Poorly handled by the demonstrators, that is.
The above video splices together several perspectives on yesterday’s arrests at the Jefferson Memorial of Adam Kokesh and others who were there to demonstrate against restrictions on personal expression at the memorial site.
The BoingBoing crowd is making a lot of the way Kokesh is brought to the ground, which is a highly unfortunate distraction from the more important issue of “free speech zones” in modern America. You can skip forward into the video to about the 2:20 mark and see the two more physical arrests. The first is of an unidentified individual; the arrest starts out with little physicality until another individual runs in and attempts to pull the first man away from the officer. Both are taken down to the ground and restrained.
The third arrest is of Kokesh and starts around 3:00. Viewing from there and listening to the audio it’s clear that the officer first attempts to tell Kokesh to submit to arrest without touching him, then endeavors to turn him around and detain him. Kokesh ignores the requests, continues to walk away, then refuses to kneel. It’s at that point that the officer lifts him and throws him to the ground to restrain and arrest him.
The selectively edited highlight reel – James O’Keefe would be proud – doesn’t show the first man interfering with the other man’s arrest nor do you see the officer attempt to arrest Kokesh without violence. It’s hard to tell to what extent anyone is resisting against the officers once they’re prone; while they don’t get any limbs free it’s clear they were physically resisting before that point. They could be straining against the hold the officers have on they – it’s impossible to tell from the video.
I’m personally a big supporter of civil disobedience against unjust laws and I was all the way behind Kokesh and the others… till the second the officers attempted to arrest them. The law against peaceful non-disruptive demonstration is baloney, but it’s the current law of the land. Getting charged with it and fighting it – although this is pretty pointless since there’s already a case in play that may be further appealed above the circuit court level – is great, but resisting that arrest is not.
Changing the law and changing public opinion via non-violent demonstration and challenging the constitutionality of an arrest is fine, but the additional escalation in this circumstance is entirely on Kokesh and the other demonstrators. They had the opportunity to get arrested for that they believe in and show the world the status quo – the arrest of the couple gently swaying, for example, is a perfect demonstration of how silly this restriction is. Forcing the encounter to be violent by resisting arrest cheapens the whole thing and distracts from what should have been the core issue.
Kokesh and the others could have chosen to go limp and non-violently resist the arrest. Instead they made this mess. Too bad.
Well I used to say something in my profile about not quite being a “tinker, tailor, soldier, or spy” but Tom stole that for our about us page, so I guess I’ll have to find another way to express that I am a man of many interests.
Hmm, guess I just did.
My tastes run the gamut from sophomoric to Shakespeare and in my “professional” life I’ve sold things, served beer, written software, and carried heavy objects… sometimes at the same place. It’s that range of loves and activities that makes it so easy for me to love DC – we’ve got it all.
Agreed. The place to challenge an arrest is in court. Not at the hands of the officer making the arrest.
Go in there, dance, and get peacefully arrested. Take it to court. You don’t change the law by pissing off cops who are just doing their jobs.
I disagree.
Restraining and kidnapping someone — or “arresting” them in the state’s obfuscatory language — are inherently violent acts. The police introduced violence to the non-violent situation from the get-go.
“You don’t change the law by pissing off cops who are just doing their jobs.”
Doing one’s job doesn’t nullify his role as a moral actor. He is completely responsible for what he chooses to do. If someone else tells him to do something immoral, such as to restrain and kidnap people who are silently dancing and not hurting anyone, he has an ethical obligation to refuse to comply. If he instead “just follows orders,” then he shares guilt with the one who gave the orders, and he should be treated accordingly.
In the case of the blue-shirted men who violently confronted Kokesh, et. al., they deserved to be treated like jack-booted thugs, even though they were “just doing their jobs.”
Cannot agree with this post’s conclusion. That was a non-violent resistances to arrest. No one was under any threat of physical harm at any moment, UNTIL the cops started dishing out the physical harm.
These cops should have been moral actors, but as usual they enjoy their power a bit too much and so they escalate the matter to the level where it’s suddenly a great idea to start beating on civil disobedience.
I don’t think telling police officers that they should disobey the D.C. Circuit Court just because you say so is going to get you very far.
Perfectly stated, Jason. These other pansies would have whined during America Revolution I no doubt… “Obey the king, fight it in court!”
psh. To arms, patriots. TO ARMS!
I don’t totally agree. The only way that arrest is effective is because officers may and do employ violence. The law was passed to prohibit people from dancing and that is silly. What is less innocent is that this law is enforced (note: en force d). What you see there is what will happen to you if you do not obey, if you don’t feel like going limp. What if it’s more important to keep dancing?
This is a fairly small law; not dancing in a public place. What about the big things? What about religious freedoms or the right to educate your children as you see fit, or the right to seek alternative treatments that may save your life?
The point is the government is willing to manhandle, detain, kidnap and if you resist all those, kill you to make sure you obey them. Going limp does not demonstrate that.
If it was not for the officers the courts would have no power. You can only slam a (relatively) peaceful man into the ground so many times before you feel like dancing too :)
Re: #4:
It’s not just because I say so, but because the say-so of an old man in a funny black dress can’t give convert an immoral act into a moral one. Everyone has inherent rights that can’t be added to or subtracted from by a judge; no one is born with the right to restrain and kidnap anyone who’s silently dancing in public, so no one can ever get that right.
Please, if you are going to try and make an argument at least read the Court’s decision.
There was no law passed prohibiting dancing in a public place. There is a regulation that says you cannot demonstrate inside of the memorial. By definition both this ‘protest’ and the events in Oberwetter were demonstrations. It doesn’t matter if you are dancing silently or holding up a protest sign. If it was one person swaying to their headphones in the memorial they would not be arrested.
I don’t understand why a blanket prohibition against demonstrations inside the memorial seems so unreasonable to people. You can demonstrate directly outside of the memorial. You can demonstrate on the sidewalk.
But then again, I have a feeling any reasonable argument here will fall on deaf ears. The demonstrators are in the minority in believing that the entire “system” is against them, and that going through the Courts will never provide proper relief. They are right, but only on the latter point.
Cute theory Jason. But, the Constitution I got from the CATO Institute contained an Article III. Maybe you should ask your boss for a new copy.
Re: #9:
The Constitution just has limitations in place on government so as not to interfere with certain rights; in no place does it give anyone authority to define rights, as from the Founding generation’s point of view, those came from nature (or God, if you’re religious) and not from government.
People have the inalienable human right to be free from violent interference if they are not acting violently themselves, regardless of what some piece of paper might say. If Article III did say judges could determine what rights people have, then Article III would be wrong.
“People have the inalienable human right to be free from violent interference if they are not acting violently themselves, regardless of what some piece of paper might say.”
I don’t know that you’d find many people who agree with that. We consent to certain rules and regulations, and the ability for the government to enforce those rules and regulations.
I can think of plenty of examples were we have given up our right to participate in certain “non-violent” activities, or to be limited in where, when and how we can participate.
In re: “pissing off cops” Police are not to judge or punish lawbreadakers. They are forbidden to act in anything but an even-handed way in enforcing laws. In other words, getting pissed off is not part of a police officers pervue. A pissed off cop is not able to perform his/her duty even-handedly. It is to be avoided and is generally frowned upon by the courts.
Re: Dennis
It appeared that the motivation of some of these demonstrators was to attempt to anger the police officers. I don’t believe in this case any of the officers acted “pissed off.” However, I don’t think it helps the demonstrators case to act in such a manner.
Police often have to arrest folks who are not behaving violently, and if those folks resist arrest, things escalate — it is up to the police to try to use only the force necessary to arrest them, and no more. Surely you do not want to suggest that police don’t have the right to arrest someone who is engaged in a non-violent crime? You may disagree with the idea that demonstrations under the rotunda are against the law (NOT a new law, I would point out), but to blame the police for enforcing the law seems out of line.
Rebels without a cause. They can get always create a protest event by getting the necessary permits. Creating a flash-mob at a National monument is an attack against those who choose to enjoy the monument. Bravo to the officer on the great body slam, well deserved and wishes to Kokesh for many many more.
I’m most offended by the “what law am I breaking” and the police officer’s “you’ll find out” reply. You place someone under arrest for a violation of a law. If there is no violation, then there’s no grounds for arrest.
Two by two… [shirts] of blue…
#8 – David Stroup: “But then again, I have a feeling any reasonable argument here will fall on deaf ears.”
Such a statement is a dead give-away that the person stating it has closed his own ears to any opposing argument. It’s a weak, straw-man attack, and is not even deserving of any answer, except others reading do deserve to know the truth.
To begin with, David, you state: “There was no law passed prohibiting dancing in a public place. There is a regulation that says you cannot demonstrate inside of the memorial.” What is the difference between a “law” and a “regulation” if both result in the EXACT SAME RESULTS AND PENALTIES? You are attempting to create a distinction that does not exist. What part of the Constitution gives any entity of the law the authority to suppress 1st and 4th amendment rights?
Next, you declare: “I don’t understand why a blanket prohibition against demonstrations inside the memorial seems so unreasonable to people.” Yeah, well, today it is “inside” of the memorial. Tomorrow it is outside. If there is no Constitutional authority to suppress 1st and 4th amendment rights INSIDE of the memorial – and they still get away with it – then there will be no problem with them concluding that they can suppress those rights OUTSIDE of the memorial.
Shaun-No permit would have allowed these people to dance at The Lincoln Memorial. Dancing there has been banned. That was the reason behind their peaceful protest. The term “flash mob” is generic-there was hardly a mob…just a few individuals. No threat to public safety. No threat to the Republic.
I’m sorry you don’t understand the role of the police in our nation and the rights of free expression guaranteed by The Constitution.
David-If you don’t think any of the police acted “pissed off” perhaps you made a mistake in using the term in your first letter. I didn’t detect any particular abuse or anger on the part of the police in this instance, but NO demonstration or crime is supposed to be met with anger by the police. My comment was meant to address all police in all situations. Your choice of words prompted my comment. It was also based on whatI believe may be a misinterpretation of how police are allowed to respond.
My overall concern is with the ban of what I consider free expression and what is protected under the Constitution. These people presented no danger to public safety or to the well-being of our nation.
I’m delighted to see the spirited but polite discussion here. This is a hot-button issue for a lot of us – I know it is for me – so it’s appreciated.
Just to throw a little definition in the mix – Mark, I share your concerns about the slippery slope question of where the boundary stops when saying that something is okay here but not there. I certainly believe that’s how we end up with these “free speech zones” that are blocks away and out of sight of the people being spoken against.
In defense of this particular regulation, however, we are dealing with a very distinct and well-defined region – inside the rotunda of the Jefferson memorial. The recent decision from the DC appeals court found that the decision against Ms Oberwetter was reasonable because it was consistent in treating that area as a “nonpublic forum” where demonstration isn’t ever allowed. The only thing that happens in there is an annual government-run event commemorating Jefferson’s birthday.
Personally I am skeptical about how finely they’re parsing this question of “demonstration” and I think it’s the weakest part of the decision. Saying that you can’t do thing that have “the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers” seems like it puts a lot of pressure on me to concern myself with the reactions of other people. I certainly don’t think the couple that was swaying in an embrace rises up to that level. Who would look twice if there weren’t cops making an issue of it with them?
I don’t think their definition that this is a place open to the public but not there for public demonstration is that big an issue, however. Legally it’s established and not that recently – the case quotes a 1983 decision from the Supreme Court. I am perfectly comfortable saying that certain things open to the public – let’s say a courthouse – can have restrictions on behavior so long as they’re sufficiently generic and not penalizing certain viewpoints.
Don, I think you put it very well.
I would ask those who are upset with the arrests the following:
How would you have ruled on the issue? What part of the Circuit Court decision would you change?
Is it the definition of demonstration? I would agree with Don that the couple swaying would not have drawn any attention (and I believe they would never have been arrested) had they not been part of the protest, which is, by definition, a demonstration.
If you allow these people to demonstrate, then you would also have to allow anyone else to demonstrate. The regulation prohibiting demonstration is permitted because it prohibits all demonstration, not just some types that are deemed OK while others are not.
I also think the slippery slope concerns are not particularly valid in this instance. The Court finds, and I believe it’s reasonable, that the memorial while open to the public is not the same as a public space such as a sidewalk. It’s long been held and understood that there can be reasonable limitations on speech given the time place and manner of such speech.
This is so simple, that I dont know why y’all are arguing so damn much. The cops were reasonable and courteous. The demonstrators, just to piss off The Man, began being jerks. The police did what they said they would do, plain and simple. Don’t want to get arrested, don’t act like a jerk. Debate the issue, talk it over with the cops, write a goddamn letter to your representative, sue the government. But being a jerk and a nitwit has never won anyone any freedoms.
“This is America!”
Yes, and it makes me sad that such idiots live in America.
Rosa Parks changed the world with her similar courage. I am blessed to have a better life because of people like this.
The demonstrators’ resistance was in no way violent. They showed great personal restraint in face of the violent treatment they were receiving. These brave protestors are heros for putting themselves at personal risk.
<quote.Mark, I share your concerns about the slippery slope question of where the boundary stops when saying that something is okay here but not there. I certainly believe that’s how we end up with these “free speech zones” that are blocks away and out of sight of the people being spoken against.
And that’s really all that is at question here, whether or not a “no-speech” zone is constitutional. Even in a court of law, while there are “regulations”, there is a time for all speech on both sides of any issue brought before the court. That is not the case with the memorial
In defense of this particular regulation, however, we are dealing with a very distinct and well-defined region – inside the rotunda of the Jefferson memorial.
So, by your reasoning, if the government spells out specifically, and distinctly a “well-defined region” – say, OUTSIDE of the rotunda in a 100 foot perimeter – then it is a “defensible regulation.”
The point of the article, which all the comments have ignored, is that going limp (in the classic tradition of MLK-style nonviolent civil disobedience) would have been strategically preferable to resisting arrest. Nonviolence theory is premised on the notion that “what we resist persists.” By resisting arrest, Adam empowered, rather than truly challenged, the cops and the state.
Why in the world would someone peacefully accept their arrest?
According to King and other civil rights demonstrators, peacefully being dragged to jail for nonviolent civil disobedience is part of the redemptive process and the political message of nonviolence. It demonstrates that the protester believes he or she is demonstrating, and breaking the law, in recognition of a higher law, and is willing to accept arrest for it. It also shows love for the oppressors, which is a more powerful tool than hate. Not saying I believe all of this, but the Civil Rights movement certainly seems to have been more successful than any act of violent resistance in U.S. history since the Revolutionary War.
I wouldn’t put these kids in the same category as Rosa Parks as someone here did. But I admire them for standing up to something they feel is unjust.
IMO the question of “what is a demonstration?” is a red herring that will lead us down the wrong path. Defining the parameters of what is permitted expression (provided it does not risk the public safety) is in my view fair and reasonable. Restricting it is the how thuggish, dictatorial governments have historically dealt with something our Constitution guarantees; redress of government. That it is outside the courtroom is within the people’s rights. In any event,it’s certain this particular small group of people were not a risk.
The Lincoln Memorial belongs to the citizens of this nation. If this were private property it would be different. The saddest part is that there are people who reluctantly recognize that it is legal to crudely and angrily demonstrate outside the funerals of service men and women, but dancing in the Memorial should be banned.
I don’t believe the police over-reacted, but I do think the regulation is ill-advised and open to legal challenge.
Rosa Parks did not resist arrest in any way, and, in fact, cooperated fully with the police who came to arrest her. That was part of the plan from the beginning: she was selected for this role because she would be seen as beyond reproach, and trained for it. (This was NOT an unplanned event, though the specific day and time may have not been planned, Parks was already working with King and had been selected and trained.)
These folks DID resist arrest — by walking away, by arguing with the police officers, by keeping their hands stiffly in front of them, in one case by actually trying to pull someone AWAY from the police. They appeared to have been very poorly prepared for this event.
If their intent was one of civil disobedience against a law they considered immoral, they failed in their intent. I doubt seriously if this will lead to anyone seriously reconsidering the laws and regulations regarding legally allowable behavior in the rotunda.
///The recent decision from the DC appeals court found that the decision against Ms Oberwetter was reasonable because it was consistent in treating that area as a “nonpublic forum” where demonstration isn’t ever allowed.///
“Demonstration” is simply an euphemism for “speech”, now isn’t it? Suppose I enter the rotunda with my wife, and I utter a 2 minute monologue to her? Now, let us suppose that I repeat the exact same monologue but this time I stand in front of 5 to 10 people. Why is the first “protected” and the second is punished?
Regardless of the context of “public” vs. “non-public” forum, as you can see by my example above, two identical monologues are not equally protected, because of the SUBJECTIVENESS of the outside observer.
Justice Owen Josephus Roberts stated in 1939 that the “use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges […] of citizens.” And it is clear that America has epitomized the spirit of those thoughts. As I stated in a prior post, even in a court of law, you have freedom of speech, but the timing of your statements is heavily regulated so as to perform judicial functions in an orderly manner. This same freedom is not extended to the rotunda, which I find inexcusable.
When injustice becomes law, RESISTANCE becomes duty.
I haven’t seen anyone resisting arrest. Am I blind?
Comment deleted for violating comment policy.
Citizens may resist UNLAWFUL arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.
(John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.).
Unlawful arrest is the same as kidnapping.
Dennis R,. White wrote: “The Lincoln Memorial belongs to the citizens of this nation. If this were private property it would be different. The saddest part is that there are people who reluctantly recognize that it is legal to crudely and angrily demonstrate outside the funerals of service men and women, but dancing in the Memorial should be banned.”
The court ruling is that the Jefferson Memorial (note: this was not at the Lincoln Memorial, though that isn’t all that important) is NOT public space the way a sidewalk is. There is plenty of property owned by the government that is not appropriate for public demonstrations, what the court ruling called “non-public forums”. I’m reasonably certain that you wouldn’t be surprised to see people thrown out of a courtroom for starting a demonstration inside one.
Fred Phelps and his crew follow the laws and local regulations meticulously, demonstrating ONLY on public property, sticking to public property where demonstrations are allowed — in “public forums”. If we were to allow demonstrations inside the rotunda, he would be allowed to carry his vile signs into the rotunda, too — and there is nothing that could be done to stop him. It is a pretty disgusting thought — but if it is a public forum, you cannot pick and choose which demonstrations are OK. You have to let all of them in. I’m OK with saying none at all inside certain places.
Sergey, in the video there’s a clear effort by the individual in the brown shirt to yank away an individual being arrested, clearly interfering in the arrest. Kokesh refuses to acknowledge the officer attempting to arrest him then continues to pull away for several seconds.
Depending on the jurisdiction there may be separate charges for resisting arrest with and without violence. I don’t think this is at all unclear here – Kokesh is very clearly resisting being arrested and refusing to comply with the officer’s instructions.
Can anyone tell me why there were 4 or 5 cops descending on the scene in the first place over a little dancing or hugging? Was this an example of protecting and serving? Who were they serving and what great danger was present to the general public or the safe functioning of the building? Why are we paying thugs to boss us around and treat us like criminals until proven innocent?
John: Small as it was, this was a relatively well publicized demonstration. I’m sure the folks who organized it made sure the police were going to be there: otherwise, there would have been no point to what they did.
Saying the unconstitutional law should be followed because it’s a “judges” ruling is invalid since the “judge” is corrupt government cronie. Just look at all his rulings all favoring the state.
The cops assaulted these people. Absolutely disgusting. Trust the courts!? Are you serious!? I would have resisted enslavement with every ounce of my being. Anything less is treason against what “Freedom of Expression” is all about.
Actually, if the officer cannot even state what he’s charging a person with, he can’t even legally arrest them.
If it were a matter of just challenging the justness of the law itself, I’d agree that the place to challenge is in the courtroom. However, if they can’t site the law being broken, they can’t legally perform the arrest in the first place, therefore he was under no obligation to submit to the arrest.
This article’s point is invalid. Perhaps the author is suffering some sort of Stockholm syndrome.
The root cause to all this drama is that the government owns a memorial. Put the property on Ebay and drop our national debt.
The only thing preventing any of these people from defending themselves against physical violence is a piece of brass. That’s sick. If any one of them would have fought back as they should have, all hell would have broken loose. but it’s ok for cops to beat whomever they wish? Land of the free?
This is fascinating. This was an organized demonstration, with the stated intent of breaking a law in order to challenge it. They went there to GET arrested, so they could challenge the law. They knew exactly what law they were breaking.
We only know what was on the video, NOT what the police said to them before the video was started. The police officers certainly knew what law was being broken, as did the people being arrested. That is a foolish argument.
And the police didn’t beat anyone. They used the force necessary to arrest people who went there to get arrested — and then refused to cooperate with the act of getting arrested.
Either this was an act of deliberate civil disobedience, or it was just a bunch of adolescent jerks acting out. If the former, it was badly done. If the later — tell them to come back when they grow up.
///This is fascinating. This was an organized demonstration, with the stated intent of breaking a law in order to challenge it. They went there to GET arrested, so they could challenge the law. They knew exactly what law they were breaking.///
I’m not sure where you got that info from, but all the accounts that I read did not mention that this was staged to induce the police to act against them. On top of that, they clearly stated throughout the video that they did not know what law they were in violation of, and the police could not tell them either.
///The police officers certainly knew what law was being broken, as did the people being arrested. That is a foolish argument.///
Actually, they did not. They were initially arrested for something like “breach of peace”, but since they couldn’t find a statute that would stick and support that claim, they searched the books until they found another law to charge her with. That charge was delivered to her house AFTER she was released from jail.
Maybe I’m confused between this an another case, but from everything that I’ve read in this regard, none of the charges that were eventually brought against them were for any specific violation of the actions that they were arrested for.
@ Dave Stroup: Are you kidding?? What those-ahem “officers” did, that is not called “doing your job.” That is called “abusing authority.” It never should have gotten even CLOSE to the level of confrontation in this vid. Those cops knew they were just strong-arming and intimidating those citizens. And if one of them did start it, a fellow officer should have straightened him out. “No, we can’t do that. That is an unlawful use of force. We will not do that.” We need nationwide reform in the police depts. NOW.
Here is a copy of the press release for the planned event. It states clearly that the intent is for it to be an act of civil disobedience, and that the people taking part know they can be arrested for taking part:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Silent Dance Party at the Jefferson Memorial
Washington, DC – Spontaneous silent dancing will be erupting at the Jefferson Memorial this Saturday, May 28 at 12 PM.
This is inspired by US District Judge John D. Banks’s recently ruling (see attached) that the interior of the Memorial is not a public forum where people may dance; even silently. The ruling stems from the arrest of a woman, Mary Oberwetter, in 2008 for silently dancing as part of a group in celebration of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday.
In response to this abridgement of our 1st Amendment rights, concerned Americans have launched a Facebook page- currently experiencing a daily doubling in followers- calling for everyone to join us in silently dancing inside the Jefferson Memorial in a spirit of freedom and civil disobedience. Those engaging in this activity realize they could be arrested and are willing to be so for defending this cause.
Other local and national media outlets have picked up on the excitement and plan to cover the event. Thank you and hope to see you there!
Contact:
Edward Dickey
cell: (202) 717-0358
It was advertised on Facebook and Twitter, and at one point they actually delayed the start waiting for more press and people to show up.
Folks, this was not about dancing. I understand that there is disagreement about whether or not public demonstrations ought to take place in these places that the courts are saying are NOT for public speech, but at least be honest about what happened. The organizers publicized the event well in advance, notified police and media (as is common for planned acts of civil disobedience) — and then didn’t cooperate with the police, as is usual in public acts of civil disobedience.
I agree with Stroup. I also agree that the no speech zone is horrible and un-American.
I think the main problem here is the same as what we have in the UK, and that is these officers and enforcers of the law are unable to grasp or are ignorant to the rights that law grants any and all individuals. Without a charge the arrest was unlawful.
What’s more, they are planning another event — clearly labeled a demonstration — for next Saturday. Here’s the facebook link:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=213295372035220
Again, this is not about dancing, and they are clearly calling this a demonstration.
I hope those taking part in this demonstration receive proper training in civil disobedience. It is a more effective approach.
They were charged with demonstrating without a permit — an illegal activity — and I see no evidence that the arrests themselves were illegally conducted.