to the constitution on that subject, I am not sure)
America has quite an interesting take on freedoms, etc. They give and take quite arbitrarily and they seem to have extreme views on both sides of the fence.
The "protestors" asked quite clearly what law they were breaking and the police had no answer. If I am about to be arrested, I would like to think the police have some idea of why they are arresting me. Is "protestors" really the right word to accurately describe the mixed sex couple who got arrested first.
Is our view such that we see what they were doing as a demonstration?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks