[kj] (OT) Dangerous Dancing?

[Devacor at aol.com]

what I mentioned wasn't going into whether it was constitutional or  
unconstitutional (the cops stances and reactions) but the fact of once it  got to 
the point it did, the outcome was entirely predictable. 
 
 whether it's right or wrong or somewhere in between, there is  just a 
heightened standard of conduct when you are within the  monuments and  inside 
places as such- that's just how it is (everyone  around here knows that)  and 
that is the point you arent factoring  in. 
if they were in front of the monument or on the mall, no one  would have 
cared- and if something as such happened to them when they were  just on the 
front steps, well then that would have been another story.  
and if they started in with their 'dance' and the cops then came over  and 
started in like that without a warning, then that would have been  different 
also. 
 
 to me this is 'activism' at its worst- to the general public it  makes 
activists come off as cheap flakes and in a deeper sense its the  epitome of 
the statement 'what you resist persists' - this just  feeds the machine more 
and reinforces the system they are trying to bring  light upon- its a lose 
lose.
 there are right ways and wrong ways at going about things- that  was 
neither, that was just dumb. 
 
Adam
 
 
 

 
In a message dated 5/29/2011 10:41:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
saulomar1 at yahoo.com writes:


> ..its just ingrained......   

 
  that, what.. despite the Constitution  & the Bill Of Rights (that should 
be  ingrained deeper than anything else even police may  
'encourage'/'discourage' at any given place/moment) stating all unstated  rights are the 
People's unless expressly legislated by Congress, that  despite such 'quaint' and 
'antiquated' principles (they are 200+  yrs.old, after all) we shouldn't do, 
nay, we are wrong and fuckeen'  criminals - outlaws! - in doing!, anything 
that, at most, the  police won't like simply because they don't like? 
Is there  a law criminalizing "F[ucking] around and be[ing] 'cute'?"  That 
would be THE ONLY decision worthy of defending  then, not that (just/only) 
some cops just didn't like it. Right? I mean,  LAWS are supposed to be 
defended, not cops' pet-peeves, and not  cops just because they're cops and our 
love for  Authorit-[attach suffix of choice here]. Right? I guess.. dunno 
anymore.  


> ..and were provoking the cops... 

So, being [only] a smart-ass is now illegally Criminal  (redundancy for 
emphasis)? I'm guessing if they would've actually  crossed the line (i.e. the 
Law) you wouldn't hesitate a second to  say so, so I may assume that you 
meant only a  smart-ass?  
I think the comment about that misses  



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20110530/07416e62/attachment.html>