Adam Kokesh Body Slammed for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by Janky Red

 

So where does it end? With only dancing and making art in government approved areas with monitors to make sure it stays in the prescribed protocol. Protest and demonstrate on state approved reservation away from sensitive souls that might be offended. Creeping 1984.... There's the connection to the Tea party and Rosa Parks.

You of anyone else, I would expect to see the big picture here. I'm disappointed in both you and Anne.

Perhaps the prospect of fascism is just to uncomfortable to contemplate. I can understand that.

edit on 31-5-2011 by whaaa because: wake up

I think you reckon I am making an conclusion I am not...

One could protest in the Senate by setting up four Marshall full stacks in the chamber, but that effort of protest would not be received well by the people who are tasked to uphold security. Most people would expect an unsavory result for making this specific art... I guarantee you I could go to the Washington mall with a bull horn
reading Ginsberg and clubbed in five minutes flat.

Neither example of expression, protest or art are equatable to the ingrained institution of Jim Crow and Rosa Parks seating... There was a crisis of racism that infested every corner of many states here, while currently
I saw dancing occur twice over the weekend, I see no crisis of dance. Now I fully understand the reason for
this protest, the place of protest, the method of protest was all decided on to illicit a response and then use that reaction to create more reaction by people who desire to breed hate for the government. I guess the protest was a success... personally I think people should beable to do what they want, but if dance is the state of protest these days I do not have much faith left in the motives of protestors. I am not going to be involved in such a protest, people are free to do what they want, I just think lighting a couple hundred bongs there would have been a much better use of time as far as substantial protest goes.

Ultimately the energy conversion will be convincing some people, to vote for a politician who will extend more tax breaks to billionaires because the government has outgrown its britches, prevents you from dancing on TJ's memorial site (and also "punishes people for being successful"TM) Which do you think is the true motive???

Do you think this crisis of dance will change the very nature of oppression here in america Whaaa?

I do not, because the crisis is not the dance, it is the response

I want to chime in again.

If people want to watch this video and come away from it thinking, "oh my God, I can't believe they were arrested for dancing, that it is stupid" I can totally understand that. I think it's silly, but the cops are just enforcing the way they are told to.

However, I find it really discouraging that people watch this video and come away from it thinking that it's a case of police brutality. Don't be so credulous. How many times on here do people rip the mainstream media for presenting a distorted view of events? Well, guess what? Adam Kokesh and his band of goonies are doing the exact same thing in this video.

Adam Kokesh is saying in interviews that he was "bodyslammed for dancing". No he wasn't. But we should expect manpulative statements out of him, because after all, the video itself was manipulative. Do you know why Adam was body slammed? Let me tell you. He stands there with his hands held, in the air, in front of him. The officer repeatedly asks him to put his hands behind his back (a non-violent attempt to subdue him), but Adam blatantly ignores these requests. The officer then proceeds to try to forcibly put Adam's hands behind his back (another non-violent attempt to subdue him), a move that Adam blatantly and physically resists. Finally, after arguably exhausting his peaceful attempts to arrest Adam, he resorts to physical force. Not because he's a "hot head", but because Adam backed him into that proverbial corner.

It is just mind-numbingly obvious that Adam was baiting the cop -- hell, forcing him -- to use excessive physical force. How people just overlook this and play the "the cops are mindless brutes!!!!" card just goes to show that people mindlessly believe what they see, whether it's on the mainstream news or the YouTube channel of anti-government protesters. I guarantee you that any superior officer that reviews this tape will sympathize with the officer who threw Adam to the ground, and will conclude that he used an appropriate level of force. And no, not because the system is corrupt, but because the evidence that Adam's resistance triggered the force is clear as day.

This is the part where I get accused to being a fascist.

Maybe a mass of people will show up, dancing to this tune...

reply to post by whaaa


I might ask you the same Whaaa?

where does it end?

We could devolve all the way to the stone age with this one

Originally posted by expo15

This is the part where I get accused to being a fascist.

I won't call you a fascist - - I agree with you.

Cops today are very restricted on what they are allowed to do and are trained to handle people as diplomatically as possible.

I really don't get where all this police brutality comes from - - I think maybe too much TV watching.

Anyone who cares to speak on change, and ways to go about it please message me. We can find much better means to convene than on this site. Thats all I will say. lets see who cares

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by whaaa

 

I might ask you the same Whaaa?

where does it end?

Who cares? I saw the handwriting on the wall a long ago and made provisions to watch
the trucks; filled with folks to be "reeducated" arrive at the FEMA camps on my ipad.

I prefer to spend my remaining time on this planet in a country that has a nice beach, good fishing, cold beer and an appreciation of artists, art, dancers and lovers of life. I'm so glad I don't have any kids as they are the ones ultimately to experience the New American Forth Reich.

The signs are all there for those not to blinded by ideology to see.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MrWendal
They were protesting an appeals court ruling.

They were illegally protesting.

There are ways to protest legally.

Oh, that's right. They need to go to their free speech zone down the street where they won't be in anyone's way.

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by Aisling

 

They've got guts, that's for sure. What stood out to me in the video was the smile on Rumsfeld's face, and his wife too. They don't seem to have a care in the world.

Or maybe they are embarrassed? Some people smile when they are embarrassed.

Or maybe they are used to crazy people like this and they think it's funny. -just a thought

I'd be embarrassed too, if I were trying to have a nice evening out and it was ruined by someone yelling I'm a war criminal! Hope it follows him forever.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aisling
It's a stupid law that needs to be challenged, like so many others.
Second.

I agree with the right to challenge laws that seem stupid.

If you choose an illegal way to protest it - - then don't cry foul.

If you were protesting something you were passionate about, in a peaceful non violent way, and an officer grabbed you and threw you to the ground and put his hand around your neck, would you then say you deserved it because you were illegally protesting?

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by whaaa

 

I might ask you the same Whaaa?

where does it end?

Who cares? I saw the handwriting on the wall long ago and made provisions to watch
the trucks; filled with folks to be "reeducated" arrive at the FEMA camps on my ipad.

I prefer to spend my remaining time on this planet in a country that has a nice beach, good fishing, cold beer and an appreciation of artists, art, dancers and lovers of life. I'm so glad I don't have any kids as they are the one ultimately to experience the New American Forth Reich.

The signs are all there for those not to blinded by ideology to see.

IT does matter, Whaaa, just because I do not like something does not mean that I shut off my filter due to
one variable.

Should a company beable to harvest my organs to recuperate my debt if they renumberate and stipulate it in next years contract???

Should I be allowed to set up my band on the street next to a retirement home at three in the morning?

Where does it end?

I think you should know that the enforcement of laws could have saved this country lots of trouble in the last five years... While this law is rediculous... Neither fact polarizes me completely to a straight pro or con position...

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by Umbra Sideralis

 

It is because police meet civil disobedience with violence. It is no different than what happened in the 1960's when protesters were beaten, had dogs turned loose on them, and were arrested for the crime of sitting.

I get that and I understand the face of what they are protesting... But equating the institution of segragation and
the freedom to dance anywhere is not the same IMO, they are similar in that they challenge the status quo and that they illicit authoritarian response. Aside from that, I am not sure what the practical point is besides instigation and documentation of the resulting response.

edit on 31-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

In my opinion it is much more than just simply dancing. I do not personally think the point is about dancing at all. It is about the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy of it all. When someone is arrested they are transported to the jail. The officers involved then have to do paperwork, book you into jail, etc etc. While that is happening, that is a few less cops on the street actually doing their job. To arrest people for dancing is really an absolute waste of resources. It is a completely victimless crime to begin with. If you can show me who was hurt by this, or had their property damaged, or were violated in any way whatsoever I would love to see an example.

Secondly, this whole thing stems for an incident in 2008 when several people gathered at the memorial in the middle of the night to dance with earphones on as a way to celebrate Jefferson's Birthday. The Police ran everyone off and arrested one women. She was charged with demonstrating without a permit and interfering with an agency function. The charges were later dropped, but then the women filed a lawsuit saying her right to free expression was infringed upon. The Judge ruled against her. saying that expressive dance does meet the requirements for demonstrating, which upholds the ban on demonstrations at the Memorial thus her rights were not violated when she was arrested. Now this was the middle of night, no crowds of people, no tourist. Just some locals who meant no disrespect at all and really did not bother anyone at all. You could not even complain about loud music, they were wearing earphones!

Now this is Washington D.C. where crime is far from hidden. You can go 3 or 4 blocks from the White House and get a hooker and some crack if you would like. Washington D.C right now is ranked the 9th for crime on a 100 scale with 100 being the safest.
SOURCE

Your going to tell me police have nothing better to do than arrest people for quietly dancing in the middle of the night? To be fair, below is the 2008 crime stats for Washington D.C at the time this women was arrested. I do not think anyone here would be shocked if these numbers are now actually higher.

Violent Crime = 8,509

Property Crime = 30,211

Murder = 186

Forcible Rape= 186

Robbery = 4,430

Aggravated Assault = 3,707

Burglary = 3,788

Larceny -Theft = 19,958

Vehicle Theft = 6,465

SOURCE

So does it seem right or fair to you in anyway that in a City that ranks in the top 25 year after year for most dangerous cities in the US that resources and tax dollars should go to arrest, detain, and run through an already overwhelmed and over burdened legal system a few people that were dancing?

This is the problem with our legal system to begin with. We continue to arrest people who have in fact hurt no one at all. Yet rapist and pedophiles continue to walk the streets to eventually offend again. It is time to stop the madness. We have so many laws on the books it is unbelievable. Some laws are still on the books which make absolutely no sense at all. For instance, it is legal in South Carolina to beat your wife on the court house steps on a Sunday morning, but it is illegal to give or receive oral sex. Fact is, people need to point these things out if they ever want to get things changed so I personally see nothing wrong with peaceful civil disobedience to do it.

Originally posted by Aisling

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aisling
It's a stupid law that needs to be challenged, like so many others.
Second.

I agree with the right to challenge laws that seem stupid.

If you choose an illegal way to protest it - - then don't cry foul.

If you were protesting something you were passionate about, in a peaceful non violent way, and an officer grabbed you and threw you to the ground and put his hand around your neck, would you then say you deserved it because you were illegally protesting?

If you figured out a statute to violate, went to hollowed ground to violate the statute and illicit a specific response
would you be surprised when you were thrown to the ground and choked out by the fuzz?

SO many of you have turned off your critical thinking, to champion a polorized position, it is a popular opinion...

Originally posted by MrWendal

This is the problem with our legal system to begin with. We continue to arrest people who have in fact hurt no one at all. Yet rapist and pedophiles continue to walk the streets to eventually offend again. It is time to stop the madness. We have so many laws on the books it is unbelievable. Some laws are still on the books which make absolutely no sense at all. For instance, it is legal in South Carolina to beat your wife on the court house steps on a Sunday morning, but it is illegal to give or receive oral sex. Fact is, people need to point these things out if they ever want to get things changed so I personally see nothing wrong with peaceful civil disobedience to do it.

Well put, best retort so far!

I will brew on this and try to adopt this way of looking at it...

Maybe you should become the official spokesman for this movement because without your rationalization
it is very hard to come to such a conclusion, a rather large leap and extrapolation was a bridge too far...
Thanks

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by brewing

 

Or maybe because . . . *gasp* . . . he is American?

How about we fix our problems at home first, and then think about worrying about the problems of other nations.

Oh yeah...our problem of the rights of morons to dance at public memorials. Yeah, lets protest that first before we move on to real human rights abuses.

reply to post by stephinrazin


Madness, but hey at least they didnt grab his dick.

reply to post by Janky Red


Thank you, I am glad that someone is able to see another perspective in all of this.

Some things just simply make no sense at all. I was not trying to compare the civil rights movement with this situation, but I was making a comparison to how force is used against people who are not hurting anyone and not really breaking any real laws. Meeting civil disobedience with violence is the norm.

Now yes, it is against the law to demonstrate at the memorial, that is a law I can live with but dancing to me does not equal demonstration. There are no chants, no demands for change, no signs. The whole point behind a protest is to disrupt the normal flow of day to day life and force people to look at an issue. That is what made the Civil Rights Movement so effective. How much attention do you think Civil Rights would have garnered if they were forced into a steel cage several blocks away from anyone else where they could not disrupt traffic? Yet that is exactly what a "Free Speech Zone" is as we have seen from previous Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

Just because something is the law does not make it right. Once upon the time it was not illegal to own slaves, but now we see that just because it was not illegal did not mean it was right. That is why people who say, "But it is THE LAW" are using such a weak argument. In Texas, there is a law on the books right now that says it is illegal to take 3 swallows of beer while standing up. Now can you imagine what would happen if that law was actually enforced? Do we really want to use up resources having police sit in bars and count how many times someone swallows while standing even though it is "THE LAW"?

Let's use the law from South Carolina as another example. It is legal to beat your wife on the State House steps on a Sunday morning. That is the law. It is legal for you to do it. So would all these same people who are crying, "It's the law" say the same thing if a man actually went out and beat his wife on a public street? Of course not!! The public would be completely outraged, however it is the law and it is legal.

Every legal action taken cost taxpayer money. We pay for cops to be on the street fighting crime and arresting criminals. We pay for criminals to be housed in Prisons, County Jails, and Detention Centers. Every city cries and screams about how they need more police officers, yet the fact remains that maybe if the police we have were actually arresting real criminals instead of arresting people who have hurt no one, we would have enough cops! Going farther, what happens if the person arrest can not afford a lawyer? We'll the state appoints one, and our tax dollars pay for that too. Now what happens when the case is tossed out of court, like was the case with the original women who was arrested for dancing in 2008? There is still court cost. Someone pays for the court clerk, the judge, and don't forget the jury if a defendant demands one. Well if the case is tossed out, the state eats the court cost but these people still have to get paid, so who pays it? The Taxpayer!

Maybe a little off topic here. but, who taught those bicicle cops how to dress? Bicicle helmet? Daisy Dukes? Tucked in Polos? ugh.

I only see a bunch of instigators.

What was with all the camera activity? Was the black guy with the big shoulder rig from a different group? Why was he asked to leave and seemed to freely exit the confrontation? Looking at the people around in the backround, I don't think these guys picked the best place to hold a dance demonstration.

People are there to enjoy the parks and sites. Not be forced into someone elses need for attention. I bet most of the people there were glad the security manhandled these freedom fighters. They knew how strict the rules are in such a place and they went there looking for trouble. Its common courtesy. Do they act like A-holes in public everywhere they go? So why do it anywhere? Much more productive ways of shaping government.

You people that sensationalise this crap are not much better.

reply to post by Mailman


Yeah all those cameras have nothing to do with the fact that those who were dancing used social media and sent out press releases that they were going to silently dance in front of the memorial and asked people to come video and take pictures so they could see what would happen for themselves

People are there to enjoy the parks and sites. Not be forced into someone elses need for attention.

The original person arrested was doing so after midnight when there was no crowds and no one to get attention from. Sorry but this argument is completely invalid.