View Full Version : Really worried about loss of US Freedoms.....
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 12:34am
I'm not doing a radical 180 here for those who are familiar with my liberal slanted posts. But I ran across something today that really really really gave me pause and made me think....I don't know how to post a link, sorry, so if you are interested in what has me worried, google Santa Claus arrested in Austin, Texas and watch at least part of the video. Chilling, very chilling.
When people in general talk about the government being excessive, I tend to tune them out, but this....this one for me personally takes the cake. This one goes overboard into scary for me.
Does anyone else sense that we are losing freedoms in the US? What do you think of this, if so? Rob
I have believed that since Patriot Act I, Rob, and even before.
iris lily
1-15-13, 12:51am
Does anyone else sense that we are losing freedoms in the US? What do you think of this, if so? Rob
Of course we are.
Here (http://www.infowars.com/santa-claus-arrested-for-chalking-in-austin/) is the link.
A good healthy number of the comments posted reflect my sentiment.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:00am
Thank you, Mrs. M!
Something creepy? I was right there where this was filmed on November 25th, last year.....right there off Congress Street at the entrance to the State Capitol Building grounds in Austin. Rob
You're welcome, Rob.
I'm gobsmacked to say the least...
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 1:04am
I'm not doing a radical 180 here for those who are familiar with my liberal slanted posts. But I ran across something today that really really really gave me pause and made me think....I don't know how to post a link, sorry, so if you are interested in what has me worried, google Santa Claus arrested in Austin, Texas and watch at least part of the video. Chilling, very chilling.
When people in general talk about the government being excessive, I tend to tune them out, but this....this one for me personally takes the cake. This one goes overboard into scary for me.
Does anyone else sense that we are losing freedoms in the US? What do you think of this, if so? Rob
This sounded familiar: occupy, cops and of course, how can we ever forget: chalk! Probably the whole fight that broke out over occupy l.a., art walk, and chalk:
http://laist.com/2012/08/09/permit_for_occupy_denied.php
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/16/local/la-me-banks-chalk-20120717
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:10am
You're welcome, Rob.
I'm gobsmacked to say the least...Me, too.
I find this just over the top on so many levels but one thing that REALLY gets me down is that Austin, Texas has been for a long time one of the few cities in the US where people who are "characters" - or colorful, or whatever word you want to use - can fit in. It has a tradition of being quite liberal and tolerant, much as say Portland, Oregon does, or to a lesser extent, Tucson, Arizona, does. It really upsets me to see this going on anywhere - what does this say about America today? Honestly? And then it upsets me even more to see it going on in one of the handful of weird places we have left in the US.....
Just depressing beyond belief. This video went viral BTW, and I am sure that Austin may lose some tourism and convention revenue now. At a very minimum, is law enforcement not aware that almost everyone these days carries a cell phone with a basic camcorder function and that these events can easily be filmed and quickly go viral? Rob
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 1:20am
By the way I don't think it's a 180 from anything except maybe excessive trust in the current government (and by current I don't just mean Obama) - and it's such a corrupt system at this point that hey, join the crowd. Concern about civil libeties is not the exclusive domain of the right, many on the left are concerned (well many is a relative term, since civil liberties are not the dominant concern of most people of any political persuasion it seems, but a decent number).
Does anyone else sense that we are losing freedoms in the US? What do you think of this, if so?
I've burned out on outrage and horror at this situation (and I think frankly so are many who have been really upset about how bad things are have). Only to find the issues I'm to the point of screaming myself hoarse on, are almost noone else's main concern. I think it's getting worse, but worse is always hard to quantify: there's the legal stuff (NDAA) some people just don't care about stuff at a legal level you might as well be speaking latin, there's things like the extent of never-ending surveillance, there's the on the ground stuff: like the stuff that has gone on with occupy and the cops (I also posted about a assasination attempt by someone on occupy "leaders" that appears not to have been prosecuted and the link to it - I wasn't making stuff up). I guess I've come around to see why some don't care about the legal stuff, I mean de facto abuse by the cops has been going on against minorities and so on for ages I guess. But I still think the legal stuff is a big deal as is the on the ground stuff.
... At a very minimum, is law enforcement not aware that almost everyone these days carries a cell phone with a basic camcorder function and that these events can easily be filmed and quickly go viral? Rob
The behavior of police was fine in the video link on this thread. They have nothing to regret and so what if someone filmed this?
Why this noisy Santa was arrested for "chalking" is something that the video doesn't make clear, but most people are aware of the mess and chaos associated with several of the "Occupy" groups. I didn't know that Austin was still beleaguered by its group. But really, if it was only a little chalk, there was no need to arrest Santa. Likely something else is going on there.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 2:08am
The behavior of police was fine in the video link on this thread. They have nothing to regret and so what if someone filmed this?
Why this noisy Santa was arrested for "chalking" is something that the video doesn't make clear, but most people are aware of the mess and chaos associated with several of the "Occupy" groups. I didn't know that Austin was still beleaguered by its group. But really, if it was only a little chalk, there was no need to arrest Santa. Likely something else is going on there.IL....ummmmm....ok...Did you notice that Santa was NEVER read his rights for starters???? And are you ok with someone being arrested for such an assinine reason? And are you ok that Santa was charged with evading arrest too? (I don't know if this link covers this but I did some snooping online to find out more....) Yep, it seems like this city that I like so much - Austin - has it's dark side, too.
I respect your right to post as you please too. I do. But may I ask one thing? Why the word "beleagured" when describing Occupy? I can see that not all are going to agree with them, but do they not have the right to assembly and free speech as we (supposedly) do as citizens in the US? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 2:12am
Adding more the above.....Is it not right and proper of citizens to video the fact that James Peterson (AKA Austin Santa) was never read his rights? Surely you must agree that it is right that this goes viral for the world to see that US rights are in a state of erosion? Also perhaps the viralness of the video will serve Santa in any potential litigation against the state of Texas or the City of Austin or whoever.....Santa could play this up right and become a folk hero in a way - with talent and intelligence he could develop quite the following....Rob
...Why the word "beleagured" when describing Occupy?
Set your Goggle search bar to "Images." Now, enter this word string: Occupy filth. View resulting images.
This looks like the mess that piled up each morning on the public sidewalk against the very building I work in. No, it's not an Occupy group here now, it is members of the homeless community who make the muck across the street from the homeless shelter. That is, until the city closed the sidewalk. Yep, the sidewalk is barricaded so that humans don't sleep, eat, trash, poop, vomit, urinate, etc there. That's fine with me.
Now for Austin Santa: If all Santa was doing was "chalking" then of course it is ridiculous that tax dollars were used to haul him downtown.
But I have no idea what Santa was doing besides writing on the sidewalk with chalk and entertaining a few children. I don't know if he was "read his rights." I don't know who called the cops on him and why. I don't know what he did to earn the charge evading arrest. There's quite a lot about that situation that the video doesn't make clear and probably isn't contained in the video at all.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 3:42am
Then google "parade trash", and see the garbage left when cities have parades. I'm sure everyone agrees parades ought to be illegal, perhaps we can get a white house petition on it. Some of the trash pics you see of occupy were when occupy was forced to evacuate with little warning, who wouldn't leave a mess in that situation. When I visited occupy fairly early on it was quite clean, the homeless hang out on the way there (not at all part of occupy not even part of the same encampment) however was not and smelled of urine. It's no doubt another thing we seldom have the full story on though (just like the cop I guess), I imagine you can't have the complete story on occupy unless you were much more actively a part of occupy or at least a regular observer of it in person, but when I went to visit one it was clean. It's no doubt difficult to keep a situation like an occupy encampment clean by it's very nature, but I've also read stories of how much effort some occupy encampments put into doing so.
I don't think one incident indicates anything as general and holistic as some are trying to present it as such. So without commenting on the specific incident, I have some observations about the conclusions.
I think a lot of folks don't remember how little freedom many people once had in this country. I think it is easy for us to grossly undervalue the freedoms that are retained and safeguarded while grossly overvaluing the freedom that are compromised. That self-deception leads to the conclusion that things are worse than they really are, something which, itself, is very trendy in our society today.
To be fair, I think that the 19th Century captain of industry - an image which sits in the back of the minds of many of us as that prototypical American of the past even though we generally don't recognize it - has been significantly constrained by the extending of the blessings of freedom and justice to those for whom such blessings have traditionally been withheld, and indeed it is the rational umbrage that such folks felt which, through their influence on society and the media, been communicated into all of us. However, if you're not white, not Christian, or not a man, the progression over the last two hundred years has been markedly toward increasing freedom and justice.
There's still grounds for disappointment. In some ways, freedom and justice are like peanut butter. You can always spread it around to achieve greater levels of fairness, but in doing so invariably everyone gets a thinner layer. Folks brought up to believe in the principles of entitlement rather than social conscience will see that natural phenomenon as something taking something away from them, as a form of deprivation imposed on them, rather than as a reflection of the nature of legitimacy.
Chalking in front of federal buildings is illegal in most states. This is especially being enforced since 9/11. Lots of people were chalking but they arrested the person who started it and handed out the chalk. Occupy knows that it's illegal (several arrests for this last year according to one of my friends who is big in the Occupy movement) and this guy being prart of the movement knew it was illegal. Police are not about to go and arrest a bunch of children and their parents and from my understanding they tried to wait to arrest this guy until he was away from the kids. Some woman drew attention to what was going on.
I agree that we are loosing some of our freedoms but there is no excuse for breaking the law and this guy can't claim ignorance in this case.
Edited to add that I need a permit to chalk (as an artist) the sidewalks in my community. I believe that is true in most communities and there are lots of restrictions on where you can chalk.
Looks to me like a staged event, designed to inflame. I don't see how it could be construed as a loss of freedom.
I don't think one incident indicates anything as general and holistic as some are trying to present it as such. So without commenting on the specific incident, I have some observations about the conclusions.
I think a lot of folks don't remember how little freedom many people once had in this country. I think it is easy for us to grossly undervalue the freedoms that are retained and safeguarded while grossly overvaluing the freedom that are compromised. That self-deception leads to the conclusion that things are worse than they really are, something which, itself, is very trendy in our society today.
To be fair, I think that the 19th Century captain of industry - an image which sits in the back of the minds of many of us as that prototypical American of the past even though we generally don't recognize it - has been significantly constrained by the extending of the blessings of freedom and justice to those for whom such blessings have traditionally been withheld, and indeed it is the rational umbrage that such folks felt which, through their influence on society and the media, been communicated into all of us. However, if you're not white, not Christian, or not a man, the progression over the last two hundred years has been markedly toward increasing freedom and justice.
There's still grounds for disappointment. In some ways, freedom and justice are like peanut butter. You can always spread it around to achieve greater levels of fairness, but in doing so invariably everyone gets a thinner layer. Folks brought up to believe in the principles of entitlement rather than social conscience will see that natural phenomenon as something taking something away from them, as a form of deprivation imposed on them, rather than as a reflection of the nature of legitimacy.
+1
And as far as this guy goes, I really can't comment on the video as we really don't know all the facts, as IL said. It has been my observation that there are always three sides to a story. His, hers, and the truth.
This really isn't a police state. They can't 'just haul you down' and be done with it. There are reports to fill out, paperwork involved and such with an arrest. It is a big deal for the arresting officer, and time away from 'doing his job', although filling out paperwork and filing reports are part of his job. I think most cops have better things to do than just harass someone for fun.
While there are some disturbing aspects to this arrest I don't think it shows abuse or Austin slipping into a police state. However, there are some very legitimate reasons to believe our civil liberties have been eroding in the past few generations and that the process has gained significant momentum since 9/11.
From an article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html):
"James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: 'If men were angels, no government would be necessary.' Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers [of the U.S. Constitution] feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely."
The article outlined 10 reasons the author believes "this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state". I do not disagree with his conclusions. Here's his list:
1. Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
2. Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
3. Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
4. Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
5. Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
6. War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
7. Secret court
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
8. Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
9. Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
10. Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
Does anyone else sense that we are losing freedoms in the US? What do you think of this, if so? Rob
No, I don't. In a relative sense we have more freedoms now than ever. But it begs to ask how much freedom we actually have to begin with. In the 60's you could be shot and killed for protesting a war, in the 50's you could be arrested for being a member of the communist party, not too long ago a black person could be arrested for sitting in a white persons area, and in the 70's there was a compulsory military draft. There have been times recently when certain "romantic" relationships have been illegal.
I think there is more media fear mongering and paranoia than ever, but the bigger danger to our freedoms isn't from authority figures but from what we are doing to our ourselves in degrading our environment and infringing on the freedoms of others.
How strange. I live in Austin and never even heard of this event happening until now. I think Rogar is spot on.
Looks to me like a staged event, designed to inflame. I don't see how it could be construed as a loss of freedom.
I agree, I'm afraid.
And at the same time, I "trust" my government about as far as I can throw them.
When it comes to our so-called freedoms, I trust no one, nothing surprises me, and I take a very conservative, defensive stance. I do not assume that, no matter what I do, I have a "right" to do so and therefore will not suffer any repercussions. If I go downtown and start chalking when I know it's illegal and will inflame local law enforcement, I'm doing so fully aware I might get my head cracked. It's not right, but there's a staggering number of things in all of our lives that aren't right. We all choose our battles.
I'm confused...........who do you all think it was staged by?
I'm confused...........who do you all think it was staged by?
The person in the Santa suit. He know's it's illegal to deface public property and yet he wants attention. So, he dresses up like Santa Claus, enlists the aid of innocent passersby and commits a misdemeanor offence right outside a government building while an accomplice videotapes the resultant arrest. In no time at all, the video has been uploaded somewhere to show how Austin has now become a police state, refusing kindly Santa's freedom to deface public property, and threads such as this are started on discussion forums and blogs across the country.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 12:26pm
Well, I have done more snooping and did find out that Austin Santa was released, along with someone else from Austin Occupy who was arrested along with Austin Santa. The other person's crime was writing "Free Santa" in chalk on the sidewalk near the arrest. I have seen other videos of this event and in none was Santa's rights read to him -[to me this should be a punitive lawsuit in the millions - seriously. With public apologies. And perhaps instructions for the citizens on how to sue to keep this from happening again.
Something else I have discovered online is that a federal judge got down on the city of Austin police for banning Occupy protesters from gathering in a public park near this area, declaring this act unconstitutional and in violation of the first amendment. Please google - if interested - Occupy Austin federal judge and this story should pop up. So there have been issues of unconstitutional behavior on the part of the Austin police department, verified by a federal judge who ruled so. Not good. Very scary and very chilling.
I am not going to start collecting guns or live in some compound or become a survivalist all of a sudden but I am even more disillusioned with the system now, and this surprises me, I didn't think this was possible.
I will also say that I was not there for these events, and quite likely there has been some inflammation on the part of Occupy - I have heard stories of such elsewhere and don't believe it's 100% false. What's different here is the lack of Santa's rights being read - and very very very scary to me that so many here seem to be OK with this - and also the prior ruling against the Austin police department to the effect of their behavior violating the first amendment. One would think they would take a less aggressive stance, realizing anything they do can and will go online and cause PR headaches. Amazing to me, absolutely amazing, and not in a good way.
I have to say I think more highly of the Occupy Movement now. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 12:31pm
The person in the Santa suit. He know's it's illegal to deface public property and yet he wants attention. So, he dresses up like Santa Claus, enlists the aid of innocent passersby and commits a misdemeanor offence right outside a government building while an accomplice videotapes the resultant arrest. In no time at all, the video has been uploaded somewhere to show how Austin has now become a police state, refusing kindly Santa's freedom to deface public property, and threads such as this are started on discussion forums and blogs across the country.Even if this was staged - which I don't believe it was personally, but that's not my point - the police officers involved should have read Austin Santa his rights - if only to cover their rear ends and to prevent costly litigation. I can say had I been there - seriously - I would have taped it as a good samaritan - this much I do know how to do - and then found someone to show me how to upload. I would have not gotten in the way - so as to not give a valid reason for arresting me - but I would have filmed it and downloaded it to the world and would have given interviews about what I had witnessed. Such is my civic duty as I see it anyway - how could I live with myself if I let it go?
So I would have gotten involved in a way that I could sue for had I been arrested - had I been there - would this make me an accomplice? Seriously? Rob
I have seen other videos of this event and in none was Santa's rights read to him -[to me this should be a punitive lawsuit in the millions - seriously. With public apologies. And perhaps instructions for the citizens on how to sue to keep this from happening again.
How do you know it didn't happen before or after the part which was videotaped? Also, how do you know he wasn't asked to cease and desist, but refused, prior to the part of the video presented?
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 12:37pm
I agree, I'm afraid.
And at the same time, I "trust" my government about as far as I can throw them.
When it comes to our so-called freedoms, I trust no one, nothing surprises me, and I take a very conservative, defensive stance. I do not assume that, no matter what I do, I have a "right" to do so and therefore will not suffer any repercussions. If I go downtown and start chalking when I know it's illegal and will inflame local law enforcement, I'm doing so fully aware I might get my head cracked. It's not right, but there's a staggering number of things in all of our lives that aren't right. We all choose our battles.I can see your point here. And personally I don't know what the rules and laws about chalking are in Austin, Texas, though I could google and find out, yes. And I agree further with you that there is a lot in most people's lives that just isn't right and you do have to pick your battles.....
As I have said before, this one I find over the top and chilling and indicative of what America has become to me due to the lack of Santa's rights being read and due to the aggressiveness on the part of the cops involved - after being slapped with a federal judges's ruling that their behavior towards Occupy Austin was indeed in violation of the first amendment, one would they might want to walk a tad more meekly to prevent litigation and bad PR.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 12:45pm
How do you know it didn't happen before or after the part which was videotaped? Also, how do you know he wasn't asked to cease and desist, but refused, prior to the part of the video presented?Santa was asked to cease and desist by someone who worked for the state capitol, some kind of state employee. Santa refused. So yeah legally perhaps Santa is not 100% in the clear technically. I'll give you that. That being said, does the city of Austin and the state of Texas want the resulting PR nightmare of arresting Santa? How is this going to look, especially since it happened right in front of children, and for an infraction that is just so ridiculous in the minds of many? Also, given that a federal judge recently ruled that the city of Austin police behaved unconstitutionally in denying access to a downtown Austin public park for Occupy events - one would think they'd tone down the storm trooper behavior - for PR reasons alone, and the fact that these things can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion online in a heartbeat.
Now had Santa been doing something inappropriate with the children, or writing vulgar things in chalk I would not be personally so afraid and disillusioned. But this one for me is over the top - is this what we want America to be and are we supposed to be OK with this? Rob
How do you know it didn't happen before or after the part which was videotaped? Also, how do you know he wasn't asked to cease and desist, but refused, prior to the part of the video presented?
Exactly my thoughts as well Alan. The clip I saw was around six minutes, from when Santa was cuffed through him being put in the police car. It was fairly high quality video and at one point the cameraman said he worked for CBS Television. A very fortuitous event to have a network cameraman in exactly the right place at the right time, wouldn't you say? I agree with Rob that reading a suspect their Miranda rights is critical, we just don't have any way of knowing whether that was done or not from the clip. If Santa gets an attorney I would think that is one of the first questions that will be asked. If the answer was no the police did not read those rights it should get as much coverage as the arrest.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:01pm
Exactly my thoughts as well Alan. The clip I saw was around six minutes, from when Santa was cuffed through him being put in the police car. It was fairly high quality video and at one point the cameraman said he worked for CBS Television. A very fortuitous event to have a network cameraman in exactly the right place at the right time, wouldn't you say? I agree with Rob that reading a suspect their Miranda rights is critical, we just don't have any way of knowing whether that was done or not from the clip. If Santa gets an attorney I would think that is one of the first questions that will be asked. If the answer was no the police did not read those rights it should get as much coverage as the arrest.Thank you for understanding my point about Santa's Miranda rights........Rob PS And it does seem a little convenient to have a CBS cameraman right there to tape this, I have to agree with you there. But still - lots of litigation potential if Santa's rights did not get read and lots of Occupy ammo as Santa did get arrested in front of some children as the world can see. And one question I do have - if you are arrested, are not your rights supposed to be read to you when you are cuffed, or right around that point in time? From this video, we see Santa being cuffed and no rights being read.....Rob
Even if this was staged - which I don't believe it was personally, but that's not my point - the police officers involved should have read Austin Santa his rights - if only to cover their rear ends and to prevent costly litigation.
Rob - at what moment in time is law enforcement required to "read his rights"? What is the purpose of "reading the rights"? If they fail to "read the rights", what are the consequences?
Check that out first...
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:05pm
Also just wanted to add that there are other clips of this online showing 7 1/2 minutes.....Rob
Miranda v. Arizona held that a warning must be given before a custodial interrogation. Until the warning is given, anything the accused says cannot be used as evidence in court. The warning can be given after apprehension and that's often the case with accuseds who speak languages the police officers don't know. Also note that police can take action, and can even secure search warrants, on the basis of statements made prior to the warning, but only that found during the search can be used as evidence - not the statement prior to the warning.
This is all so weird. Why would the Santa even do this? Sounds like he was hoping for something to happen. Were the children, children of other Occupy Wallstreeters?
I mean what would this accomplish, as an Occupy Wallstreet person?
Seems sort of a weird thing for a Santa to do, even if it was innocent.
So much crap going on everywhere, no matter who its about or what side you're on.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:11pm
Rob - at what moment in time is law enforcement required to "read his rights"? What is the purpose of "reading the rights"? If they fail to "read the rights", what are the consequences?
Check that out first...If rights are not read, from what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, the case just gets thrown out as having your rights read is a requirement period. I thought rights get read at the time of arrest - which we see here in the video, the time of Santa's arrest.
Not reading his rights really - if nothing else - makes these cops look like storm troopers. Good job this is on video and has gone viral for the world to see one very ugly aspect of America.....that much I do support. Also not wise to read Santa his rights right then and there before hauling Santa off as there are those who are going to notice it and be chilled by it as I am.....the cops there must have know they were on video and that the video would indeed be uploaded with sympathy for Santa and his ordeal - one would think they'd read Santa his rights to cover their rear ends and keep their health insurance and pensions if nothing else! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:13pm
This is all so weird. Why would the Santa even do this? Sounds like he was hoping for something to happen. Were the children, children of other Occupy Wallstreeters?
I mean what would this accomplish, as an Occupy Wallstreet person?
Seems sort of a weird thing for a Santa to do, even if it was innocent.
So much crap going on everywhere, no matter who its about or what side you're on.The whole things is rather crazy, isn't it?
Sad that had Wall Street been able to regulate itself, there's be no need for Occupy in the first place when you get right down to it.....Rob
If rights are not read, from what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, the case just gets thrown out as having your rights read is a requirement period. I thought rights get read at the time of arrest - which we see here in the video, the time of Santa's arrest.
I think your understanding of the Miranda warning is wrong. The Miranda rule was developed to protect the individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It ensures that people in custody realize they do not have to talk to the police and that they have the right to the presence of an attorney. If the Miranda warning is not given before questioning, or if police continue to question a suspect after he or she indicates in any manner a desire to consult with an attorney before speaking, statements by the suspect generally are inadmissible. The warning is not required at the time of arrest, but prior to any subsequent interview.
If rights are not read, from what I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, the case just gets thrown out as having your rights read is a requirement period.Only if the only evidence in the case is the statement made prior to the warning.
Not reading his rights really - if nothing else - makes these cops look like storm troopers. Good job this is on video and has gone viral for the world to see one very ugly aspect of America.....that much I do support.I see both sides. The issue I'd be concerned about is the intentional effort to evoke specific reactions, in order to exploit those reactions in the media. It is one thing if the police go crazy on an accused without provocation. That's unforgivable. But, while I agree that we'd want the police to be in total control all the time, we don't want Robo-cop, so there should be a stiff penalty for deliberately inciting unflattering reactions from police that you planned to use to exploit mob mentality mass-sentiment.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:19pm
This is all so weird. Why would the Santa even do this? Sounds like he was hoping for something to happen. Were the children, children of other Occupy Wallstreeters?
I mean what would this accomplish, as an Occupy Wallstreet person?
Seems sort of a weird thing for a Santa to do, even if it was innocent.
So much crap going on everywhere, no matter who its about or what side you're on.I think what has been accomplished is that this video has gone viral worldwide showing a very nasty and ugly apsect of life in America today....if this was Santa's intention, he sure accomplished that one and how?
About the children - even if they were related to Occupy folks - they are still children and having them in the background during this storm trooper appearing arrest sure is not good PR.....I can tell you I think differently of Austin now, I kind of see it as some Hispanics see Arizona - guilty until proven innocent and no real rights unless you have money. Certainly I am not the only one who sees it this way - look at the comments to the video to see how others view this incident.
Sad, too, as Austin in so many other ways is a really cool place.....Rob
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 1:29pm
I see both sides. The issue I'd be concerned about is the intentional effort to evoke specific reactions, in order to exploit those reactions in the media. It is one thing if the police go crazy on an accused without provocation. That's unforgivable. But, while I agree that we'd want the police to be in total control all the time, we don't want Robo-cop, so there should be a stiff penalty for deliberately inciting unflattering reactions from police that you planned to use to exploit mob mentality mass-sentiment.
it's called civil disobedience, it's quite deliberately what one would do if they wanted to try to get anti-chalking (geez, I can't believe I'm writing that phrase!) laws overthrown. It might be something to do if you wanted to in general draw attention to police overreaction, but it's a very indirect way to do that, especially as police overreaction is well documented in many other much more straightforward cases anyway.
I think what has been accomplished is that this video has gone viral worldwide showing a very nasty and ugly apsect of life in America today....if this was Santa's intention, he sure accomplished that one and how?
I can't imagine this being news to the world rather than same old, same old, same story - different day. We have assasinations, and draconian laws, and yes it's hardly the only instance of police overreaction, etc..
I have believed that since Patriot Act I, Rob, and even before.
I was still in banking when the Patroit Act came down. As the compliance officer of the bank I had to write the policy and procedure manual for the Pat Act. I got up close and personal with it. If everyone got up close and personal with it they would realize how much the government is getting into their pants. If you receive or send $10,000 from your account the bank would have to provide the details of you and your account to the Feds. You would not be notified that you had been turned over to the Feds.
Many other freedoms were taken away by the act.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:37pm
it's called civil disobedience, it's quite deliberately what one would do if they wanted to try to get anti-chalking (geez, I can't believe I'm writing that phrase!) laws overthrown. It might be something to do if you wanted to in general draw attention to police overreaction, but it's a very indirect way to do that, especially as police overreaction is well documented in many other much more straightforward cases anyway.
I can't imagine this being news to the world rather than same old, same old, same story - different day. We have assasinations, and draconian laws, and yes it's hardly the only instance of police overreaction, etc..This one this time has someone dressed up in a Santa suit, right around Christmas, with children in the background.....gets its point across quite effectively to me anyway. Also the fact that it happened in Austin I find really chilling - as I posted before Austin has had a rep of being a very tolerant and open minded place where people who are "characters" can go and find a niche for themselves to fit into. I don't know the Santa here personally but hmmmmm.....I'm guessing he may be a bit of a character, or free thinker, or however you want to put it too. I myself have been called a character many times in my life as I don't see much the way the majority does - never have, and this is something I like about myself. Upsetting to see one of the few places in the US that prides itself on being different have police with such utter disregard for PR and common sense, and how they are coming across. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:40pm
I was still in banking when the Patroit Act came down. As the compliance officer of the bank I had to write the policy and procedure manual for the Pat Act. I got up close and personal with it. If everyone got up close and personal with it they would realize how much the government is getting into their pants. If you receive or send $10,000 from your account the bank would have to provide the details of you and your account to the Feds. You would not be notified that you had been turned over to the Feds.
Many other freedoms were taken away by the act. This I find chilling too - though I can see some logic here due to drug cartels and money laundering and such.
it's called civil disobedienceNo, it isn't. Civil disobedience is protesting something mindful of the probability of being arrested for the crime you plan to commit, being ready to incur the punishment for that crime, and hoping that that suffering that punishment will change public perception of the violation you were charged with. Deliberately goading a reaction to exploit the media and therefore manipulate the public is not civil disobedience. It's little more than self-serving inciting of unrest.
It might be something to do if you wanted to in general draw attention to police overreactionAgain, no: If you want to protest police overreaction, then you shouldn't need to deliberately goad the response you need to prove your point. Remember the point I made (rather than a much duller point that you're apparently trying to post a reply to): My comments condemned "intentional effort to evoke specific reactions".
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 1:51pm
You know, I noticed two things when I was in Austin the end of November last year.....When I was at the state capitol building for the free tour, I remember that security there was quite surly and rude. I remember thinking that they deal with so many people every day and just excusing it away. I also remember that TSA was asking what I thought quite intrusive questions of folks standing in line waiting to go through security at the airport. I wonder if this is a Texan thing - this aggressive stance in law enforcement/government officials? I don't know that it is, I am just wondering.
Amazing to me too as Austin sure is not a one dimensional place. As I posted back in November, I saw two young men holding hands and leaning into each other on the bus and there was no reaction from anyone at all. Also on the bus I saw an ad about rental rights in Austin featuring two women embracing each other and saying that housing discrimination based on sexual orientation was illegal in Austin. So - definitely to me not a one dimensional place at all. Rob
Santa was asked to cease and desist by someone who worked for the state capitol, some kind of state employee. Santa refused. So yeah legally perhaps Santa is not 100% in the clear technically.
Technically or otherwise Santa is not in the clear, Rob. Even if the law is silly to most of us it is still a law and Santa broke it. By your own admission Santa was given a chance to stop engaging in an illegal activity, but did not so the police were called. The police arrested someone who was breaking a law. That is an important part of their job description. If Santa was doing this to protest what he thinks is a silly law and to bring attention to that cause then I would say his efforts have been quite effective.
Now had Santa been doing something inappropriate with the children, or writing vulgar things in chalk I would not be personally so afraid and disillusioned. But this one for me is over the top - is this what we want America to be and are we supposed to be OK with this? Rob
I don't know the law in Austin. Is it more illegal to write something vulgar in chalk than something upbeat? Around here if you are doing something illegal it is the police force's job to arrest you. It is a judge that has the latitude to determine where your crime fits on a sliding scale of justice. If found guilty Santa might get the minimum penalty because the judge believed writing "peace" and "joy" was not particularly harmful to anyone where someone who writes swear words or gang signs my receive a stiffer penalty. My guess is that the people of Austin decided all chalking in front of public buildings is what is illegal rather than vulgar chalking. In general, the less subjective a law is, the better.
This one this time has someone dressed up in a Santa suit, right around Christmas, with children in the background.....gets its point across quite effectively to me anyway.
Again, that kind of high-drama, emotional imagery combined with the fact that a television professional just happened to be standing right on the spot seems a bit too perfect. I can't prove the event was staged and won't accuse anyone of doing it, but it certainly has that odor.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 2:40pm
No, it isn't. Civil disobedience is protesting something mindful of the probability of being arrested for the crime you plan to commit, being ready to incur the punishment for that crime, and hoping that that suffering that punishment will change public perception of the violation you were charged with. Deliberately goading a reaction to exploit the media and therefore manipulate the public is not civil disobedience. snip.
How can you possible change public perception without getting media attention? You can't. And I don't know why viewing what happens qualifies as manipulation more than any other attempt to influence public opinion. That said I don't know the guys motives, I really do think he's more likely just to be a character than to have a plan.
I wonder if this is a Texan thing
I think you probably hit the nail close to the head. Most likely a Texas law enforcement thing.
I found the local paper's story on it and the comments seem to go down the middle, ie spoiled brat action vs defender of freedom:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/man-in-santa-suit-arrested-outside-capitol/nTc6c/
That being said, this town is not the place it was even a few years ago. All manner of outsiders have moved here recently and things are chaotic as we try to adjust to it. Lots of bad press lately.
Chalking in front of federal buildings is illegal in most states. This is especially being enforced since 9/11. Lots of people were chalking but they arrested the person who started it and handed out the chalk. Occupy knows that it's illegal (several arrests for this last year according to one of my friends who is big in the Occupy movement) and this guy being prart of the movement knew it was illegal. Police are not about to go and arrest a bunch of children and their parents and from my understanding they tried to wait to arrest this guy until he was away from the kids. Some woman drew attention to what was going on.
I agree that we are loosing some of our freedoms but there is no excuse for breaking the law and this guy can't claim ignorance in this case.
Edited to add that I need a permit to chalk (as an artist) the sidewalks in my community. I believe that is true in most communities and there are lots of restrictions on where you can chalk.
I agree. He probably wasn't arrested for chalking, more likely he was arrested for not stopping the chalking when asked by police. Had he been told by police it was illegal to draw on the sidewalk without a permit and asked to stop, and he refused to stop, then he would be arrested for breaking whatever legal code he was violating - probably vandalism.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 2:49pm
Again, that kind of high-drama, emotional imagery combined with the fact that a television professional just happened to be standing right on the spot seems a bit too perfect. I can't prove the event was staged and won't accuse anyone of doing it, but it certainly has that odor.
The media might run with a story if it sells, OTOH I don't know why anyone would count the media as an ally for this type of thing (naivite again?), the goal of the media is mostly to present a very corporate point of view, they are in the promoting the status quo business, not the inciting revolution business. Now youtube or genuinely alternative media is another story, sure you can get youtube views for something like this, if that's the goal.
No, I don't. In a relative sense we have more freedoms now than ever. But it begs to ask how much freedom we actually have to begin with. In the 60's you could be shot and killed for protesting a war, in the 50's you could be arrested for being a member of the communist party, not too long ago a black person could be arrested for sitting in a white persons area, and in the 70's there was a compulsory military draft. There have been times recently when certain "romantic" relationships have been illegal.
I think there is more media fear mongering and paranoia than ever, but the bigger danger to our freedoms isn't from authority figures but from what we are doing to our ourselves in degrading our environment and infringing on the freedoms of others. Plus one! I see freedoms both gained and eroded - different freedoms gained like you mentioned, and other freedoms eroded like Gregg mentioned.
I have seen other videos of this event and in none was Santa's rights read to him -[to me this should be a punitive lawsuit in the millions - seriously. With public apologies. And perhaps instructions for the citizens on how to sue to keep this from happening again.
Rob, in case you didn't know and if it hasn't been mentioned yet, often times a person isn't read their Miranda Rights untill booking - which takes place at in a jail facility when they are being held awaiting charges. It's very common to do it that way (despite what TV tells us) and until a person is read their rights, whatever they say can't be used against them. Thus by not Miranda-izing Austin Santa at the "event", he actually is free to say and do whatever he wants without fear of it being used. Once he is in a holding facility, like a jail, and in a place where he has the ability to retain a lawyer if he wants, he is read his rights. So in fact he is more protected, not less, by them waiting to get to a jail before reading him his rights. Because anything he says until then, during transport in the police car for example, can't and won't be used against him.
From Wikipedia: Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedingsm
ETA - I see that others answered this in greater lenght before me already.
readaholic713
1-15-13, 3:01pm
We are certainly losing freedom in the US, although we are gaining it in some other areas. We are more socially progressive than we used to be, certainly, but the right to own a firearm is coming under attack. While I think it's important we have anti-discrimination laws and freedoms related to personal identity, the right to own a gun is more important for overall freedom. The recent debates concerning gun control have certainly awoken a rather latent libertarian tendency in me.
Rob, in case you didn't know and if it hasn't been mentioned yet, often times a person isn't read their Miranda Rights untill booking - which takes place at in a jail facility when they are being held awaiting charges. It's very common to do it that way (despite what TV tells us) and until a person is read their rights, whatever they say can't be used against them. Thus by not Miranda-izing Austin Santa at the "event", he actually is free to say and do whatever he wants without fear of it being used. Once he is in a holding facility, like a jail, and in a place where he has the ability to retain a lawyer if he wants, he is read his rights. So in fact he is more protected, not less, by them waiting to get to a jail before reading him his rights. Because anything he says until then, during transport in the police car for example, can't and won't be used against him.
That is exactly my understanding of it as well Spartana. Rob, do you have something that shows this is incorrect?
I think what has been accomplished is that this video has gone viral worldwide showing a very nasty and ugly apsect of life in America today....if this was Santa's intention, he sure accomplished that one and how?
I wonder if this man were dressed as a dirty homeless bum with a scraggily bread and torn filty clothing and no shoes handing out chalk to little kids to draw with, if you would see his arrest by the police the same way?
I think what has been accomplished is that this video has gone viral worldwide showing a very nasty and ugly apsect of life in America today....if this was Santa's intention, he sure accomplished that one and how?
About the children - even if they were related to Occupy folks - they are still children and having them in the background during this storm trooper appearing arrest sure is not good PR.....
Rob - where is the "very nasty and ugly" aspect of this arrest? The officers were being reasonably professional. They did not seem to be using excessive force. They were not "storm troopers".
I just watched the video, I don't see jackboots kicking Santa, I don't see batons hitting him in the head, and so on.
Compare to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:05pm
Rob - where is the "very nasty and ugly" aspect of this arrest? The officers were being reasonably professional. They did not seem to be using excessive force. They were not "storm troopers".
I just watched the video, I don't see jackboots kicking Santa, I don't see batons hitting him in the head, and so on.
Compare to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1ZDIXiuS4Bae, obviously there is a difference in these two situations, I'll give you that.
What gets me is that Santa was chalking for crying out loud! And gets arrested for it......that's just over the top to me period. I guess I was wrong about the Miranda issue - I'll admit that - but this still chills me to the core. As for the nasty aspect of it, how is this going to look to people seeing it in other countries wherein citizens have the human right to chalk on the sidewalks? Is anyone at all here seeing a PR issue if nothing else? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:07pm
I wonder if this man were dressed as a dirty homeless bum with a scraggily bread and torn filty clothing and no shoes handing out chalk to little kids to draw with, if you would see his arrest by the police the same way?Point taken.....the visuals would be very different and I am willing to admit I would more than likely draw different conclusions. I'll admit that.....But what about all the people all around the world who don't have someone pointing this out to them? Do you see a PR issue here in any way, shape, or form? Especially with people in other countries being aware of our rights losses over the past decade? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:09pm
Rob, in case you didn't know and if it hasn't been mentioned yet, often times a person isn't read their Miranda Rights untill booking - which takes place at in a jail facility when they are being held awaiting charges. It's very common to do it that way (despite what TV tells us) and until a person is read their rights, whatever they say can't be used against them. Thus by not Miranda-izing Austin Santa at the "event", he actually is free to say and do whatever he wants without fear of it being used. Once he is in a holding facility, like a jail, and in a place where he has the ability to retain a lawyer if he wants, he is read his rights. So in fact he is more protected, not less, by them waiting to get to a jail before reading him his rights. Because anything he says until then, during transport in the police car for example, can't and won't be used against him.
From Wikipedia: Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedingsm
ETA - I see that others answered this in greater lenght before me already.Fair enough, I will admit I was wrong about the rights being read. I always thought this was done at the time of the actual arrest. I stand corrected. Rob Thanks for clearing this up for me, Spartana.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:19pm
That is exactly my understanding of it as well Spartana. Rob, do you have something that shows this is incorrect?No, I admit I was wrong about my understanding of how the rights being read works. I stand corrected.....Rob
Gardenarian
1-15-13, 4:20pm
Sorry, I 'm coming late to this discussion.
What I don't understand is the problem with chalk and why its use is so heavily regulated. It seems to me a great medium for protest (and for public art) - temporary, non-toxic...what's the problem?
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:21pm
Sorry, I 'm coming late to this discussion.
What I don't understand is the problem with chalk and why its use is so heavily regulated. It seems to me a great medium for protest (and for public art) - temporary, non-toxic...what's the problem?Honestly, I'd love to know, too. Seems like it would be easy to remove from sidewalks.....Rob
Do you see a PR issue here in any way, shape, or form? Especially with people in other countries being aware of our rights losses over the past decade? Rob
I can see how people in other countries might interpret the video in all kinds of ways. Among the worst is assuming the US is a police state, under Marshall law, Obama has been overthrown by the military, Obama turned the military on citizens, etc. Not to sounds snarky at all, but who cares? Does it really matter? It may be a black eye for Austin in some circles and certainly in the view of some who are looking for things like this anyway (and who won't bother trying to understand the whole story). But a whole lot of different people visit Austin. Not all of them are opposed to the police arresting law breakers after they have given that person multiple chances to stop what they were doing, regardless of how the suspect was dressed. And not all of them are supporters of the Occupy movement.
What gets me is that Santa was chalking for crying out loud! And gets arrested for it......that's just over the top to me period.
It is quite difficult to determine the circumstances leading up to the arrest from a clearly pre-staged out-of-context video snippet.
I suspect that is why we have juries and such.
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:29pm
It is quite difficult to determine the circumstances leading up to the arrest from a clearly pre-staged out-of-context video snippet.
I suspect that is why we have juries and such.On this take I'm yes and no, Bae. I don't buy 100% that this was pre-staged, but having the cameraman from CBS there just seems a little too convenient, too, so I am not going to say you are wrong, either. I don't know that this video was out of context, either, as it did show the arrest and Austin Santa being cuffed and taken the car to be hauled in. But I do agree that this is what juries are for - but wow, could you see being on the jury in this case? I would automatically side with Santa out of complete and utter disgust with whatever law allows the police to arrest him for chalking in the first place. I would have no problem being the lone holdout on such a jury.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:31pm
I can see how people in other countries might interpret the video in all kinds of ways. Among the worst is assuming the US is a police state, under Marshall law, Obama has been overthrown by the military, Obama turned the military on citizens, etc. Not to sounds snarky at all, but who cares? Does it really matter? It may be a black eye for Austin in some circles and certainly in the view of some who are looking for things like this anyway (and who won't bother trying to understand the whole story). But a whole lot of different people visit Austin. Not all of them are opposed to the police arresting law breakers after they have given that person multiple chances to stop what they were doing, regardless of how the suspect was dressed. And not all of them are supporters of the Occupy movement.My take on this is along the lines of - if someone can be arrested for something seemingly this trivial, what other trivial things can one be arrested for? This thought does not inspire confidence, trust, or the willingness to spend money in the capital city of Texas - at least not for me. Rob I wonder how others who are in positions of spending a lot of money on travel or of organizing large conventions and needed to avoid places with such drama due to PC reasons - might feel about spending money in Austin if they should stumble across this video like I have? Rob
Sorry, I 'm coming late to this discussion.
What I don't understand is the problem with chalk and why its use is so heavily regulated. It seems to me a great medium for protest (and for public art) - temporary, non-toxic...what's the problem?
I don't think there is a problem with chalk, per se. It isn't illegal, as far as I know, to draw on any privately owned surface (with the owner's permission, of course), only on/in certain public spaces. Some of it is probably part of the knee jerk, hyper-security over reaction to 9/11. Who knows, part of it may be someone's effort to suppress artistic expression. In any case, the people of Austin either voted for the law or voted for the people who made the law so they had a say in it and they have, for now, decided to make it illegal in at least this one place.
My take on this is along the lines of - if someone can be arrested for something seemingly this trivial, what other trivial things can one be arrested for? This thought does not inspire confidence, trust, or the willingness to spend money in the capital city of Texas - at least not for me. Rob I wonder how others who are in positions of spending a lot of money on travel or of organizing large conventions and needed to avoid places with such drama due to PC reasons - might feel about spending money in Austin if they should stumble across this video like I have? Rob
There are a lot of seemingly trivial things that can land a person in hot water. Jaywalking, spitting on the street, PDA's, going 5 mph over the limit..... Society sets standards. If someone wishes to challenge those standards by breaking the law and then showing in court that it is silly they can do that. But you don't get to skip the court part if this is your path. My guess is Santa already knew that.
I don't know that this video was out of context, either, as it did show the arrest and Austin Santa being cuffed and taken the car to be hauled in.
Did you see the time period *before* the video? I can theorize about all sorts of circumstances that might have led to the police being concerned about the behaviour of Santa, and deciding to make contact with him. Judging from his vocal tones and actions when the arrest was in progress, I can imagine there might have been previous observed behaviour.
That's what I meant by "out of context" - you didn't see the whole incident, just the (rather peaceful and professional) arrest.
And now you are spinning your worldview onto the brief bit you saw. As intended...
But I do agree that this is what juries are for - but wow, could you see being on the jury in this case? I would automatically side with Santa out of complete and utter disgust with whatever law allows the police to arrest him for chalking in the first place. I would have no problem being the lone holdout on such a jury.....Rob
I would submit you shouldn't be on a jury at all then, if you are not willing to hold your judgement until you have sorted through the evidence to determine the facts, then apply the facts to the law that was allegedly violated.
You have already lept to conclusions, based on limited out-of-context evidence, and you don't even know what law to apply.
But you are beating your chest about how horrible America/Austin are because of this one video clip.
You have expressed a desire to move to Mexico. Have you ever observed an arrest there? I have. Have you ever had to go through police/military checkpoints there? I used to have to go through several every day, it was a bit daunting, what with the machine gun emplacements and armored vehicles all pointed at me.
Austin seems pretty tame. Check out what goes on in our larger inner-cities sometime...
How can you possible change public perception without getting media attention?Get media attention from the trial, and from appealing to the public once incarcerated. Again: Civil disobedience isn't for sissies or spoiled brats.
What makes you think those committing civil disobedience today deserve better than Gandhi? ... than King? (Seriously.)
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 4:57pm
Did you see the time period *before* the video? I can theorize about all sorts of circumstances that might have led to the police being concerned about the behaviour of Santa, and deciding to make contact with him. Judging from his vocal tones and actions when the arrest was in progress, I can imagine there might have been previous observed behaviour.
That's what I meant by "out of context" - you didn't see the whole incident, just the (rather peaceful and professional) arrest.
And now you are spinning your worldview onto the brief bit you saw. As intended...
I would submit you shouldn't be on a jury at all then, if you are not willing to hold your judgement until you have sorted through the evidence to determine the facts, then apply the facts to the law that was allegedly violated.
You have already lept to conclusions, based on limited out-of-context evidence, and you don't even know what law to apply.
But you are beating your chest about how horrible America/Austin are because of this one video clip.
You have expressed a desire to move to Mexico. Have you ever observed an arrest there? I have. Have you ever had to go through police/military checkpoints there? I used to have to go through several every day, it was a bit daunting, what with the machine gun emplacements and armored vehicles all pointed at me.
Austin seems pretty tame. Check out what goes on in our larger inner-cities sometime...Bae, I happen to like Austin overall, this is another reason that this Santa arrest thing bothers me so much.
About Mexico - yes I know you need to be careful there and I know that the laws are different. Matter of fact I have observed an arrest there - my father's in Manzanillo in 1974 for acting up drunk in public. He spent a night in a jail and then they released him, but what was traumautic is that the Mexican police came to our motel room and searched everything. Nothing bad happened but I remember my mother was absolutely terrified. I have also dealt with checkpoints there and although it's a little intimidating, I have had no problems. I guess this is one of the costs of admission to have the good things Mexico has to offer. And maybe this incident - or having tolerance of the possibility of their occurrence - is a cost of admission to experiencing the good that Austin has to offer - and I do believe there is good there, I have seen some with my own eyes.
Maybe I am getting a little over upset about this one video clip - possibly - but to me it seems to symbolize something that is terribly wrong with America today. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 4:59pm
I didn't not know there was a whole long list or rules of what must and must not be done as part of civil disobedience and raising public awareness of an issue (considering that civil disobedience already is breaking the law). Getting media attention from the trial: ok. Getting it before hand: strictly prohibited. Why ask why? Where is this grand code of civil disobedience written down?
Point taken.....the visuals would be very different and I am willing to admit I would more than likely draw different conclusions. I'll admit that.....But what about all the people all around the world who don't have someone pointing this out to them? Do you see a PR issue here in any way, shape, or form? Especially with people in other countries being aware of our rights losses over the past decade? RobI agree that arresting Santa for defacing public property by tagging with chalk would look different (worse) on film then say arresting a black guy in a hoodie for defacing public property by tagging with chalk. But from a legal/law enforcement standpoint it is exactly the same thing. We are profiling and judging a book by it's cover (white old guy dressed as Santa = good, black young guy in hoodie = bad) when we treat them differently. That's why it's important to look at the actual crime or violation committed rather then at the physical characteristics of the person - and act according to the crime and not just the person's looks. Do we let "good" Santa continue to commit a crime because arresting him will look bad? Would we continue to let "bad" black hoodie guy do the same thing? Especially around or with a bunch of little kids? I don't think so.
And of course the words to the old Jethro Tull song "Aqualung" come back to me: "Sitting on park bench. Watching all the little girls with bad intent"... Aqualung dressed as Santa with nice chalk for all the pretty little girls.
Where is this grand code of civil disobedience written down?
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71.txt
That is exactly my understanding of it as well Spartana. Rob, do you have something that shows this is incorrect? We often didn't give people we arrested their Miranda rights until we were on shore and they were able to get legal representation. This was especially true if we picked up foreign nationals in International Waters (CG can board and arrest foreign vessels and nationals in International Waters as long as we have a treaty to do that with the foreign country or if they are an unknown nationality - all without probable cause) because of the language barriers as well as certain Maritime laws on the High Seas. Basicly we, as law enforcement personnel, were harmed more then any offenders we had onboard, because we really couldn't use anything they said to make a conviction. So that's why I say it actually protects the offender more so then law enforcement and court cases.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 5:22pm
Basically assuming what this guy wants is civil disobedience is a bit fanciful anyway, I mean sure maybe he wants to protest anti-chalking laws, or the general oppressive practices of police, but we don't know that. Maybe he's just a naive guy who doesn't think anyone is really that serious about enforcing anything against a santa chalking on a sidewalk anyway, as in, well surely the police have better things to do ....(I guess not!). But I don't see why anyone whose goal was say to protest chalking laws shouldn't get publicity for it right up front, saying that that absolutely must not be done for some unknown reason is just saying "yes you can only fight if your hands tied behind your back, and one foot is cemented in a bucket and you wear a blindfold and ..." but I fully support your fight! As if all the power wasn't pretty much on the laws side and not a protestor's anyway.
Where is this grand code of civil disobedience written down?Start here:
http://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Cross-Christian-Leadership-Conference/dp/0060566922
http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Prisoner-Dr-Judith-Brown/dp/0300051255
The point you seem to have missed is that civil disobedience is not about practicing deception. It's about practicing moral behaviors.
Start here:
http://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Cross-Christian-Leadership-Conference/dp/0060566922
http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Prisoner-Dr-Judith-Brown/dp/0300051255
The point you seem to have missed is that civil disobedience is not about practicing deception. It's about practicing moral behaviors.
And if that doesn't work out,
http://i43.tower.com/images/mm101928045/total-resistance-von-dach-h-paperback-cover-art.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/The_Sling_and_the_Stone.jpg
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0121/2432/products/Jensen_Endgame_V2_large.jpg?9
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71.txtFunny how we simple livers never talk about Thoreau anymore. He use to be a mainstream topic on simple living on the old boards. And while his writings wer more in line with passive civil disobedience, your other books are more active versions. Reminds me of the old Paladin Press books. Don't know if they still are around but pretty much covered all sorts of forms of civil (and not so civil :-)) forms of civil disobedience. OK...more like how to get revenge on those who tick you off :-)!
Rob, now don't take this the wrong way but......if rock solid freedoms are this important to you, you may wish to rethink your recent leanings toward moving to Mexico. I have lived there, and in most large cities they would laugh themselves silly if you expected to be treated well by the police, fair or not, if you broke the law (or even sometimes if you didn't) If you live abroad, and especially in the third world, you may find we still have far more freedoms than you think.
And if that doesn't work out,
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0121/2432/products/Jensen_Endgame_V2_large.jpg?9
Ahh, Derrick Jensen; we like to call him "Mister Sunshine" in our house. I don't think advocating bombing large corporations is in the same league as chalking a sidewalk.....
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 8:04pm
Rob, now don't take this the wrong way but......if rock solid freedoms are this important to you, you may wish to rethink your recent leanings toward moving to Mexico. I have lived there, and in most large cities they would laugh themselves silly if you expected to be treated well by the police, fair or not, if you broke the law (or even sometimes if you didn't) If you live abroad, and especially in the third world, you may find we still have far more freedoms than you think.Mexico is a very different country, I get that puglogic. And it is quite crooked and corrupt, I get that too. The difference is that it is honestly crooked and corrupt - it is very in your face and everyone knows it and expects it. It is a given in everyday life that you just work around. There is no real expectation of fairness or justice there - and here there is. That is one reason why I find this whole situation so unpleasant. Arresting someone for chalking a sidewalk? Quite third world to me - but without the colorful marketplaces and tendency towards family values and less expensive medical and dental. If law enforcement can actually arrest someone for chalking a sidewalk - I want the good things that come with being in the third world.....American expectations of productivity and being arrested for something so trivial don't match up well for me.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
1-15-13, 8:11pm
Rob, now don't take this the wrong way but......if rock solid freedoms are this important to you, you may wish to rethink your recent leanings toward moving to Mexico. I have lived there, and in most large cities they would laugh themselves silly if you expected to be treated well by the police, fair or not, if you broke the law (or even sometimes if you didn't) If you live abroad, and especially in the third world, you may find we still have far more freedoms than you think.Something else Puglogic - when I spend time in Mexico, I have a whole different set of expectations than when I spend time in the US. I don't go to Mexico blindly, not knowing what is going on in the country. An example I can give you is that when I went to Mexico with my mother last year when she had her dental crisis, I floored everyone at the dentist's office as I could intelligently speak about current Mexican events and politics - probably even better than I can American politics or American current events. I keep up with Mexico because it's like a safety valve and so close by me, too. Rob
Yossarian
1-15-13, 11:00pm
Civil disobedience isn't for sissies or spoiled brats.
Yeah, taking a ride for playing with chalk doesn't really rate...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg
iris lily
1-15-13, 11:02pm
Austin Santa really seemed like a big crybaby to me, he was annoying. Now, that long hair dude who was also being patted down by the cops, he was calm and collected. He was cute. I'd like to share a jail cell with him, haha.
iris lily
1-15-13, 11:11pm
Speaking of civil disobedience, Jonah Goldberg said something that resonated with me when he spoke here in town recently. He said that civil disobedience can work when it is performed in a civil society. Gandhi's actions worked because he was performing within a country run by people with a basic respect for civil behavior and a civil society.The English weren't about to set him on fire or hang him at high noon.
All of those who might have participated in civil disobedience in Nazi Germany were not people we now know. Their names are lost to us. In that un-civil society, they were toast.
So, perhaps my point is: don't denigrate too much the society that is carefully hauling off the Santa man. We are part of his play, were it not a civil us, he'd be toast.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-13, 12:25am
Civil disobedience isn't for sissies or spoiled brats.
no, sissies mostly are perfect law abiding citizens not actively involved in anything. I certainly don't see why chalk man is any more sissy than someone who would never, not even in their most sinful and depraved thoughts make chalk drawings on a sidewalk,. Really I didn't even want to respond to this part, because it's not an argument, it's just a bunch of emotionally heated almost random words, but I thought that too obvious to bother with.
Yeah, taking a ride for playing with chalk doesn't really rate...
Note that the man didn't damage the tanks. And he didn't plan to deceive television viewers into thinking that they were seeing a natural occurrence. His action was principled, not cynical.
Another moral instance of civil disobedience.
Mexico is a very different country, I get that puglogic. And it is quite crooked and corrupt, I get that too. The difference is that it is honestly crooked and corrupt - it is very in your face and everyone knows it and expects it. It is a given in everyday life that you just work around. There is no real expectation of fairness or justice there - and here there is. That is one reason why I find this whole situation so unpleasant. Arresting someone for chalking a sidewalk? Quite third world to me - but without the colorful marketplaces and tendency towards family values and less expensive medical and dental. If law enforcement can actually arrest someone for chalking a sidewalk - I want the good things that come with being in the third world.....American expectations of productivity and being arrested for something so trivial don't match up well for me.....Rob
Rob, I don't think he was arrested for chalking a sidewalk. Rather he was arrested for refusing to stop chalking a sidewalk after he was told it was against the law and to please stop. Big difference, actually.
We have laws in place for many reasons, some we agree with and some we don't. But we follow them all, cause to simply pick and choose which laws we want to follow would lead to, well, a country like Mexico, or Columbia (parts of) or some other third world country where your rights are only at the pleasure of someone bigger, or stronger, or badder!
Running a red light in the middle of the night with no one around might seem trivial, but would you do it over and over? In front of/or in spite of the police car sitting on the corner? Actually, this guy seems to me the kind of fellow, (and we have all encountered them) who thinks a 'keep out' sign means someone else. Or, more annoying, who drives up the shoulder to cut in line at the head of the patiently waiting cars to go through whatever obstruction is up ahead.
And the fact that he was dressed as Santa...well, don't be fooled into thinking this was just some innocent do-gooder entertaining the kiddies. He dressed as Santa because he wanted to have video of Santa being arrested in front of kids. Very calculated. And it worked.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-13, 1:05pm
Note that the man didn't damage the tanks. And he didn't plan to deceive television viewers into thinking that they were seeing a natural occurrence. His action was principled, not cynical.
Another moral instance of civil disobedience.
Yes because chalking on a sidewalk is the height of immorality or really even immoral in any way, shape or form. The ultimate non and victimless crime of them all, writing with chalk on a sidewalk. I don't hold it as the height of heroism though I could change my mind as I sometimes fail to see the full context of these things, I have before, if say the chalk incident led to a system wide reexamination of excessive police reaction well in that case ...., but mostly I think it's just writing with chalk .... on a sidewalk. I don't know why we pick tank examples from other countries. If civil disobedience is nothing but standing up to tanks you do realize noone is going to do it pretty much, right? But impossible heroes goes well with the average person never doing anything and it is probably the goal, because it's all or nothing afterall, and who wants to stand up to a tank? What about the Keystone XL protestors. That is surely a fight worth fighting. Trying to stop the building of the Keystone XL. In our times, in our country. Not tanks but maybe bulldozers. Certainly an example that could be used.
Yes because chalking on a sidewalk is the height of immorality.
Again though, what led up to the arrest, and what precisely he was charged with?
but standing up to tanks you do realize noone is going to do it pretty much, right?
I posted a reference above showing how to do it. Our foes in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to manage it, with pretty minimal technology. Bulldozers are similar. You might find this helpful:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Ecodefense-second-edition.jpg
Yes because chalking on a sidewalk is ...As others have pointed out, the violation was not chalking on the sidewalk - the violation was defying the police.
The ultimate non and victimless crime of them allManipulating people is a form of victimization of others, even if some don't want to admit that it is, as is the impact of being the object used to commit that manipulation, in this case, the police officers. The fact that they were doing their jobs doesn't obviate the transgression committed by a protester trying to be their puppet master for the protester's own aims.
Beyond all that, a victimless crime is still a crime worthy of society's sanction, otherwise it wouldn't have been made a crime.
If civil disobedience is nothing but standing up to tanks you do realize noone is going to do it pretty much, right?Principled people will. Unprincipled people won't. It's a form of checks and balances that precludes exploiters for abusing any ability to cause disruption with impunity. It's that "with impunity" part that they must give up to make their point. If protesters are not willing to incur the punishment then they clearly don't believe in what they're saying strongly enough to warrant respect as civil disobedience.
If you won't do the time then don't do the crime.
Resist much, obey little. - Whitman
Now. Or never. - Thoreau
Or for a lighter take on the whole thing...
1101
gimmethesimplelife
1-16-13, 1:47pm
Rob, I don't think he was arrested for chalking a sidewalk. Rather he was arrested for refusing to stop chalking a sidewalk after he was told it was against the law and to please stop. Big difference, actually.
We have laws in place for many reasons, some we agree with and some we don't. But we follow them all, cause to simply pick and choose which laws we want to follow would lead to, well, a country like Mexico, or Columbia (parts of) or some other third world country where your rights are only at the pleasure of someone bigger, or stronger, or badder!
Running a red light in the middle of the night with no one around might seem trivial, but would you do it over and over? In front of/or in spite of the police car sitting on the corner? Actually, this guy seems to me the kind of fellow, (and we have all encountered them) who thinks a 'keep out' sign means someone else. Or, more annoying, who drives up the shoulder to cut in line at the head of the patiently waiting cars to go through whatever obstruction is up ahead.
And the fact that he was dressed as Santa...well, don't be fooled into thinking this was just some innocent do-gooder entertaining the kiddies. He dressed as Santa because he wanted to have video of Santa being arrested in front of kids. Very calculated. And it worked.Peggy, now that I have calmed down a bit I can see your points. Santa was asked to cease and desist. This is true. And it is little too convenient that a CBS cameraman was right there to film all of this.....
Not to change the subject, I think one reason this bothered me so much is an article I ran across that I posted in a new thread about schoolchildren being arrested in Texas. It seems that out of nowhere I am running across news features of police behavior in Texas I find very disturbing - but on Santa I am starting to see that he is not in the clear as he was asked to desist and had the chance to walk away and chose not to. Rob
It is important to take the time to consider what we don't see in our sound bite driven world. Those who wish to inflame most often rely on the average American's keen ability to immediately jump to conclusions. Their tactics won't work when people start to calmly evaluate what they have seen.
gimmethesimplelife
1-16-13, 2:00pm
It is important to take the time to consider what we don't see in our sound bite driven world. Those who wish to inflame most often rely on the average American's keen ability to immediately jump to conclusions. Their tactics won't work when people start to calmly evaluate what they have seen.I agree with what you say here, but let me pose this - perhaps conclusions wouldn't just be jumped to if there were not an underlying distrust of the police to begin with - where does this underlying distrust come from? Rob
It is important to take the time to consider what we don't see in our sound bite driven world. Those who wish to inflame most often rely on the average American's keen ability to immediately jump to conclusions. Their tactics won't work when people start to calmly evaluate what they have seen.
Which is why those seeking to exploit the process rather than conscientiously seeking to practice it are incentivized to manipulate it to try to achieve quick results before their manipulation is found out and exposed.
I agree with what you say here, but let me pose this - perhaps conclusions wouldn't just be jumped to if there were not an underlying distrust of the police to begin with - where does this underlying distrust come from? Rob
Where does it come from? I really can't say in this case, there was clear and compelling video which most everyone here interpreted correctly. To others, it was a clear and compelling case of 'loss of freedoms' and 'storm troopers', neither of which were borne out by what we saw with our own eyes. Perhaps we are too caught up in believing what we want to believe, regardless.
I'm not sure it matters Rob. We've proven time and again that any of us can find an example somewhere that will support any conclusion/theory/feeling/etc. we have. Preconceived notions are what often leads us to quick, and often wrong, conclusions. In this story it would not be unreasonable to think the police were being heavy handed if you only watched the clip once and did not pay close attention to details. That would especially be true if you already had a distrust of the police. Those are (probably) the points the producers of the clip were counting on. It appears to have been produced for a narrow target audience that needs to have information spoon fed to them. If you're willing to keep an open mind, evaluate what you can see and consider what you can't then you don't need groups that resort to these tactics.
gimmethesimplelife
1-16-13, 2:41pm
I'm not sure it matters Rob. We've proven time and again that any of us can find an example somewhere that will support any conclusion/theory/feeling/etc. we have. Preconceived notions are what often leads us to quick, and often wrong, conclusions. In this story it would not be unreasonable to think the police were being heavy handed if you only watched the clip once and did not pay close attention to details. That would especially be true if you already had a distrust of the police. Those are (probably) the points the producers of the clip were counting on. It appears to have been produced for a narrow target audience that needs to have information spoon fed to them. If you're willing to keep an open mind, evaluate what you can see and consider what you can't then you don't need groups that resort to these tactics.Gregg, I agree with you about viewing this as heavy handed, as I already and probably always will distrust the police. I learned at a very young age that laws are not uniformly applied and justice boils down to money or the lack of it.....I was 13 when I learned that. So I can see where folks who don't have a similar take are not going to see heavy handedness as easily or as quickly. But I disagree about the spoon feeding - I don't need anything spoon fed to me and never have. I draw my own conclusions and I do admit they often run counter to those of the majority - let's just say I have a unique take on many issues. I am sure this had come across by now in my posts. In this case I will say that I was wrong about the rights being read at the time of arrest, and that Santa was asked to stop prior to his arrest. I still disagree with the arrest in principle though - but I can see legally where the police were not out of line. Rob
I still disagree with the arrest in principle though - but I can see legally where the police were not out of line. Rob
Do you disagre with the arrest because you don't think Santa was breaking a law (and didn't stop when asked)? Or do you disagree with the arrest because what he was doing was harmless even though it was illegal and he should have been allowed to continue? I ask this because, as I mentioned earlier, if it was another person doing the same thing - drawing in chalk on public property - and this person was a neo-nazi or KKK member or some other less-lovable person then Santa, drawing pictures with children on public property would you still disagree with their arrest in principle? If the police don't arrest people for engaging in crimes, and choose to let Santa continue, then that sets a precedence to let other, maybe less desirerable people then Santa, to do the same. So it's not that the police were picking on Santa per se, but they were enforing a law that was put in place to protect the public from acts of vandalism (which is what this would probably be considered) by ALL people - desirables like Santa or not.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-13, 3:14pm
Yes because chalking on a sidewalk is ..
As others have pointed out, the violation was not chalking on the sidewalk - the violation was defying the police.
Well ok but that alone certainly doesn't make it immoral only illegal.
The ultimate non and victimless crime of them all
Manipulating people is a form of victimization of others, even if some don't want to admit that it is, as is the impact of being the object used to commit that manipulation, in this case, the police officers.
The entire society *IS* basically full of this manipulation. All the time. Advertising is a form of manipulating people's perceptions, all the time, ads on t.v., on billboards, on the radio ... do you feel moral rage at it's victimization of others? A set up stunt, if that's what it was, is different than this also staged manipulation, how? The entire society uses the media, emotionally charged manipulation and scripted scenarios all the time, but oh no chalk guy is using these same things. Oh no protestors are using our tools (instead of being our tools!).
Beyond all that, a victimless crime is still a crime worthy of society's sanction, otherwise it wouldn't have been made a crime.
There are so many laws on the books that pretty much everything is probably illegal now, luckily very few of them are actually enforced.
If civil disobedience is nothing but standing up to tanks you do realize noone is going to do it pretty much, right?
Principled people will. Unprincipled people won't.
Mostly people who don't want to die won't. Although I think it's often people with children and other commitments that most think they need to keep themselves alive, the young and idealistic without such are probably most likely to be the martyrs.
gimmethesimplelife
1-16-13, 3:44pm
Do you disagre with the arrest because you don't think Santa was breaking a law (and didn't stop when asked)? Or do you disagree with the arrest because what he was doing was harmless even though it was illegal and he should have been allowed to continue? I ask this because, as I mentioned earlier, if it was another person doing the same thing - drawing in chalk on public property - and this person was a neo-nazi or KKK member or some other less-lovable person then Santa, drawing pictures with children on public property would you still disagree with their arrest in principle? If the police don't arrest people for engaging in crimes, and choose to let Santa continue, then that sets a precedence to let other, maybe less desirerable people then Santa, to do the same. So it's not that the police were picking on Santa per se, but they were enforing a law that was put in place to protect the public from acts of vandalism (which is what this would probably be considered) by ALL people - desirables like Santa or not.Spartana, thanks for responding. Your posts are always so reasonable and often make me stop and think. And I do entirely see your point. And even agree with you.....if exceptions were made for Austin Santa, how far would the next person or person(s) go? I can see that. Maybe what the real issue is for me then is that it is illegal to chalk on the sidewalk in the first place, dressed up in a Santa suit in front of children or not. To me this is absolutely asinine that this is illegal to begin with - there are so many laws regulating trivial harmless behavior on the books that for me the tipping point has been reached - I am going to see enforcement of them as heavy handedness and side with Austin Santa. But the point does remain that you made earlier - suppose it had been a homeless person instead, or what will the next person chalk if an exception were made here? Good points, too. I don't know where the line gets drawn - I think the problem is that society has drawn the line here and I find myself not agreeing with it. Rob PS - I also posted a an article today about ten year olds being arrested in Texas for normal childhood behaviors in schools - I'd love your take on this and if you think the line has been crossed on that one or not.....
Well ok but that alone certainly doesn't make it immoral only illegal.The point is that it doesn't exempt the transgressor from the proscribed punishments.
The entire society *IS* basically full of this manipulation.That doesn't gain for the transgression any exemption from punitive treatment. What's worse, the tactic taints the gesture.
The entire society uses the media, emotionally charged manipulation and scripted scenarios all the time, but oh no chalk guy is using these same things.AND violating the law at the same time.
And rest assured: If you use deceptive advertising to sell your unsafe cradle, you will earn all the punitive action you get in response. Regardless, are you trying to equate civil disobedience with commercial advertising? Nice job disparaging that which you were trying to defend.
There are so many laws on the books that pretty much everything is probably illegal nowFalse.
Mostly people who don't want to die won't.Please explain that.
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-13, 4:35pm
And rest assured: If you use deceptive advertising to sell your unsafe cradle, you will earn all the punitive action you get in response. Regardless, are you trying to equate civil disobedience with commercial advertising? Nice job disparaging that which you were trying to defend.
No merely saying when it is manipulative it doesn't use any manipulation that isn't being used on you all the time by the powers that be, constantly. I don't have to defend protest by putting it on some impossible alter, that nothing earthly could ever approach. Idealizing things also and much more powerfully destroys them for all useful purposes, because it puts them utterly out of reach, to be worshiped but not practiced, and when it is practiced only be done by rules of purity so strict they just about guarantee ineffectiveness (but I suspect that's probably the point).
But I disagree about the spoon feeding - I don't need anything spoon fed to me and never have. I draw my own conclusions and I do admit they often run counter to those of the majority - let's just say I have a unique take on many issues.
And that is exactly the point, Rob. Because you are able to look at the evidence and draw your own conclusion, even if it may not be the result you had hoped for, you do not need to be spoon fed. Because of those attributes you are not in the target audience for this group or others that engage in these deceptive practices. Unfortunately it appears the majority of Americans do fall into that audience. And it goes much farther than little staged skits created for youtube. Look at CNBC or Fox or any of the other high dollar, slickly produced, heavily slanted media outlets you care to name. How many people do you know that automatically take every word from their favorite one as gospel?
I don't know where the line gets drawn - I think the problem is that society has drawn the line here and I find myself not agreeing with it.
Maybe the line should be as simple as whether the activity someone is engaging in legal or not. That lady holding the scales is wearing a blindfold for a reason. Our society just needs to reach a point where it actually works that way.
No merely saying when it is manipulative it doesn't use any manipulation that isn't being used on you all the time by the powers that be, constantly. I don't have to defend protest by putting it on some impossible alter, that nothing earthly could ever approach.You don't have to post anything, of course, but you seemed to be trying to explain why you thought my condemnation of the use of manipulative tactics discredited what is claimed to be civil disobedience. I thought you were trying to do so by more than just saying, "No it isn't."
Idealizing things also and much more powerfully destroys them for all useful purposesMythologizing self-serving obstinacy posing as civil disobedience discredits actual civil disobedience.
Do you disagre with the arrest because you don't think Santa was breaking a law (and didn't stop when asked)? Or do you disagree with the arrest because what he was doing was harmless even though it was illegal and he should have been allowed to continue? I ask this because, as I mentioned earlier, if it was another person doing the same thing - drawing in chalk on public property - and this person was a neo-nazi or KKK member or some other less-lovable person then Santa, drawing pictures with children on public property would you still disagree with their arrest in principle? If the police don't arrest people for engaging in crimes, and choose to let Santa continue, then that sets a precedence to let other, maybe less desirerable people then Santa, to do the same. So it's not that the police were picking on Santa per se, but they were enforing a law that was put in place to protect the public from acts of vandalism (which is what this would probably be considered) by ALL people - desirables like Santa or not.
What you say makes a lot of sense. And Greggs thoughts as well.
Rob--think about Austin. Think of Austin in context of Texas as a whole. I am a Texan, born and raised. 6th generation (sorry, it's required to information)... I even returned to Texas to spawn!
And I know Austin. It is a calming spot of blue in a sea of red. Austin is a vibrant place of music, color, life and activity. It is not a city of Jack booted thugs or heavy handed police KGB. Do you really think Austin is becoming a police state? Really? Austin? If Texas was to secede, Austin would stay behind! :D
I would absolutely keep this incident in context. I'm guessing this is a young guy, probably a student, who is feeling the fire of activism in his belly. Good for him! This is perhaps his first stab at it and now he can go on to bigger and better things.
I really kind of like seeing young people do this kind of thing cause we actually need these sorts to bring attention to things we just sort of gloss over. Not chalk, actually, cause I think that's sort of silly, but maybe this guy will go on to highlight something that really needs highlighting.
But I doubt it will be in Austin!:~)
gimmethesimplelife
1-16-13, 10:06pm
What you say makes a lot of sense. And Greggs thoughts as well.
Rob--think about Austin. Think of Austin in context of Texas as a whole. I am a Texan, born and raised. 6th generation (sorry, it's required to information)... I even returned to Texas to spawn!
And I know Austin. It is a calming spot of blue in a sea of red. Austin is a vibrant place of music, color, life and activity. It is not a city of Jack booted thugs or heavy handed police KGB. Do you really think Austin is becoming a police state? Really? Austin? If Texas was to secede, Austin would stay behind! :D
I would absolutely keep this incident in context. I'm guessing this is a young guy, probably a student, who is feeling the fire of activism in his belly. Good for him! This is perhaps his first stab at it and now he can go on to bigger and better things.
I really kind of like seeing young people do this kind of thing cause we actually need these sorts to bring attention to things we just sort of gloss over. Not chalk, actually, cause I think that's sort of silly, but maybe this guy will go on to highlight something that really needs highlighting.
But I doubt it will be in Austin!:~)Peggy, I agree with you about what you said about Austin, I was so impressed with it when I was there....I really was. This is another reason I was so upset about this. And I'm thinking you are right, I think if this guy engages in further activism, it may very well be somewhere other than Austin, TX lol.
That being said, did you see my thread about 10 year old schoolchildren being arrested in Austin (the article mentions Austin but I got the idea this was going on statewide) for behaving their ages? Very chilling and I guess much more serious than the saga of Austin Santa, colorful though he is. Rob
PS - came back to add - about Austin becoming a police state? No, not due to the Sorry Santa Saga. But in my other thread about the ten year olds getting arrested in public schools? Yes, that has definite tinges of police state to me.....Apparently its not just confined to Texas, either. Pretty scary stuff, Peggy. At least I think so. And I find it more upsetting as I have said before, Austin in one of a handful of places in the US where people who are characters can come and find a niche to fit into - or at least it has been such. Sad, very sad, to see this kind of press in a place like Austin. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
1-16-13, 10:47pm
Rob--think about Austin. Think of Austin in context of Texas as a whole. I am a Texan, born and raised. 6th generation (sorry, it's required to information)... I even returned to Texas to spawn!
And I know Austin. It is a calming spot of blue in a sea of red. Austin is a vibrant place of music, color, life and activity. It is not a city of Jack booted thugs or heavy handed police KGB. Do you really think Austin is becoming a police state? Really? Austin? If Texas was to secede, Austin would stay behind!
Yea but it's still a conservative enough state, and state policy has to have an effect, so do social mores. If there are state level laws about the prosecutions in the schools or something, yea local culture may tame it some, but those are still laws, they have an effect too. Money can often destroy a place faster than laws though. I think Rob just wants to keep Austin weird. It's a good point, weird places will always spawn all sorts of creative innovation and some of it will prove of lasting cultural value. If not in the U.S. then our loss, but it is a dying empire right ... and quite in love with draconian responses to things these days.
I would absolutely keep this incident in context. I'm guessing this is a young guy, probably a student, who is feeling the fire of activism in his belly. Good for him! This is perhaps his first stab at it and now he can go on to bigger and better things.
I really kind of like seeing young people do this kind of thing cause we actually need these sorts to bring attention to things we just sort of gloss over.
gateway activism, like it.
Not chalk, actually, cause I think that's sort of silly, but maybe this guy will go on to highlight something that really needs highlighting.
Chalk bans are not a top social issue for pretty much anyone, but it is idealistic.
Spartana, thanks for responding. Your posts are always so reasonable and often make me stop and think. Thanks Rob. My wisdom far exceeds my age. Wait...that's all wrong... My age far exceeds my wisdom. Yeah, that sounds right :-)! Like Gregg pointed out, I do try to put blinders on my eyes like Lady Justice when it comes to "who" is doing something illegal. I'm not always successful of course. But I believe in equal opportunity and thus, to me, by letting Santa chalk his message/images on public property, you need to let everyone chalk their message/images on public property. Next thing you know the Easter Bunny is out there next to Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman, and Jesse Jackson :-)! Not to mention the advertizers! That would make that public space very unattractive to look at, and perhaps hazardous to people walking on the side walk if day in and day out you have people chalking on those surfaces. Ok maybe I'm being a bit ridiculous but you see what I mean. There is a reason that most laws exist - oftentimes seeming crazy or useless on the face of it - but usually there is a valid reason behind them.
I'm not doing a radical 180 here for those who are familiar with my liberal slanted posts.
Be careful what you wish for :laff:
http://redalexandriava.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/wantsmoregoverment.jpg
ApatheticNoMore
2-25-13, 6:13pm
Well given the fact that government is not going anywhere anyway, one might try to get it to behave in certain ways rather than others. For instance one might try to get it to be more democratically accountable and less ruled by corporations and big money. Precisely what such a protest might be about, I don't know if that's an OWS or trade protest or what, but suppose it's a trade agreement protest: secret trade agreements create secret corporate governments to overrule local, state and national laws (that's the plan for the TPP anyway), so yea that's what one might protest, and it is a protest against the existing government that is signing such agreements in that case, very much so.
But it doesn't mean one might not prefer a very different government, in other words one might engage in such a protest and be much more a social democrat than an anarchist. Not everyone anywhere in the world protesting their government is an anarchist, in fact most aren't. Suppose it's an OWS protest, one might have liked the banks and so on to have been better regulated to prevent the catastrophe, heck one might like them nationalized and/or broken up. One might have liked a government that did that, but what one has is a government that literally buys junky bad assets off bank books every single month to infinity.
Well given the fact that government is not going anywhere anyway, one might try to get it to behave in certain ways rather than others. For instance one might try to get it to be more democratically accountable and less ruled by corporations and big money. Precisely what such a protest might be about, I don't know if that's an OWS or trade protest or what, but suppose it's a trade agreement protest: secret trade agreements create secret corporate governments to overrule local, state and national laws (that's the plan for the TPP anyway), so yea that's what one might protest, and it is a protest against the existing government that is signing such agreements in that case, very much so.
But it doesn't mean one might not prefer a very different government, in other words one might engage in such a protest and be much more a social democrat than an anarchist. Not everyone anywhere in the world protesting their government is an anarchist, in fact most aren't. Suppose it's an OWS protest, one might have liked the banks and so on to have been better regulated to prevent the catastrophe, heck one might like them nationalized and/or broken up. One might have liked a government that did that, but what one has is a government that literally buys junky bad assets off bank books every single month to infinity.
+1
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.