While protesting health care "reform" and collecting signatures on Capitol Hill, Young Americans for Liberty members were forced to leave by DC police due to a lack of a permit. The SWAT officer cited 36 CFR 7.96 under federal regulations to force the young group of liberty lovers to stop their freedom advancing activities.
I kinda of surprised that they didn't cite you for not having a permit. Well at least they gave YAL group an option that you cannot exercise your free speech here, so either leave or be arrested.
TyrantFighter: So this would mean if future protesters assembled in groups of 24, each group having different names, then they wouldn't need a permit.
American Youth for Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty, Liberty by American Youth, Liberty by Young Americans, Liberty: A Movement by Young Americans. I could go on and on...
Yeah. Or we could just storm the capital and refuse to leave. Would MLK have left without a permit because "Sergeant Dillon" told him to?
This is not a criticism of YAL's actions depicted in the video. Little would have been gained from offering themselves up to be tased or worse. But at some point we're going to need to have the conversation about how hard we want to push back against the absurd trampling of "inalienable" rights.
I agree, though being arrested would cause much harm to the lives of many of our supporters beyond suffering electrical shocks, billy clubbed, or pepper sprayed. I'm talking about something like the loss of a job and lifeline to support yourself and family.
While I agree that these regulations are unjust and need to be changed I'm not convinced that simply having the willingness to get arrested is going to result in progress. There has to be an intelligent to be more effective while practicing civil disobedience in a peaceful manner.
**There has to be an intelligent to be more effective method to practicing civil disobedience in a peaceful manner.
I think it would be a good idea to read these regulations to be more aware of what police will say when they do show up. Beyond that future protests should be more prepared to combat these restrictions. It is completely unacceptable to be forced to get a permit to practice free speech. Finding loopholes is a start, protesting the restrictions themselves could be another option.
Posted 08/02/09 12:59 PM andrewcagle College Station, TX
You don't need a permit to practice the Bill of Rights. YAL was completely in the right. I was surprised the SWAT guy didn't try to turn off the cameras. You also don't have to identify yourself or give a DL to police. I would have rather been arrested than hand over my rights to that guy. With the video evidence and lack of grounds for arrest they can't keep you for very long.
I dont think there is any need to antagonize the cop in this case. He is just doing his job, and as long as he doesn't show any disrespect to the protestors, we should show him the same respect. This way we will gain more peoples support and not look like some fringe group. If a permit is required get a permit. If you are going to protest then make sure you know the rules. This seemed somewhat disorganized and in the end did not accomplish much. That cop potentially could of been a new supporter. The comment about the 1st amendment being more important then the local code was a good point. You could see it made the policeman think twice. We need to educate not antagonize people.
Hrm, somehow I expect that the "law" he was citing was in fact a statute. I seem to recall hearing that there's a difference between statute and law, and that failing to distinguish between the two is "Gross negligence," which is equal to fraud. We ought to look into that.
I was there and it was basically a giant joke. There were two D.C metro cops who were being annoyed that we were close to them so they called in the SWAT team. The current regulations say that 25 or less people and you don't need a permit.
We would have put up a larger fight, but it was actually around the time period where we had to go back to The Leadership Institute.
D.C. doesn't give a crap about the Constitution. Never has and never will.
fadestyle_
Comparing this to Nuremburg is pretty funny.
Calling police traitors will just make sure next time they come with closed minds. I have found when confronting people with an educated approach, that most people want liberty. The movement is growing, so antagonizing and not being prepared is not the way to win over new supporters.
Matt In Hoboken,
So what he used some leverage. The guy was not prepared for the confrontation, the cop read right thru him. If we want to grow more support then I dont think that was the best way to do it.
Your arrest probably would have ended up in a ticket or a ride to be booked and released. Preparation for such instances (ride to pick those up who decide to challenge and are taken. Figuring out who will be taken and who will post bail, if required) If you have enough people there is no permit required, they will be overwhelmed. That is when the fun starts, they will close streets and start trying to restore order no matter how orderly you are if they perceive a threat or you are impeding traffic. Funny that they will impede much more traffic to stop the people from impeding traffic.
If they where protesting something politically correct there would be no problem. Because politically correct mainstream media would've been called out to cover protest for 'The Campaign to Prevent Cats from being Spayed' on the 3rd. Saturday of every even numbered month at 2.30pm.
Something as important as letting people know about freedom and the law of the land (U.S. constitution). Well, that's out of bounds to the authorities.
Perhaps we should carry our own tasers when protesting, to remind them that we are equals under the law, and their violation of our enumerated rights has consequences, too, if our violation of some laboriously written statute does.
"Am I required by law to answer that question?" is one line that I will try to remember to ask of any bully with a badge.
Fadedstyle, I deeply respect and admire the fire, resolve and conviction in your heart. I share this with you. However, I have something EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for EVERYONE to know. I just hope this doesn't get overlooked as just another message. I was introduced to the Truth by a good friend I met at college. That was a pivotal point in my life, when I started realizing something was wrong, and I was lucky to have met him when I did. He is also a former Marine.
He was the most intelligent man I have ever met in my life. When he got divorced, the court and government put him through the meat grinder, and he was destroyed by the system. He was forced to learn law in order to defend his liberty and his property (your life is also part of your property). Anyway, He taught me that every ordnance and city code is unconstitutional, without exception by their very nature. They all deal in the law of commerce, also called admiralty, which can only be exercised on bodies of water. The Constitution (which is based on common law) is the law of the land. This is important.
Most every city and town in the country is now incorporated. Every state is incorporated. The United States is a corporation. Every county is incorporated. Every government entity and every military branch are corporations. Now, here's the important part. One day I accompanied my friend to court as he fought against a citation for his dogs running loose. When he put one of the officers who beat and arrested him on the witness stand, he actually got the cop to admit that the city police force is a PARAMILITARY police force. Also, as far as I know, corporate city policemen and judges have not taken an oath to the Constitution for the United States of America. Also important, is that because of this, city police officers are unconstitutionally enforcing commercial city code onto us. Therefore, it is NOT their job to defend and protect us, or the constitution.
THE ONLY LAWFUL LAWMEN IN THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY ARE THE COUNTY SHERIFFS AND THEIR DEPUTIES. Everyone must know this! The Sheriff is the most powerful person in the county, and has the authority to arrest judges and anyone, it doesn't matter who it is, inside his jurisidiction. You must know that city police officers have no constitutional authority to be lawmen, so do not expect them to serve the constitution. Now this may anger some people, but I will not apologize for this comment, because it's the truth. I'm just the messenger. If you feel your rights are violated, have an affidavit ready and contact your Sheriff. Only the Sheriff and his/her deputies are real lawmen.
"Something should be done about 36 CFR 7.96, is there a way to challenge this statute or remove it?"
Gharalam, something should be done about all federal code. Code is not law. The CFR and UCC have no lawful effect on the soil of the Republic. Abolish it all.
Modern Day Patriot, thank you for the valuable information above. I will save it-wasn't aware of some of the things you mentioned. One thing though. You mentioned your friend being cited for his dogs running loose. I don't know how most people feel about that, but here in Dr. Paul's hometown, dogs have to be in a fenced yard or inside our houses. Whether it's constitutional or not, I'm glad dogs can't run loose here. I'm sure, however, the reason your friend went to court is because he said he was abused by the police. That's cause for going to court, of course.
Perhaps we should carry our own tasers when protesting, to remind them that we are equals under the law, and their violation of our enumerated rights has consequences, too, if our violation of some laboriously written statute does.
"Am I required by law to answer that question?" is one line that I will try to remember to ask of any bully with a badge.
Posted 08/02/09 10:25 PM amisspelledword Highland Heights, KY
Regardless, as thomasjlkastner said earlier, I think it would be a good idea to look into this sort of thing before planning any future protests. While it may or may not be right, these YAL people did end up having to leave. Isn't it safe to assume that their work would've been much more productive if they were informed and got the proper permits and were out there protesting all day long instead of getting asked to leave? Maybe next time you guys can protest having to get permits to protest (I think it's silly, too.).
Ok, as a police officer (not a sheriff) and one who did take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution (again, not a Sheriff and sheriffs are not the only ones to take the oath = military, politicians, judges, etc do as well) I feel I need to step in here with a voice of reason.
First, while he was a smart ass, the Sergeant was doing his job. It is the statute (or law...whatever you want to call it) that requires a permit. THAT is what needs to be changed. You have to remember that the officer is "just doing his job". Now, that being said, you cannot expect an officer to give up his job (which he would do if he did not enforce that law and his superiors found out about it) to make a statement as a few of you have advocated. This is not a statement that would be worth losing their job over. Unlawful orders are where to take the stand for those of us in law enforcement. Disagree with the statute restricting free speech? Of course, and so do I, but you must remember to pick your battles.
I would suggest finding out what the ordinances/statutes/laws are BEFORE going to do something like this. KNOW your rights and restrictions. Also, I've seen comments in other places where this video is posted (Facebook) and here, suggesting a "storming of the castle" with mass numbers. You must remember that in something as simple as a protest, you WILL LOSE. Plain and simple. While they may not have the numbers at first, you can guarantee that they will very shortly. Radios travel faster than you on foot and it is only a matter of time. All it takes is for one wrong thing to happen by someone on either side of that line to have another Boston Massacre happen and NO ONE wants that. That being said, EVERYONE here must remember that not ALL police officers are the bad guys. We wear the uniform of the government so we take the brunt of the criticism. We don't make the laws. We are tasked with the problem of how to enforce them. You would be surprised at how many officers, members of the military, etc that are VERY sympathetic to our views but are either: one, scared of losing their jobs if they speak out, or two, are just not as educated as the rest of us yet on liberty and the liberty movement.
Those of you that advocate anarchy...do you REALLY want that? Love them or hate them, police officers are supposed to be there to protect your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I doubt that those that advocate anarchy have enough ammunition to protect themselves if there was no law enforcement. Many of the laws and statutes that need to be removed are those that restrict our freedoms. That takes time and dedicated effort and they will not be changed on a standoff with the police in one afternoon. Are there bad apples in law enforcement? Absolutely, but it is usually only the bad apples that get the recognition on the news, or places like these forums. Again, remember....there are many of us like myself out there...we're not all "fascists in black jumpsuits"....
We have to remember that first and foremost, the C4L advocates non-violence. That being said, we all must remember that the bricks built around our freedoms, the bricks built in our expansive empire, the bricks built around our natural rights were not built overnight. This has taken place over a LONG time. It therefore will also take a long time to turn it all around. We must remember to do it the right way, or we will not garner the support of the people we are liberty activists for....
If we are gonna prevent socialism, we MUST stop the upcoming health care plan, or referred to as the OBAMACARE.
AT THE SAME TIME, we must be aware of our civil rights, surroundings, laws, and other restrictions.
By the way, here's a link that I believe all of us (especially Mike K.) might be interested in. CHECK IT OUT AND SPREAD THE MESSAGE!
http://www.usa1911.com/
ALSO, we need to organize another Revolution parade, even more epic with more people than last summer @ D.C.
LET EVERY AMERICAN MARCH ON THE STREETS AND TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!
Posted 08/03/09 01:49 AM Son Of Liberty New Brighton, PA
After the convention you guys should go back to the same place and put up a fight. don't back down to the police state. get video and audio recordings from multiple people. tell the aclu.
Posted 08/03/09 02:07 AM BrendonDeMeo North Chelmsford, MA
First of all, this made me really regret I was not able to attend the YAL conference. Secondly, I am extremely excited about starting up a YAL chapter on my campus now - I was before but now I'm even more so. It's an honor to be a part of such an organization, especially since they protested well enough to tick off some goons.
I also agree with the reaction - there really wasn't much more YAL could've done. If they chose the jail option they all would've had to peacefully let the cops cuff them one by one and put them into the military transport vehicle, or else they would've been cited for resisting arrest, a charge many judges will throw the book at you for. I also think the cops were goons though - probably Obamaniacs who got pissy due to the YAL message. And Sergeant Dillweed wasn't just doing his job, he was being an arrogant jerk as we can plainly see: "You don't have free speech..." that's the clincher. Although I do agree with the posters who say that a cop has to follow orders and I wouldn't blame any cop who did what Diller did. I'm just glad I'm not a cop.
There will be the right time and the right place to put up a bigger fight and get arrested, in the future. We should all prepare for such things one day incase we're the ones called upon by fate to bear the burden of the struggle for liberty that day. But we must not seek trouble all the time either.
Posted 08/03/09 11:22 AM patriot1313 Dickson City, PA
"Sergeant" Dillon was very honest. "You don't have free speech." He is a slave like the rest of us. Do as your told if you want your paycheck. Our government has all of us "over the barrel" already. So what happens when they finally destroy the Dollar? Will "Sergeant" Dillon be as loyal when he is not getting paid, or getting paid in a useless, hyper inflated dollar? Does he know, or will he remember what it is to be an American. If he is not sure, he can read The Constitution of the United States of America. Liberty will prevail.
MichaelKoffenberger, you make some good points. Although many who believe in liberty see police and military as arms of an over-powerful state, we should all remember that the presidential candidate that got the most support from the military was Dr. Paul.
As a police officer, I hope you can give some valuable insight. In your opinion, why did it not work when the YAL member cited the Constitution as supreme law? Did he not frame the argument correctly? For example, what if he had said the following:
"You've cited the CFR, and I've cited the U.S. Constitution. They both have jurisdiction, and they're both still on the books. My holding this protest sign violates a federal regulation, but you stopping me from holding this sign violates the supreme law of the land. So, how do we decide which to follow? Which is the higher authority?"
I'm really curious how an officer would or should react. Maybe it doesn't make a difference how you phrase it. Still, what does a policeman do when there are some obviously conflicting laws/statutes/regulations?
Also, on the note about anarchy... Anarchy simply means no government. Contracts are still enforceable, as is common law, but I think your question is "enforceable by whom?" It isn't necessary for each individual to stock up on ammo. Rather: it's likely that individuals, HOAs, townships, and other sundry co-operatives would hire private security. Through the market, those that provided the best services would gain great reputations and be successful. Those firms that are corrupt, slow, brutal, or simply don't protect their clients well enough would go out of business. If the transition from government to anarchy is correct, I don't believe that "Anarchy = Mad Max." That post-apocalyptic standard of living is inferior to most people's ideals, so the market wouldn't allow it.
Any officer who makes an oath to "uphold the Constitution" ought to do just that. The "it's the law's fault; change it" argument is a weak excuse for failing in your duty to understand and protect our rights. Likewise, expecting cops to be state-certified lawyers in order to uphold a code that was written to CHECK THE STATE is insulting to both the cops and the victims.
Unless the protesters are damaging/obstructing someone's property or other personal liberties, peaceful protests need no permission by the State or anyone else for that matter. Liberty is a guaranteed freedom, inherent in the individual, not something dolled out by some higher authority. Permit-requirements circumvent this fact while presuming "offenders" to be instigators of actual crimes. Any officer upholding such laws is doing the exact opposite of protecting the peace. More cops should realize this.
There is an easy way to avoid this problem. Stop protesting as "The Young Americans for Liberty" and start protesting as individuals. When you are a group in numbers, you are a threat to the public safety, therefore they require a permit. But if everyone is there on their own accord, exercising their rights individually, what could they do? Even if you are a part of a group with 50 other members of your group, you should be acting in the capacity of a citizen and nothing else.
"The comment about the 1st amendment being more important then the local code was a good point. You could see it made the policeman think twice."
I made that comment. I was hoping Trevor would have made the discussion from this angle. Or the fact that this wasn't a protest but that we were just out here to bring awareness to alternatives to Government run health care.
Swingset said: "As a police officer, I hope you can give some valuable insight. In your opinion, why did it not work when the YAL member cited the Constitution as supreme law? Did he not frame the argument correctly?"
Courts have found that states have the right to be more restrictive than what is stated in the Constitution in many cases. In my opinion (as well as all of yours), the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and freedom of speech is just that and should not be restricted. It will take action and pressure on the legislature to change that permit requirement OR having someone test it in court. The problem with anyone seeking justice to take it all the way to the Supreme Court is that it costs a TON of money to do so. Sad isn't it? I don't think that there is anything the YAL group could have done during that confrontation to change policy, procedure, or anything at that moment in time.
AuthenticAuthor stated: "Any officer who makes an oath to "uphold the Constitution" ought to do just that. The "it's the law's fault; change it" argument is a weak excuse for failing in your duty to understand and protect our rights. Likewise, expecting cops to be state-certified lawyers in order to uphold a code that was written to CHECK THE STATE is insulting to both the cops and the victims. "
It may be a "weak" excuse, but until we start changing the mindset of the average police officer, and better yet, obtaining legislative offices to change the laws ourselves, there is not much that can be done at this point. Sad to say but brute force will be met with brute force. Keep in mind that I am not defending the officer in the way he handled it...in my opinion, he was a smart ass and could have handled it way better than he did. Like I mentioned above, states have been allowed by the Supreme Court to make laws more restrictive. I would love to see the "permit for free speech" case make its way all the way to the top. Until change happens, some of the officers that are drones to the exact letter of the law (and I work with some although not all are like that) will not be able to listen to the valid arguments that you are all making.
AuthenticAuthor also stated: "Unless the protesters are damaging/obstructing someone's property or other personal liberties, peaceful protests need no permission by the State or anyone else for that matter. Liberty is a guaranteed freedom, inherent in the individual, not something dolled out by some higher authority."
I fully and 100% agree with you. I am no legal expert but this may be 100% valid in one area and completely opposite in another due to the laws that are passed. This is why C4L is so important. We need to get into offices, change mindsets, and return liberty to the people. There is no other way to do it.
Fadestyle stated: "what the heck do you mean you shouldn't expect someone to give up their job to follow the constitution. thats the biggest bunch of bologna i have ever heard. then why swear an oath to it? why is their cases that state if an unconstitutional order is given an officer is obligated and has the DUTY to disobey. whos side is this guy on?"
See above arguments about states being allowed to be more restrictive. I don't know how else to spell it out that I am ON THE SIDE OF LIBERTY. You cannot expect a police officer to lose his job if a permit is required and he/she ignores that requirement. I said in my first post above about not following unlawful orders - those are the orders I will gladly disobey and would gladly lose my job over...these silly laws passed restricting free speech have to be challenged in the courts and the legislatures as I mentioned. For example, let's say that the YAL group had 23 people on scene. 25 and over requires a permit. This Sgt for whatever reason says that he wants you as an officer to make them leave even though they do not meet the requirement for a permit...that is an unlawful order. If you want every officer out there to disobey an unconstitutional order, then every officer would have to quit tomorrow. There are a TON of restrictive laws that I consider unconstitutional that many do not. I'd gladly talk about that in a private conversation rather than here on a public forum.
Champion of Liberty - I would agree with your post 100% except that in each jurisdiction, the laws are all different. Where you need a permit in the area where YAL was, you may not need one in another. Many major cities have very restrictive demonstration requirements.
_____________________________________________________
As a side note (I wanted to bring this up in the previous post but thought it was too long already), everyone must be aware of other things that police departments ask their officers to do. For instance, where I work (which is NOT a major city but outside of one) when there is a protest, demonstration, or whatever, an officer is tasked with: finding out what the group's name is if there is one, finding out who the main organizer is, finding out what they are there for, whether it is supposed to be peaceful or not, finding out the total number of people involved and then putting all of that in a report to be sent to all the higher ups. Wrong or right, I am just letting you know so that if you are asked you will know already why you are being asked for this information. Also be aware that because of large protests turned violent (i.e. the G8 conference or WTO conferences in Seattle and such) state and local jurisdictions are scared $h!^$$$ that something like that will happen in their jurisdiction. Therefore, most if not all SWAT/Tactical units are riot trained, most large departments train all of their officers on some sort of riot training, and many large departments train special squads to deal with large protests. All are made with the protection of life and property in mind, but that is why seeing the Sgt in this video (in a SWAT uniform) did not surprise me like some others and those in the video. There is no doubt in my mind that DC Metro and the Park Police (which is larger than DC Metro) has riot training and have special squads just for protests...they'd be fools not to have them. I offer this information to try and educate a little on why you may see officers in SWAT style uniforms in large metropolitan areas at protests. It's not that they called SWAT on you, it's just that is the way it is.
Finally, as a county coordinator for the C4L and a police officer, I hear all kinds of comments and such from people not believing that a police officer believes in the Constitution. One of the guys in my station has my Ron Paul "Revolution" book and they all know what I support and believe in...most listen. Like I mentioned in my previous post, it is going to take a lot of time and effort AND education to change the hearts and minds of not only the general public but the police, legislators, judges, etc. You guys also have to remember that the job, for the most part, sucks. Sure it is great to be able to actually help someone in a meaningful way, or to get a really evil person off of the streets, but just like here, "Monday morning quarterbacks" are everywhere. A police officer (99% of which have no law degree) has to make a split decision in a few seconds that could have a profound impact on someone's life and their life. This decision will be argued about over and over during days, weeks, months and in some cases, years. Are some in the job for the wrong reasons? Absolutely and I've said that before. Sorry for the long rant...I just get tired of hearing "F the police" all the time.
This is a failure by YAL to stand up for their rights. Its the cops job to enforce 36 CFR 7.96 and a jurys job to declare them innocent and the law unconstitutional. That's how it works in this country.
"Champion of Liberty - I would agree with your post 100% except that in each jurisdiction, the laws are all different. Where you need a permit in the area where YAL was, you may not need one in another. Many major cities have very restrictive demonstration requirements."
I do understand the concept of obtaining a permit to lawfully demonstrate as a group. People were asking for the "loophole" if you will, and I am simply stating that in order to get around having to obtain a permit, people need not say they are affiliated with a group. Do you ever see officers harassing someone when the person is the only one on the street corner, or outside a building holding a sign? No, because he isn't a threat to the safety of the public, in their eyes of course. So this is what you do, when you're getting your friends together, or an organization your affiliated with, you all arrive to the site of the protest, or what have you, "by yourself". When asked by an officer "who you're here with", your response need be "I am by myself, and I don't know any of these people. I am acting only in the capacity of a concerned citizen, and nothing else." Or something of that nature, word it how you like. This IS how it's done.
And if anyone has any other questions about how it should be done, feel free to PM me and I would be more than happy to help. :)
i agree with most of your points. most importantly, that it is the police officer's responsibility to enforce the law, and that unconstitutional laws should be fought in the court room.
the way i see it, it's a separation of power- there are the lawmakers and the law enforcers, and these two should remain independent of each other, otherwise an abuse of power is more likely to happen.
Thank you to mcheffer, Champion of Liberty and Two-if-by-Sea in understanding the point of what I was trying to get across. I appreciate it. Also, I second your statement: "the way i see it, it's a separation of power- there are the lawmakers and the law enforcers, and these two should remain independent of each other, otherwise an abuse of power is more likely to happen"
In those two long replies I typed, there is nowhere in them where I stated that: I agreed with how it was handled by the Sgt, that I support what the Sgt did, that I agree with the law, or that I would do the same thing in the Sgt's position. I specifically did not state those because I do not agree with what happened and I would most definitely have handled the situation different...even under that ridiculous law of needing a permit for free speech. I was hoping to show both sides as well as a reasoned way of looking at the situation. I knew when I typed it that some would jump on the messenger and question where I stand....
This forum thread didn't get as out of control as the one I saw on Alex Jone's forums in reference. Read that and you'll see why I typed what I did here....
MichaelKoffenberger : Michael, my friend, nobody is jumping on you here. :) This forum, and its threads should always be kept open to intelligent, truth seeking ideas and debate, and I would happily engage in debate over any of these issues outlined.
As well, I wanted to ask you a question Michael, since you are an officer, we can make things interesting for the people who have subscribed to this thread. I know you have told me that you would handle this differently, but answer this, how would the department take it, aside from you if this situation occurred:
100 people begin protesting during you're shift at the local Town Hall about increased spending and taxation. When you arrive to the scene with your fellow officers, you conduct and investigation like any officer would. Upon completion of walking around and asking all of the 100 people "who they are with", the officers find that they all said something similar to "I am here in my own capacity, as a citizen and nothing else."
What would the department say? And would the higher ups try to make you arrest the people? Or push you to try to lure them into admitting to them being a part of a group? I am curious.
MichaelKoffenberger, did you know that it is not unheard of for police to incite riots, just to attack them and break them up? http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/spp_montebello_provacateur_cops_caught_red_h anded.htm
While I believe that there are some good cops out there - Jack Lamb comes to mind first and foremost - the most decorated police officers in Phoenix, AZ history, there are many that aren't.
My friend was at work when his dogs got past his handicapped wife and ran out the door, that's why they were loose. She called him at work, and he came home and got the dogs back in his yard, and just then the cops showed up with guns. They pulled out a long-barreled gun and aimed it at his dog, and I can't remember exactly what happened, but the dogs were safe, and he got them back in his house, and they still issued him a citation. When I was in the courthouse, as I walked past the city attorney and a few of the cops, I heard them making distasteful comments about my friend, including the part where they said "they couldn't wait until they" and I didn't hear the next word, then they said his name. The whole mock trial long, every attempt to get put on the record was marginalized and objected to by the city attorney, and the judge upheld the objection, to the point where he couldn't get a damn sentence in to defend himself (very common, and not an isolated incident). Not to mention the cop I sat next to on the bench in the back of the courtroom had his hand on his gun, chest bulged out with his lungs filled to the brim with air, looking all macho. I'm glad you say you support the constitution, but from my experiences, city police (at least in my area) are nothing more than revenue agents for the city corporation, collecting money from fines, citations, etc. enforcing Roman civil law, and they prevent people from attempting to live within the common law that governs the Republic. No one forced these people to become city police officers, they chose their path of their own volition. Again, I'm not trying to criticize you, just stating facts.
What they should of said, was they where not with any organization and everyone came there spontaneously. Only organized groups of 25 or more are required to have a permit. Individuals can protest all they want. That is why in the video the female cop firsts trys to identify an organization and leader, then count. He should of said their is no leader and we are not organized. This is a spontaneous and unplanned and uncoordinated protest and does not require a permit.
Modern Day Patriot : First off, you cant let one bad apple spoil the bunch, there are many good officers out there and I'm sure MichaelKoffenberger is one of them. Regardless of how free a country is, and how the officers uphold that freedom, there will always be corruption period. It is our job as citizens to take these people to court and make sure they are fired or worse. Secondly, sorry to hear about you're friend. But in this situation do you feel bad for him? If he'd sought education in this department, you're friend wouldn't have been handled the way he was. Educating yourself on philosophy and ideas is a wonderful thing. But there is a difference between what is philosophical and what is practical. As well as being philosophical, you need to know how to engage your opponent and make sure that you always have the upper hand, by being prepared in court and making sure you understand the law and what you are trying to accomplish upside-down and inside-out.
Thank you for all of this information. We do realize that police are put in a difficult position every day, and that there are a LOT of cops (I'd say the majority, really) are on our side. I'm also aware that drug laws, among others, are mostly used by beat cops to get potentially dangerous folks off the streets quickly, as opposed to waiting around for them to do something.
Nevertheless, it is frustrating to see a police car in your rearview mirror and wonder if you're going to get pulled over and for what! If that's the first thought a person has about seeing a police officer, and I would also guess that's the majority of folks' first reaction these days, then I think there's an image problem, at least.
County, State, National, what exact kind of park this was is unimportant to me, but other than the reaching for his taser, I don't see anything wrong here by the police.
I read 36 CFR 7.96. It's got what I think is a not unreasonable set of regulations. First of all:
"The term ‘‘demonstrations’’ includes demonstrations,
picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which
involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers."
The demonstrators weren't doing anything wrong, per se. But they definitely met that requirement. And it's a reasonable definition. A park space isn't specificaly intended for demonstration purposes. So providing a level of administrative control is not unreasonable. Now, had the permit been denied...
And there's also this:
Demonstrations and special events may be held only pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with the provisions of this
section except:
(i) Demonstrations involving 25 persons or fewer may be held without a permit provided that the other conditions
required for the issuance of a permit are met and provided further that the group is not merely an extension of another group already availing itself of the 25-person maximum under this provision or will not unreasonably interfere with other demonstrations or special
events."
Again, I don't see anything unreasonable here. There's a lot more in the CFR chapter on this, including a few areas that are never granted permit. But in this particular case, I don't see an unreasonable effort by police. Nor, by the way, did I see anything unreasonable by demonstrators. If there were fewer than 25, the the law gives them the right to assemble without permit. But the group didn't establish this.
IMO, the people at fault weren't the police or the demonstrators. It was the organizers. This isn't a hidden or secret law. Nor is it vague or ill-defined. The organizers did not do their homework.
also, The first officer was respectful and the kid was dancing around tyring to be smart. If he wouldve just answered the question and not try and act smart by saying " you mean how much people we have nationally?" the first officer might have helped quell the orotund serjeant.
If you are willing to get arrested and challenge the code that is up to you. Or you can write your congressman to repel the code. Other then that you are stuck for options.
I hope you learned a lesson here.
Posted 08/04/09 11:14 AM TheeVagabond Abingdon, MD
I think in part the reason you hear a lot of people want to be defiant is because we feel still even after this movement powerless. We want to live up to our Founding Father's reputation of defiance towards tyranny. In all honesty I believe they would of caused quite a scene much earlier than now.
We as a people are frustrated and still not sure what to do. We feel a strong passion to give up everything, but we think of our children, wives, loved ones close to us and wonder if we can make that sacrifice. I work a full time job, planning a wedding, and trying to save money for a house. The government has made it not impossible, but very hard to make it to the top today. Sir, you are exactly right when you state,
"The problem with anyone seeking justice to take it all the way to the Supreme Court is that it costs a TON of money to do so."
What can we do? Get like minded people to get inside and change it back to the way it us, but the enemy has had a century to firmly put up their defenses.
On a side note apologies for saying "We" a lot. I do not try to assume I know what everyone is think, just an educated guess.
This thread is an example of a growing problem for C4L as it becomes more popular. It seems that more and more of the people who comment on C4L blogs are less interested in promoting Liberty than they are in arguing for a more efficient use violent coercion by the state. If I wanted to join a discussion about how police should do their jobs when threatening to use violence against peaceful people to enforce restrictions against their right to practice free speech I could go to thinblueline.com and read about it for days. How long did that discussion go on? Did anyone even bring up the non-aggression principal? Here's a hint: You can't be "pro-liberty" and be an advocate of using violence against peaceful people. Next thing we'll be doing is discussing which elements of the Patriot Act are the best for protecting us from "terrists" who want to take away our freedom! Is Hannity logged on under an assumed name again? My guess is somebody here is a GOP operative sent to dumb down the conversations. Well, done. Bravo. This is starting to remind me of what happened at bureaucrash.
MichaelKoffenbergar, I did not mean for my post to be directed at you. I should had made that clear. Personally, I feel that you are absolutely right to point out the perspectives of officers; those perspectives are indeed necessary for all Liberty-minded activists to consider, even if they are misguided. Like you, I despise "@*%& the police" attitudes, since they put passion before reason.
If we are to fight against tyranny, it should be done with the grace and respect that Liberty provides. As you've pointed out, that is a winning formula. Putting this aside, however, I seriously wonder how many cops would refuse to act on behalf of unjust orders, whether they're permitted by the Supreme Court or not. For example, can we all remember that "imminent domain" debacle? What about taxes? I suspect that number to be very very few, especially with respect to drug laws.
Michael, here's hoping whatever good you do is greatly rewarded. Seriously, it must suck 24/7 for a good cop. The system seems set up against you.
Well, I don't have much to add. I liked a lot of your points, and appreciated the information you provided Michael. In all honesty, back in my more ornerier days, I've had plenty of dealings with the police, and I have to say that I would've taken the Sgt in the video clip over 90% of the ones I've ran into that didn't seem to give a damn about actually protecting citizens, but how to find some ticket / fine to impose on them.
I believe that the police could do a lot more to protect our rights by refusing to uphold laws that are unconstitutional. However, I also believe that we need to show respect to the police who are doing a very hard job and doing what they believe is right. Rather than argue with the police, it might help to educate them. I wonder what the officer in this video would have done if the young man had taken time to explain what they believe. Of course, I didn't see everything--maybe he tried. Anyway, this is a great video. I think we should keep doing our best to stand up for our rights.
The problem here is that power only understands one thing, the threat of superior power. As a police officer how do you enforce your authority when it is in question? You do it at gun point or with a taser. I think it is a bit hypocritical to tell people to be non-violent when you are prepared to use violence in the line of duty to enforce the law for the state. Sounds a bit like double-think, in other words simultaneously holding two opposing beliefs as true.
What protesters need is their own method to enforce the threat of superior power. Our forefathers didn't get anywhere by asking the British empire to change the rules. At some point the threat of superior force must be brought to bear on the powers that be. Look at the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King only got real traction once the alternative of Malcolm X was presented. What we need is a modern day Malcolm X alternative to Ron Paul. Power will be more receptive to the message once they understand that Ron Paul's path is the middle road, not the extreme that will erupt when the impoverished get angry and uncomfortable.
We don't want the police to think we are on equal footing, we want them to know we are their bosses! From what I have seen police receive very little combat training of marginal quality. This makes them jumpy and dangerous when they feel threatened. Challenging their authority leads to them feeling threatened and not in control. I think the best approach is to try and have a rational discussion and convert them, but when push comes to shove be prepared to deal with a nervous cop with a gun. In other words don't bring a taser to a gun fight.
Perhaps having a law student or lawyer present would be helpful. If you can get someone educated in the law to take the time to pursue your legal issues, police might think twice about which is the greater threat to their jobs. The "justice" system tends to analyze most decisions as cost/benefit analysis. If we can cost them more money and time than it is worth they will shift their strategy to more profitable areas.
The problem here is that power only understands one thing, the threat of superior power. As a police officer how do you enforce your authority when it is in question? You do it at gun point or with a taser. I think it is a bit hypocritical to tell people to be non-violent when you are prepared to use violence in the line of duty to enforce the law for the state. Sounds a bit like double-think, in other words simultaneously holding two opposing beliefs as true.
What protesters need is their own method to enforce the threat of superior power. Our forefathers didn't get anywhere by asking the British empire to change the rules. At some point the threat of superior force must be brought to bear on the powers that be. Look at the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King only got real traction once the alternative of Malcolm X was presented. What we need is a modern day Malcolm X alternative to Ron Paul. Power will be more receptive to the message once they understand that Ron Paul's path is the middle road, not the extreme that will erupt when the impoverished get angry and uncomfortable.
We don't want the police to think we are on equal footing, we want them to know we are their bosses! From what I have seen police receive very little combat training of marginal quality. This makes them jumpy and dangerous when they feel threatened. Challenging their authority leads to them feeling threatened and not in control. I think the best approach is to try and have a rational discussion and convert them, but when push comes to shove be prepared to deal with a nervous cop with a gun. In other words don't bring a taser to a gun fight.
Perhaps having a law student or lawyer present would be helpful. If you can get someone educated in the law to take the time to pursue your legal issues, police might think twice about which is the greater threat to their jobs. The "justice" system tends to analyze most decisions as cost/benefit analysis. If we can cost them more money and time than it is worth they will shift their strategy to more profitable areas.
"Free speech" is not and never has been the right to speak however, wherever, and whenever we choose. And and all of those can be regulated to some degree where public safety is a concern.
If we concede to federal government the right to create these public park spaces, then government has the right to administer them, and this regulation is *administrative*, not restrictive. You *can* speak out. But if you do so in numbers of advocates, then some administration is required beforehand. This isn't new, and is upheld by judicial precedent.
I don't know about the participants at the park site, but the organizers should have known this.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
