digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

D.C. Woman Arrested for Asking Police the 'Wrong' Question

dcist.com — A D.C. woman was arrested over the weekend when she and a group of about 20 gathered at midnight for a sort of silent dancing iPod flash mob at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to celebrate the birthday of their favorite founding father. When U.S. Park Police told her to leave, she asked what she was doing wrong. They arrested her. With video.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MakiMaki, on 04/15/2008, -20/+449How ironic. A good example of what's wrong with America today. Those kids weren't doing anything wrong.
    • Kaivan, on 04/15/2008, -23/+6you are right.
    • rsound, on 04/15/2008, -15/+150Yes they were doing something wrong. They were not acting like respectable people. Only communists and beatniks dance around a monument early in the morning. NORMAL respectable people would be in bed getting a good night's sleep so they could go to their respectable jobs in banks and industry in the morning, wearing their pin striped suits and help extract more and more wealth from the slave classes of this country.
      • bonedead, on 04/15/2008, -14/+3Yeah, people who work at nights aren't respectable OR normal.
      • razor150, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7Don't forget they do all of that while wearing their flag pins to show what patriots they are.
        • rentmitchum, on 04/15/2008, -6/+4Speaking of that, I've been thinking of going to parking lots and stealing all the ribbon magnets I can. When I have enough I wanna spell out "More Patriotic than You" on the side of my car. Might take both sides, my car is small.
        • XristosAnesti, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Theft is patriotic.
          Awesome.
        • Latentsage, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1If you end up with the pins it is.
      • DeathsShadow77, on 04/15/2008, -2/+0who are you to say who is normal and who isn't?
        • giveer, on 04/15/2008, -2/+5I've got sarcasm on hold on Line 2 for you... hurry up, it's calling long distance.
    • Mr8lack, on 04/15/2008, -111/+12They weren't doing anything wrong until they were asked to leave....then they were trespassing and deserved whatever they got.
      • davdev, on 04/15/2008, -6/+88Just because a police officer asks you to leave somewhere, does not mean you have to. They were in a public area and where not causing any known problems, therefore, the order to leave was not a lawful order.
        • groo68, on 04/15/2008, -3/+38They were trespassing on America.
          /sarcasm
      • panth77, on 04/15/2008, -6/+87You can't trespass on public property.
        • blqysmg, on 04/15/2008, -1/+24I was about to say, "You might want to revisit the logic of that statement," but I read your post again. I agree, if property is "public" then we all own it, and therefore one cannot trespass upon it.

          Of course, the government does not see it that way. They believe that Government owns it, and you for that matter.
        • DangerMouse9, on 04/15/2008, -30/+2@blgysmg:

          Actually, the government does own it after they ***** the Indians out of it. Just because it's public doesn't mean you can do what you want with it? If you were to trip on that property and broke a bone or three, would you take John Q. Public to court since it is "public" property?

          Your statement is rather asinine once you delve below the surface level.

          Just because it is "public" property, does not mean you can have access to it 24/7, it just means that the government hasn't sold the property to big business (yet) and that they can't prevent certain groups access to that property.
          • GeneralFault, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1"If you were to trip on that property and broke a bone or three, would you take John Q. Public to court since it is "public" property?"
            Putting asside any "litigation happy" type comments that come to mind: Actually, yes that is precisely what you would probably do. If there was negligence on the part of the public maintenance department for whatever public location you fell at, you would sue th city/state/federal government for damages.
            The rest of your comment is wrong too.
          • Tiak, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2You see, public property as the alternative to private property by definition can't be tresspassed upon, that much is the problem. If I am on a sidewalk, and a cop tells me to get off of it, then all of the sudden I can either move to private property (which is also going to be tresspassing), or stay on it... I'd be screwed.

            National monuments, military bases, etc. however are federal property, which is distinct from public property.
        • mksslagle, on 04/15/2008, -5/+8Ok, go and try and walk around on a military base or perhaps take a self guided tour of the White House.
          • GeneralFault, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5That's not "public property" now is it? It is owned by the public, but it is not "public accessable" like the Jefferson memorial now is it?
          • zacharytelschow, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2A military base is not public property, it is owned by the Army (or Navy or Marines, what have you); I also highly doubt that the White House is public property. However, just because property is public and is generally owned by all doesn't mean you can do there whenever you want (many parks and public works buildings have posted hours).
          • mksslagle, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2How is it not public property? You now want to add publicly accessible, but that was not what was said was it...

            A military base is owned by the public which pays for the military as are all government assets. The White House is most certainly public property. The point I was making is that you do not have an inherit right to access all public property.
          • GeneralFault, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Then how the hell does that have anything to do with this article or thread? Or are you trying to mislead? The Jefferson memorial is both public property and public accessible. Do you have anything else to say?
        • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -15/+3These people are dumb... the middle of an intersection is public property as well.. go get a tent and set up shop underneath the red light and see how long you last -- dumb asses.
        • BrandonWicks, on 04/15/2008, -1/+12@5urr3al5am
          The point isn't that you can just go swanning around public property any time you want, the point is that that particular piece of property IS open to all members of the public, 24/7.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -10/+1@BrandonWicks -- you can't have it both ways.. i mean what a bunch of losers -- want to make a real difference join a real cause
          • BrandonWicks, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3What about both ways??? Do you mean there can't be pieces of government-owned property which are open to the public, and pieces(such as military bases) that are not? I'm pretty sure there are. You know, like right now. For many years before now.

            The purpose of this wasn't to make a statement, or advocate a cause, the purpose was to honor the birthday of one of the nations founders, an historical figure who is a hero to many. You can call them a bunch of losers, fine, but I can call you a loser, or a psychopath for wanting to shoot them for dancing. I can call you a loser for loudly advocating that they be detained for no reason. I can give you a quote too:

            “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.”--Thomas Paine

            Please enjoy the liberty that is afforded you to demand that young men and women who've broken no laws be locked up, or stop being losers and "join a real cause" Enjoy the liberty to claim that liberty in itself is not a cause, or not a "real" one.
          • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1You are such a tool it's not even funny.. go take your mock outrage and shove it up your a$$.
          • GeneralFault, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Pwnd! Good job Brandon. I love this part: "go take your mock outrage and shove it up your a$$". You just can't make that stuff up. I'll bet this comment is right over his head too. LOL.
          • 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Sadly there is enough of this 'mock outrage' to go around.. oh and add a lot of the 'look at me' -self important crowd and you have a medium, the internet, ready to be abused in such a manner. I'm guessing a bunch of these loser kids had parents that chained themselves around trees to 'save the planet'
        • CeeAyy, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Actually, yes, you can be considered to be trespassing on public property.
        • CryRightardCry, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1@5urr3al5sm
          Damn, you are one dumb *****.
          It's like you are a pathological shill for evil.
          Classic rightard.
      • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -3/+18Really. Well I was looking on findlaw and I'd like to know what section of the criminal code you're citing for this interpretation.

        I anxiously await your non-answer since you are talking out of your ass. I don't even know what they cited this woman under. Do YOU?
        • DangerMouse9, on 04/15/2008, -10/+0loitering after hours?
        • decoy26517, on 04/15/2008, -0/+13"The public may visit the Thomas Jefferson Memorial 24 hours a day. However Rangers are on duty to answer questions from 9:30 am to 11:30 pm daily." - http://www.nps.gov/thje/planyourvisit/hours.htm

          If its open 24hrs a day to the public, when is "after hours"? the 25th hour of the day?
        • skeeterbug84, on 04/15/2008, -1/+10@DangerMouse9 - Did you even read the article? The park is open 24 hours a day. Also, isn't everyone that visits this statue technically loitering? I mean, you have to hang out in one spot to take it all in.
        • CeeAyy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7 Unfortunately I read the comments first, responded to one, and then watched the video and therefore my uninformed comment later in this thread... I now know that it is open 24 hours a day. Anyway...
          Yes, I do know what she was charged with, it was disorderly conduct. The guard mentions it in the video.
          While she had every right to be there, she did not have the right to do whatever she pleased. There is no complete list as to what is allowed, but it is up to the guard's discretion as to what is considered reasonable behavior.
          Disorderly conduct is something of a "catch-all" misdemeanor charge in which the person is usually penalized by giving the person "time served" (at least in NYC). Basically, that means that however long it took you to see a judge is your penalty. Disorderly conduct can encompass many things and is applied situationally. It's not a big deal. It's slightly above getting a ticket.
          In the video you see the large group of people just dancing which MAY be considered to be disruptive to the other people at the location. It's a matter of interpretation, just like loud noise is a matter of interpretation. What is considered a loud noise in a library is not the same as a loud noise elsewhere. Dancing in the middle of a library with your iPod would DEFINITELY be considered disorderly. Once the guards decided that they were engaged in behavior that could POSSIBLY affect some other persons enjoyment of the location they were asked to leave. The woman refused to comply with a lawful order and was then arrested for disorderly conduct which includes the refusal to comply with a lawful order (in NYC). So, technically, she was more likely arrested for failure to comply with a lawful order than for dancing. Notice that the camera man made sure that he complied and voiced his compliance. The woman did the complete opposite.
          One other thing, it is obvious that this was a scenario that was pre-planned. The people that were there knew very well what was going to happen. That is not a complaint or negative comment BTW. What they did is the ONLY way that I know of to go about changing laws without actually being a lawmaker. If their interest was to go about making change, I fully commend them. If they were just interested in creating a scene then they wasted EVERYONE'S time, including their own. I'm inclined to think it was the former and not the latter. I hope that's the case anyway.
          • Tiak, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3The large group of people dancing went out of their way to not be disruptive to other people at the location. It was 11:50, there WERE no other people at the location.
          • gandhii, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3I didn't see or read anything to suggest that the participants were planning or expecting there to be a problem with the park police. Perhaps you could point that out for me. .. I wouldn't have expected it.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -19/+2They were loitering and being obnoxious. I'd have shot them on the spot. Really though, is this what the youth-type rebellion(s) have come to? how pathetic? Go do something useful, instead of these retarded little proxy-rebellions we keep seeing on the web, that only server to increase their own over inflated egos -- and nothing else.
        • InfamousAtheist, on 04/15/2008, -3/+11They weren't rebelling, they were celebrating Jefferson's birthday. How exactly is that loitering or obnoxious?
          You sure are a tough guy, talking about shooting people. With what, your keyboard?
          • thatsmyaibo, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2Honestly...who celebrates Jefferson's birthday like this?
        • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -8/+4Yes I'm sure none of those kids have ever been yelled at by any of those guards before .. which is proved by the fact they had they just happened to have the cameras rolling the entire time.. what a bunch of pretentious little sh1ts
          • Tiak, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1The cameras were there due to the flash mob... When a bunch of strangers show up somewhere and just start dancing, people tend to want to have it recorded.
        • BrandonWicks, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6Yes, shooting people for dancing in celebration of one of the founders of this country, at the memorial to him, on the anniversary of his birth. I'm sure Jefferson would approve.
          • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -5/+1what generation are you from? don't you now sarcasm when you read it? oh wait.. /sic
        • tonicboy, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1I guess you're a firsthand expert on obnoxious, pathetic egos. Now where did I put my gun...
      • InfamousAtheist, on 04/15/2008, -4/+4Holy ***** - your comment is about as ignorant and sheep-like as they come.
        Get a clue before opening your fat mouth. If you're intentionally trying to irritate supporters of personal liberties (e.g., every American citizen) then you're doing a great job. *****.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2listen to me--blah blah blah.. I am important -- blah blah blah
        • gandhii, on 04/16/2008, -1/+15urrr.. (whatever.. I ain't spelling all that out): all of your earlier posts were sounding like this one to me.. heheh good trolling man.. ya had me going there. ;]
        • 5urr3al5am, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1wow -- you buried me? let's get out an do something instead of stomping our feet about these tragic lost liberties .. and being fed up and angry in they're mock outage about these security guards. They kids are losers looking for their 15 seconds of internet fame, if you can't see the video for what it really is then you're probably going to vote democrat.
    • Lyk4n, on 04/15/2008, -17/+39Welcome to the new China..
      • 1timeuser, on 04/15/2008, -5/+52Pretty sure they would have just let them dance in China.
        • rabidbob, on 04/15/2008, -2/+60If a bunch of Chinese people spontaneously got together to dance to celebrate Mao's birthday the communist party would probably cream themselves with happiness.
        • dracostimpy, on 04/15/2008, -2/+19Not if it was a Tibetan dance...
        • joshblufs, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3They especially love falun gong dances.
      • noahhoward, on 04/15/2008, -13/+12Not even ***** close.
      • didiman, on 04/15/2008, -22/+3you're truly a moron
        • DangerMouse9, on 04/15/2008, -7/+2Hey, that's Mr. Next President Moron to you.
      • macsen, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0how the ***** can you have a dialogue in this setting? but hey, why not try?: ***** THE POLICE!!!
    • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -70/+13They were there to argue with the security guards and cops. Thats all. Lets put it this way. if the goal was to "quietly" dance at the jefferson memorial...man, thats one boring video to make... but expect to be tossed out at a NATIONAL MEMORIAL when "not doing anything wrong"... yeah, now THATS a good video, isnt it?

      These douchebags got exactly what they wanted to get. I hate people who make up "police suppression" with video cameras. It does happen, but we dont need people out there trying to make it happen. Cops and security guards have important jobs to do without assholes trying to always make them look bad.
      • tomtom10, on 04/15/2008, -3/+30whatever their motives were, the supression is hardly made up. we even have it on tape. their motives are irrelevant. the fact still is that they did nothing wrong. guards and policeofficers on power trips need to be put down. better these guys do it now than me later.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -31/+5Ok, so next time, save the expense of driving to the capitol, and instead just waltz into any local police station and start break dancing to celebrate national moron day. They're not doing anything illegal. Their taxes pay for the police station. Why not do the moonwalk inside one of the ***** jail cells? I swear some of you are really clueless.
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/15/2008, -4/+21@xlar54: Bad analogy, flawed logic, failed argument.
        • Nitrodist88, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5xlar54, I didn't know that you were the inventor of national moron day. Makes sense, though..
        • macsen, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1only insane people would dance in public. they should be thrown in sanitariums and given shock therapy.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/15/2008, -3/+17Nice diatribe. Now, how exactly were they breaking the law?
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -20/+3Disturbing the peace is probably the charge that was made. Look it up. I doubt the cops charged them with rape or murder. It's public record, so feel free to google it yourself.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -20/+4IC 35-45-1-3
          Disorderly conduct
          Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
          (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
          (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
          (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
          commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.


          All three apply here (look up 'tumultuous'). They were asked to stop.
          • BleedingCello, on 04/15/2008, -2/+20(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons..............isn't that what the officer did? And they weren't making "unreasonable noise" and didn't continue to do so after being asked to stop. You need to grow a set of balls and stop justifying the actions of this obviously power-hungry security guard. I got ten-to-one odds you're either a cop yourself or a wanna-be in his first year of criminal justice. I was gonna write this comment after your last remark, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I despise people like you.
          • bpoteat, on 04/15/2008, -1/+18Actually no. None of the 3 apply.
            1) They weren't engaging in fighting or inciting any type of tumultuous or riotous behavior.
            2) They were completely silent.
            3) There was no assembly of persons, lawful or otherwise, other than themselves.
            I agree with BleedingCello. Grow a set.
          • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -11/+1They were completely silent? Lol... I think you're really reaching here. Try dancing in a marble room...or better, have yourself and a bunch of others dance in a marble room. See how "silent" it is. Tumultuos doesnt necessarily refer to riotous behavior. And there were indeed other visitors there at the time. Whats that everyone here says alot...oh thats right... FAIL. I have a set. You can kiss them.
          • BrandonWicks, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3@xlar54
            Ironically, the Presidential candidate you support(Ron Paul) would side with people who were dancing.
          • bpoteat, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3You're saying people dancing with headphones on are making "unreasonable noise" and I am the one reaching? I don't need to try dancing in a marble room to imagine what it sounded like - IT WAS ON THE VIDEO that apparently you didn't watch! They were completely silent. Actually, riotous behavior or inciting such is the f'ing definition of tumultuous. Since you are clearly incapable of any type of intelligent thought what-so-ever, I think I'll just secede the argument and let you think you've somehow 'won'.
          • akaeding, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Well, I must not be watching the same video that you saw. I have a little hand held camcorder...and the only sound that mine picks up is my own ridiculous voice when I am talking while I have the thing held up...and I heard music and raised voices plain as day. What's wrong with the concept of "Oops...that person in uniform asked me to stop what I am doing...I should stop." There is no reason to turn it into a debate about the social ills of the country...unless you are looking to post it on youtube.
          • twinklyJesus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1The key phrase there was "lawful assembly.." in order to be a lawful assembly you have to have followed the laws and regulations prescribed in order to have a public gathering at a national monument. I believe a permit is required. If a bunch of people show up and start dancing, or giving speeches or displaying art or selling their old clothing, they have to have a legal permit, and therefore permission to gather at that location.

            My bet is on "Not a legal gathering"
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/15/2008, -2/+11@xlar54: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/04/12/hijinks-en ...

          QUOTE
          Jason Talley, who was at the scene, now reports that our friend was arrested on a charge of “disorderly conduct”. Under District of Columbia law, “disorderly conduct” occurs when a person:

          * with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby;..(2) congregates with others on a public street and refuses to move on when ordered by the police.

          [...]I’m having a lot of trouble figuring out how dancing at the Jefferson Memorial at midnight can possibly be construed as either intended to or, indeed, remotely likely to “provoke a breach of the peace.”
          /QUOTE
          • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -23/+5Well thats for the courts to decide, isnt it. Personally, if i were there, Id be rather disturbed by these idiots. So yes, Id say its a legit charge.
          • BrandonWicks, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4@xlar54
            I'm paraphrasing, but I think the United States Constitution is meant to offer protection against being arrested for being weird or behaving oddly.
          • gandhii, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1If the Jefferson Memorial is a "public street".. then does that mean I can drive my pickup truck through it?
      • EwigRomanze, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6No, if there was anything to hold them on it would be up to the courts to make a decision. The person that was arrested was let go after a few hours because she didn't do anything wrong. You, my friend are the problem. Take your head out of your ass and get some fresh air
      • RubyTuesday, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Disturbing the peace would be a ridiculous charge if it was merely doing something that someone else didn't like or claimed that they found "rather disturbing". I find intelligent designers trying to claim there belief system is science and should be taught in a science class to be rather disturbing - should we arrest them too?
      • Tiak, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3They weren't trying ot get arrested... Who the ***** would expect to get arrested for something so stupid? It was a flash mob, look them up. The idea is to have people come together, simultaneously do random stuff, record it, then leave.
    • Pic0, on 04/15/2008, -52/+11Doing nothing wrong? They were acting like retards at a memorial. Imagine if you went to a library and 20 retards with their iPHones started to dance. It is distracting.
      Then of course the camera man acts like a moron when people start being asked to leave. I would expect this from a group of 12 year olds.
      • tomtom10, on 04/15/2008, -4/+44i must have missed that "do not act like a retard" law in school. dancing and distracting people. OMG, put her in jail already!
        I can't belive how easy you guys accept supression and violations of your rights. "ah, she probably diserved it".. just wait, next time they'll put YOU in jail for looking at them or something. not so fun then, you'll see.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -28/+4Disturbing the peace is quite enough to get them hauled away. Legal, and I would support the decision.
          • BleedingCello, on 04/15/2008, -4/+18I would support any decision resulting in your castration so you wouldn't be able to bear offspring. Congratulations, you've made a new friend.
          • mrSt1klBak, on 04/15/2008, -1/+14It seems that peoples idea of "peace" is to stand still, stare straight forward, don't look around, don't ask questions...Don't do anything that MIGHT provoke anyone. Really, what could be more peaceful that "acting retarded" with some friends and having a laugh. It wasn't at anybodies expense, it wasn't malicious, and it wasn't rowdy. We'd be wise to have a law to the effect of "disturbing the freedom". Anybody that says otherwise are sheeples, already resolved to bending over for "the man", the infallible man.
        • MalenfantX, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2xlar: Something's wrong with you. I recommend therapy to try and find out what made you a terrible person, and how you can get over it.
      • honesttussey, on 04/15/2008, -2/+36Are you naturally retarded or did you get this way over time? You can't arrest people for 'acting like retards'. You have to break the law. Nice comparison about the library. Thing is, a library is a quiet place. They were at a public memorial. And asking for a badge number isn't 'acting like a moron'. It's well within their RIGHTS and it is illegal for an officer to refuse to give it. Move to China please.
        • davdev, on 04/15/2008, -5/+8Not surprising his avatar is of the Texas Longhorns. Really besides Austin is there anything in Texas worth keeping?
          • insertAliasHere, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Go ***** yourself.

            For one, the Longhorns are _in_ Austin. For another, don't shoehorn all of us Texans (oh excuse me, all Texans except for those in Austin) into your narrow minded view.
        • onefinalstep, on 04/15/2008, -16/+3They weren't arrested for being retards. They were arrested after they were told to stop being retards and they refused. Do you see the difference there?
          • randf, on 04/15/2008, -12/+2speaking truth to retards isn't going to work, this is digg remember? it's much more digg-like and trendy to start yelling "Fascist", "welcome to china" etc, than to use common sense.
          • MalenfantX, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1randf: you seem to support the retarded security bozos, and haven't engaged in any kind of sense.
      • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -3/+15You're acting like a retard with that inane post. Can I call the FBI to arrest you for acting like a retard over state lines?
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/15/2008, -2/+15For the sake of discussion, let's assume your characterization is correct.

        Can you cite the law or ordinance that prohibits people from acting like retards?
        • noahhoward, on 04/15/2008, -14/+4Disorderly Conduct, which happens to be what they were charged with.
        • macsen, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Maybe there should be, and also being a dick cop who arrests people like a street thug would discipline his hoes.
      • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -28/+7Ah save it. These folks here are so damn desperate to find flaws in our law enforcement that when something so clearly set up as this, they are too damn blind to see it. This is the culture of the Youtube generation. Show cops being "jerks" (when they are fully in their right to haul someone off for disturbing the peace at minimum), just to show how "the man" keeps them down. People like the above live on Youtube, hoping to find the most EPIC video EVAR of police brutality.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 04/15/2008, -5/+13You're a jackass. That is all.
          • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -18/+3Truth hurt?
          • RonBurgundy76, on 04/15/2008, -3/+12Nope. Your post didn't contain a whole lot of truthiness, ergo, it didn't hurt very much at all.
          • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3Meh. Try coming up with a counter point that is actually meaningful. Name calling is so 3rd grade.
        • washburn085, on 04/15/2008, -0/+13It doesn't matter if its a set up! If you do something legal, then it doesn't matter the intent. Dancing around like that is stupid in my mind, yes. Illegal? NO. Disturbing the peace? They were the only people there!! So who were they disturbing? WHO? I am all for police doing their jobs, and I am not sitting here saying that the police officers in this video should be fired or anything. I think the problem is that many police officers DO NO KNOW their power limits, they DO NOT KNOW the laws they are sworn to uphold. If they were dancing in the middle of the highway, then yes, arrest them right then and there. They were in a public place (maintained using taxpayer's money), not causing harm to anyone, and not disturbing the peace by any definition. Please review the constitution and local laws for more information.
      • decoy26517, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5being distracting is against the law?
        • CeeAyy, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2It depends on the situation, but yes. It's just like we have freedom of speech and yet it is against the law to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater.
          It's a shame that law isn't taught better in the lower grade levels. It's too bad people have to seek out a law class to REALLY know what their rights are. Too many people don't fully understand the law as it applies to them.
      • Nitrodist88, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5SO distracting... at midnight... in the middle of a park... god damn, I hope no one was curing cancer or studying for finals at that hour.
        • heypetray, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4And imagine all the noise they made! What, with the loud music blaring through their headphones and the sound of feet pattering on the ground. I mean, it must have kept the neighborhood up all night in fear and panic! I'm sure after they were done, they were going to detonate a car bomb or something. Damn Americans...
      • Tiak, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Who the ***** were they distracting?... Again, it was the middle of the night... Do you really think there was an influx of tourists who had their experienced of the memorial tarnished?
      • lhbaker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I think the righties are under the impression that the Constitution has been suspended due to our current war on global terror. If any modern document was ever sacred, it is the Constitution of the United States. It's the unequivocal law of the land. The Supreme Court exists to interpret that law, and provisions exist for Congress to change the law if enough states ratify that change.

        But the fact is, the Constitution has not been changed, and every law in it still stands, and any citizen of the US who has violated those laws in subject to prosecution, and any official sworn to public office is obligated to pursue those crimes. If not, we might as well throw the Constitution away.
    • cawpin, on 04/15/2008, -33/+3Buried for being completely inaccurate and a dupe from yesterday.
      • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -1/+22LOL...it's not a dupe, it's an update. And the video proves what they were saying. Deluded, much?
      • InfamousAtheist, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Please feel free to explain the inaccuracy.
        Nothing to say?
        I didn't think so.

        You, Pic0, and xlar54 are all acting like fascist scumbags. You're a stain on everything the U.S. used to stand for.
    • toonworld, on 04/15/2008, -6/+70Can someone tell me why America is till being called "the land of the free" ?
      • HelloNavi, on 04/15/2008, -2/+32The oppression doesn't COST anything, friend.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 04/15/2008, -5/+5Still more free than a lot of places... I guess
        • J3EBS, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7I'd rather be oppressed in a country where they tell you that you will be, not a country that says "We'll protect your rights. Kidding! Get your ass back in the cell"
          • zaii7, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8welcome to city 17
          • CroMagV2, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Nice histrionics.

            Who has said that and what cell have you ever been in?


      • SteeleJK, on 04/15/2008, -8/+2Because it's the home of the brave.
      • Skooma714, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10Tourism
      • Abomonog, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Toonworld: Because we are still free. Only now we are free to do as we are told. Get it?
      • lhbaker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Actually, I think it's buy-one-get-one-free these days. If not, there's probably a rebate.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 04/15/2008, -3/+19B-b-b-but I thought the government would always protect us and never abuse their increasing power, so we won't ever need guns to protect ourselves! Well, okay, it was just a little rights-abusing this time, nothing worth physically fighting over. People in positions of power would never do anything worse that would actually require us to fight for our rights, right? Right?
      • CroMagV2, on 04/15/2008, -28/+1Zzzzzzzzzzzz. I fully endorse the brutalization of "flash mobs". ***** these annoying *****.
        Kids today suck. D.C. should be producing more Minor Threats and Bad Brains, not these douches. I wish I was a cop.
        • abuelos84, on 04/15/2008, -1/+10I'm sure you do.... i'm sure you do...
        • cheesebob, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5conpensating much?
          So when someone in a position of power doesn't like you, it's fully within their rights to kick you in the nuts?
          I'm a cop, and i know the law. nothing wrong was being done.
          i support these kids.
          • CroMagV2, on 04/15/2008, -3/+0You aren't a cop. Cops aren't full of snarky jokes about "over-compensating"...that is the familiar and boring ammo of people who hate cops.
          • heypetray, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2CroMag's evidence is overwhelming.
        • SpencerMc, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1I'm reasonably certain neither Bad Brains nor anyone that was in Minor Threat would be too down with this. Just sayin'
      • highligher, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4I don't think a few(or a lot of guns) would help the American people win against their government. sorry
        • SPECOPS, on 04/15/2008, -2/+0No not just guns, but people with some sort of bravery - Most will just sit back and do nothing, with or without guns - Second Civil war is what it will take - and that means splitting the government and splitting the governments "toys".
    • linux4evr, on 04/15/2008, -11/+1For something to be ironic it has to be both funny and sad, not either/or. Why can't you people get this through your heads!
      • hushtown, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8First, that is by no means the sole definition of irony:

        # Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs:
        # An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.

        and second, this is indeed both funny and sad.
    • Nordiskt, on 04/15/2008, -8/+11I think the security guard just didn't want Thomas Jefferson to be disgraced

      by white people trying to dance...
      • cjshamrock, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1LOL
      • ASeventhSign, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0That is so racist, I'm so offended I'm going to try and sue digg.
      • macsen, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0it's all apple's fault, they should be held liable for creating a product and encouraging people to use it in a harmful way by imitating their commercial.
    • kosser, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4another example of the land of the free
    • mistergraves, on 04/15/2008, -3/+0"a group of about 20 nerdy libertarian wonk types"

      lol
    • Sogui, on 04/15/2008, -6/+13Your right, the kids didn't do anything wrong... and they didn't get punished. Here's my logic:

      There were 10-15+ dancers, the cameraman was bugging the hell out of one of the officers but the officer remained professional, if not gruff. The lady did something that none of the other "dancers" did to get herself arrested.

      1) People danced without getting arrested

      2) People asked questions without getting arrested

      3) Woman got arrested

      Conclusion: Woman did something beyond dance and ask questions. And none of these groups involved have come forward and said "This is why she was arrested"
      • apackofmonkeys, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1If you call being driven away from public property under threat of force "not being punished", then I don't want to live under your government.
    • Bamont, on 04/15/2008, -7/+4In all fairness - this kind of thing doesn't happen on a grand scale that affects 100,000+ people in this country. Many of these incidents are isolated, and we can attribute them to poor understanding of the law at the STATE and LOCAL levels. This is a STATE and LOCAL problem that many Libertarians (I myself am one) use to propagate and exaggerate an "issue" that has been going on for centuries. Abuse of power by someone WITH power and a general misunderstanding of duties, assignments, and law.

      I don't doubt this woman was arrested for the reasons stipulated in the article - but I do not believe this kind of thing is recurring. For as many videos and articles that could be linked proving points about this, I could link just as many that prove against it (where officers do in fact act fairly towards others). Digg has a habit of polarizing its view point and promoting the "sky is falling" mentality because many of you want to feel like you have something to fight for.

      It's much like the argument against Jack Thompson when he blames murders on video games. People died LONG before video games were invented - and long before the internet was alive, people exhibited this same kind of behavior. You just didn't get to see it on Youtube.
      • Abomonog, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3You know, if this was a bunch of skateboarders in schmuckville that in the end didn't get charged with a thing I would tend to agree with you. But this was a quiet celebration at midnight in front of a public memorial that is advertised as open 24/7. On top of this someone is being charged for a crime for doing exactly what our forefathers would have wanted. There was no shouting, no protests. The cop knew he was wrong to approach a group that was obviously causing no trouble and when his bluff got called he fabricated a charge and that charge is going before a judge who will most likely adjudicate a guilty plea based on minimal testimony in a trial that lasts all of 5 minutes. No jury trial anymore if you're only facing the county clink (or didn't you know this?). All this in the very capitol of the very nation that is supposed to be the very representation of freedom. That is wrong on so many levels...
        • Bamont, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1You attack my points without really attacking any of them. I'm not denying that the cop was wrong - but you hit the proverbial nail on the head right there. It was a *cop* doing it. This wasn't an armed military presence that prevented people from celebrating their favorite Founding Father - it was a cop who obviously didn't know the law, was on a power trip, and was being a jerk. The argument I'm making is at how sensationalized stories here on Digg get. People can't come at me with facts and figures backing up a large scale issue with this. In general, its isolated issues that are caused by incompetence - and guess what, that isn't a new thing. We now have the internet to log on and discuss these issues, sensationalize them, and then pretend its some sort of a huge conspiracy to take away our rights.

          Call this what it is - a stupid cop that made a stupid decision and should be punished for it. Not some grand scheme to take away the rights of people in this country. That's absolutely ridiculous - and Americans are stupid for thinking otherwise. Go to other countries where protesting, or even being seen with another woman who isn't your wife, can land you in jail without a jury trial and for an indefinite period of time.
    • homerkoo, on 04/15/2008, -4/+7Welcome to 1984
    • newbis, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6They may not have done anything wrong, but the guy holding the camera was a prick.

      He said something to the effect of "what did we do wrong" and while the officer was answering him he interrupted and yelled "NO! NO!"
      • decyx, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1True, but the arrest was still uncalled for. Police officers should be able to deal with these type of assholes without reacting harshly.
        • superkendall, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Being arrested isn't really harsh though. It's not like they clubbed them down. It's a good way to tell the asshooles of the world that perhaps they need to take the edge off.

          • decyx, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1But he arrested the woman, who didn't do anything wrong. How does that punish the *****?
        • decyx, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Edit: replied to superkendall
      • newbis, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2I'll concede that in a perfect world police officers would be able to control their emotions better and not let their anger for one person interfere with their actions towards another. But this is the real world and police officers are still only human.
        • Abomonog, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1And they lie, and they steal, and they rape, and they murder too. The only difference is that everyone else actually has to answer for their crimes.
    • krizzle, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Blame the two dudes dancing together. Jefferson did not support gays!
    • OneLess, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6This all happened not, what, 50 feet from this inscription:
      "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
  • MrDee23, on 04/15/2008, -20/+693Celebrating freedom by dancing! How dare you? Next time put an American flag and yellow ribbon on your SUV and shut the F*** like a good freedom loving American.
    • BillGod, on 04/15/2008, -19/+10Ha best comment EVER
    • Nougat, on 04/15/2008, -4/+208*Note: American flag and yellow ribbon car magnets manufactured in China
      • peterapokotos, on 04/26/2008, -2/+18Might as well they own America too.
        • 11oops, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Actually, WE own America, but until we start acting like it we may as well have given it away.
      • nakani, on 04/15/2008, -0/+32**Note: no proceeds go to the actual troops
    • mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -1/+13Sounds like the woman arrested knew what she was doing, and I'm sure they knew her.
      Brooke Oberwetter
      http://cei.org/people/brooke-oberwetter
      • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -1/+10Yeah, they probably knew her as a great ally. American Spectator, National Review and Cato institute? She might be a libertarian, but she seems pretty far on the right side of that spectrum.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1oh, she just won tons of points to play in the public arena. she'll be seen again, for sure.
      • workharderscum, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1In which case the best thing they could have done was just ignore her.
      • Nitrodist88, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6She's on a website??? Then they must have known her!
        • mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Besides just looking at her picture, Try using the words they might help you understand my comment.
      • stargatesteve, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1and FTA: her social circle is composed of Journalists, Bloggers, and lawyers who sue the government for fun.
    • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -66/+5Yeah, because people do that... they jump in the car, drive to the nations capitol with video camera in tow, at night, and hope to dance around like ***** idiots at the Jefferson Memorial. Come on. These assholes staged this on purpose for the very comment you made... to show "police brutality" and stir up trouble. ***** them. They deserve what they got.
      • rabidbob, on 04/15/2008, -1/+56You know, it doesn't make any ***** difference what their motive was - they were not doing anything illegal so leave 'em be. And if they had an ulterior motive then let them dance, and they fail. Big ***** deal. Get your head screwed on straight and quit trying to make the world conform to what you think is right. America was founded on the principle of freedom and it's sickening just how far the country has travelled from those principles, while cretinous retards spout "freedom as long as you're just like me" messages.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -32/+1Their "motive" was to get this on camera so dorks like yourself have something to digg. Real heros arent they? Shows how awful our society has become, doesnt it? What a police brutal state we have become. OMG.. we need to flee the country before all our freedoms are swept away! Oh no! There here now! Everyone run!!!
          • RonBurgundy76, on 04/15/2008, -1/+15Yep. Still a jackass.
          • sqwirl, on 04/15/2008, -0/+27"Their "motive" was to get this on camera so dorks like yourself have something to digg."

            So then you agree that it can be assumed by any American that they can and will be arrested for dancing in a public place? Sorry, what's your argument again, that since they may have 'known' what would happen, it's somehow ok that their rights were violated? Nice logic there.

            "Real heros arent they? Shows how awful our society has become, doesnt it?"

            Well, yeah.
          • mrtrevin, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12Yeah. It shows how petty of a society we live in when people get arrested for dancing at a national monument. And it seems idiotic to become upset because you think people tried to get arrested for no reason and succeeded. It certainly IS cause for alarm when Americans are being arrested for no reason in our nation's capital. Jerk.
      • SpacePoet, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6Fascist ***** bag. Get out of this country, you are a disease.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1Whats the matter - did a cop beat you today? Good.
          • SpacePoet, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Never had a problem with cops. You treat them with respect and they have always returned the favor. Nice try though, since you missed the point entirely...
      • CrazedLeper, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6Your mother must be very proud--of her other kid.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -6/+1Graduate of the Pee Wee Herman School of Stupid Remarks?
        • lamiaconfitor, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1@ Xlar54; "I know you are, but what am I?"
      • InfamousAtheist, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5xlar, why are you so bent out of shape over this? Has it even occurred to you that these people were honestly there to celebrate the anniversary of Jefferson's birth because they idolize him and what he stands for?

        Your weak arguments make you appear to be a freedom-hating fascist who despises anything people do to express themselves that doesn't fit whatever ultra-conformist state of being you find acceptable. You know what? You're disgracing the very principles that allow you to live life the way you want to.

        You disgust me.

        @rabidbob - VERY well said.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -8/+1I couldnt care less what they were there. But they were there, causing a disturbance. And in my mind, to do exactly what they did - get a video on Youtube so kids like yourself buy into the "bad cop" story. No matter though, they got the boot, and Im pretty darn happy about that. if I were there, I would have reported them myself to the cops. Dont like it? Tough. Try doing it. Ill have you removed too. You disgust me as well.

          • sqwirl, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Isn't there a cliff you should be walking off of with your fellow lemmings?
          • heypetray, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Your mind is a sad sad place.
    • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -37/+3IC 35-45-1-3
      Disorderly conduct
      Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
      (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
      (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
      (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
      commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.


      All three apply here (look up 'tumultuous'). They were asked to stop.
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/15/2008, -0/+17They were disrupting a lawful assembly of persons? Again, the accuracy of your statement is flawed. "All three apply here[...]" One could argue it was the officers doing number three. "makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop" And what constitutes unreasonable? I'll grant you they were a bit noisy towards the start, partially due to echo, but they weren't throwing a party with loud music or shouting out phrases or lyrics.

        tu·mul·tu·ous /tuˈmʌltʃuəs, tyu-/ Pronunciation Key
        –adjective
        1. full of tumult or riotousness; marked by disturbance and uproar: a tumultuous celebration. [No. There was no riot. Tumult: "violent and noisy commotion or disturbance of a crowd or mob; uproar"]
        2. raising a great clatter and commotion; disorderly or noisy: a tumultuous crowd of students. [Questionable, though it did not sound unreasonably loud, just loud because they weren't remaining perfectly silent]
        3. highly agitated, as the mind or emotions; distraught; turbulent. [No, not until they were being thrown out]
        [Origin: 1540–50; < L tumultuōsus, equiv. to tumultu(s) tumult + -ōsus -ous]

        —Related forms
        tu·mul·tu·ous·ly, adverb
        tu·mul·tu·ous·ness, noun

        —Synonyms 1. uproarious, turbulent, violent. 2. boisterous. 3. unquiet.
        —Antonyms 1–3 calm, quiet.
        Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
        Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
      • blqysmg, on 04/15/2008, -0/+17How, exactly do any of them apply? They were not fighting, they were dancing quietly, right? Is that tumultuous? I don't think so. Secondly, quietly is diametrically opposed to making unreasonable noise. They were not asked to stop making noise, but to vacate the premises. Third, disrupts a lawful assembly of persons. This is EXACTLY what the COPS did, not the people arrested.
      • Seth024, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8 1 : marked by tumult
        2 : tending or disposed to cause or incite a tumult
        3 : marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval
        Tumult:
        1 a: disorderly agitation or milling about of a crowd usually with uproar and confusion of voices : commotion b: a turbulent uprising : riot
        2: hubbub, din
        3 a: violent agitation of mind or feelings b: a violent outburst
        Doubt they were violent, uproaring...
        2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop;
        => They were wearing headphones => doesn't apply here (yes i know they were asked to stop; still doesn't apply!!)
        3)disrupts a lawful assembly of persons; => no disrupting here
        QED You fail.
      • jimmy17, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9None of these apply here:
        (1) You need to read the definition of tumultuous again
        (2) They were making no noise as they were listening to music on their ipods
        (3) Just walk around them
      • Observer001, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11Big negative on that one, xlar. The silly libertarians in question in this incident were dancing quietly and not
        1) fighting and/or disrupting anything
        2) making "unreasonable noise"
        or
        3) disrupting any assembly of any kind, it being midnight and the only people present being silly libertarians and bored security officers.

        Dumb? Perhaps. Illegal? Hell no.
      • kitsune616, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8So... you gonna try and refute any of the above points, xlar, or d'ya wanna just face facts and admit you failed your trolling classes?
      • InfamousAtheist, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1xlar, the commenters above me did a great job of refuting your pathetic argument that these people were engaged in disorderly conduct. I was curious though - was this woman charged with such a crime?

        I also wanted to restate my utter disgust with you. You're the definition of scumbag *****.
      • darkfish, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1xlar, you are a jackass in sheep's clothing.
    • kelmaster1, on 04/15/2008, -13/+4Its not America, it's more society. This woman and her group were the stereotypical libertarians, probably young and dressed rather grungy. If they were older, more respectable looking people, who actually have money, this would have never happened. I guess when it boils down its all about money. If I had a ton of money I'd go there and I wouldn't get arrested because they would fear losing their jobs over a possible lawsuit.

      America IS Free, you just have to pay for it. The fact that you can become a millionaire and have power means there is freedom. If your a jobless libertarian, you have considerably less power in society. It's all about respect.
      • SpencerMc, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Dude, libertarians are all about business and the free market. I doubt they were grungy looking or poor. I think you need to refine what you think a "stereotypical libertarian" is.
      • ilves7, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3"America IS Free, you just have to pay for it." Did you read your own sentence?
    • Khyber00, on 04/15/2008, -8/+1You are absoultly right. If you dont like America go live with Taliban. You have no right to live here if u dont like our system. Go ***** yourself.....if u need money for moving out to iran or taliban e-mail me: PresidentBush2004@*****.com
    • CannibalTom, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2You need to stop saying America is the land of the free. It hasn't been for the past 7 years.
      • Gndoab, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1tell that to the 300+ million that dont get arrested every day
      • evilesttoast, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Yeah, and socialist Europe has more freedom than the United States? We still have our guns in case of fire, Europe on the other hand...
      • starmanfalls, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0America has not been the land of the free since they came up with that great Idea TAXES
      • stealthc, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Only 7? It's not like Bush entered office and flipped a switch. He's a villain, yes, but only the latest despot in a parade of imperial presidents a century and a half long at the LEAST.
    • TimeLincoln, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1The yellow ribbon of empty gestures.
  • laudyms, on 04/15/2008, -17/+342The Corporate State Of America doesn't recognize Jefferson.
    • Codename46, on 04/15/2008, -40/+3"Corporate State"? Are you on drugs?
      • MoofTheStoof, on 04/15/2008, -0/+22Only government subsidized pharmaceuticals.
      • MindTrigger, on 04/15/2008, -1/+21You are aware that big globalist corporate interests are driving most of the government's policy decisions, right? Bought and paid for, my friend.
        • AbsurdParadox, on 04/15/2008, -9/+3The Government is more at fault than the corporations.
    • Pritchard, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Heh. I bet if he were here, he'd refuse to recognize them, too. Something about him and this idea of unalienable rights... Crazy, right? He thought you could actually declare yourself free without the government's permission. Hahahah. What a nutcase. And oh yeah, the American Revolution actually happened. Get real.
    • UnstableMind, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11Wouldn't he be considered a terrorist today?
    • BrendanSheehan, on 04/15/2008, -4/+3From Wikipedia:

      "Jefferson owned many slaves over his lifetime. Some find it baffling that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves yet was outspoken in saying that slavery was immoral and it should be abolished. Biographers point out that Jefferson was deep in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he chose not to free them until he finally was debt-free, which he never was. Jefferson seems to have suffered pangs and trials of conscience as a result."
    • diggerphelps, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Unless Jefferson happens to be a regional chain of dry cleaning outlets, one near you.
    • 1gunners4, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Write your congressman, which I did. It may not work, but if enough representatives hear about it, they may actually say something.
  • theNazz, on 04/15/2008, -15/+90Where's Kevin Bacon when you need him? ...
    • RealmDown, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Doing a guest shot on "Will and Grace"
    • ziffel, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Hopefully the younger folks will get this.
    • hinchb, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8Hey look you copied a line from the article, probably without knowing that it was in there. Way to go.
    • yohnstoppable, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5IT'S BACOOOOOOOOOON!
    • jumico, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5No it's Beggin Strips brand from purina
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5He's kickin' off his Sunday shoes as we speak
    • diggomancer, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4He was there ... just invisible.
    • Kreios, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1he was in annapolis singing at the ramshead... i was at the hotel he was at
    • jinxcy, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1dugg for Footloose ref
      pure genius
  • 14justice, on 04/15/2008, -11/+398Remember that bumper sticker "Question Authority?" It's illegal now.
    • random255, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9Questioning authority isn't enough anymore: we've gotta' speak with it too.
    • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -54/+1IC 35-45-1-3
      Disorderly conduct
      Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
      (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
      (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
      (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
      commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.


      All three apply here (look up 'tumultuous'). They were asked to stop.
      • random255, on 04/15/2008, -0/+27Really? I disagree that all three apply.

        #1 - Tumultuous (marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval) I rest my case.

        #2 - they didn't make unreasonable noise, they used headphones for their music!

        As for #3, they themselves were a lawful assembly of persons. There was no planned event (that I know of) at the Jefferson Memorial, so they weren't disrupting some other group of people. Further they've equal rights to the memorial as any other group.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -20/+1#1 - again, look up tumultuos. It only needs to be disruptive.
          #2 - You cant tell me dancing in a room bound to echo isnt going to be loud.
          #3 - See #2.

          They did disrupt a lawful assembly of persons as they were not the only ones there. The point of the museum is to look at the exhibits. Changing the intent into a "look what I can do" (see MAD TV) event is disruptive to those who were lawfully there. Thankfully the jury wont be filled with people like you.
        • jmizzle7, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11Being arrested for asking what you're doing wrong is no different from asking a cop why you were pulled over before you give him your license and registration.

          In a nutshell, the cops were being dicks for no reason. Your "Tumultuous" argument is silly. The line of Disorderly conduct containing tumultuous is used for idiots that are fighting or acting destructively.

          Trying to argue (2) is your best bet, but also full of failure. The key phrase is "makes unreasonable noise" which as you can see from the video, there is probably 10 times the noise from a middle school field trip.

          Don't even bother trying to argue that they "continued to do so after being asked to stop" - also part of (2). That only applies to the making noise part. As you can see from the video, everyone did stop when the Cops asked them to.

          Any other ridiculous arguments you need easily squashed xlar54?
          • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1Well you know what... its not up to you or me... its up to the court. We will see how this turns out, and Im quite certain you will be the pathetic one when your arguments are crapped on by the court. These folks will be charged, and found guilty. They dont even realize their own video will quite help the prosecutors out. They were asked to stop, they didnt. They were asked to leave, they didnt. Enough said. Talk to an attorney if you find this concept so hard to believe. Case law is all thats required here. You folks really amaze me with your ignorance. Try this little "celebration" in any public arena and see if the same actions dont take place.
          • CeeAyy, on 04/15/2008, -5/+1She wasn't arrested for asking a question. She was arrested for not complying with a lawful order (disorderly conduct).

            FYI, if you refuse to comply with an officers demand for your license until you know why you were stopped, you may be subject to arrest. If the officer has decided that you are getting a ticket and you refuse to identify yourself you will be placed under arrest. A summons is issued in lieu of arrest. No ID= No summons. No summons=arrest.

            As for noise at that location, unless everyone was wearing soft-soled non-squeaking sneakers, they were making noise with the marble floors and walls. Keep in mind though, as much as you might not like it, their dancing in that situation could be perceived as disruptive and disorderly even if it was completely quiet. It didn't have to be about the noise level. Standing quietly in a movie theater while a movie is playing can be considered to be disorderly. You will be asked to leave and then arrested for trespassing if you refuse.

            Lastly, for those that don't know, in most jurisdictions (if not all) it is impossible to be legally disorderly in a private place. Part of the requirement is that it be in a public place. BTW, a movie theater is considered a public place for certain purposes in most cases even though it is usually privately owned. You will not be charged with disorderly conduct though, it'll be trespassing.
          • Dubstep, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1xlar54, expect me to send you a YouTube link via 'shout' in roughly a week, where I amass 20 or more friends to do just what you suggest.

            Our "ignorance", as you so inadequately put it, is shadowed by your vehement disregard for free speech.

            I, for one, welcome your "ignorant" masses.
      • abuelos84, on 04/15/2008, -2/+12stop with the copy-paste frenzy, moron!
      • Seth024, on 04/15/2008, -1/+71 : marked by tumult
        2 : tending or disposed to cause or incite a tumult
        3 : marked by violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval
        Tumult:
        1 a: disorderly agitation or milling about of a crowd usually with uproar and confusion of voices : commotion b: a turbulent uprising : riot
        2: hubbub, din
        3 a: violent agitation of mind or feelings b: a violent outburst
        Doubt they were violent, uproaring...
        2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop;
        => They were wearing headphones => doesn't apply here (yes i know they were asked to stop; still doesn't apply!!)
        3)disrupts a lawful assembly of persons; => no disrupting here
        QED You fail.
        • xlar54, on 04/15/2008, -16/+1Try tap dancing in a marble room. Noisy? Tumultuos only needs to be disruptive. You need a lesson in case law, my friend.
          • Strife880, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7I'll keep that in mind the next I'm in a public facility... I'll wear my nice quiet slippers, make sure not to talk or make any noise what so ever. After all, I don't want to be noisy for the other visitors :)
          • Abomonog, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I doubt these kids were wearing taps. Now try dancing in an empty marble room at midnight.
            Disruptive? To whome?
      • agentem, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8I think that makes the police guilty of #3.
      • natastna2, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7You need a lesson in not being a ***** idiot. Now, for the love of God, STFU.
      • washburn085, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3So if a cop asks you to bend over and take it in the a**, you will? He did ask you to after all, so if you don't he can arrest you right? Cause thats disorderly conduct, you behaved in a way he didn't like, he has THE authority, and therefore by refusing to take it in the a**, you were acting tumultuous... not the society I want to live in.
        • CeeAyy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1 Lawful order... no. What you are suggesting shows your level of sincerity in trying to truly understand what was REALLY going on.
          To be extreme in the other direction, maybe police officers shouldn't carry guns and should ask rapists and murderers politely to give themselves up for arrest and never use physical force. Maybe they should never issue summonses to motorists who speed or drive on sidewalks or park blocking YOUR driveway. What you suggested is ridiculous and insincere.
    • zen4444, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3No compliance
    • vladimirp00pen, on 11/13/2008, -0/+11I concur. I was stopped for a traffic violation. I questioned the cop because from his point of view (a block and half away) there was no way in hell he could tell if I ran a red light or just jumped the red light (plus there was traffic behind me). He also said I was speeding but had no radar gun. He said "don't question me! If I said you did it, you did it!". I had a PBA card on me so f him..No ticket for me. I only pull out the card after they say whatever they have to say.
      • Nesh, on 04/15/2008, -0/+27I didn't realize that being a member of the Professional Bowlers Association carried such benefits.
      • daveydla, on 04/15/2008, -0/+13Whats a PBA Card and how do I get one?
      • Anonchrist, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Patrolman's Benevolent Association - Now diggers can look it up on WIkipedia like everything else
  • chanop, on 04/15/2008, -42/+7Digg me down, I was going to use a Kevin Bacon line, but was beat to the punch
  • zgoos, on 04/15/2008, -58/+12This made popular yesterday. Buried.
    http://digg.com/politics/So_much_for_the_land_of_t ...
    • robthom, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12Yesterday didn't have the video up yet. The video, at least part 2 is kinda cool.
    • kreneskyp, on 04/15/2008, -0/+13when you watch the nightly news do you scream "DUPE" at your tv before you change the channel?
      • KrystollMeth, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2I actually know someone who does that. A friend of mine's little brother.
      • zgoos, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I don't watch the nightly news. I used watch it for the frivolous crap and endless rehash, but now I go to Digg when I want that. Thanks Digg!
  • Flashman, on 04/15/2008, -6/+76They arrested her with video?
    • MickJT, on 04/15/2008, -8/+0Apparently you don't understand punctuation.
      • Hraes, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3No, that's how it read, actually. Could have easily been clarified with a slightly different word choice.
      • corneliusJones, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Apparently you don't undestand jokes.
    • acephreak, on 04/15/2008, -0/+19Well, you know how video killed the radio star? It apparently also arrests people.
    • paulbobrookins, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11Yes. And later, they blinded her with science.
  • ventralnet, on 04/15/2008, -51/+14What a bunch of douche bags... I can't think of a more douchier (made that word up) thing to do..
    • ventralnet, on 04/15/2008, -28/+4well, for some reason i haven't been dugg down yet.. So I'll clarify that I meant the stupid kids are the douchebags not the cops
      • relic180, on 04/15/2008, -3/+3They were involved in a bit of douch baggery?
      • sqwirl, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up, I'll be digging you down now. :)
      • 11oops, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6Troll much? And, it's always a sure sign that you have failed at trolling when you have to return and clarify your statement.
        • ventralnet, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1well no... I just know that anything cop related digg will be on the side of the non cops
    • Fullvinyl, on 04/15/2008, -3/+13First off, no, you didn't coin "douchier". I've heard and said that many times before, so you're dugg down for unoriginality and hubris.

      Secondly, why are these people douchebags? Just because they did something a bit silly? They weren't hurting anyone. If I could digg you down again for making a stupid statement without defending it, I would.
      • ventralnet, on 04/15/2008, -16/+1But you can't so you kinda suck
        • RonBurgundy76, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6I'll digg you down for him, and I am sure others will join me.
        • apetrie, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6Don't worry, there are tons of other rational people who will come along and bury you for him.
          • ventralnet, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1rational people??? They were douche bags... well I guess you could also call them tool boxes
  • jbenson2, on 04/15/2008, -60/+31Buried for misleading headline.

    It was not the wrong question she was arrested for. RTFA - "The second video, posted below, shows the dancers arguing with Park Police officers about why they're being asked to leave."

    They were arrested for arguing with police officers and refusing to obey the police officers request.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/15/2008, -3/+10*She*, only one of them. Disorderly conduct.
    • PiKo85, on 04/15/2008, -3/+53It's not really a request if you have to obey it is it now?
      • ventralnet, on 04/15/2008, -21/+7They were being TOLD to leave then... details details
        • rabidg00se, on 04/15/2008, -3/+32The thing is, you CAN'T be told to leave without a good reason. It was way outside the officer's authority to arrest her, or even to attempt to order them to leave.
        • davdev, on 04/15/2008, -6/+35The police had no right to tell them to leave a public area. So they had every right to disobey
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/15/2008, -18/+5Lol. You sound like a future case of police brutality.


            Illegal assembly laws and disorderly conduct laws allow cops to make you leave public property any time they want. You just have to be more than one person or do anything that can be called disruptive.
          • davdev, on 04/15/2008, -3/+17So if a buddy and I are sitting on the steps of the memorial, the Police can make me leave because we are an illegal assembly. That is what your post implies, and I really hope you don't agree with that.
            I would gladly take a beating from a cop if I were doing something that is well within my rights as a citizen of this country. At least I could live with myself, which I could not do if I let anyone take away the rights that thousands have died for.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/15/2008, -15/+3"I would gladly take a beating from a cop if I were doing something that is well within my rights as a citizen of this country"

            You know who decides what your rights are? Everybody but you. Welcome to civilization.

            This is how it works: some guy does something stupid with his freedoms. People say: well stupid people can't have that freedom, so everybody loses it. And in the end you have a world of boundaries made for stupid people. So people who grow up within these boundaries are.... stupid! Because they never need to think for themselves, they can only follow the only route possible.
        • fajitamelt, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1@rabidgoose

          What the HELL do you mean without good reason? They were acting like six year olds in one of the nation's greatest memorials. That alone is a big disgrace to the country.
          • rabidg00se, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1But it's not against the law. 'Disgraceful' and illegal are two very different words.
    • Kyrgizion, on 04/15/2008, -3/+59If you do not break any laws or regulations, the police have nothing to order you about unless there's some emergency going on (fire, bomb threat, etc).
      • Bukkfrig, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0Would the majority of diggers view this differently if there was a memorial attendant involved, instead of just being straight-to-police? i.e. Flash-ipod-dance-party, attendant decides this is inappropriate and asks them to leave, she refuses to leave, attendant calls police/security to have them removed, she argues and refuses to leave, she gets arrested. I'm pretty sure most diggers would agree with the police officer's decision in that case. In the actual case, the memorial attendant is the policeman, and I don't see how this is any different.
        • imgstacke, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1They are employees of the Federal Government. That is what is at issue here.
    • dgaspard, on 04/15/2008, -6/+55The officers request was unreasonable.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 04/15/2008, -0/+13The officers request was unlawful. Fixed that one for ya.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Not to mention that the second video doesn't show any of her actions immediately preceding the arrest.

      It does show one woman still dancing after the cops have already told everybody to stop. Not sure if it's the same one.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4And why were they asked to leave? Because the officer didn't like them?
    • cersad, on 04/15/2008, -10/+5Correct me if I'm wrong, but once an officer of the law gives you an order aren't you required by law to obey--even for an unlawful order? I was under the impression that you could only contest the legality of a police officer's orders in a court of law, where these dancers certainly weren't.
      Sure, it was a frivolous arrest, but protesting to a police officer will get you nowhere, especially in the heat of the moment.
      • mrSt1klBak, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5That's circular logic you're using. The incident actually opened up the opportunity to contest this issue in a court of law. By your logic people will always have to succumb to frivolous arrests with an "oh well...what can ya do?" mentality. Police always need to be kept in check....always always always. If we just give them absolute power then we're just shutting the door to our own pen. Unfortunately it's a never ending struggle...
      • SquigglyP, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1if a cop ordered you to shoot a child, you are not required by law to follow through. Exaggerate the variables if you want to test a theory.

        In all honesty, I think cops - not all, but most cops - maybe become cops with good intentions, but after a few years it just becomes another routine. They get used to being right all the time, even when they're not. They start to expect people to just bow to everything they say or do out of fear. When someone stands up to them, the immediate reaction they have is to just make damn sure they 'win' whatever little contest of wills they think is going on. Criminal Justice becomes more like a game to them than criminal justice.

        If you ever get a chance to really sit down and get to know a cop - enough so that they are relaxed and just shooting the *****, trading job stories and ***** - you will hear some of the most disturbing travesties of justice you will ever hear. Just a few days ago I had a nice conversation with an off duty cop about his frequent drunk driving and how he can get out of being arrested by just flashing his badge.

        I don't hate cops, but it just happens that cops are people... and most people are prone to do really stupid *****.
      • cersad, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Well I guess I can count myself corrected. On the same token, however, does anyone have sources that point out when a citizen is and is not required to follow an officer's orders? Legalese original documents preferred.
    • NATED066, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9Cool... so the next time a police officer 'orders' you to give him a blowjob, you better comply.
      • zacharytelschow, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2and then contest the order in a court of law.
        • jellygraph, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1That's insane... you are basically saying that a police officer can violate you in any way and you have to comply and then contest it after you have been violated.

          What if an officer asked you to shoot yourself in the face? Yeah, I'm guessing your response is to comply first then contest the order in a court of law. *shakes head*
        • stealthc, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1That might be insane, but it's exactly how the system works right now.
      • OneLess, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Note to self: buy policeman costume after work tomorrow.
  • souljaboytellem, on 04/15/2008, -14/+100Sad for that woman, but a "silent dancing iPod flash party?" I could probably think of something more fun than that to celebrate my favorite founding father
    • tj111, on 04/15/2008, -3/+33Like Pot.
      • BleedingCello, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5I'd give you more thumbs^ if i could! 4/20 - this Sunday!
        • cjshamrock, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3yup! we all should smoke up and celebrate dancing in homage to LaGuardia
    • relic180, on 04/15/2008, -1/+38How about a big internet brouhaha about civil injustice that you and all your friends can all blog about?
      • laserblazer, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5The Bush Administration? It needs more than one Internet to really appreciate.
    • CroMagV2, on 04/15/2008, -15/+5If you really think these people were there to celebrate a founding father, you're high. They are just there to be controversial, outrageous assholes.
      • kelmaster1, on 04/15/2008, -4/+0ya, we might be missing something here... At least I hope so.
      • narcofiche, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Because a small group of people dancing silently is controversial and outrageous.
      • washburn085, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1The fact that it worked doesn't bother you? Imagine a world with no dance battles! People would just turn to violence..... but seriously, no matter what their motive was, the fact is they were doing it legally.
      • Dubstep, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3So then tell me CroMagV2, what exactly were their sinister motives?
    • Observer001, on 04/15/2008, -0/+25Jefferson would've liked for us to celebrate his birthday every fifty years or so with a revolution. ಠ_ಠ
    • bpoteat, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Yeah? So what did you do to celebrate? I'm going to be let down if it's nothing since you've got my interest peaked with the pride of your obviously superior imagination.
    • Pritchard, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Like invite us all with them!
    • Dubstep, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2That actually sounds like a lot of fun to do, I wouldn't knock it.
    • herkimer65, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Me too but it would entail doing what he did to become a FF.

      There is no way of denying the fact that violence is on the way in this country. We the People are continuing to take this ***** but will only do so for a limited time. The happy ending to that video would have been a group of people jumping out from behind the pillars and beating the ***** out of those cops and leaving copies of the Declaration of Independence on each one of them.
  • hauntedchippy, on 04/15/2008, -6/+287Oh Mr. Jefferson, this world needs you now more than ever.
    • malman4, on 04/15/2008, -0/+9He'd be here but he is Movin On Up.
    • relic180, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8He'd probably be assassinated on his third day. This world likes being broken.
    • DharmaDog, on 04/15/2008, -0/+19Pardon my hypocrisy, but this statement is indicative of why we can't seem to maintain our civil liberties in this country. Mr. Jefferson can't help us. It is up to us to help ourselves. We don't need Mr. Jefferson. We just need more people to place greater value in their freedom than in a false security and unquestioning obedience to a government that does not care for its people. It is up to us to say enough is enough. No one else will or can do it for us.

      I will now pipe down and return to my desk job.
      • hauntedchippy, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10You are quite right, we have to take responsibility for ourselves.
      • Intamin, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Oh, there you are Mr. Jefferson!
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/15/2008, -0/+15Bush and Cheney would put him in Gitmo for subversive activities - we can't have freedom in a time of war!
    • kidjesus, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Jefferson did a lot of good for this country -- some of it quasi-legally (the Louisiana Purchase) -- but do we really need a self-loathing slave owner now more than ever? I vote no.
  • radink360, on 04/15/2008, -12/+287You have the right to ask why and what you are being charged with. These ***** over powered cops need to be the ones in jail.
    • zizzybaloobah, on 04/15/2008, -4/+107Furthermore, you have the right to request the officers' names and badge numbers - these officers did not comply.
      • ByteGuerilla, on 04/15/2008, -2/+31If you can't get an officer's badge number, he is by extension secret police. The thought of secret police in a 'free' country is despicable.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 04/15/2008, -5/+13I think as a point of technicality, the right to ask what you're being charged with only applies after you've been arrested. If a cop just tells you to stop doing something, you should still have the right to ask why, but evidently you don't.

      Though it looks like she continued to dance after they told her to stop, and asked why while dancing? That's a pretty impolite thing to do. Should stop and then ask.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 04/15/2008, -1/+16I think the city's revenue generators, err, cops, were impolite to interrupt her dance. They had no legal right to even approach these people in a "law enforcing" manner, as they weren't violating any laws.
      • abuelos84, on 04/15/2008, -0/+16i agree, but whether it was polite or not, if it's not illegal the cop should stfu...
      • cersad, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5The catch is that disobeying official orders is a crime in some jurisdictions. They could charge her with that and forget about the legality of what they stopped her for in the first place.
        • BoneheadFarker, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5That's how you know you're living with fascism...
        • ADHD, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1...

          come on really? That when you need a better defense attorney
        • samby, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0Its not 'official orders' its an officer's *lawful* request. Look it up.
    • ABadPerson, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12NERF COPS
      • bonedead, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Haha yes! I was hoping someone else noticed the OPed cops reference.
    • nj10ii, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Were these rights in a amendment that I somehow missed? Where exactly do you think these 'rights' are given to you? Specifically !?!?
      • oldhick, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...

        That's called the First Amendment of this thing we call the Constitution. You might want to pay particularly close attention to "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble ..." Dancing is peaceful by most definitions. I didn't notice any violent moshing,