It was a pretty lame demonstration then. What does symbolic mean? If you're going to make an ass out of yourself in public and try to get your self arrested, what's that supposed to show?
-sigh-
1) That shows dissent and unwillingness to be fed **** and be happy about it.
2) That was a protest against an unnecessary and unjust law.
3) It was showing the irony that had occurred (Free Speech - Jefferson relation)
4) Arresting and attacking people merely for dancing, that's not right is it?
5) Showing the other irony of being detained and arrested for merely dancing. Pathetic.
If these same people were breaking other rules such as streaking, taking a **** over there, lighting fireworks, etc. then I wouldn't be defending them in anyway whatsoever. What had happened in the video was clearly the cops blindly following orders, since as we all know, "orders are orders" without even giving a second thought to what was occurring and why these people were dancing in the first place. Instead, they continued "doing their job" without hindsight or hesitation to what their actions will result in and provoke. Blind obedience to those in command with petty excuses such as "orders are orders" or "I'm just doing my job" are in and of themselves counter-productive actions that would hurt popular movements. Those are not any reasons for their actions to be considered justified, but excuses for political and social blindness to what is occurring in front of them.
3:37-3:50 is also ironic, to think that such events (detaining dancing demonstrators, body slamming them, and dragging them in cuffs, telling a detained individual to "shut up" especially in that location) are taking place at the memorial of Thomas Jefferson, a proponent of the freedom of speech/expression is simply humorous and yet saddening at the same time.
Please show me, specifically on those videos, any violence. Any gore, any excessive behavior. All I see are people getting dragged and a guy getting body slammed - for refusing to put his hands down.
Mate, this is one instance out of millions. Take any protest, any protest at all, hell take the events in Spain for example. Body slamming someone that refused to put his hands down, do you even call that necessary? If someone (not a cop) body slammed you, you'd kick his ass. That was an unnecessary excessive violent action that attacked an individual that posed no threat whatsoever. Next time read the initial post: "A new law was passed in the District of Columbia, making it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial. Which is extremely ironic, since Jefferson was one of the largest supporters of free speech. So some civilians decided to be civilly disobedient, in hoping to change the law. The police then used excessive force to strike down the dancers."
So... what's your point? I've seen this incident referred to as police brutality, which is ridiculous. It's all relative, bro.
My point is that this is police brutality, comparing it to a much more drastic foreign event does not make this irrelevant.
Your concept or argument was that since X is minor when compared to Y, X is hence irrelevant.
You had replaced X with minor "attacks" in the video and Y with Syrian repression (hundreds killed) and thus claimed that X is irrelevant and is in fact not police brutality.
I then happily replaced X with homicide and with Y with the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and thus, in your case, derived that homicide irrelevant.
I hope I do not have to clarify this more than I already have.
Of course it would depend on what the said law would be. Surely you'd agree.
It comes down to resisting the police. If you're J walking and a cop comes up to you and you get all up in his face refusing to comply with their instructions they have the right to MAKE you comply PERIOD
It comes down to resisting the police. If you're J walking and a cop comes up to you and you get all up in his face refusing to comply with their instructions they have the right to MAKE you comply PERIOD
So should Rosa Parks not have resisted police? Like I said, it depends on the law. You make it seem so black-and-white, when in reality some laws are oppressive and wrong, just like some are reasonable and right. Not like this law is oppressive or anything, but it still depends on the law. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
It's sad to see officers follow orders blindly, or in this case laws. I can understand that dancing in any way is "unlawful" in that area, but jeez they didn't even laugh about it, or come up to them and converse about how they may agree that it is a pretty stupid law. I've seen my fair share of cop-related beatings but this is just depressing. There are good cops, who protect us, follow the law, but sometimes break their orders, and there are bad cops who follow orders blindly, possibly doing harm to innocent persons in the process. This is a demonstration of the latter.
So should Rosa Parks not have resisted police? Like I said, it depends on the law. You make it seem so black-and-white, when in reality some laws are oppressive and wrong, just like some are reasonable and right. Not like this law is oppressive or anything, but it still depends on the law. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying when a cop tells you to do something, as long as it does not place your life in danger, do it, and complain later, or get arrested and or beat up.
It's sad to see officers follow orders blindly, or in this case laws. I can understand that dancing in any way is "unlawful" in that area, but jeez they didn't even laugh about it, or come up to them and converse about how they may agree that it is a pretty stupid law. I've seen my fair share of cop-related beatings but this is just depressing. There are good cops, who protect us, follow the law, but sometimes break their orders, and there are bad cops who follow orders blindly, possibly doing harm to innocent persons in the process. This is a demonstration of the latter.
It has a lot to do with making an impact. If that cop came up and didn't portray himself as the FORCE of the law, he could have been jumped and beaten up himself. He doesn't know who is in that crowd, so he had to make the point that he is not here as anyones friend, he is there to enforce that law and he will do everything in his power to do so.
Let me give an easier example.
You have a crowd of people gathered around a cake. It is against the law to eat that cake. Officer Doodles walks up and says "Hey guys you can't eat that cake" but he does nothing more. One person sticks his finger into the frosting and licks it off. "MMm that's good cake guys, you should try some" he says. Officer doodles does nothing. Soon everyone in the group is swarming the cake trying to get their piece and before you know it people are getting trampled and hurt and the cake is smashed and dirty and now nobody can have any.
Now if when that man had stuck his finger in the cake, Officer Doodles has slapped his hand away and arrested him, do you think there would have been a cake stampede?
Usually in situations like this (Large groups) police use escalated force IMMEDIATELY to show the group that they are not F-ing around. It can prevent a riot if people know that if they challenge that officer he's gonna pick them up and body slam them onto concrete
and just before the "You have no idea what you're talking about" crap comes along. I was a police cadet for 10 years, and was in the process of becoming a Sheriff's Deputy in my county before a back injury put an end to my career. I know a few things about how the police operate
I'm not saying that. I'm saying when a cop tells you to do something, as long as it does not place your life in danger, do it, and complain later, or get arrested and or beat up.
So just because I don't follow orders blindly, like an officer stopping people from 'dancing in public,' doesn't mean I deserve to be beaten just because I refuse to follow a ridiculous law. I'll dance wherever the **** I want. Instead of wasting police resources (what the ****, there were about 5 cops all in that one spot,) they could have been stopping something that would actually BENEFIT the people that pay their salary, like making drug busts or patrolling dangerous neighborhoods. But no, let's stop some old hippies from dancing at a monument. That'll put your academy training to good use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
So just because I don't follow orders blindly, like an officer stopping people from 'dancing in public,' doesn't mean I deserve to be beaten just because I refuse to follow a ridiculous law. I'll dance wherever the **** I want. Instead of wasting police resources (what the ****, there were about 5 cops all in that one spot,) they could have been stopping something that would actually BENEFIT the people that pay their salary, like making drug busts or patrolling dangerous neighborhoods. But no, let's stop some old hippies from dancing at a monument. That'll put your academy training to good use.
You make no sense.
So YOU'RE saying now, that just because people don't agree with a law means that the police have no right to stop them? I'm not trying to argue, I just don't get what you're trying to say.
As for patrolling bad neighborhoods and drug busts, you can thank snoop dog and all the rest of the "die snitch die" rappers for that. The police can only enforce what they can prove/see/have evidence of. They do the best they can, but when people refuse to co-operate, they have to do whatever they can.
This was in a very public place that thousands upon thousand upon thousands of people move through every day. Plain and simple, the people had no right to be there once they started dancing and broke the law. They refused to leave, so the police used their power to enforce the law and MAKE them leave. There was nothing controversial about this. People resisted the police and they payed the price.
So YOU'RE saying now, that just because people don't agree with a law means that the police have no right to stop them? I'm not trying to argue, I just don't get what you're trying to say.
I'm simply saying that police have plenty of better things to do then stop people from dancing at a monument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
I'm not saying that. I'm saying when a cop tells you to do something, as long as it does not place your life in danger, do it, and complain later, or get arrested and or beat up.
It has a lot to do with making an impact. If that cop came up and didn't portray himself as the FORCE of the law, he could have been jumped and beaten up himself. He doesn't know who is in that crowd, so he had to make the point that he is not here as anyones friend, he is there to enforce that law and he will do everything in his power to do so.
Let me give an easier example.
You have a crowd of people gathered around a cake. It is against the law to eat that cake. Officer Doodles walks up and says "Hey guys you can't eat that cake" but he does nothing more. One person sticks his finger into the frosting and licks it off. "MMm that's good cake guys, you should try some" he says. Officer doodles does nothing. Soon everyone in the group is swarming the cake trying to get their piece and before you know it people are getting trampled and hurt and the cake is smashed and dirty and now nobody can have any.
Now if when that man had stuck his finger in the cake, Officer Doodles has slapped his hand away and arrested him, do you think there would have been a cake stampede?
Usually in situations like this (Large groups) police use escalated force IMMEDIATELY to show the group that they are not F-ing around. It can prevent a riot if people know that if they challenge that officer he's gonna pick them up and body slam them onto concrete
and just before the "You have no idea what you're talking about" crap comes along. I was a police cadet for 10 years, and was in the process of becoming a Sheriff's Deputy in my county before a back injury put an end to my career. I know a few things about how the police operate
That example is highly flawed though. I never said a good cop would just blindly avoid the conflict either. You have to be equally human as you are a police officer.
Using your own example I'd say this would be a "good" cops reaction. They have the cake, he walks up and tells them "Guys I realize this law is stupid, but please don't eat that cake or I'll have to arrest/penalize you." That same one guy sticks his finger in it, the officer comes up to him and tells him "I told you not to do that, this will be your warning, if I catch you again, I will arrest you," granted the first statement was just him conversing with the crowd about his thoughts on the law. Most likely the guy will not continue, as a normal person would. Though let's say he does for the case of what may be the worst outcome. He continues to stick his finger and eat it, cop comes up to him. "I specifically told you not to continue, I understand how dumb this law may seem, but I warned you" now the cop can arrest him **WITHOUT** ground pounding, slamming, choking the person. He does a routine arrest, like most arrests should be, hands behind your head, etc... The full procedure, if he starts resisting than there is some lee-way.
What I was trying to say is these cops showed no patience. Maybe it was their first arrest of the day, or their fifth. It doesn't matter, when you just want to arrest any unlawful activity you have become oblivious to human emotion and are no longer a police officer. Doing what they did makes you look like a tyrant, waiting to punish anyone for simple and stupid crimes no matter the consequences. I have friends whose fathers are police officers and they themselves believe any type of behavior coming from an officer that resembles the behavior showcased in the video usually requires the immediate resignation of the officer. They realize that they are protecting citizens of the United States, not harming them. It's known that people listen to reason rather than aggressive orders, getting hit, or harmed just makes you want to resist more, it's human instinct, as more pain is inflicted on us we strive to resist it by doing whatever motion possible to relieve the pain.
That example is highly flawed though. I never said a good cop would just blindly avoid the conflict either. You have to be equally human as you are a police officer.
Using your own example I'd say this would be a "good" cops reaction. They have the cake, he walks up and tells them "Guys I realize this law is stupid, but please don't eat that cake or I'll have to arrest/penalize you." That same one guy sticks his finger in it, the officer comes up to him and tells him "I told you not to do that, this will be your warning, if I catch you again, I will arrest you," granted the first statement was just him conversing with the crowd about his thoughts on the law. Most likely the guy will not continue, as a normal person would. Though let's say he does for the case of what may be the worst outcome. He continues to stick his finger and eat it, cop comes up to him. "I specifically told you not to continue, I understand how dumb this law may seem, but I warned you" now the cop can arrest him **WITHOUT** ground pounding, slamming, choking the person. He does a routine arrest, like most arrests should be, hands behind your head, etc... The full procedure, if he starts resisting than there is some lee-way.
What I was trying to say is these cops showed no patience. Maybe it was their first arrest of the day, or their fifth. It doesn't matter, when you just want to arrest any unlawful activity you have become oblivious to human emotion and are no longer a police officer. Doing what they did makes you look like a tyrant, waiting to punish anyone for simple and stupid crimes no matter the consequences. I have friends whose fathers are police officers and they themselves believe any type of behavior coming from an officer that resembles the behavior showcased in the video usually requires the immediate resignation of the officer. They realize that they are protecting citizens of the United States, not harming them. It's known that people listen to reason rather than aggressive orders, getting hit, or harmed just makes you want to resist more, it's human instinct, as more pain is inflicted on us we strive to resist it by doing whatever motion possible to relieve the pain.
But that was my point. The cop isn't there to give his opinion on the law. He is there to do his job, enforce it. Regardless of what he thinks of it.
But that was my point. The cop isn't there to give his opinion on the law. He is there to do his job, enforce it. Regardless of what he thinks of it.
Yes I understand your point, but officers aren't meant to be robots. They are humans, and they should act like it. You'd be surprised how much easier your job as an officer would be if you adopted this idea.
Yes I understand your point, but officers aren't meant to be robots. They are humans, and they should act like it. You'd be surprised how much easier your job as an officer would be if you adopted this idea.
Well we will have to agree to disagree. I understand your point, but police would not be able to do their job if they did not draw the line at some point. In favor of the DC police, they have dealt with so many protests and marches that they know what they are doing and they know how things can turn out if they don't handle it right
That looks like a peaceful march to me. Wonder how far that's gotten the Middle East...
Peac-What? Mate that's the London G8/G20 protest, how the hell can it be peaceful!?
Then sort it out! If you're going to do civil disobedience, it has to be by the thousands, if not millions. These people are making themselves out to be poor, oppressed victims. I believe the police went ahead with it because they were known troublemakers.
Nice interpretation.:rolleyes:
High attendence numbers cannot be assured, that is no valid excuse or argument. You cannot summon thousands or millions of people. So wait, they're making themselves poor? Seriously? Wow. Where exactly since I seemingly missed that part. :dry.gif:
Oppressed victims? You should really join a demonstration some time, would help teach you a thing or two about the basics. These people were either faking their innocence or attempting to show the irony by acting as if they had no knowledge of anything, that is dancing and then claiming "Why did you arrest me?", "Dancing is illegal?", "What is dancing?" etc. Either you are too shallow to realize such a simple matter or you refuse to interpret what's going on and instead prefer promoting a failed concept of "revolution".
For the fourth (or fifth) time now. These people were behaving like children. Refusing to cooperate and resisting arrest, making the police's job difficult. And I'd like to point out again, I KNOW this sucks and I know this law is ridiculous and a violation of freedom of speech/expression.
Making the police's job difficult is a direct reaction for being arrested, that is expectable and tends to happen almost always. Refusing to cooperate? THAT is the main point of civil disobedience. Resisting arrest? Who? I saw no one attempting to resist arrest half-way through the video. Resisting arrest would mean them running away from the cops or engaging in a debacle and refusing to be arrested/cuffed.
The guy who got body slammed was exerting his strength to resist arrest.
By listening to music on his iPod? If you're going to continue with such pathetic baseless "arguments", I'm afraid that I'm going to have to give up.
How is this police brutality? Maybe I should've explained my statement. Police (and other forces) are cracking down hard on protesters in Syria, Libya, etc **** like that. And here are you and other people crying out that what happened at the Jefferson Memorial was police brutality. Again, it's perspective.
Omfg. Same analogy as before. Having one greater event taking place DOES NOT MAKE ANOTHER MINOR EVENT IRRELEVANT. God all ****ing mighty. A cop bodyslamming and choke-holding someone IS police brutality. Please do revise your replies next time and don't make them as easily refutable and baseless as that last post of yours.
Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of states rights so... But seriously though this is stupid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember, Off-Topic is where you post every mundane, uninteresting thing about your life for everyone to cherish and enjoy.
I'm also a compulsive liar.
Honestly I don't see the big deal here. They weren't demonstrating and where being a nuisance. Although arresting them seems a tad extreme. Also civil disobedience pretty much requires you to be arrested FYI.
Remember, Off-Topic is where you post every mundane, uninteresting thing about your life for everyone to cherish and enjoy.
I'm also a compulsive liar.
http://www.guardian....ainbow-alliance
Thousands? Mate have you ever heard of such protests in the first place?
-sigh-
1) That shows dissent and unwillingness to be fed **** and be happy about it.
2) That was a protest against an unnecessary and unjust law.
3) It was showing the irony that had occurred (Free Speech - Jefferson relation)
4) Arresting and attacking people merely for dancing, that's not right is it?
5) Showing the other irony of being detained and arrested for merely dancing. Pathetic.
If these same people were breaking other rules such as streaking, taking a **** over there, lighting fireworks, etc. then I wouldn't be defending them in anyway whatsoever. What had happened in the video was clearly the cops blindly following orders, since as we all know, "orders are orders" without even giving a second thought to what was occurring and why these people were dancing in the first place. Instead, they continued "doing their job" without hindsight or hesitation to what their actions will result in and provoke. Blind obedience to those in command with petty excuses such as "orders are orders" or "I'm just doing my job" are in and of themselves counter-productive actions that would hurt popular movements. Those are not any reasons for their actions to be considered justified, but excuses for political and social blindness to what is occurring in front of them.
3:37-3:50 is also ironic, to think that such events (detaining dancing demonstrators, body slamming them, and dragging them in cuffs, telling a detained individual to "shut up" especially in that location) are taking place at the memorial of Thomas Jefferson, a proponent of the freedom of speech/expression is simply humorous and yet saddening at the same time.
Mate, this is one instance out of millions. Take any protest, any protest at all, hell take the events in Spain for example. Body slamming someone that refused to put his hands down, do you even call that necessary? If someone (not a cop) body slammed you, you'd kick his ass. That was an unnecessary excessive violent action that attacked an individual that posed no threat whatsoever. Next time read the initial post: "A new law was passed in the District of Columbia, making it illegal to dance at the Jefferson Memorial. Which is extremely ironic, since Jefferson was one of the largest supporters of free speech. So some civilians decided to be civilly disobedient, in hoping to change the law. The police then used excessive force to strike down the dancers."
My point is that this is police brutality, comparing it to a much more drastic foreign event does not make this irrelevant.
Your concept or argument was that since X is minor when compared to Y, X is hence irrelevant.
You had replaced X with minor "attacks" in the video and Y with Syrian repression (hundreds killed) and thus claimed that X is irrelevant and is in fact not police brutality.
I then happily replaced X with homicide and with Y with the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and thus, in your case, derived that homicide irrelevant.
I hope I do not have to clarify this more than I already have.
It comes down to resisting the police. If you're J walking and a cop comes up to you and you get all up in his face refusing to comply with their instructions they have the right to MAKE you comply PERIOD
So should Rosa Parks not have resisted police? Like I said, it depends on the law. You make it seem so black-and-white, when in reality some laws are oppressive and wrong, just like some are reasonable and right. Not like this law is oppressive or anything, but it still depends on the law. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying when a cop tells you to do something, as long as it does not place your life in danger, do it, and complain later, or get arrested and or beat up.
It has a lot to do with making an impact. If that cop came up and didn't portray himself as the FORCE of the law, he could have been jumped and beaten up himself. He doesn't know who is in that crowd, so he had to make the point that he is not here as anyones friend, he is there to enforce that law and he will do everything in his power to do so.
Let me give an easier example.
You have a crowd of people gathered around a cake. It is against the law to eat that cake. Officer Doodles walks up and says "Hey guys you can't eat that cake" but he does nothing more. One person sticks his finger into the frosting and licks it off. "MMm that's good cake guys, you should try some" he says. Officer doodles does nothing. Soon everyone in the group is swarming the cake trying to get their piece and before you know it people are getting trampled and hurt and the cake is smashed and dirty and now nobody can have any.
Now if when that man had stuck his finger in the cake, Officer Doodles has slapped his hand away and arrested him, do you think there would have been a cake stampede?
Usually in situations like this (Large groups) police use escalated force IMMEDIATELY to show the group that they are not F-ing around. It can prevent a riot if people know that if they challenge that officer he's gonna pick them up and body slam them onto concrete
and just before the "You have no idea what you're talking about" crap comes along. I was a police cadet for 10 years, and was in the process of becoming a Sheriff's Deputy in my county before a back injury put an end to my career. I know a few things about how the police operate
So just because I don't follow orders blindly, like an officer stopping people from 'dancing in public,' doesn't mean I deserve to be beaten just because I refuse to follow a ridiculous law. I'll dance wherever the **** I want. Instead of wasting police resources (what the ****, there were about 5 cops all in that one spot,) they could have been stopping something that would actually BENEFIT the people that pay their salary, like making drug busts or patrolling dangerous neighborhoods. But no, let's stop some old hippies from dancing at a monument. That'll put your academy training to good use.
You make no sense.
So YOU'RE saying now, that just because people don't agree with a law means that the police have no right to stop them? I'm not trying to argue, I just don't get what you're trying to say.
As for patrolling bad neighborhoods and drug busts, you can thank snoop dog and all the rest of the "die snitch die" rappers for that. The police can only enforce what they can prove/see/have evidence of. They do the best they can, but when people refuse to co-operate, they have to do whatever they can.
This was in a very public place that thousands upon thousand upon thousands of people move through every day. Plain and simple, the people had no right to be there once they started dancing and broke the law. They refused to leave, so the police used their power to enforce the law and MAKE them leave. There was nothing controversial about this. People resisted the police and they payed the price.
I'm simply saying that police have plenty of better things to do then stop people from dancing at a monument.
That example is highly flawed though. I never said a good cop would just blindly avoid the conflict either. You have to be equally human as you are a police officer.
Using your own example I'd say this would be a "good" cops reaction. They have the cake, he walks up and tells them "Guys I realize this law is stupid, but please don't eat that cake or I'll have to arrest/penalize you." That same one guy sticks his finger in it, the officer comes up to him and tells him "I told you not to do that, this will be your warning, if I catch you again, I will arrest you," granted the first statement was just him conversing with the crowd about his thoughts on the law. Most likely the guy will not continue, as a normal person would. Though let's say he does for the case of what may be the worst outcome. He continues to stick his finger and eat it, cop comes up to him. "I specifically told you not to continue, I understand how dumb this law may seem, but I warned you" now the cop can arrest him **WITHOUT** ground pounding, slamming, choking the person. He does a routine arrest, like most arrests should be, hands behind your head, etc... The full procedure, if he starts resisting than there is some lee-way.
What I was trying to say is these cops showed no patience. Maybe it was their first arrest of the day, or their fifth. It doesn't matter, when you just want to arrest any unlawful activity you have become oblivious to human emotion and are no longer a police officer. Doing what they did makes you look like a tyrant, waiting to punish anyone for simple and stupid crimes no matter the consequences. I have friends whose fathers are police officers and they themselves believe any type of behavior coming from an officer that resembles the behavior showcased in the video usually requires the immediate resignation of the officer. They realize that they are protecting citizens of the United States, not harming them. It's known that people listen to reason rather than aggressive orders, getting hit, or harmed just makes you want to resist more, it's human instinct, as more pain is inflicted on us we strive to resist it by doing whatever motion possible to relieve the pain.
But that was my point. The cop isn't there to give his opinion on the law. He is there to do his job, enforce it. Regardless of what he thinks of it.
Yes I understand your point, but officers aren't meant to be robots. They are humans, and they should act like it. You'd be surprised how much easier your job as an officer would be if you adopted this idea.
Well we will have to agree to disagree. I understand your point, but police would not be able to do their job if they did not draw the line at some point. In favor of the DC police, they have dealt with so many protests and marches that they know what they are doing and they know how things can turn out if they don't handle it right
Peac-What? Mate that's the London G8/G20 protest, how the hell can it be peaceful!?
Nice interpretation.:rolleyes:
High attendence numbers cannot be assured, that is no valid excuse or argument. You cannot summon thousands or millions of people. So wait, they're making themselves poor? Seriously? Wow. Where exactly since I seemingly missed that part. :dry.gif:
Oppressed victims? You should really join a demonstration some time, would help teach you a thing or two about the basics. These people were either faking their innocence or attempting to show the irony by acting as if they had no knowledge of anything, that is dancing and then claiming "Why did you arrest me?", "Dancing is illegal?", "What is dancing?" etc. Either you are too shallow to realize such a simple matter or you refuse to interpret what's going on and instead prefer promoting a failed concept of "revolution".
Making the police's job difficult is a direct reaction for being arrested, that is expectable and tends to happen almost always. Refusing to cooperate? THAT is the main point of civil disobedience. Resisting arrest? Who? I saw no one attempting to resist arrest half-way through the video. Resisting arrest would mean them running away from the cops or engaging in a debacle and refusing to be arrested/cuffed.
By listening to music on his iPod? If you're going to continue with such pathetic baseless "arguments", I'm afraid that I'm going to have to give up.
Omfg. Same analogy as before. Having one greater event taking place DOES NOT MAKE ANOTHER MINOR EVENT IRRELEVANT. God all ****ing mighty. A cop bodyslamming and choke-holding someone IS police brutality. Please do revise your replies next time and don't make them as easily refutable and baseless as that last post of yours.
I'm also a compulsive liar.
I'm also a compulsive liar.
1. Ban dancing at one memorial place in the world.
2. Remove jogging EVERYWERE.
Yeah, I don't think so.