It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adam Kokesh Body Slammed for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

page: 28
197
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by KEMIK
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I don't think it matters much if the cop shot the person without just cause.


What I am saying is they still have to go to court. Some people here are asserting that cops do not function under the law equally as the rest of us, that they are above the law. Perhaps the murkiness comes in where cops have the right to exercise authority and we do not.


I disagree with the murkiness portion. We have every right to protect ourselves, family, and fellow citizens. So authority doesn't come in to the picture.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
What would you expect when a radical group like Code Pink is making a demonstration? Did you all know Code Pink was in Egypt stirring up trouble before the revolution? They created chaos at the RNC. That's what they do.


You say that like its a bad thing! Good for them and Egypt is better for it!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 

I read the Court Decision that allows the nazis to do this. It is well reasoned and totally grounded. The fact that it is typical of the current fascist understanding of the Constitution is certain. They needed to walk outside the pillars of the Memorial and the sunglass wearing gestapo would have been powerless. The Memorial is not a public forum and the chuckleheads can prohibit this behavior as they will.
I may not like it but they actually were enforcing the law as it is known. Bleh!

Here is the three judge panel decision.

courtlistener.com...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by KEMIK

I disagree with the murkiness portion. We have every right to protect ourselves, family, and fellow citizens. So authority doesn't come in to the picture.


LOL -- I can present logical arguments all day long.

But -- I live in SW Arizona. Ya know what I mean



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by largo
reply to post by stephinrazin
 

I read the Court Decision that allows the nazis to do this. It is well reasoned and totally grounded. The fact that it is typical of the current fascist understanding of the Constitution is certain. They needed to walk outside the pillars of the Memorial and the sunglass wearing gestapo would have been powerless. The Memorial is not a public forum and the chuckleheads can prohibit this behavior as they will.
I may not like it but they actually were enforcing the law as it is known. Bleh!

Here is the three judge panel decision.

courtlistener.com...


From your source:


Oberwetter argues that her silent expressive dancing was
not a demonstration because it was not “like” the enumerated
activities of “picketing, speechmaking, marching, [or] holding
vigils or religious services.” Id. § 7.96(g)(1)(i). Unlike those
examples, she argues, her expressive dancing was not an
“organized group activity in which a uniform message is
passionately conveyed.” Appellant’s Br. 15. She further
claims that her conduct falls within the exception for “casual
park use.” Id. Dancing silently in place while listening to
headphones, she says, is something that people do in the
course of ordinary activity—waiting for the bus, standing on
the sidewalk, etc.—and does not have the “effect, intent or
propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.” 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(1)(i).
The district court properly rejected Oberwetter’s
arguments.


Very interesting link. I am reading the same material you are and easily and quickly come to the conclusion that the judge was laughably *wrong* to pretend the dancing done was a political demonstration or political forum. It was no more a political demonstration than someone who chooses to bow to the statue of Thomas Jefferson as their chosen form of respect!

Do you understand what happened two years ago? The group went to the Jefferson memorial at MIDNIGHT. Did you read that? I just said midnight. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're doing a public demonstration, midnight is the absolute last time in which you'd want to do. However, if you wanted to oh say... memorialize and celebrate Thomas Jefferson as a sign of respect on his birthday but without risking weird looks from onlookers, then perhaps you'd do that in the middle of the night.

The judge's lapse of common sense was so severe he needs to be FIRED IMMEDIATELY. You don't do political demonstrations, or public demonstrations of any kind, at a time where there won't be any people. Period. The judge needs to get a grip on reality.

And actually the Jefferson memorial absolutely is a place the "chuckleheads" are supposed to be able to go and use it as a public forum to pay their respects or otherwise memorialize Thomas Jefferson. People do demonstrations at times where there are actually other people to witness what is being demonstrated. Please, learn about how people dancing around a statue of their personal heros is something someone would do if they really like that person a lot and wanted to celebrate their life in the form of dance.

Calling dancing a celebratory dance a "demonstration" seems like madness to me. If that is a demonstration, then isn't ALL other forms of expression going on within the building demonstration as well?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Reply to post by KEMIK
 


Go peacefully assemble at the Jefferson Memorial, then come back and tell us how free you really are.

Go buy a full auto weapon with no hassles and come back to tell is how free you are.

Go flip off a cop and come back and tell is how free you are.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by KEMIK

I disagree with the murkiness portion. We have every right to protect ourselves, family, and fellow citizens. So authority doesn't come in to the picture.


LOL -- I can present logical arguments all day long.

But -- I live in SW Arizona. Ya know what I mean


Is it the job of police officers to comply with the US constitution? I do realize I've asked this twice but I don't feel like I'm going to get an answer asking it just once. As a follow-up question: What should the punishment be for a police officer who violates their oath to the constitution?

For example, the US constitution gives us the *right* to peacefully assemble on public property. We also have the right to expression. At the time of the "evil dancing", the building was open to the public and clearly had lots of room to move around and express one self without disturbing the peace. So Annee, if a cop comes along and violates the highest law of the land, the right to peacefully assemble for the purpose of for example expressing something in the form of dance, what should the retribution be? I imagine the cop should have to resign at the very least, do you think?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


They were told that they have no Constitutional rights in the memorial of the man who helped pen the Constitutin

That is logical to you?




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


edit on 5/30/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
What I find interesting is - - - back in the 50s there were less laws - - and more flexibility in doing things like this in public.

I am not saying there was more freedom - - because you were actually more restricted by society acceptance.

But - - there was more respect. Far less graffiti - - less vandalism of property etc. And Respect for Police.

The more free we become as individuals - - - the less respect we have for others and authority - - - the more strict laws become.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Reply to post by largo
 


Why should they follow an unconstitutional rule?

They, indeed, are in a public forum. Last I checked, the Memorial is a public place.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


The more free we become as individuals - - - the less respect we have for others and authority - - - the more strict laws become.





Especially when there are those that think "do unto others" is merely a "sentimental Philosophy"



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Annee


The more free we become as individuals - - - the less respect we have for others and authority - - - the more strict laws become.





Especially when there are those that think "do unto others" is merely a "sentimental Philosophy"


Oh give it up.

It is a sentimental philosophy the way you tried to used it.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Wow! Just wow! That is messed up. You guys are living in a prison over there. I fear we are not too far behind here in Australia.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by KEMIK
 


Go peacefully assemble at the Jefferson Memorial, then come back and tell us how free you really are.

Go buy a full auto weapon with no hassles and come back to tell is how free you are.

Go flip off a cop and come back and tell is how free you are.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



1. I don't need to peacefully assemble anywhere. I can bombard the politicians with letters and petitions. I don't have to ruin someones vacation by dancing around a memorial.

2. I'm glad that one would be hassled when purchasing a weapon. I don't want some nut-job running around my streets with an AK-47.

3. Would you be a little perturbed if somebody randomly flipped you off? Why would I do that anyway?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
Wow! Just wow! That is messed up. You guys are living in a prison over there. I fear we are not too far behind here in Australia.


What - you don't have laws?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by KEMIK

I disagree with the murkiness portion. We have every right to protect ourselves, family, and fellow citizens. So authority doesn't come in to the picture.


LOL -- I can present logical arguments all day long.

But -- I live in SW Arizona. Ya know what I mean


I hear ya.

I think I know what you mean about living in Arizona. You have sand for a front lawn, and you never have to shovel snow. JUST KIDDING Annee
had to lighten the room up a bit.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




What - you don't have laws?


Yeah that's exactly what I meant

edit on 30-5-2011 by aaron2209 because: quote



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by KEMIK

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by KEMIK

I disagree with the murkiness portion. We have every right to protect ourselves, family, and fellow citizens. So authority doesn't come in to the picture.


LOL -- I can present logical arguments all day long.

But -- I live in SW Arizona. Ya know what I mean


I hear ya.

I think I know what you mean about living in Arizona. You have sand for a front lawn, and you never have to shovel snow. JUST KIDDING Annee
had to lighten the room up a bit.


Yeah Yeah - - - Gotcha!

Me and me Glock



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by KEMIK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by KEMIK
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I don't think it matters much if the cop shot the person without just cause.


What I am saying is they still have to go to court. Some people here are asserting that cops do not function under the law equally as the rest of us, that they are above the law. Perhaps the murkiness comes in where cops have the right to exercise authority and we do not.


I disagree with the murkiness portion. We have every right to protect ourselves, family, and fellow citizens. So authority doesn't come in to the picture.


Oh yes, I believe we have the fundamental right to protect our selves and our family. People do not have the right to come into our homes uninvited. I meant, more or less, that the police have the authority given to them by the State to enforce ordinances.



new topics

top topics



 
197
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join