I think the officers could have handled it a lot better, called headquarters to explain how many were there as well as how many other visitors, they didn't have to mention the amount of cameras there as I am sure all but a few visitors to the momuments have cameras. Maybe someone in the headquarters would have had a better idea. Possibly to let them do their thing and try to quietly give them citations outside of the monument. I didn't see the man and woman really dancing around too much when they were arrested. But again, my main complaint is the officer telling everyone not to videotape or they would be arrested, I am sure the LAPD officers with Rodney King would have loved to known they were being recorded so they could tell the people they cannot videotape, or confiscate the tape. Now the protesters could say the officers did stuff to them, when they may not have.

 

I have seen this in Cincinnati with a couple of protests, they were quiet protest, and some were sitting on the sidewalk in groups, BUT there were not blocking the entire sidewalk, but the PD told them to move, giving them the attention and press, if they would have just let them alone they would have gave up. As long as they are not causing a riot, no harm is done.

It's not the police officers fault that these people can't follow simple instructions. They were told to stop dancing, they did not listen. It was against the law and they were arrested. It's really quite simple. Why would they call "headquarters" over something so simple?

I never understand why people deliberately do things that are illegal, then cry foul when the police intervene...that goes for everything from littering & jaywalking to murder to drinking and driving. I've gotten speeding tickets before, and I've never once said "He should have let me off with a warning" or "I shouldn't have gotten a ticket because..." Once I got one on my way back from Indy for going 65 in a 55 zone. I honestly thought I was in a 65 zone, but it never occurred to me to argue the point. But even if I had known, I wouldn't have argued. My daughter recently got one on a recent Sunday coming through Indiana from Evansville to Hardinsburg. I don't know what road she was on (wasn't I-64), but apparently she was doing 55 in a construction zone. She had no idea it was a construction zone. She didn't argue the point either. Like corndog said, it's the police person's job to enforce the law, whatever that law may be. Heck, they don't even have to agree with it. But they do have to do their jobs.

 

I also don't understand people who deliberately challenge the police in such stupid ways. Why make things worse? It's not like this was a civil rights issue. I don't like that it's illegal to be in the public park down the street from from 11pm-6am, and frankly, I break that law several times a week when I walk my dog @ 4:30am. If I get stopped by the police, I really don't have any leg to stand on. It's posted that the park is closed, and I shouldn't be there. (Although in my defense, I could claim I didn't know, because the only sign is posted on the opposite side of said park. ) But the point is, I wouldn't argue the point because it's my responsibility to know. And in my heart, I KNOW I know, so that would just be wrong to argue the issue.

It's not the police officers fault that these people can't follow simple instructions. They were told to stop dancing, they did not listen. It was against the law and they were arrested. It's really quite simple. Why would they call "headquarters" over something so simple?

 

SIMPLE! Because these guys didn't know how to handle it properly, they made the scene worse by what they did, and to even think of telling people "If you don't stop recording you will be arrested". A lot of the people recording were just visitors, NO ONE has the right to tell them to stop recording, this isn't a police state, yet.

 

PLUS, ALL they got were citations anyway for protesting without a permit, that could have been done a lot more quietly on site.

I never understand why people deliberately do things that are illegal, then cry foul when the police intervene...that goes for everything from littering & jaywalking to murder to drinking and driving. I've gotten speeding tickets before, and I've never once said "He should have let me off with a warning" or "I shouldn't have gotten a ticket because..." Once I got one on my way back from Indy for going 65 in a 55 zone. I honestly thought I was in a 65 zone, but it never occurred to me to argue the point. But even if I had known, I wouldn't have argued. My daughter recently got one on a recent Sunday coming through Indiana from Evansville to Hardinsburg. I don't know what road she was on (wasn't I-64), but apparently she was doing 55 in a construction zone. She had no idea it was a construction zone. She didn't argue the point either. Like corndog said, it's the police person's job to enforce the law, whatever that law may be. Heck, they don't even have to agree with it. But they do have to do their jobs.

 

I also don't understand people who deliberately challenge the police in such stupid ways. Why make things worse? It's not like this was a civil rights issue. I don't like that it's illegal to be in the public park down the street from from 11pm-6am, and frankly, I break that law several times a week when I walk my dog @ 4:30am. If I get stopped by the police, I really don't have any leg to stand on. It's posted that the park is closed, and I shouldn't be there. (Although in my defense, I could claim I didn't know, because the only sign is posted on the opposite side of said park. ) But the point is, I wouldn't argue the point because it's my responsibility to know. And in my heart, I KNOW I know, so that would just be wrong to argue the issue.

 

I don't have a problem with people protesting. Sometimes it takes a protest to get laws changed. It's a great compliment to our country. Just be prepared to live with the consequences and realize the police are going to do their job as they see fit.

I don't have a problem with people protesting. Sometimes it takes a protest to get laws changed. It's a great compliment to our country. Just be prepared to live with the consequences and realize the police are going to do their job as they see fit.

 

 

But protesting isn't against the law in a lot of cases. Most require permits, and adherence to rules. If you don't do the aforementioned, then yes...the police have the right to enforce the laws, and the people shouldn't be surprised our outraged when they do.

But protesting isn't against the law in a lot of cases. Most require permits, and adherence to rules. If you don't do the aforementioned, then yes...the police have the right to enforce the laws, and the people shouldn't be surprised our outraged when they do.

 

Let me rephrase. I don't have a problem with them dancing in violation of the law.

Let me rephrase. I don't have a problem with them dancing in violation of the law.

 

I'm not sure of the reasons why this law is in effect, but I can't say I disagree with it. I simply think there are times and places for all things. And I don't personally consider a memorial to be a place to dance, any more than I consider a cemetery a place to dance.

I'm not sure of the reasons why this law is in effect, but I can't say I disagree with it. I simply think there are times and places for all things. And I don't personally consider a memorial to be a place to dance, any more than I consider a cemetery a place to dance.

 

What if they sang? Would it depend on the song?

What if they sang? Would it depend on the song?

 

Yeah...I would think so.

Yeah...I would think so.

 

I would argue that any qualifier for a song could be applied for dancing. I am sure that there are traditional dances for some cultures that are for a memorial type situation. This law is too vague.

I would argue that any qualifier for a song could be applied for dancing. I am sure that there are traditional dances for some cultures that are for a memorial type situation. This law is too vague.

 

OK...I could agree to that.

I'm not sure of the reasons why this law is in effect

They were protesting an appeals court ruling from last week.

 

"In 2008, Mary Brooke Oberwetter and a group of friends went to the Jefferson to commemorate the president's 265th birthday by dancing silently, while listening to music on headphones. Park Police ordered the revelers to disperse and arrested them when they did not."

Just common respect is all that is required... I bet the participants would not appreciate some one dancing on the grave of one of their loved ones...

They were protesting an appeals court ruling from last week.

 

"In 2008, Mary Brooke Oberwetter and a group of friends went to the Jefferson to commemorate the president's 265th birthday by dancing silently, while listening to music on headphones. Park Police ordered the revelers to disperse and arrested them when they did not."

 

 

Right. They knew they would be arrested and they taped it for attention.