Citizens Arrested for commiting free speech w/video

reply to post by Griff


Then you need to work on understanding sarcasm and rhetorical questions...

It might be an outdated idea, but how about citizens coming to the aid of another citizen and putting the rogue cop under citizen's arrest?

Until the militarised police forces in the USA are reminded that they are public servants and not masters these atrocities will grow worse and worse.

Really I beg US Americans to stand up. Tell the cop trying to arrest you that you will sue him personally for violation of your civil rights. And then do it.

Resist.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Then you need to work on understanding sarcasm and rhetorical questions...

Sarcasm and rhetorical questions are a sign of a weak argument. And a weak mind. No offense. So, why should I stoop to that level?

This is really nothing new. After nine years of street ministry I've seen a lot of speech suppression first hand. They can either deny permits, make the permits cost too much (free speech for the wealthy) or just arrest someone if they receive a single complaint (thanks to a recent 9th circuit court ruling).

They've even arrested christian for kneeling down and praying in a public place.
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Let's not forget that a series of hate crime laws are being enacted that have targeted religous groups who might disagree with say homosexuality. Pastors have been arrested. Congress has repeatedly tried to slip in such hate crime laws and one is likely to pass in CA soon. Eventually any speech that makes certain groupls uncomfortable will be not allowed. So much for the first amendment.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by SevenThunders]

I don't get it

What people did do wrong? Lol.

Originally posted by Griff
Sarcasm and rhetorical questions are a sign of a weak argument. And a weak mind. No offense. So, why should I stoop to that level?

Really? Your inability to understand sarcasm relegates it to an intellectual backwater? Socrates and Plato were weak of mind? Then by your definition, those that study their "weak arguments" must be similarly hobbled in cognitive ability. No need to answer, that was a rhetorical question... I know the answer. I might suggest a proactive approach to this inadequacy of yours to prevent any further "stooping."

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Again, I'll ask. What was your point in your first post? No need to answer. That was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.



[edit on 9/20/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/20/2007 by Griff]

What's the point of being the judge and jury of a one sided trial on this issue? From watching and listening to the video I am to believe these persons are being arrested for disturbing a pro war rally. The so-called reporter focuses too much on the side story of the reading of the consitution. With no charges sited there could be dozens of reasons for the arrests.

Yes I am aware of Bush's new laws pertaining to anti war protesters. Without more information there's nothing else to say about this incident.

Originally posted by Sanity Lost
Yes I am aware of Bush's new laws pertaining to anti war protesters. Without more information there's nothing else to say about this incident.

I'll agree to that. We do need the whole story. Is that good MM?

reply to post by zysin5

For every 1 person that is concerned about losing our rights.. There are3-5 people who will clap for these cops and usher in a new age!!

Hey guys, if you have time take moment to see what I said on the first page.. I understand we are getting upset over this, and just scanning threw the pages to get to what we have to say.. But I suggest if you have time, read all these threads, read each reply!! It will help make us stronger!

But you 2 are to busy fighting with eachother... And some of the good posts go unheard becasue some would rather bicker back and forth..


I thought super Mods where suppose to set a good example?? All this back and forth is getting us no where..!!! No offense MM.. I dont wish to get on anyones bad side.. But ummm, well know ya, you are the example setter here... WE look up to you sir!!!



[edit on 20-9-2007 by zysin5]

Of parroting and parody...

Originally posted by Griff
Again, I'll ask. What was your point in your first post? No need to asnswer. That was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

Imitation... the sincerest form of flattery... But alas, somewhat disingenuous when it comes to the fine art of discussion. The silver lining to all of this is that you have clearly demonstrated an understanding of the concept of rhetorical questioning.

This miraculous progress can only be attributed to my flawless demonstration of the rhetorical, and of course equally aided by such an apt student. If you are able to grasp the fleeting coat tail of sarcasm in the above, yet another step into a brighter world will be taken, and truly enlightening discourse can ensue.

As for my first post, the point was quite clear if one had viewed the video, and a conundrum if one had not.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
As for my first post, the point was quite clear if one had viewed the video, and a conundrum if one had not.

I guess that would have been my mistake then. BTW, I understand sarcasm and rhetorical questions. I'd just rather someone come out and say what's on their mind than pussyfoot around it with rhetorical questions and sarcasm.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
What was the "pro-war" group that was also involved? Why isn't there any video of the actual demonstration (why does it stop as he approaches the other group)? If freedom of speech/the press is suppressed, why do the police allow him to continue taping (as was at least one other "reporter")? Why does the "videographer" claim by name to be a "reporter" but doesn't provide the essential details that any news story should have? Before anyone makes any foolish statements, here is the videographer's profile:

www.youtube.com...

Why is critical thinking falling by the wayside while reactionary bleating is becoming the norm?

Isn't that what they really want?

why do you not criticize the police? why are you concentrating on what is behind the camera, instead of what the camera records?

it is clear that the police(public SERVANTS) are ignoring the honest and important questions of john Q. it is obvious that the arrested women is shaking her head, "no", when asked if she was informed of WHY she was under arrest? why do you not question why the public at a public gathering for the public, are "corralled" depending on their opinion?

rhetorical questions. not just for the obvious, anymore.

*sticks Mirthful Me and Griff in a blender*

You two need to stop arguing and start focusing on what's important: Our rights are being taken away.

In a free society, you can't just arrest somebody and not tell them why they are being arrested or what they are being charged of. The one-sidedness of the cameraman is bad, but when you see how the police are acting, how can you blame him? He tried to get the police to comment, but they wouldn't. He asked why the people were being arrested, and the police did not answer. They just stood there, silent. Absolutely ridiculous.

i want to see the full police force jailed for not speaking as they legaly must.

Where are all these videos coming from, theres more everyday, unbelievable.
Whats going on.

The irony...

Originally posted by billybob
why do you not criticize the police? why are you concentrating on what is behind the camera, instead of what the camera records?

Actually, my initial questions are directed towards what is in front of the camera, i.e. who are these groups? Why are they "anonymous?" Then I ask the questions regarding the actions of the "reporter" and why he has failed so miserably (yes, he really did fail) in "reporting." Whatever happened to the "who, what, when, why and how?"

We've all heard the journalistic mantra: Who What When Where Why How?

If you're not sure where to start with a citJ project, or if you happen to find yourself in a place or situation relevant to a story or story idea, PAUSE. Ask yourself those key one-word questions. How many of them can you answer, even a little, by probing a bit right now?

www.ireporter.org...

Why was the "reporter" so derelict? What agenda does it serve? Why am I the only one asking the questions and not grasping an uninformed conclusion? Has common sense and due diligence been usurped by knee jerk reaction?

it is clear that the police(public SERVANTS) are ignoring the honest and important questions of john Q. it is obvious that the arrested women is shaking her head, "no", when asked if she was informed of WHY she was under arrest? why do you not question why the public at a public gathering for the public, are "corralled" depending on their opinion?

rhetorical questions. not just for the obvious, anymore.

I'm unaware of the legal provision for the police to respond to a bystander, or to reiterate to someone not involved in an offense what the charges are. Maybe you could provide that clause in the Constitution for my edification. I would also find it much easier to question any of the events if a foundation of the events was provided, since they haven't been, then I must question what has been provided. How could you assess the corralling? I didn't see that demonstrated on the video... Is there a psychic aspect to this that I'm not aware of?

I guess if this was a bunch of people who wanted to display pornagraphy, they would have issued them a license and said go for it.
Standby

reply to post by Mirthful Me


oh, the ironfisty.
perhaps you should watch the video more closely. what we do not see is mentioned in the conversations. what we do see is someone shaking their head, "no", when asked if they were informed as to WHY they were arrested.
WHAT we see, is many people noting that there are people being arrested for reading the constitution aloud, and the people themselves testifying that they were corralled prior to being arrested.
WHERE is obvious.
WHEN is obvious.
WHO the heck gave the order to arrest someone for free speech is not. WHY is obvious to those of us who see the fascist under the riot helmet.

i believe it IS an officer of the law's obligation to speak when spoken to, within reason.
specifically, an officer of the law MUST identify him/herself by name and badge number when asked.

some evidence that this is a common code (i don't have time to search the ultimate truth on this one, right now)

once again, let me reiterate, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS. as such, they really SHOULD be quelling dissent with rational answers to the (calm) cameraman's questions.
however, it is as he said, "is your silence and admission of the truth of my observation?" (paraphrased)

i don't care how much of an "actual" journalist this guy is. frankly, journalism is used to spin truth into "truthiness" for the appropriate CORPORATION, more than to simply report it these days.

luckily, cameras don't have political bias filters built in( yet).

clearly a case of jackbooted brownshirtism.

mirthful monkeys. not just for pointing at anymore.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by billybob]

reply to post by Copernicus



Just to be objective... Looks like a bunch of Code Pink whackos set out to be arrested. Any publicity is good publicity when it comes a group like that. The camera man was just too serendipitous with his timing and questions. I get the feeling that the whole thing was a set up.

If we are living in a police state as the protesters and camera(man) insinuate then why didn't the Capitol Police ask him for his papers or arrest him too? Looks like he was still allowed to use his free speech to shout at them while he was making a video. The whole thing was so juvenile I couldn't watch more than 2/3 of it.

Take a chill pill.