Updates from jdtalley Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • jdtalley 3:09 am on April 10, 2010 Permalink | Reply  

    anticlimactic: http://ow.ly/1wLKL

    Advertisements
     
  • jdtalley 12:25 am on April 8, 2010 Permalink | Reply  

    This was not the change I was looking for. http://ow.ly/1vRUs

     
  • jdtalley 2:53 pm on April 25, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Wow. 

    From the comments:

    If a cop tells you to do something, DO IT. Once we stop respecting authority, the whole system is broken.

    Hmm, there was some guy one time who took a different view. What was it that he said?

    [R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual

    Who was that again? Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson.

     
    • Jason Sonenshein 10:12 pm on April 25, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Once authority ceases to be respectable, the whole system is broken.

    • jdtalley 11:30 pm on April 27, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Awesome.

    • Galen Rice 2:19 pm on April 29, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      I wonder what right you believe is being violated. The right to assembly, you would say?

      In the court cases I’ve read related to the First Amendment, the right to peaceful assembly is taken as:

      “The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties of the National Government…”

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1efrag7_user.html#amdt1e_hd19

      Now, it does not say I can assemble wherever I feel like, peaceful or otherwise, and claim that I have a right to be there. If you want to peacefully assemble in, say, the Oval Office, by all means try it.

      I’m not saying we shouldn’t be able to go wherever we please as human beings if we have no intention of causing harm, but perhaps your time would be better spent arguing about the Patriot Act, or the inordinate amount of searching that goes on at a typical airport, or speed limit laws, or any number of other statutes that limit you from doing something for the benefit of some “greater good”.

      Yet first you must define this “right” you speak of. And don’t you dare quote the First Amendment: after all, it is the “tyrant’s will”, is it not?

    • bob 10:39 am on May 2, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      And the next sentence: “The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States.”

      I’d say that gathering at the Jefferson Memorial to peacefully honor the contributions of the author of the Declaration of Independence to our republic–to celebrate his ideas and by extension to demonstrate objections to our government’s departure from them–pretty well fits the bill, wouldn’t you?

    • Galen Rice 1:33 pm on May 2, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      “…for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.”

      The gathering began as a celebration of an historical figure. That is neither a “consultation [on] public affairs” nor a “petition for a redress of grievances.”

      What happened at the end of the gathering may be an example of the government’s departure from Jefferson’s ideas, but you’re claiming that we’ve entered a time warp of some kind: that the arrest caused the dance party to be held there in the first place.

      So no, it does not “fit the bill.”

    • Tom Bux 10:55 pm on May 3, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      I love that quote from Jefferson. It is very similar to Paine’s harm principle.

    • Sisyphos 5:55 pm on May 6, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      The whole thing is just unbelievable. I wish you all the best, especially for Brooke of course. You are some sort of Liberty-heroes! 🙂

      Regards from Switzerland

    • bob 5:12 pm on May 7, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      With all due respect, Galen, it was his contributions to the republic, and not merely his status as a historical figure, that they were celebrating, it seems. It certainly wouldn’t have been just a “celebration of a historical figure” if they’d been neo-nazis at a Hitler memorial.

      Just because the object, Thomas Jefferson, seems relatively benign to you and me doesn’t make the celebration any less political in nature. They weren’t at the Lincoln Memorial because as libertarians, they probably don’t like Lincoln all that much. It was indeed political speech and very much a consultation on public affairs.

    • Colin 11:59 am on May 9, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Furthermore, Galen, it is NOT the place of the state under our form of government to decide what is legal OUTSIDE what is the written law. Things are not assumed to be illegal unless “allowed” (as you seem to suggest) by the state. It’s the other way around.

      They were not doing anything illegal and therefore the police are the ones that had no right to interfere with _them_. It’s the age old “I’m the authority and I’m telling you to not do something, even though it’s legal. You question me and therefore I arrest you for resisting arrest, which I had no right to be doing in the first place.”

      The circular excuse for illegally arresting people.

    • Galen Rice 2:48 pm on May 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      “[Sgt. Robert] Lanchase [, spokesman for the US Park Police,] notes that federal regulations designate certain areas that are ‘meant to be tranquil and quiet,’ including the inner chamber of the Jefferson Memorial. That precludes making too much noise—signs at the Memorial enjoin quiet—or any behavior that ‘has a propensity to draw a crowd of onlookers.’ ”
      – from a report on the incident at ArsTechnica.com

      The laws are there: it is illegal to cause a disturbance at national monuments such as the Jefferson Memorial. The question is whether the dancers caused enough of a disturbance to warrant the actions of the park police. Obviously, those officers drew the line differently than you do. The situation was much less black and white than you are painting it.

      “With all due respect, Galen, it was his contributions to the republic, and not merely his status as a historical figure, that they were celebrating, it seems. It certainly wouldn’t have been just a ‘celebration of a historical figure’ if they’d been neo-nazis at a Hitler memorial.”

      You assume their celebration would be different because it’s Hitler? Say there was a dance party at a Hitler memorial, and the same thing happened to them as happened to Oberwetter. Would that even be an issue of free speech to you?

      “Just because the object, Thomas Jefferson, seems relatively benign to you and me doesn’t make the celebration any less political in nature. They weren’t at the Lincoln Memorial because as libertarians, they probably don’t like Lincoln all that much. It was indeed political speech and very much a consultation on public affairs.”

      What public affairs were they addressing? What issues were they taking up? Simply showing that you agree with an ideal by celebrating the founder of that ideal is not a statement on public affairs: it is a show of support for a philosophy, nothing more.

      Besides, if the dancing itself was meant as a political demonstration, it clearly failed. An onlooker would just see a bunch of youngsters having a good time in a public place, one gets arrested and her friends say “WTF?”

      Again, I am not opining that it was right or wrong to arrest Oberwetter: I am merely questioning your assumptions about the incident.

    • bob 11:26 am on May 15, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      I’m unconvinced that dancing quietly in a memorial at midnight ‘has a propensity to draw a crowd of onlookers.’ Noon, maybe; midnight, no. Wasn’t that the point of them going at midnight, so they wouldn’t disturb anyone?

      As for Hitler, you’ve made my point for me. Of course it would be free speech. Celebrating a political figure is, quite plainly, political, protected speech. You can talk around that all you want, but I think most people would see it that way. Just because it wasn’t successful in your estimation doesn’t make it any less political in nature.

      If you don’t get the connection between celebrating Jefferson’s ideas as a statement about the current state of public and political affairs in this country, I’d recommend you do some reading about the man.

    • Penny Taylor 8:53 pm on May 16, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      TO Galen: “The laws are there: it is illegal to cause a disturbance at national monuments such as the Jefferson Memorial.”

      … So when are they arresting the hoards of unruly elementary children that plug up the experience for the rest of us during daylight hours? I mean THAT is a disturbance.

      I’m just saying.

      I’m sorry you can’t see the free forest for the big government tree in front of you.

    • Galen Rice 5:14 pm on May 21, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      “I’m unconvinced that dancing quietly in a memorial at midnight ‘has a propensity to draw a crowd of onlookers.’ Noon, maybe; midnight, no. Wasn’t that the point of them going at midnight, so they wouldn’t disturb anyone?”

      Now there’s an interesting question. Do the signs that ask you to be quiet have a timeframe written on them? If they knew it would be causing a disturbance in the middle of the day, does that not make it a disturbance, period? Common sense says no (and I agree with you: I don’t think it did), but then law does not know common sense, does it?

      “Celebrating a political figure is, quite plainly, political, protected speech. You can talk around that all you want, but I think most people would see it that way.”

      Protected speech, yes (within limits, as always); political, not necessarily. I usually celebrate President’s Day with a backyard barbecue. Are steaks and potato salad a political statement? Of course it could be seen that way, and I imagine you would see it that way, but I do not.

      A celebration of Hitler could be seen as political, sure, but it would more likely be seen as violent and racist. In actuality, they could be dancing at a Hitler memorial to celebrate his death, the fall of Nazi Germany and the end of the Holocaust. Your perception is being colored by the nature of the figure they’re bopping around.

      All three of these examples – the Jefferson memorial incident, a President’s Day BBQ, and the hypothetical Death of Hitler Danceathon – are celebrations. Do they involve political subjects? Yes. Are they, themselves, political statements on current affairs? I do not think so.

      “So when are they arresting the hoards of unruly elementary children that plug up the experience for the rest of us during daylight hours? I mean THAT is a disturbance.”

      If you want the park police to arrest the kids, by all means write them a letter and suggest it. Probably won’t go very far, but it’s worth a shot, right? I mean, that’s how a democratic republic is supposed to work: we tell the people in power how we want them to govern us.

    • tinajones10 3:34 am on July 22, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      hi friends………
      I wonder what right you believe is being violate do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual

      ———————————————————-

      tina

  • jdtalley 10:27 am on April 23, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Defense Fund Update: Halfway to the Goal 

    Hey folks, we’re just over halfway to our goal on the defense fund. That’s awesome!

    Thanks to everyone for their support, and if you haven’t donated yet, please do, even if it’s just $10, $15, or $25–whatever you can spare. And for your viewing pleasure, please check out our handy thermometer graphic on the right there.

    As Brooke would say, “Let’s get ‘er done.”

     
  • jdtalley 10:17 am on April 23, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Really, What Does YOUR Dad Do? 

    How much do your parents’ jobs–or their former jobs, or their friends, or their taste in music, or the way they comb their hair–affect the way you want people to evaluate YOUR actions? How much do their politics color what YOU do?

    If you’re like most adults, probably not very much. That’s why it’s a little silly to see all this talk about Brooke’s family (which you can find in the comments of various posts, both on this site and on Interwebs at large). She’s a grownup, she makes her own decisions, lives her own life, and is going out of her way not to inconvenience or burden her family with this mess.

    Of course it would be easier to do that if her last name were “Smith,” but we play with the hand we’re dealt, you know?

    A commenter on this post put it pretty nicely, I think:

    Honestly, we’re talking about a grown woman here; as far as I can tell, her father hasn’t stepped in here to help because it doesn’t really have anything to do with him, any more than it would have anything to do with YOUR father if it had been YOU.

     
    • Sidney 9:06 am on April 24, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      So if Brooke Oberwetter’s father (former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia) has so little to do with anything, just why is there so little mention of her last name on this site, outside of references of her last name made in links to MSM media stories of the arrest. MSM is doing a better job of telling this story then her defense page?!!

    • anon 9:38 am on April 24, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      About Page: “This website is dedicated to our friend, Brooke Oberwetter, who was wrongfully arrested for legitimately questioning authority.”

      Press release: “Now known as “The Jefferson 1,” 28 year-old Brooke Oberwetter and approximately 20 other fans of the founders’ ideas were present at the monument in celebration of Jefferson’s birthday.”

      Blog Post Title: “The Germans Love Oberwetter”

      You’re right, Sidney, they’ve made it very difficult to figure out who she is.

    • Sidney 9:48 am on April 24, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      What was the date of the press release?

    • anon 9:51 am on April 24, 2008 Permalink | Reply

    • Joey 2:37 pm on April 24, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Great points, Anon and Sidney (god I wish there was an emoticon which conveyed dripping sarcasm). Are you really surprised that bloggers on this site used Brooke’s full name? You’re right; they did do a horrible job of hiding J1’s identity, only that was never their aim. The purpose of this site is to publicize the ridiculous overreaction of law enforcement and to help a person who these bloggers obviously care about very much. The point that jdtalley is making is that Brooke should not have to withhold or hide her family name because, to any reasonable adult, it does not have any bearing on the strength of her case or the injustice of the park police’s behavior. Who a person’s parents are (just like a host of other superficial distinctions) does not negate an individual’s right not to be forcibly detained without cause.

  • jdtalley 5:41 pm on April 22, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    I’m sure Brooke is blushing right now 

    D-Magazine covers the Jefferson 1 story for the cool people in Dallas. Uh oh, the U.S. Park Police thought they were messing with a lone dancer. Nope, now they’ve gone and messed with Texas now:

    Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, as everybody knows, is on April 13. To celebrate the occasion, Brooke Oberwetter, daughter of former Ambassador Jim Oberwetter of Dallas, decided to do a little dancing at the Jefferson Memorial. So off she went with nineteen or so of her friends. Their spontaneous patriotic effusion, however, was interrupted by a security guard, who proceeded to arrest young Brooke. This being 2008, the incident was recorded. This being Brooke, it was reported in the Washington Post. And this being America, friends have created a web site to proclaim the injustice of the thing and to raise money for her defense. Knowing the FrontBurner Nation to be friends of freedom, I hope you will make a small contribution to the cause. One generation proclaimed, “Don’t tread on me!” Now another generation proclaims, “Bopping is not a crime!”

     
    • DocAmazing 9:02 pm on April 22, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Geez, you’d think you’d be grateful you didn’t get the two-by-four upside the head advocated by Jane Galt for civil disobedience.

      I didn’t see to many Libertarepublicans getting worked up over sweeps by the police at anti-war rallies, so please accept this token of my utter indifference to your plight.

    • leah 10:27 pm on April 22, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      if i were the daughter of a former ambassador to saudi arabia (nominated by g.w. bush) who worked for the american petroleum institute, i guess i would have some serious guilt issues too….

    • millie carlin 9:36 am on April 23, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Doc, civil disobedience usually entails breaking a law. To the best of my knowledge, she didn’t break any, and was arrested when the cop couldn’t identify which law she’d broken.

      And Leah, is everything your family members do a direct reflection on you? Every job your parents have ever had or every distasteful friend they’ve ever made is something we should consider when we’re assessing YOUR individual actions? That makes a lot of sense.

      Honestly, we’re talking about a grown woman here; as far as I can tell, her father hasn’t stepped in here to help because it doesn’t really have anything to do with him, any more than it would have anything to do with YOUR father if it had been YOU.

      I just don’t really see your point I suppose.

  • jdtalley 9:10 pm on April 21, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Perez Hilton Picks Sides (Ours) 

    Perez Hilton, the “Queen of all Media,” took a break from celebrity gossip to discuss the plight of the Jefferson 1. Actually, thanks to all of the publicity this has been receiving, Brooke is the latest cause celeb while the park police continues to look like a bunch of big meanies. a snippet from Perez:

    You’d think that the people who helped run the city that symbolizes ‘democracy’ would be a little more tolerant! Sheesh!

    Can’t they groove alone to their headphones in peace????

    Oh, and the irony is….

    All of this happened at the Jefferson Memorial, in observance of Jefferson’s birthday who was the most hardcore and anti-authoritarian of the Founding Fathers.

     
  • jdtalley 12:07 am on April 19, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Concerned DC Citizen Writes the U.S. Park Police 

    Our spirits have been bolstered by the amount of support we have received so far. We very much appreciate the blog posts, donations, and letters. We hope you’ll keep them coming because we are just some concerned citizens against a government with unlimited resources. The following e-mail was cc’d to us and it’s well worth sharing. The author does a wonderful job of illustrating the absurd situation the U.S. Park Police caused by arresting the Jefferson 1 for simply asking “why?”

    to Dwight_Pettiford@nps.gov
    cc Mary_Bomar@nps.gov, Joe_Lawler@nps.gov
    date Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:11 PM

    subject Oberwetter arrest

    Dear Chief Pettiford,

    I am writing as a private citizen to express my concerns over the arrest of Ms. Brooke Oberwetter at the Jefferson Memorial last weekend. For the record, I do not know Ms. Oberwetter nor any of the individuals who were in her group, nor am I affiliated with any organization. I am just writing as a six-year resident of the District of Columbia who visits NPS sites regularly with my family. (I found your contact information via NPS.gov, since the United States Park Police website seems to have no information on online contacts.)

    All I know about the Oberwetter arrest comes from media reports and the video of the incident now available online, so the facts I am about to recount may not be fully accurate. However, there are so many troubling aspects of this incident that I felt compelled to contact you.

    The group of which Ms. Oberwetter was a part seems to have been small enough to not need a permit to gather, nor were they making noise. However, if reports are accurate, within moments of their arrival, Park Police personnel were loudly confronting them, in some cases using obscene language despite the presence of other visitors. They also reportedly made physical contact with some of Ms. Oberwetter’s friends within minutes of the group’s arrival. Ms. Oberwetter, as video shows, was swaying quietly when she was confronted by a guard who said, “Exit, exit, exit. Lady, I’m not going to tell you again.” As you may know, and as I suspect NPS Director Bomar knows, it is generally considered sexist to refer to a woman as “lady” these days. Asked what rule she was violating, Ms. Oberwetter was told, “Exit, exit now,” which is a nonsequitur at best. When she asked, “It’s against the rules to dance?” she was told, “Yes it is. Read the sign inside the memorial. It says ‘Quiet.'” When Ms. Oberwetter pointed out that she was being quiet, the guard replied, “You’re dancing in here. That’s disorderly.” It seems like he had simply decided Ms. Oberwetter must be violating some rule, and he was just going to go down the list until he found one that fit.

    After Ms. Oberwetter was arrested, one of her friends told a police officer that this incident reflect poorly, to which the police officer responded, “F*** the record.” When one of the group quoted this back to the officer, the officer chastised him for using foul language, even though he was merely quoting him back! What kind of hypocrisy is that?

    According to the Washington Post (April 16, B1), the USPP “say the group was violating a federal law that prohibits disturbances in the sanctuaries of hallowed memorials.” Fair enough, if that is the case. But by using obscene language at the very beginning of their interactions with Ms. Oberwetter’s group, were not USPP personnel, who are paid to be there, creating a disturbance, showing disrespect, and sullying the sanctuary of a hallowed memorial?

    Finally, as I understand it, Ms. Oberwetter stands accused of “interfering with an agency function.” But if the “agency function” was the act of trying to clear a crowd that may not have been committing a violation, isn’t that a bit of a Catch-22 — to be guilty of interfering with something that should not have been happening in the first place? More disturbing is the possibility that Ms. Oberwetter’s simply asking USPP personnel why she was being confronted could be considered “interfering.”

    Now, I do not wish to be overly harsh. I can imagine that if I was the security guard in question, and I saw a group of 20 individuals descend on the site I was protecting at a few minutes before midnight, then begin dancing (albeit quietly), I would be alarmed and would question them. But if reports are accurate, your personnel did not question them to find out their intentions and how long they planned to stay. Instead, the guards used obscene language and physical force. Would it not have made more sense to just talk to the group first?

    The Oberwetter arrest may not be a major civil rights violation, but I have found myself deeply bothered by it. I have twin three-year-old sons. We go to the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials quite frequently. I have video of them dancing inside the Lincoln Memorial when they were less than two years old. I ask you, not meaning it facetiously: Were my sons committing a crime? Should I worry the next time we visit that they may be arrested?

    Sincerely yours,
    [Concerned Citizen]
    Columbia Heights, Washington, D.C.

    Thank you for your letter. Please rest assured that if the U.S. Park Police attempts to arrest your adorable twin sons we will stand ready to free the “Lincoln 2!”

     
    • Peter Orvetti 8:18 am on April 19, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      My apologies for the fact that the video is sideways. It was a new camera, and I’m not very smart.

    • raylehmann 6:36 am on April 21, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      No apologies necessary! Thanks so much for your letter and for taking the time to get involved.

    • rob 2:01 pm on March 4, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Why can’t you sign your real name to your letter?

  • jdtalley 4:25 pm on April 18, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    On Free Talk Live 

    Last night I called up Free Talk Live because I thought that Ian and Mark would be interested in the case of the Jefferson 1. I didn’t realize they covered it at length during the first part of the show.

    Listen to it here.

    FTL is broadcast on 30 radio stations and is one of the most popular podcasts in the interwebs. Thanks to them and everyone else who is helping us shine a light on the unacceptable behavior of the U.S. Park Police.

     
    • Jimmyk 6:04 pm on April 18, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      TITLE 32-NATIONAL DEFENSE

      CHAPTER XIX–CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

      PART 1903–CONDUCT ON AGENCY INSTALLATIONS–Table of Contents

      Sec. 1903.8 Interfering with Agency functions.

      The following are prohibited:
      (a) Interference. Threatening, resisting, intimidating, or
      intentionally interfering with a government employee or agent engaged in
      an official duty, or on account of the performance of an official duty.
      (b) Violation of a lawful order. Violating the lawful order of an
      authorized person to maintain order and control, public access and
      movement during fire fighting operations, law enforcement actions, and
      emergency operations that involve a threat to public safety or
      government resources, or other activities where the control of public
      movement and activities is necessary to maintain order and public health
      or safety.
      (c) False information. Knowingly giving false information:
      (1) To an authorized person investigating an accident or violation
      of law or regulation; or
      (2) On an application for a permit.
      (d) False report. Knowingly giving a false report for the purpose of
      misleading an authorized person in the conduct of official duties, or
      making a false report that causes a response by the government to a
      fictitious event.

    • Rik 9:53 am on April 22, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Well, those cops are fucked.

      They weren’t engaging in an “official duty”, unless an “official duty” is the act of abusing the rights of citizens.

  • jdtalley 8:00 pm on April 16, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    NBC4 Covers the Jefferson 1 

    I talked to NBC4 about the abusive treatment of the Jefferson 1 by the U.S. Park Police. Learn more about the Jefferson 1 here. If you agree with us that individuals dancing quietly in honor of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday should not be subject to arrest, he hope you’ll donate to the legal defense fund.

    (More …)

     
    • Chuck 4:35 pm on April 16, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Here are the most relevant Jefferson Quotes I could find. Be patient, they are legion!

      ~

      “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

      “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

      “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

      “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. ”

      “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. ”

      “Every generation needs a new revolution. ”

      “Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”

      “It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.”

      “Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society. ”

      “Taste cannot be controlled by law. ”

      “The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave. ”

      “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”

      “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

      ~~~

    • Juan Carlos 8:56 pm on April 16, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Nice last quote Jason!

    • blanksslate 10:52 pm on April 16, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      re: the charge

      It wasn’t disturbing the peace. It wasn’t disorderly conduct. It was “interfering with an agency function.”

      Granted, your guess is as good as mine as to what that means, but that’s the charge.

    • JB 12:39 am on April 18, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      The function of fisting themselves. Damn pigs. Next time it should be an armed 2nd Amendment dance party. I’ll take libertarian shooting skills over the Park Police any day.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel