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: 34
197
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
How is it a different discussion? One is control through police force, the other is control through subtle means of surveillance and monitoring. A policeman may not pull you over for running a red light, but you may get a ticket in the mail and have to pay a fine. How would you be able to contest it if you don't even know when you did it?



Because this discussion is about an attention seeker organizing a Flash Mob dance - - at a place that has laws against it.

He resisted arrest from a legal law enforcement officer - - - who was only doing his job enforcing an existing law.

This is NOT NWO conspiracy.




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
If you look at the legal findings in the case of Mary Brooke Oberwetter, the court found, in section 5 II, www.cadc.uscourts.gov...$file/10-5078-1308285.pdf , that she was in violation of a standing law that prohibits,"picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
religious services and all other like forms of conduct
which involve the communication or expression of views
or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include
casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not
have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or
onlookers."

If this interpretation of the law is adhered to, you can not profess adoration, disgust, or neutrality to Thomas Jefferson, or any matter, whether pertinent or not in a memorial that is considered by the state to be private, in a manner to make a statement. Not that I agree with the law, it's just what we've set a precedent for.

With respect to the on scene activities, I can neither condone nor criticize the behavior of the acting officers. There is a career at stake in each of those officers. Without knowing exactly what directives they have been issued, how can you assume that they are working outside of protocol?

If you do not like a law, take the necessary steps to change it. One way is to break said law for court challenge and to set a new precedent; another is to become active in the political circles that shape the effects of court rulings. We have to follow laws. Sometimes, there is the unfortunate obstacle of that one-off case that allows for an excessive reach of the law when it comes down to interpretation.

Not everything is a conspiracy or an overt overreach by the government. Sometimes, we get tangled in a conflagration because we think we are not being heard. There are many of us who would take the battle forward in sacrifice of our name with little positive outcome. Then there are others who would choose to look closely at what we are unhappy with, and react to those situations that arise when a voice beckons to be heard, and challenge within the constraints to regain the freedoms that we are guaranteed.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackandblue
If you do not like a law, take the necessary steps to change it. One way is to break said law for court challenge and to set a new precedent; another is to become active in the political circles that shape the effects of court rulings. We have to follow laws. Sometimes, there is the unfortunate obstacle of that one-off case that allows for an excessive reach of the law when it comes down to interpretation.



Yes - - - and isn't this Constitutional?

If you do not agree with something - - you have the right to legally challenge it. Through proper channels.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Again, I don't need to for that particular scenario. And I am exercising my first amendment rights by sending letters and petitions. I'm all for gun control as well, but to an extent. I have a gun license, and I was never hassled one bit. Why you ask? Because they had no reason to.

Oh, and apparently you believe it is acceptable to treat another person badly because of their occupation. That's really going to help maintain our First Amendment rights.

edit on 30-5-2011 by KEMIK because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2011 by KEMIK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Please forgive my ignorance. Is your stance that the demonstration was performed within the protection of the Constitution, or that other activities are better suited. Not starting a fight because I think we both would like to see fairness for all.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
How is it a different discussion? One is control through police force, the other is control through subtle means of surveillance and monitoring. A policeman may not pull you over for running a red light, but you may get a ticket in the mail and have to pay a fine. How would you be able to contest it if you don't even know when you did it?



Because this discussion is about an attention seeker organizing a Flash Mob dance - - at a place that has laws against it.

He resisted arrest from a legal law enforcement officer - - - who was only doing his job enforcing an existing law.

This is NOT NWO conspiracy.


Of course it's NWO conspiracy. The NWO is communist/fascist/socialist/totalitarian/capitalist/globalist/Orwellian control of the world's population through excessive police force tactics and the police state, surveillance technology including biometrics and rfid, legislation which is designed to limit freedom and growth, redistribution of wealth in one way or another so as to limit individual freedoms and ability to make one's life comfortable according to one's personal efforts, elimination of private property through excessive taxation, redistribution schemes, eminent domain, and so on. I could keep listing stuff but by now you should get the point.
In this particular instance I think the police executed their job well, being polite at first, and using force only when the people refuse to cooperate. I feel that a memorial is not the best place to demonstrate the police state tactics because there is obviously going to be a natural higher level of security there. But that is why they picked it, because they knew it would result in a confrontation. This is why I have picked apart their demonstration because they engineered it to get the effects to prove their point.
I am much more convinced by the videos I have seen of people approachng places like Menwith Hill, or places which may appear somewhat abandoned or out of the way, but then suddenly security appears on the scene, such as in what might be described as a possible FEMA camp location.
edit on 30-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackandblue
reply to post by Annee
 


Please forgive my ignorance. Is your stance that the demonstration was performed within the protection of the Constitution, or that other activities are better suited. Not starting a fight because I think we both would like to see fairness for all.


My stance is the demonstration was Illegal for Sensationalism.

Legal protests - - - not Illegal sensationalism.

The right way to remove a law or change a law is through legal means - - - which is a Constitutional right.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by blackandblue
If you do not like a law, take the necessary steps to change it. One way is to break said law for court challenge and to set a new precedent; another is to become active in the political circles that shape the effects of court rulings. We have to follow laws. Sometimes, there is the unfortunate obstacle of that one-off case that allows for an excessive reach of the law when it comes down to interpretation.



Yes - - - and isn't this Constitutional?

If you do not agree with something - - you have the right to legally challenge it. Through proper channels.



Well, ultimately, we have the right to use other means than by court proceedings....

My only argument with the activists here is their intent.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That's what I thought you meant. Thank you for taking the time to clarify.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by freedish
 


Both Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans were in that protest, they are co-founders of Code Pink. They have also had their pciture taken wiith Hugo Chavez.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
My only argument with the activists here is their intent.


I try to stick to logic - - but of course I am human.

I really do understand the emotional aspect of what some consider unfair law.

Balance I think is the key. Awareness sometimes does take extreme measures - - followed by legal procedures.

I'm really not a "hard ass". But it is important to me not to have idealistic tunnel vision.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
If you do not agree with something - - you have the right to legally challenge it. Through proper channels.


According to the people who founded our country and government in the first place, the ultimate basis for all legality is the will of the people themselves. Not arbitrary laws or "representatives."



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


www.ushistory.org...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Annee
If you do not agree with something - - you have the right to legally challenge it. Through proper channels.


According to the people who founded our country and government in the first place, the ultimate basis for all legality is the will of the people themselves. Not arbitrary laws or "representatives."


Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What was the population at that time.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


I'm really not a "hard ass". But it is important to me not to have idealistic tunnel vision.


Oh I don't know; anyone that thinks that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a "Sentimental Philosophy" seems pretty "hard ass" to me.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


That is a very good source of foundation for all of us to live by. Fortunately, as the populous has grown, we have been encumbered by the faults of such a wide variety of our brethren, that we are implored to concede to the fact that we are bound by the rights inherent to us individually, but limited by the acts of our brethren. As we propagate through the evolution of law, we bring it up to the status of our social climate. That's the beauty of it. We have many opportunities for change.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Annee


I'm really not a "hard ass". But it is important to me not to have idealistic tunnel vision.


Oh I don't know; anyone that thinks that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a "Sentimental Philosophy" seems pretty "hard ass" to me.


Let me clue you in. I have personal thoughts and feelings.

They have no business in this argument - - - of intentional illegal sensationalist exhibition vs Legal Law Enforcement doing their job.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackandblue
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


That is a very good source of foundation for all of us to live by. Fortunately, as the populous has grown, we have been encumbered by the faults of such a wide variety of our brethren, that we are implored to concede to the fact that we are bound by the rights inherent to us individually, but limited by the acts of our brethren. As we propagate through the evolution of law, we bring it up to the status of our social climate. That's the beauty of it. We have many opportunities for change.


Well, it's part of the Declaration of Independence



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I agree. take a look at what we want as a whole. The little items that define our laws are merely a reflection of the protection that we pine for. Choose your words. Change will follow.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
cant believe this thread is so huge. No way im reading the whole thing. I watched the video though. Has anyone mentioned the way the guy took the throw? He was trained. His feined surrender movements. The stiffening up was what got the cops attention. Dude was "dancing way to close to an officer doing their job. Set-up. The dancer wasnt respecting personal space and got a lesson in respecto. If the vid is real.

I smell training video.



new topics

top topics



 
197
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join