D.C. Monument Menaced by Libertarian Dancers!
I had company in town this weekend, so I missed the flash mob a few of my libertarian friends had planned to stage outside the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. The plan was to meet just before midnight with iPods on, dance quietly for a bit, capture the whole thing on video, and go home. Easy, peaceful, silly, and fun, right?
But apparently, things didn’t go as planned. A few minutes in, park police decided to arrest one of the revelers. Why? Well, it wasn’t immediately clear. Here’s Radley Balko reporting from the scene:
She was cuffed, taken out to a paddy wagon, then booked and held at a Park Police station. Everyone I spoke with says there was no noise, there were no threats, and no laws broken (the park police I spoke with–including the arresting officer (who, oddly enough, denied to me that he was the arresting officer)–declined to say why she had been arrested).
The police refused to answer any questions, referring all calls to the communication number of the Park Police, which at this hour is closed. They also refused to give their badge numbers.
I’ll post some video tomorrow morning of two flash mobbers who say she was doing nothing at all–she was barely even dancing. Her crime was apparently to ask “why?” when the park police told the group they had to disperse. Note too that this was at around midnight. No one was bumping into tourists, or obstructing anyone’s way. I guess the only conclusion, here, is that it’s apparently illegal to dance on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial–even with headphones.
Megan, Jason, and Julian also have accounts of the incident. Seems our friend was arrested simply for asking why she was being told to leave, leading Megan to write that the real problem is “that the police think that questioning orders constitutes disorderly conduct.” Agreed.
Now, unlike a lot of libertarians, I hold both police officers as people and police as an institution in pretty high esteem. And generally, I’m willing to cut them a lot of slack in their dealings with people; even on the easiest beat, it can be a pretty stressful job. But this sort of thing is incredibly off-putting, irritating, and probably, for the police involved and the larger public’s respect for cops in general, counterproductive – especially when, as Julian writes, the arrestee’s “immediate social circle is largely composed of journalists, bloggers, and constitutional lawyers who sue the government for fun.” And even when that’s not the case, camera phones and video cameras are pretty much everywhere these days – especially at public monuments – so the chances that the event will be captured and made public are pretty high.
But let’s ignore for a moment the fact that the crowd in question was composed largely of professional libertarians who’re bound to make a stink about this. I still wonder: What does an arresting officer in any circumstance like this possibly think he or she is going to accomplish? Give his buddies something to do for the night? Maybe he’s got a paperwork fetish? Just can’t wait to take the paddy wagon for a spin? My understanding has always been that arrests, in addition to being a pain for the person getting arrested, create a lot of additional work for the officers involved. It was a nice night out last night, perfect for strolling along the mall and relaxing. Is the menace of dancing libertarians really so great that it’s worth spending all night inside, filling out forms?
UPDATE: A video of the event is up (broken into a couple of pieces). Here’s the first one:
A little bit of paperwork is a small price to pay for the thrill of having power over other human beings.
— Bryan · Apr 13, 06:04 PM · #
i think it’s more realistic to think not about either tangible goals or intangible satisfactions (eg, the thrill of domination) of these cops, but about their fears. a bunch of people dancing with ipods at midnight at a public monument is first and foremost /really weird/. on second thought it also completely innocuous and it is hard to imagine a scenario whereby the silent midnight dancing could “turn ugly” but nonetheless it remains weird.
while, absent an immediate fight or flight type situation, cops ought to be reflexive enough to get to the “on second thought it is harmless” step, there’s some evidence that cops tend to react to weirdness by more or less panicking and trying to stop it. for instance, a colleague who studies social movements told me that cops panic and use violent suppression when they see those giant puppets that lefties have been so fond of for the last ten years. if instead of holding large puppets, protesters held large banners, the cops would leave them alone because cops are familiar with banners and can categorize them as legitimate peaceable assembly, whereas puppets are unfamiliar and cops think of them as potential threats (is there a bomb hidden in the puppet, etc).
Nor is this unique to cops. All people tend to be very uncomfortable with the unfamiliar and the liminal. Another of my colleagues has a paper showing that liminal (but basically sound) securities that combine firms from widely different SIC codes tend to be picked up much less by mutual funds.
— Gabriel · Apr 13, 06:36 PM · #
You write as if the police had perfect knowledge. The police didn’t know who these people were, or why they were there, or, most importantly, What Would Happen Next?
The police are outnumbered. It’s late at night. They have a bunch of people acting strangely. For all they know, there’s 200 more idiots on the way, with mahem on their mind. The police do know one thing, from experience: breaking it up and dispersing the crowd will tend to keep things from getting worse.
The courts can, and will, sort it out. Courts deliberate. Cops often don’t have the luxury of enough time—or information—to do so.
— Gordon · Apr 13, 06:42 PM · #
It’s only counterproductive if it involves the sort of miscalculation last night’s arrests apparently did. Think of all the people this sort of thing happens to all the time who aren’t professional civil libertarians. A close friend, an attorney of decidedly conservative politics, has many tales of clients subject to this kind of arbitrary arrest and mistreatment, often for asking questions or otherwise “talking back.” One favorite is of an 80something man arrested for solicitation who, when he made a wisecrack to the arresting officer (about the fact that he was an 80something man being arrested for solicitation), was left handcuffed inside a phone booth, in a very bad neighborhood, for several hours. As someone who’s had to face police officers in court over many years, this attorney fellow does not feel a great need to give them any benefits of the doubt, personally or otherwise.
— Matt Feeney · Apr 13, 06:44 PM · #
It’s near midnight. It’s getting kind of cold. You’re a cop on foot patrol. Make an arrest, and you get to go to the warm office and grab a donut and a cup of coffee while you fill out the paperwork.
Cops are a lot smarter than you think.
— Robert Stacy McCain · Apr 13, 06:52 PM · #
<quote>The courts can, and will, sort it out. Courts deliberate. Cops often don’t have the luxury of enough time—or information—to do so.</quote>
The major problem with that logic is that it basically dictates that the first option for police ought to be arrest, as the courts should just sort it out. What about trying to diffuse a situation, or giving a few moments thought. Further, why does it increasingly seem to be the case that police treat a mere question as an arresting offense? That strikes me as radically problematic.
It all is part of the ongoing example of the seeming itchy taser-finger that a lot of police current have (several of which I discussed back in November—click on my name to go the post in question).
The whole evolution is rather disturbing.
— Steven Taylor · Apr 13, 09:16 PM · #
It makes more sense to arrest a bunch of libertarians, who tend to believe in free access to guns and the right to hire mercenaries, than to bust a bunch of pacifists, who make a great deal of noise about being anti-violent…yet I cannot recall any posts by you taking the NYPD to task for mass round-ups at demonstrations against the Iraq War.
It’s probably too much to hope that some time in police custody will be instructive to your friends.
— DocAmazing · Apr 13, 10:32 PM · #
I still wonder: What does an arresting officer in any circumstance like this possibly think he or she is going to accomplish?
I’m afraid that the truth is more sinister than you think, Peter. The fact is that this is part of a growing pattern, which is to arrest knowing that charges are going to be dropped. This happens any time there is a politician or world leader speaking and a protest is planned nowadays: the orders are to arrest the protesters, ending the protest, knowing full well that the charges will be dropped. The point, of course, isn’t to actually prosecute anyone; it’s end the protest and silence the speech. The police don’t have any intention of prosecuting, most of the time. They just arrest and stop the protesters from freely expressing. And because our legal system makes it incredibly difficult to successfully sue for false arrest or similar, there’s no consequences for the cops whatsoever.
The police are outnumbered. It’s late at night. They have a bunch of people acting strangely. For all they know, there’s 200 more idiots on the way, with mahem on their mind
I truly fear for the future when “for all they know” is seen as a compelling reason to take police action. That is the absolute antithesis of our system. The burden is on the government to demonstrate why they have a compelling reason to deny people their rights. The burden is not on the people to prove that they deserve rights.
— Freddie · Apr 13, 10:40 PM · #
Doc — I don’t really write about the war at all, but I’d certainly oppose police action breaking up any nonviolent protests — war related or otherwise, pro-war, anti-war, whatever — that weren’t causing major inconveniences, problems, etc, and to a certain point I’d probably support the right of protesters to (non-violently) get in people’s way.
— Peter Suderman · Apr 13, 11:17 PM · #
Freddie’s point is an important one. I’m actually kind of stunned that many people — to judge by comments I’ve seen on several blogs — have so limited an interest in civil liberties that they think it’s reasonable for cops to arrest people if they’re merely surprised by those people’s actions. Doesn’t the actual content of our laws, laws that police are supposed to know, have some relevance here? It’s not enough for a policeman to be, in some vague and abstract way, “suspicious”: for an arrest to be made there has to be a reasonable suspicion that some actual crime has been or could be committed.
— Alan Jacobs · Apr 13, 11:45 PM · #
Freddie says ominously: “I’m afraid that the truth is more sinister than you think, Peter. The fact is that this is part of a growing pattern, which is to arrest knowing that charges are going to be dropped.”
Fascinating, Freddie. Please tell us all about this pattern. Maybe you can support that statement with something other than anecdotal evidence and the unwavering liberal dogma that all police officers have an intense hard-on for power.
C’mon, folks, it’s quite simply really: these people were arrested for being tools. I mean, dancing with ipods on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial? The officers are attempting to stem the decline and fall of our civilization. They should be applauded.
— Derrick · Apr 14, 01:05 AM · #
Robert Stacy McCain wrote:
Cops are a lot smarter than you think.
I doubt that. And you’re not as smart as you think you are, either.
— Paul Sorbetto Jr. · Apr 14, 03:28 AM · #
Reading this makes me want to go dance there with my “crew”. Shame im in the UK because I would. Would make a great international incident. I could just see this on the front page of my local newspaper.
— Lee Gorecki · Apr 14, 12:02 PM · #
Privileged white person discovers police can be ignorant assholes shocker!!
— Derek · Apr 14, 12:07 PM · #
Actually, Alan, in order for an arrest to be made there has to be probable cause that a crime has been committed. Reasonable suspicion just gets you to a Terry stop.
— djs · Apr 14, 12:46 PM · #
@Alan Jacobs
Because OBVIOUSLY some harmless dancing on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial at night is indicative of the fall of western civilization. No, it’s not the international cadre of banks and corporations that control our government, it’s not a fiat currency loaned with immediate interest by a private conglomo of the ultra rich. It’s not massive empire building or illegal wars under false pretenses. It’s not religious dogma turned on its ear for political ends. It’s not an unaccountable military industrial complex that profits from both sides of every conflict. It’s not a total meltdown of a democratic system because of constant pandering to corporate interests.
No, it’s a bunch of peaceful kids dancing quietly at the feet of a statue of a man who, if he were alive today, would have said, “let them dance, they mean no harm.”
Get the fuck out of my country you codependent enabler.
— CrashBomb · Apr 14, 10:50 PM · #
“dancing quietly at the feet of a statue of a man who, if he were alive today, would have said, “let them dance, they mean no harm.”
No, he would’ve said, “You call that dancing, do you?”
— Joules · Apr 16, 03:29 AM · #
Yes, well…
“A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!” – Emma Goldman
Ahh— liberty and freedom at its finest! Speaking of… The Liberty Voice (www.thelibertyvoice.com) will be carrying this story in the April edition!
— laura · Apr 16, 03:42 AM · #
Could the arresting officers just be power mad? Saint Joseph, Missouri Police recently got tasers. In the first thirty days they had them nine people were tasered. Their public relations officer said if the person being arrested does as they are told this won’t happen. That attitude seems to be pretty wide spread. God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
— David Schantz · Apr 17, 11:56 PM · #