Zip

I think there is a huge dropping of context here. al-Awlaki wasn't acting as a us citizen when he was killed he was an enemy combatant. He was actively engaged in a war against your country and as such he was a legitimate military target, no different than any Taliban terrorist firing his AK at US troops. His citizenship is not protection, nor does it provide an excuse for his direct and violent action against your country.

Unconditionally? No. i could not imagine loving my children if they were child abusers, pedophiles or murderers. It would break my heart, but such a thing proven without a doubt would be enough to destroy my love of them.

I guess not all of us would wish to possibly alienate a newcomer with terse response to "go look it up" than give a simple answer.

If you don't want to participate then don't.

I guess not all of us would wish to possibly alienate a newcomer with terse response to "go look it up" than give a simple answer.

If you don't want to participate then don't.

I guess not all of us would wish to possibly alienate a newcomer with terse response to "go look it up" than give a simple answer.

If you don't want to participate then don't.

People could. And we would all be free to disassociate ourselves from them, to publicly let it be known that they are abusers of defenseless animals. To warn people to not let those others take care of their children or to watch their pets. We could privately censure them for those despicable acts, we could organize and boycott their business if we so choose; because although their acts would be permissible in a free society, they are still morally reprehensible, disgusting, and cruel.

Living doesn't merely mean the ability to continue to draw breath and sustain life, it is the enjoyment of our existence with all the chances and even dangers that sometimes includes. Avoiding death isn't ones highest value, living is.

Living doesn't merely mean the ability to continue to draw breath and sustain life, it is the enjoyment of our existence with all the chances and even dangers that sometimes includes. Avoiding death isn't ones highest value, living is.

Living doesn't merely mean the ability to continue to draw breath and sustain life, it is the enjoyment of our existence with all the chances and even dangers that sometimes includes. Avoiding death isn't ones highest value, living is.

As a soldier there are certain things that come to mind with regard to conscription.

1. Although some conscript armies are fairly skilled they still rely on a corps of professionals to make it all work. There is no such thing as a purely conscripted force. In the end the Conscript = cannon fodder and the skilled trades and backbone (leadership) of the unskilled trades rely on a professional troops.

2. In the Canadian Forces it takes about 1.5 years to produce a "trained" armoured Trooper. The period of conscription for most armies is between 2 and 3 years. So by the time the soldier is trained he has already served 3/4 to 1/2 of his service... He does not and will not ever become as proficient as the volunteer.

3. Weapons systems continue to get more and more sophisticated requiring a higher and higher level of training.

From a political/philosophical POV:

1. The populace that does not think it necessary to support the freedoms it enjoys through voluntary service does not deserve to enjoy the freedoms it has.

2. If you have to force people to support the state then the state does not deserve to exist.

3. When it comes down to bullets and bayonets you can not force a man to fight for his country, this is true if he volunteers or if he is forced to volunteer, though obviously more so for the latter.

Conscription is a tool of the statist, of the nationalist and of the tyrant. It has no place in the lives of free men on in the ideals of a country founded on the principal of individual rights... ever.

If a nation is going to exist to champion individual rights first and foremost, then it must do so with not only the consent of the governed but with their action and will as well.

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

For those that may doubt where I stand outside of what I have already said, I think the law about requiring a permit to peacefully demonstrate on public property is improper. What I have been addressing so far is whether or not the police were acting within the province of the existing law and whether or not their uses of force were acceptable based on what I saw in the video and what I understand of the use of force continuum. I'm not spending a lot of time arguing about the theory of what is right or wrong here, primarily on the actual situation as it is at the moment.

No, no, no. A police officer does not get to decide what laws are just or unjust. He is sworn to do his duty in upholding the laws of the land and that means that he is supposed to be absolutely and completely impartial as to the efficacy, legitimacy or application of any and all laws.

You are confusing the role of police officer with the role of legislators and the courts who's job it is to ensure laws enacted are just.

No, no, no. A police officer does not get to decide what laws are just or unjust. He is sworn to do his duty in upholding the laws of the land and that means that he is supposed to be absolutely and completely impartial as to the efficacy, legitimacy or application of any and all laws.

You are confusing the role of police officer with the role of legislators and the courts who's job it is to ensure laws enacted are just.

Simply reviewing the use of force, assuming a lawful arrest, here is how I see it. When an officer gives the order to submit to arrest, anyone who is not fully compliant is going to be met with SOME level of force used against them. There are varying levels of resistance in the video, but most of the people being arrested full into the category of "active resisters", in terms of the use of force parameters. By this I mean, they are actively, physically opposing the arrest, short of assaulting the officer (pulling arms away, walking away, etc.). Passive resistance refers to a person who is not moving or pulling away, but simply remaining stiff or tense to avoid arrest. Aggressive resistance is when a person is attacking or assaulting the officer in an attempt to avoid arrest.

In the case of the active resisters, the use of "soft control" techniques is appropriate. "Soft control" techniques involve grabbing, applying pressure points, bending joints, etc. in an effort to affect physical control of the resisting subject. In addition, many jurisdictions and courts recognize the deployment of chemical (pepper spray) or electrical devices (TASERS) as appropriate responses to active resisters. Jurisdictions and courts recognize that while officers are expected to some degree to be exposed to physical hazards in the performance of their duty, they do not necessarily have to place themselves in jeopardy in these situations when circumstances allow them to use tools at the appropriate force level.

The major use of force problem I see in this video occurs when the one officer is arresting the guy in the white "Disobey" shirt at 3:00. I reasonably certain that while the "body slam" will likely be deemed an appropriate use of force by existing standards for arresting an "active resister", the chokehold is a problem in my opinion. Chokeholds are banned from use (except in exigent circumstances) by many departments. Additionally, a "carotid chokehold" is considered to be a lethal use of force by many jurisdictions and departments. I would be willing to bet the chokehold as used is not consistent with their use of force policy.

However, I would echo Dante's concern for the police bashing that typically follows an event like this. In particular I would add the tendency to view the officer as acting maliciously in the use of force as opposed to considering ignorance of policy or poor training.

The real problem is the mere existence of "public property"

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

You make a good point and I would agree that if someone were experiencing a disvalue acting against the law with the realization that you might go to jail could be a reasonable risk one might take. This wasn't the case here though. It was a small, though deliberately organized demonstration to break the law as a way of making a political argument against the government's particular method of managing its facilities.


We have the right to disagree but we are not co-owners of government property. we are citizens who elect representative that, among other things, write regulations for how the governments property shall be used.

I did not intend anarchist to be a pejorative but rather one possible description for this action. The other being that the battle was poorly picked. I just do not see this as indicative of a police state. Forcing me to by health insurance? Forcing me to sell my house to wal-mart through eminent domain? These yes. But doing whatever I want on property that's not mine? Kind of a stretch for me.


The original dancer was not, but I think it was pretty clearly a demonstration that they thought that dancing should be allowed. People didn't just happen to be dancing there and it was on the heels of another event.



That's where our difference of opinion lies. I and apparently the courts don't see the right to regulate their own property as arbitrary. The only way it becomes that is if you buy into this leftist notion of public property where it is something that all citizens have a right to. It doesn't exist. You can't build a house in the middle of a national park. walk into area 51(or any military installation really) or, apparently, dance at the Jefferson memorial. Once ownership of property is transferred to government then anything that you can do there is by privilege and not by right because it is theirs. I agree that it should not be theirs, but that isn't what they are arguing, as far as I can tell.

They seem to be accepting the premise that the government owns the property but that they have no authority to regulate it as they see fit since it's "public.".

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

Ok. There currently are laws regarding public performances and demonstrations on public property and if the people in question did not have those permissions then they were in violation of the law.

Picture this, these people start their dance. A small kid who doesn't know what is going on wanders out into the performance and one of the dancers spins around and knocks the kid into the corner of one of those stone benches or the statues platform. The kid is badly hurt in the accident. The parents of the child now have legal recourse not only against the dancer but against the park police (the government) for allowing the unapproved dance to happen.

As for the arrests. The police were actually quite restrained. You see when you are being informed that you are being arrested then non-compliance with a police officer when he says things like "hands behind your back", "stop moving" and "do not resist" are reason and invitation for escalation of force. The people walking away hands up or not, or struggling against the police who are attempting to handcuff them are in fact resisting arrest and should count themselves lucky that these police did not resort to some of the other weapons at their disposal.

The stupidest act one of the police did was to tell the one guy to shut up. He just should have removed the demonstrator from the site in the first place.

Just as you do not have the right to do whatever you want on private property without the owners consent you do not, under today's laws have the right to do whatever you want on 'public property' without the consent of government.

The real problem is the mere existence of "public property"