"You're not allowed free speech in the Jefferson Memorial"

This thread is more unintentionally sexual than I thought.

---

As for my opinion on this kind of situation and debates...I just believe any figures of authority, cops and others who supposedly have power over the citizens should be charged more harshly than normal citizens for the same deeds, for the very fact that they have carry more responsility...and that's all I'll say about the matter.

edited 29th May '11 4:57:51 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

If the guy is a thug, at the very least he should be fired.

I'm not saying I think all cops are thugs. Odds are, a few of'em are actually decent people: Excepting those who enforce the War On Vice, I'm sure there's a good deal of homicide detectives or dudes who solve kidnappings, or folks who try to solve dangerous hostage situations.

The ones who ain't done nothing wrong (not made it a career of enforcing oppressive laws or having abused their authority over the public) shouldn't be punished. The others? Getting sacked is much less than they'd deserve, but it's an acceptable compromise.

edited 29th May '11 5:01:26 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Savage; You have yet to say anything that is not extreme or even rational. You constantly mention killing cops for even minor offenses. You have mentioned it in past threads you mentioned it in this thread. Really add something useful the conversation or find somewhere else to be and take you excessive hate with you.

Who watches the watchmen?

So basically... any police officer who disagrees with you should be kicked off the job. Is that right, Heathen?

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I'm currently arguing for the sacking of cops who abuse their authority. That is, employ excessive force, perform questionable arrests or searches, or insult or harass people knowing that, on a cop/civilian confrontation, the person can't fight back or they will get screwed.

Cops that prevent people from exercising rights that they do have should be sacked too.

Aside from that, those that enforce authoritarian/oppressive laws like, say, censorship, gun control, prohibition, or generally blue laws deserve harsh retribution. However, the easiest, less brutal and most practical (if not the fairest) way to deal with them would be to simply make their jobs redundant and them consequently laid off.

edited 29th May '11 5:10:25 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Yes, but abuse of authority sounds like "Disagrees with you". If you've got a problem with the laws they uphold, sounds like your distaste for police is misplaced. How about taking it to the places that make the laws.

edited 29th May '11 5:06:17 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Same drivel take it somewhere else savage. They are cops they are supposed to uphold the law not ignore at their convenience.

Who watches the watchmen?

Fine: Let's not have that argument again.

Still think the you ain't got no free speech cop should be sacked, though.

(Note that I've advocated sacking and shaming this one: Further action against him would be overkill and probably unjustified. The remark was outrageous and showed a blatant disregard for free speech. He furthermore admitted to be arresting those guys and figuring out what to charge them with later. It shows a propensity/willingness for wrongful arrest. Grounds for dismissal for sure)

edited 29th May '11 5:24:44 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I wouldn't even sack him. I would embarrass him and force him to do a whole passel of retraining. It would be signed off after a both a written and practical exam. If he refuses or fails he is out then. The college gits I would kick out anyways they were being a public pain the ass.

Who watches the watchmen?

Let's make this straight - I don't support what this cop had done, but police violence is often necessary. In my humble opinion, what is considered unlawful behaviour should be considerably skewed and the conduct of policemen should be controlled and regulated, but those who stay inside the category of unlawful behaviour should prepare to be FUCKED BY THE LONG DICK OF LAW! Seriously, the police are defenders of law and order, they must not be some smiley apathetic clowns, like many in my country are. Those would literally let a murderer go free for a 20 euros bribe.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

Too lenient, but it might be a solution.

I'm more concerned about the arrest now, see what to charge them with later remark. That's suspiciously close to wrongful/arbitrary arrest. An instance of wrongful arrest should mean a dismissal.

If a second similar incident would get him the sack, the public embarassment plus apology plus retraining would be acceptable.

Well, they shouldn't be smiley apathetic clowns when dealing with murder. When the charge is one of the gazillion trivial noncrimes where nobody's life, limb, liberty or property is actually being threatened, smiley apathetic dudes eating doughnuts and not giving a damn are completely appropriate.

edited 29th May '11 5:35:28 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

His ass would also be watched and if he fucks up again he would fired on the spot. God help him if he did something really stupid.

Who watches the watchmen?

That's fair, then.

I'd probably sack him, but I'm hardly unbiased when it comes to law enforcement. Odds are, you're being more level-headed.

Your solution works equally well, so I'm fine with it.

edited 29th May '11 5:44:51 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

At least the police officer didn't act like this one did. In that case, the police officer is definitely deserved to be fired, if not arrested.

...You are going to follow that link, aren't you?

That was cold-blooded murder, and that cop should be treated like a murderer.

But it's off-topic, 'cuz it has its own thread. The cop kills homeless whittler For the Evulz incident is different and merits a different kind of response that dickish cop says something stupid and performs a fishy arrest.

edited 29th May '11 6:33:10 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

On that I can agree savage. But yeah Off topic.

So is there really a law that prohibits dancing at the Jefferson memorial?

Who watches the watchmen?

Are people generally allowed to be disruptive inside museums or institutions?

I mean, there's free speech on government land. That's firmly settled SCOTUS jurisprudence. If the public is allowed to be there, they're allowed to protest there... OTOH, in principle, being disruptive inside a museum, a public hospital or a similar institution would warrant being kicked out of it. Nothing wrong with that.

If it's public land it shouldn't warrant being arrested, though. Kicked out? Sure. But charges wouldn't stick.

edited 29th May '11 6:47:02 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Hopefully it already came up, but the voice that said the titular phrase was not a cop, unless one of them was antagonising the others.

Don't skip to 1:20.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

I have always disliked some cops myself, they seem to think just because they have a whole damn color collar to themselves, that they are somehow above regular people in this country.

Those ones shown there...I have never felt such disgust before. I wish only harm unto them.

They're upholding a bullshit law a judge signed off on.

And "blue collar" doesn't just mean cops.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Nick: That is pretty much true of every position with power. There is always some gits who are total dicks about it.

No your not really allowed to be disruptive in the museums and a variety of other institutions.

Ninjad by you already :P

edited 29th May '11 7:12:28 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Then we're in agreement, Teufel. Strange.

Cop should either get a chewing down, retraining and have his ass watched or be sacked, and the dudes who went dancing in the memorial should have been kicked out but not arrested?

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I'd question the validity of the law, the disruptiveness seems pretty mild.

It's also worth noting that if you follow that there link in the OP this was planned pretty much to provoke exactly this reaction.

The cops were doing their jobs! I know you think anybody in a position of authority should be under constant threat of a lynch mob, but none of them did anything particularly wrong besides get fed up with people who were, in all honesty, being quite rude for the hell of it.

edited 29th May '11 7:16:40 PM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Thread Hop: Well, is it actually illegal to dance there? If so, then the police were not only allowed but duty-bound to remove the dancers. The dancers deliberately made it difficult and provoked trouble. They got what they asked for. Whether the law is valid is another issue. If it isn't it should be struck down, and hopefully will be now that these people have drawn attenion to it. If it is, then the cops did their job, the dancers succeeded, the legal system worked, and everybody wins!

<><

The you aren't allowed free speech in the jefferson memorial and the arrest them and see what to charge them with later merit some punishment.

Because, if you don't know whether something is an arrestable offence, you shouldn't arrest people for it.

And people are allowed free speech on government property (SCOTUS dixit). People don't have free speech on private property without the property owner's consent, but government cannot abridge people's 1st Amendment rights on government property.

edited 29th May '11 7:28:32 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.