Adam Kokesh Body Slammed for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

reply to post by MrWendal


It was clearly a case of a jerkoff, who shouldn't have a badge, getting pissed someone didn't lick his boot and blindly follow orders. He arrested her and charged her for an unconstitutional law to begin with. A moron judge dropped the ball, as they seem to do a lot lately, and sided with an unconstitutional law. That is what the protest was about, and that is what the protest this saturday is about.

Oh man, that wasn't supposed to be directed at you, hit the wrong reply. Clearly you get it

How many times must it be repeated. They did not have a protesting permit. Dancing is illegal at the memorial.

The truth of how it all went down have been posted.

But some of you just keep "creating your own movie".

I personally think the issue here is that the police follow orders blindly, would it surely not have been far more cost-effective and generally human to simply remove them off site or perhaps talk to them properly instead of issuing a pathetic warning then promptly attacking them - these police seem to lack common sense, they should not have acted that way in response to a very minor threat, especially in front of cameras. Seems to me that they were satisfying their lust for some 'action' in an otherwise boring scenario (for them).

Perhaps blindly following orders is the product of nationalism being shoved down your throats from birth, akin to the days of the Soviets or Nazi Germany. An efficient police officer would have responded appropriately to avoid causing a scene, these however responded hugely inappropriately - perhaps if he was toting a knife and shouting 'jihad' it would have been okay, however through those shades that's probably how the officer saw it. And for people to say this was a set up, you must realise the police played just as much part in it, if it was, by fulfilling the prophecy to a tee - again an affirmation of their inept skills at real policing (as they could have realised this a mile away), not social control as this is. Also with the aforemetioned previous controversy in regards to dancing with the woman taking legal action, the police should have known this and striven to avoid further controversy.

reply to post by Annee


Agreed.

Why do I feel like the horse has been dead, beat, mummified, and buried. This thread has twisted the First Amendment grossly. Disturbing others because you think it's for the freedom of speech doesn't make it acceptable.

reply to post by Annee


Ok this is the mindset that I don't get. This is not a friggin classroom here people, they don't just get to tell you what to do and make laws that usurp our Constitutional Rights because someone got hurt out of shere stupidity. You DON'T just get to say as the government of a people who are supposed to have a choice that YOU know better and it's for your own good so just take everything lying down. The government sure isn't my mommy or daddy for crying out loud, so YES in fact YOU do usurp laws at a whim, it is simply your decision to decide which laws have no common sense to them and are in fact unjust, if they seem overly unjust to you as an individual that law has broken one of your fundamental Constitutional GOD given rights which is your pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It reminds me of the town that banned dancing in the movie "Footloose" , I would not in point of fact punish my 2 year old for dancing inside a monument, nor would I a teenager if I had one, so I can only draw the conclusion that the government is trying to play the part of overly strict parent and/or guardian once again and say that for whatever reason which our small minds could never comprehend that this type of activity around a monument in D.C. is dangerous or in our best interest not to be around or do in certain environments etc......Such is silliness and is only their attempt to see how much longer they may control us and to what degree they may get away with such behavior is honestly all up to us.

reply to post by Annee


Dancing is not illegal, PROTEST is illegal. As I said on page 1 or 2 of this thread, the question is when did silently dancing become a form of protest?

The criminal case was thrown out and all charges dismissed, so clearly a criminal court Judge agreed that dancing was not protesting without a permit. A Civil Court Judge ruled differently when the women arrested tried to sue the Police. So much like this site, it seems even the Judges are divided in their opinion as well are they not?

Your remarks also bring up a whole different issue that you seem to be missing. If holding a protest is your right as granted within the US Constitution, why do you need to ask permission and obtain a permit to exercise that right? By default, does that not mean it is not a right at all and instead a privilege granted to you by the State?

Now starting with my first question a "protest" is defined as

an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation.

The women who was originally arrested was not protesting or objecting to anything. She was swaying side to side wearing headphones connected to an Ipod in front of the memorial in celebration of Jefferson's birthday. So can you explain to me like I was a 5 year old what she was objecting to that would meet the dictionary definition of a "declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent"?

Now this current arrest we can classify as a protest because the intent is clear. They are doing it in protest of the Appeals Court's decision. However, it now comes back to something else I said earlier. In a City that ranks in the top 25 year after year as one of the most dangerous Cities in America, is it right to waste Police resources and taxpayer money to arrest people for dancing? People who are not hurting anyone at all? The fact is, this is a victimless crime. They are hurting no one at all. How about instead of arresting people for swaying side to side, these Police walk 4 blocks down the street and arrest the guy who is mugging some Elderly Lady right now? Or maybe arresting the crackhead who is right this second crawling out someone's back window holding a TV set or some other property that does not belong to them? Those are real crimes, with real victims. Dancing in front of Jefferson Memorial with headphones on certainly pales in comparison, and there is obviously no shortage of real crime and real victims in Washington DC.

Ok Let's make this point AGAIN!!! It does not matter what laws and or statutes are on the books, the document we all agree pretty much started the country and continues to make us unique is the Document that actually gives us limitless freedoms in the form of expression and pursuit of happiness which are inalienable, so this attempt at doing so by the D.C. is a fraud of law and is thereby made null and void by our constitutional rights. There pathetic attempt to enforce this and our continued silent obedience *(other than a few)* is the only reason this has not been challenged in the Supreme Court. I never said it was going to be easy but quit quoting the stupid State Laws and statutes when they have no bearing on the true LAW OF THE LAND.

Originally posted by KEMIK
reply to post by Annee

 

Agreed.

Why do I feel like the horse has been dead, beat, mummified, and buried. This thread has twisted the First Amendment grossly. Disturbing others because you think it's for the freedom of speech doesn't make it acceptable.

So if I wear an Ipod and sway side to side in front of the Lincoln Memorial, that is disturbing others but if I do it while standing in line at Walmart, it disturbs no one? So what you are saying is that dancing in public only disturbs others depending on what public site I am doing it at?

When did "disturbing others": become against the law anyway? I was under the impression the law they broke was "demonstrating without a permit" not "disturbing others by dancing".

And technically it is a First Amendment issue. You have a right in this country to peacefully assemble. So if you can show me how some people swaying side to side listening to an Ipod with headphones is some how not peaceful, then you may have a good argument.

And just to be clear. Requiring a "permit" to demonstrate is part of the same argument the "freeman" people are having about the "right" to drive vs privileges. Constitutionally our right to freedom of expression, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, bear arms, travel unencumbered and unfettered, freedom of religion, etc......CANNOT I REPEAT CANNOT, be converted into privileges unless we allow them to be controlled so.......ALL someone has to do is stand up and call BULLS#%! and ride it out with a Civil Rights Lawyer all the way to the end and not be bought off and this "statute" or "law" would be taken off the books.

Twist it either way you like. You're playing the "what if" card. With modern technology we do not have to disturb others who do not wish to engage in their acts. And I don't mean IPods.

reply to post by KEMIK


Yes you mean dancing is disturbing others, I get that. The point you seem to be missing is

1. The women arrested in 2008 was dancing at the Memorial at Midnight. There were no crowds and no one to disturb to begin with.

2. Disturbing others is not against the law.

Is it really that difficult to grasp?

If dancing equals disturbing others and that equals a crime... then why is dancing anywhere is public not illegal? The fact remains, no one was arrested for "disturbing others" they were arrested for "demonstrating without a permit".

1. Sounds irrational to arrest her for that reason only. What else transpired? I'm not familiar with the case.
2. Disturbing the peace may lead to outrage, acts of violence, there is my "what if card."

It's a memorial for crying out loud.....it's more an issue of respect than anything. Particular if you are asked NOT to do it and you choose to disregard.

reply to post by KEMIK


She showed up at the Jefferson Memorial in 2008, late at night and danced silently while wearing headphones connected to her Ipod in celebration of Jefferson's Birthday. Other people spontaneously choose to join her. AT this point the police showed up and demanded everyone leave and claimed that they were "demonstrating without a permit". The women objected and was arrested for "demonstrating without a permit" and for "interfering with an Agency. You can find a link someplace in one of my previous replies.

Thanks, I really did not know of the incident. I'll have a look.

But look at it from the other side. What were they doing? I would question what was going on.

forget the founding fathers

throw the constitution out the window

the true authority on how to behave in public places is mary poppins, and she would NOT be happy with the dancers. they made a rather embarrasing spectacle of themselves, and will surely get the castor oil and an early bed time

but seriously, there is a time and a place for everything. if this happened on private property, I would be outraged as well. BUT keep the dancing for places like dead shows, wedding receptions and proms.

when at a monument, take pictures, read the signs, talk about his accomplishments, take it all in

and then

move on so the next group can enjoy it

I would like to say, as someone who has visited the memorials in Washington D.C., including the Tomb of the unknown soldier, these are national sites that were constructed and maintained throughout the history of our nation to respect and revere our fallen dead. These are the founders, leaders, and soldiers of this nation who gave their lives for their beilef in America, it's Constitution, and it's laws so that we all may live free.

This is very simple really. The world we are presently living in makes martyrs out of anyone with a video recording device. It is simple really. I would not dance on the Tomb of the unknown soldier nor would I dance on the Viet Nam Memorial. I would not dance on the memorial site of Thomas Jefferson. Obviously, some trash would. I have the freedom to do so. However, out of respect, and that is what is lacking here, I would not dance on the graves of our fallen leaders and soldiers. I would body slam the lazy bastard myself, he should get a job and grow up and act like a man instead of a slacker with a cellphone.

What part of respect for the dead is not quite understood here? Is it a difficult concept they have no respect for? Obviously they want to talk about their freedoms being violated, what a joke. This crap doesn't wash after awhile. The graves they dance on and make a mockery of are the graves of those who fought for your right to live and flourish in a free society. Millions of American gave their lives in the name of freedom, not yours, theirs. You did not crawl in a trench or die in a foxhole. Tell me about the depth of your suffering compared to those at Valley Forge? They didn't have cellphones, Nikes, or video cameras. How pathetic our American society has become. We all know it and see it, don't we?

When Code Pink protests the serious stuff, I will take them seriously. Medea Benjamin is putzing around with a goofy dancing law at the Jefferson memorial, when the real stuff is that we are being datamined, surveilled, monitored, watched, taxed, and regulated beyond anything the Founding Fathers could have imagined.


Here is something serious

www.theblaze.com... ge-events-passes-first-round-of-testing/

I wouldn't be surprised at all, however that doesn't make police brutality OK either.
Second.

reply to post by MrWendal


Exactly. The dancing isn't the issue, it's the protest. And the fact that they are making up laws on the spot now. They told a camera man to stop filming or he'd be arrested. People film every day in the memorial, what was so different that day in the moment?