Adam Kokesh Body Slammed for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

reply to post by buster2010



yes i know but

sorry, don't matter in this thread, as you can see.

46pgs of i don't know what.

that's the ATS way, i guess.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours

Originally posted by Annee


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".

Annee? Is Dancing, protesting?

Do you think dancing is illegal (your opinion), at that memorial? If yes, why ?

Some of us keep posting indeed, because HELLO dancing... Bodyslam...

You could say simple, its the law.
Did you had part in this law in the making process? And if you were in gov would you vote for such a law to be installed?

Personally, I think this law can not exist. The people are the law, and the government should fear us.

edit on 1-6-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)

No it's not her opinion it is illegal and a link to the law has already been posted in this thread.

I asked her opinion? What is your relevance to my comment projected to Annee?

Originally posted by fooks

46pgs of i don't know what.

that's the ATS way, i guess.

Terrible sorry mate, but where you just see...nothing, i see 42 pgs full of people personal opinions, debating a subject , and giving us they'r ideias about it !

That's the "free people way", not something exclusive from ATS, or a "ATS" way...

Yes i realy love Freedom! And it's something just beautifull!

Originally posted by NuroSlam

So...as we all can see very well on this new videos, cops now know how to deal with this kind of situations after all... ... ...
No more body slamms, no more abuses at all, just cops trying to make people follow the Law! If people dont' follow it ..."then please go out side, dear Sir!!", if you insist, i will be forced to arrest you! That is better then the old moto used before :"We are the Borg, resistence is futile, you will be assimilated!", lol.

It looks that the earlier "inciddent" where the so called "provocative" group was abused by the Police, produced some results after all...!

What a stupid law. Then again, i suppose if people start dancing in front of police whilst it is against the law they are only going to get one thing. Noone agree's with how it was carried out, i.e body slamming to the ground and choke grabbing etc and if you do you're pretty messed up.

Originally posted by Liquesence
So you do not think it is police brutality when a cop slams a nonviolent, non-resisting, nonthreatening person to the concrete and then grabs him by the throat?? That is normal acceptable behavior and procedure?

I hope you are not serious.

The guy was not putting up a fight, he was NOT resisting anything, he got thrown to the ground and choked. That is NOT right, and it is not a "distorted" view, 'cause it clearly shows what happened without an edit....

I hope you aren't being serious. Have you watched the full version (the 11 minute one), or just the little condensed summary?!

If a cop repeatedly tells you to put your hands behind your back and you refuse, yes, that is resistance. Adam did this in the video, it's clear as day. That is also a non-violent, harmless attempt by the cop to subdue you.

If you ignore these requests, and the cop attempts to forcibly put your hands behind your back but you physically resist this and prevent him from doing so, yes, that is resistance. Adam also did this in the video, it is also clear as day. That is also another non-violent, harmless attempt by the cop to subdue you.

If you fail to comply with repeated non-violent request, cops will get physical. That's exactly what happened here. Adam deliberately escalated this situation to a point where cops were forced to get physical so he could produce exactly the type of reaction you're seeing.

These details are glaringly obvious.

reply to post by expo15


I did watch the long video, which affirms my points even more.

And while you might be technically and legally right in your response, that does not make it right for the cops to use the amount of force they did just because someone did not "obey" a command. It was excessive, period. There is NO need to slam a person to the ground for refusing to obey when the person in questions was not violent. Period. And the was NO need for the cop to choke the man.

But cops get off on that sort of thing. "You won't obey me, well, i'll show you the consequences. "

Cops are supposed to use the amount of force necessary for the situation, but this was clearly over stepped. It was NOT necessary to slam him to the ground and choke him.

You seem to think that any action is justified when one does not obediently submit to authority.

THAT is the problem at hand, when people unquestionably obey everything an authority figure says/commands.

Yes, the details are glaringly obvious that the cops used unnecessary and excessive force on people who were non-threatening. There were other better way to deal with the situation than how it was dealt, but cops like show of force.

I have seen way too much of this type of thing...

Over-use of force is getting out of hand.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think people get this notion built up in their head of "cops are brutal, power-tripping beasts", and then anytime they see someone exercise force they think it's evidence of this.

I don't think this was police brutality at all. Frankly, I think the cop exhausted his options and had to get physical with Adam. Again, this is what Adam wanted (after all, he has a camera there, he wants to make a scene), and so he backed the cop into a corner and forced him to do that.

Brutality or violence would be him throwing him to the ground and beating him with his night stick or something. All things considered, I think the cops handled this well and appropriately. And not because I'm an obedient slave to authority.

Originally posted by Liquesence
But cops get off on that sort of thing. "You won't obey me, well, i'll show you the consequences. "

No they don't. People just like to psychoanalyze actions of cops and extrapolate it out into personality flaws and ulterior motives.

reply to post by expo15


I agree he was looking to make a scene, but i never said police brutality. I said excessive/over-use of force, which is, IMO, inappropriate for that particular situation.

And i do not see it as him backing the cop into a corner at all. The cop backed him into a corner when he confronted him. The cop could have just let him be/go instead of keep pushing, not to mentioned that the cop could not cite the law that was being broken (even if the "demonstration" is technically illegal). That is the point, too, about cops getting off: IMO it's not necessarily about whatthe "law" is, it's because it's a law and a person simply doesn't do what a cop says regarding the "law," even if a stupid law. If a person is not hurting anyone or creating a disturbance, why must cops escalate situations (in general). Like the video of the guy who cracked a joke (youtube vid) in NY, the cops went after him and escalated the situation as the guy was walking away.

It seems oftentimes cops "look" for things or "make" things into something more than they are. And even though i agree that the dude was looking to make a scene, i do not think the cops should have picked him up and slammed him to the ground like. There are other less forceful means at subduing a person that one could--should--first exhaust.

The guy "dancing" with his girlfriend, though that is just absurd. They were hardly dancing, just holding each other and swaying, neither hurting anyone nor creating any type of disturbance. It was the cop who did not let them be but escalated the situation for a bunch of BS.

*Shrug*

We each have our own perspectives, so yes, i suppose we should agree to disagree.

And the irony that it happened as Mr. Jefferson looked on....

Originally posted by Aisling

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.

Lets be realistic here for a sec. What does yelling war criminal really accomplish? You embarrass the guy in front of the dinner guests...that's about it. (Maybe he'll remember it once or twice later in life and laugh.)

I guess she also accomplished making herself look crazy.
If she really has reason to suspect he's a war criminal and if she has good evidence to back it up then she should find a different way to make it known to the public. It looks more like she has a personal vendetta against him and wants to make him look like a fool. Of which she is doing a bad job...just sayin.'

Kokesh & company inspired another creative parody of the German film Der Untergang. To better understand how the simple act of dancing [disobediently] can serve as a major wake-up call to both the pot, and the frog, I recommend reading the work of Gene Sharp/Albert Einstein Institution.

YouTube text: The elites had taken near total control of every aspect of Americans lives, but when they tried to outlaw dancing, something went terribly wrong, and Hitler is pissed!

A permit is something that is granted as an exception to the normal rule which generally means that the action is typically outlawed....

This would seem to mean that the first amendment is normally not allowed and thus there must be a special privilege granted to exercise it. If that is the case then why was it titled the bill of rights and not the bill of privileges, or even the bill of things that might be allowed on occasion. In-fact its titled bill of rights for a reason. Adding restrictions to this fundamental right is not just, and goes against the founding principles that the country is based on.

Take for example the protests that occurred prior to the revolutionary war. A good example was the Boston tea party. Did they go to King George and ask permission to throw the tea into the water and destroy private property? Do you think such a request would have even been granted? But was it effective? Was it memorable?

In present day there are quite a few "new rules" that apply to civil rights. AND I would argue that these rules are eroding civil liberties. Some examples these limitations / rules are questions asked on the permit form, Will the protest interfere with daily routines, how will it interrupt traffic on a through-way? What kind of interruptions are to be expected? What is the route? Does the protest fall on a holiday or use public streets? These types of questions and denial of permits placed upon the first amendment lessens the effectiveness of the assembly and muffles the overall tone of the event.

As such I would argue make protests in modern days ineffective in producing change or convincing law-makers of the plight of the protesters. One may argue that things are different now and that we have "evolved".

I would beg to ask the question of what has really changed since 1776? The only thing that comes to mind is an evolution of technology. We have better gadgets now days then they had back then. However an evolution of technology does not and should not shift the right of the people, and certainly shouldn't prevent the people from expressing distaste for the current happenings in Washington.

Just my .02

Originally posted by Liquesence
And even though i agree that the dude was looking to make a scene, i do not think the cops should have picked him up and slammed him to the ground like. There are other less forceful means at subduing a person that one could--should--first exhaust.

Well, this is the crux of our disagreement.

The cop asked him to put his hands behind his back multiple times. Adam blatantly ignored him.

The cop then attempted to forcibly put Adam's hands band his back. Adam physically resisted this. He held his arms in place and used his strength to prevent this from happening, and also started to walk away from the cop.

It then looks to be that the cop puts his hand over Adam's back and attempts to pull him to the ground, which Adam also resists. This is my best-guess at what the cop is trying to do at that point, but I'll admit it's not clear-cut.

What else could the cop have reasonably done? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm completely open to what else he could have tried. But I think he handled it completely appropriately: he increasingly-escalated the force he used until he threw him to the ground.

The way a large chunk of ATS reacted to this video, you'd think that a random tourist walked into the building and was just body slammed out of the nowhere. That's not even remotely close to what happened.

reply to post by expo15


Hmm.. how about exercise some restraint let them dance for a while and then ...... wait for it....... wait for it..... let Adam go home looking stupid. The thing that bugged me was that the cop was not able to even describe which ordinance they were violating, and simply said you will be arrested. They asked on what charge and got nothing. Therefore from a legal standpoint if the officer has no idea if its even illegal... then the officer should have left well enough alone.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Boston Tea Party.


Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movements.


Both brought about with the intent to rile people up and open their eyes.


Both broke established laws at the time.

Both led to rights being restored.

Code Pink
Egypt protest in tahrir sq
flotilla debacle protesting Israel and supporting Hamas
anti war protests because that is what leftists do
trespassing in the home of a Blackwater employee
photo ops with Chavez(that alone should raise eyebrows)
raising a ruckus at the RNC and the DNC

very far from The Boston Tea Party
the ride of Paul Revere
Crossing the Delaware
The Battles at Lexington

please do not compare Code Pink to real patriots

reply to post by ezwip


I find the schools with all the bars and gates quite disturbing. So different from what I grew up with. When they built the new HS in our district, they put giant chain link fences around it entirely. You can only drive in at certain times, and you drive in this crazy circular path. I had also recently read about the DHS program that in a time of emergency, parents would not be allowed to pick up their kids, the kids would be taken to a secure site away from parents. You will not see this in the movies. People would be outraged if they thought their children would deliberately be separated from them in a dire emergency. I know that new HS reminded me of a prison, and it felt horrible. The media presents some school shooting and then the govt comes in with the solution.

Originally posted by expo15

Originally posted by Liquesence
So you do not think it is police brutality when a cop slams a nonviolent, non-resisting, nonthreatening person to the concrete and then grabs him by the throat?? That is normal acceptable behavior and procedure?

I hope you are not serious.

The guy was not putting up a fight, he was NOT resisting anything, he got thrown to the ground and choked. That is NOT right, and it is not a "distorted" view, 'cause it clearly shows what happened without an edit....

I hope you aren't being serious. Have you watched the full version (the 11 minute one), or just the little condensed summary?!

If a cop repeatedly tells you to put your hands behind your back and you refuse, yes, that is resistance. Adam did this in the video, it's clear as day. That is also a non-violent, harmless attempt by the cop to subdue you.

If you ignore these requests, and the cop attempts to forcibly put your hands behind your back but you physically resist this and prevent him from doing so, yes, that is resistance. Adam also did this in the video, it is also clear as day. That is also another non-violent, harmless attempt by the cop to subdue you.

If you fail to comply with repeated non-violent request, cops will get physical. That's exactly what happened here. Adam deliberately escalated this situation to a point where cops were forced to get physical so he could produce exactly the type of reaction you're seeing.

These details are glaringly obvious.

Well, I am glad to see that not everyone is so gullible. These 'demonstrators' are morons. They intentionally go out and provoke and escalate and then edit the video to (like you said) get this reaction.

Goes to show you what the average level of intelligence is. Lately, it's been going down here on ATS.

THINK. Those of you falling for this are the same ones fond of words such as 'sheeple'....um, *cough* "baaaaaaa"

is this the david koresh slam dance vid? sorry, adam,

that's been done to death here already?


use the search.

dam! i was 2 secs to late!


closed out from the other thread!

they broke the law, on purpose,

they got arrested, it was planned and the cops were on to the scam.

why do people want to undermine my fading liberties?


would i want to see that? i have been there, during vietnam war, no one did that.

take that crap to woodstock. unless u like slam dancing.

I've read similar threads on other forums...

And guess what, lots of people were DEFENDING THIS CRAP...

Their reason? ``Those protesters needed a permit``... ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

You don't need no stinking permit to protest, doesn't matter what those SOBs in Washington DC say or SCOTUS says.

reply to post by Vitchilo


comm on dude,

you need a permit to do anything.


i don't want my family to see your butt shaking anywhere, cept carbo wabo on spring break.

and they wouldn't be there.

recreate this, let's see if this is a one off or SOP.

film it too, of course.