Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial

[RationalBiker]

Further, it was said that the police were justified in arresting these people, if not the girl in the original case, because they were protesting on public property without a license. Again, I disagree. Any kind of objective law could impossibly define "protesting" in such a way as to include behavior that antagonizes no one (I did not see any signs or shouting, which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of "silent dancing", also as outlined by Adam Kokesh himself), and obstructs no one from using those facilities. This is very much different from the kind of protest that blocks public roads etc., where it is correct for the government to break it up so long as it's "public property".

What would have been proper behavior if the police were aware that an unlicensed protest was going to take place, in my opinion? This: to stand by, watch, and interfere if and when this "protest" reaches a level that can be properly termed a "protest", rather than unobstructive private dancing.

In what respect are you saying the arrest was not justified; legally or morally? For my part, my only defense of the arrests has been on legal grounds (while at the same time condemning the immorality of the existing law.)

There is no doubt from the words of the organizer himself that they were protesting, they knew they are protesting, and they knew they were doing it without a permit. I'm reasonably sure their goal was to be arrested so they could argue their concerns before a court.

Regarding the proper behavior of the police, are you determining your opinion of proper based on existing law, or based on how you think the law should be? It is generally atypical for police officers to just "stand by" while they are observing violations of the law.

I think there is no question among the participants of this forum that there are some bad laws out there. However, myself (and some others) have argued in the past that the existence of some bad laws within a government system alone does not warrant abandoning the general principle behind the rule of law in a civilized society. Police officers should not determine on an individual level which laws they will or will not enforce.

[Fabian_CH]

Legally insofar as the law on which it is based (if any) is non-objective, and can therefore not legitimately be acted upon in anyway, including arrest.

Mainly morally, though. Laws can't (legitimately) contradict morality anyway.

In regards to whether or not they were "protesting", of course their intent was protest; my point was that no objective law could define what they were doing as "protest". Intent can't supersede action in judging this. If they weren't bothering or obstructing anyone, there is no legitimate basis for arresting, let alone prosecuting them.

The proper behavior I suggested is indeed based on my opinion of what the law should be; but also, as I said above, the fact that no objective law could justify interfering in this case in the first place.

Would you similarly say that a corporation had it coming if they are indicted for predatory pricing? There can be no other intent in lowering prices than to outcompete others, so intent is certainly given. The problem is that the law as written is non-objective, undefinable, and therefore not legitimately enforcable in the first place. Following that line of thought, no police could then "decide" to enforce or not enforce such a law, since it is, repeating myself, not enforcable in the first place.

Edit: Just to reiterate, my main point here is that this: "Police officers should not determine on an individual level which laws they will or will not enforce" simply does not apply to a case such as this. If the law is not objective then it can't be enforced in any other way than by whim. The only proper thing to do for a police officer then would be to ignore that law, not to give up and decide by whim that this time he will "enforce" that law.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Fabian_CH

[Grames]

I am relying here on CapitalistSwine's characterization of the background of this case.

There is no need to do so when the facts of Oberwetter v. Hilliard and subsequent legal opinion are available. I linked to the opinion in the previous post above. CapitalistSwine went off half-cocked, accepting someone else's opinion without doing the work necessary to know what he is talking about. It is a mistake to rely on that opinion when official court opinion is available.

You if you or anyone else can fault the legal reasoning toward the judgment in Oberwetter v. Hilliard then speak up.

If anyone here thinks that in the ideal capitalist free society of the future that there will not be laws or police or enforcement of laws by policemen necessarily using force then that person is mistaken.

[Fabian_CH]

Ok, you are right. But the law cited does not convince me.

§ 7.96(g)(2). “Demonstrations” include:

picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or

religious services and all other like forms of conduct

which involve the communication or expression of views

or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the

conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to

draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include

casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not

have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or

onlookers.

Is this objective law? I do not think so. "The effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers"? What does that mean? If I am wearing a shirt with a Jefferson quote, and someone asks me about it, am I drawing a "crowd or onlookers"? If I have with me some of my Swiss friends, who do not know who Thomas Jefferson is, and I explain to them who he is and why I admire him so much, am I drawing onlookers? What if other people stop to listen because they find my arguments worth hearing? Furthermore, "religious service"? If I pray silently to thank God for Jefferson and what he has done, and others join me, am I creating a crowd? Am I drawing onlookers? What if I simply read the quotes on the wall in "vigil"? The fact that common sense tells me I am not "demonstrating" does not change the equally true fact that this law, strictly read, says I am - or may say so, depending on any one person's whim in interpreting it.

Furthermore, as I said above: a law that manages to define and outlaw personal behavior that is in no way offensive or obstructive or even out of the ordinary cannot be justifiably called "objective". Whether or not I had any intent to protest (Adam Kokesh and his group did, the girl did not, from what I understand) cannot spuersede the fact that I did not, by any justifiable, clear definition of that term.

Oh, and lastly, of course I am not under the impression that in a fully capitalist society there will be no force. I am not even primarily criticizing the force used by the police officers (though it did seem to be excessive, since they were mostly just passively not cooperating rather than actively resisting - except in the case where the one guy grabbed his friend's arm). I am primarily criticizing their unjustifiable initial decision to arrest them.

[RationalBiker]

Legally insofar as the law on which it is based (if any) is non-objective, and can therefore not legitimately be acted upon in anyway, including arrest.

But for legal purposes, whether or not the law is objective is not for you or I to determine, it is for the various Supreme Courts to decide. Certainly we are entitled to our opinions, but what rules the land, and by extension the laws officers are tasked to enforce, are those legislated by lawmakers and supported as appropriate by courts. You can condemn the officers for the decision all you want, as is your right, but what properly guides their actions is not your opinion, but the existing law and the existing court opinions and precedence.

It is SPECIFICALLY within the realm of the judicial branch of government to determine the propriety of the executive branch's execution of the legislative branch's laws as well as the propriety of that law. To the best of my knowledge, it is not within the proper purview of the executive branch of government to refuse to enforce law once it has become law. That is not part of the "checks and balances" of the three branch government system. I think it happens sometime, but as I said, to the best of my knowledge it is not legally proper.

Please remember, I'm not disagreeing with you on a moral level, but my opinion is that the officers did act properly within the existing law. I suspect we may have some court decision in the future that will either validate your view or mine.

Regarding the use of force issue, I addressed that in an earlier post, breaking down the various element that represented passive or active resistance according to a commonly used use of force continuum scale. Based on my experience in law enforcement, as a person who has legally used force, and as a person who has reviewed use of force policies and reviewed use of force incidents (many, many), there was only one particular action that I think will be a questionable use of force - the choking of the one arrestee.

Edited June 29, 2011 by RationalBiker

[Grames]

Ok, you are right. But the law cited does not convince me.

Is this objective law? I do not think so. "The effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers"? What does that mean? If I am wearing a shirt with a Jefferson quote, and someone asks me about it, am I drawing a "crowd or onlookers"? If I have with me some of my Swiss friends, who do not know who Thomas Jefferson is, and I explain to them who he is and why I admire him so much, am I drawing onlookers? What if other people stop to listen because they find my arguments worth hearing? Furthermore, "religious service"? If I pray silently to thank God for Jefferson and what he has done, and others join me, am I creating a crowd? Am I drawing onlookers? What if I simply read the quotes on the wall in "vigil"? The fact that common sense tells me I am not "demonstrating" does not change the equally true fact that this law, strictly read, says I am - or may say so, depending on any one person's whim in interpreting it.

It is perfectly objective. Your expectation of what common sense is contradicts your understanding of what a strict reading of law says, which even you admit. Objectivity requires a literal reading of the law. Your common sense fails. The regulation quoted is a crowd control measure meant to preserve the quiet and order at the memorial and to prevent obstructive crowds from forming. Common sense tells me you should not lecture or loiter at the memorial no matter what your intent. You can speak casually but anything like a speech is not permitted. No religious services or vigils are allowed, ever, period.

As an epistemological point, the existence of borderline cases does not refute the claim of objectivity. One cannot claim that red and orange are not objective because there is no precise boundary between them. (To steal an example from Rand's ITOE page 73.) The Park Service police can use common sense as well as you can to judge whether borderline behavior falls within permitted behavior or not. The difference between Park Service police and you is this: their judgment counts and yours does not.

There is and was an appeals process through the court system: in this case the policeman's judgment was validated. In the cases discussed in this thread the various people arrested for behavior they thought was on the safe side of the borderline got fair warnings and orders from officers who's job it is to make such judgments informing them they were on the wrong side of the law.

Furthermore, as I said above: a law that manages to define and outlaw personal behavior that is in no way offensive or obstructive or even out of the ordinary cannot be justifiably called "objective".

It is not an attribute of objectivity that so-called ordinary behavior must be permissible in all contexts. You are wrong claiming the behavior was not obstructive. Furthermore the regulation is written objectively to describe behaviors that are not permitted, it is not written as "avoid obstructing the memorial" and leaving it for every visitor and police officer to decide what is obstruction.