[UPDATE: Liz from Hip Hop Caucus passed on word that Rev. Yearwood has a broken leg as a result of the fracas with the police.]
If you had any doubts about the near-police state we are in, take a look at this: Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., president of the grassroots political organization Hip Hop Caucus, attempted to attend the Petraeus hearings yesterday, along with many others who had to pass a checkpoint to file into the room.
Rev. Yearwood was not only stopped from entering the room, but he was tackled by six Capitol police officers, which resulted in a trip to the hospital. It was all captured on video.
You can hear people yelling “take it easy” and “he’s a minister” and asking him “are you hurt?” in the background when the Capitol police officers push him to the ground. According to Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, Rev. Yearwood was tackled and detained by SIX cops because he allegedly refused to go to the end of the line of people waiting to enter the hearing room. He was charged with disorderly conduct and assault on a police officer.
Yearwood, through Hip Hop Caucus as he was being released from the hospital to be taken to central booking:
“The officers decided I was not going to get in Gen. Petreaus’ hearing when they saw my button, which says ‘I LOVE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ.’”More at The SuperSpade.After waiting in line throughout the morning for the hearing that was scheduled to start at 12:30pm, Rev. Yearwood was stopped from entering the room, while others behind him were allowed to enter. He told the officers blocking his ability to enter the room, that he was waiting in line with everyone else and had the right to enter as well. When they threatened him with arrest he responded with “I will not be arrested today.” According to witnesses, six Capitol police, without warning, “football tackled” him. He was carried off in a wheel chair by DC Fire and Emergency to George Washington Hospital.
105 Responses to “Minister tackled, arrested by Capitol police at Petraeus hearing”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Fixed!
Fixed!
This is what our men and women are fighting for- so the black ministers who don’t agree with the president and being told to go to the end of the line after peacefully waiting in line all day, can be arrested (and hurt) by 6 police officers.
He probably didn’t even need to have the pin on in jacket, the police wer probably told to detain.arrest him on sight.
This video disturbed me. Why did it take 6 police officers to “subdue” one man? (not that he was doing anything that required that). I am never ceased to be amazed at the ways in which the current administration attempts to silence the people of this country.
I was glad that other people there were being supportive and speaking up.
Absolutely. They don’t see it that way, of course, but the people who sent them into battle have used the war as a club with which they beat their fellow citizens.
To be completely accurate, though, I’d say that our men and women in uniform are fighting for this, for oil industry profits, and to ensure that Iraq is ruled by the dictator of our choosing (Iyad Allawi, rather than Saddam Hussein).
I was entering the same office building on the Hill a few months back. I was with a group of people, all of whom had appointments with our represtatives to lobby on behalf of a national non-profit. One guy from another affiliate was a person whose ethtic background was Armenian, I think, though he could have potentially been from any Mediterrianian based ethic group. The rest of us went right through security. He was stopped and told he could not bring the brochures from the non-profit into the building because they might be hiding a weapon. The rest of us had the exact same stuff. Five of us ganged up on the security guard and argued that she was being silly and that he was an American citizen with a national non-profit, as we all were. He and the brochures were allowed in, but I wanted to die with shame at having to intervene for someone in a racial profiling in the very building where our freedom is supposed to be defended. Not that it matters, but the security guard was black. The rest of us were Anglo-Saxon as Pimms and ginger ale. So this does not suprise me at all.
Hey! Didn’t you see the Reverend assaulting those cops?
He argued with them!
Then he walked around them!
No question. An absolute assault on their egos and their right to be pigs about their authority.
My relatives are cops. Chicago cops. And so I know you should always listen to the cops, or they’ll jump you. He shouldn’t have tried to go around them, even though they were wrong to try to keep him out. It’s just an invitation for the cops to overreact. I’m not blaming the victim, because the cops were totally in the wrong, but I knew it was coming as soon as he tried to go around them.
Sweriously, though, 6 cops? Tackling and breaking one older black man? DC cops couldn’t make it one day in Chicago.
I think 9/11, Patriot Day, needs to be renamed. “Embarrassed to be an American” Day. or “Nazis were Patriots, too, Day”
bmc90 -
According to the sheeple who is my next door neighbor, (who is so white he sqeaks) anyone who looks middle eastern, just has to put up with it, because that’s the way it is and has to be, Oh and that anyone who objects, especially American Muslims, have something to hide.
I’m looking at my file drawer as I write this, not because I have something to hide, but because before we left on vacation 3,000 plus miles away, that drawer was stuffed full. Because just a little bit ago I proceeded to place the pages from Steck vaughn I printed of the books I’m planning to buy, I noticed the drawer had lots of room for these pages.
If I’m not forgetting anything, that’s two times now, that I know about.
And what am I going to do with those books questionable (grades k-8 in both “Critical Thinking” and “Vocabulary Connections”)books? Um, continue my ongoing support for a montessori school in Pakistan.
I just sent them over $500 in textbooks/workbook and Teacher’s editions from Modern Curriculum Press (Math), Scott Foresman (Science) and McGraw Hill (Health) — which isn’t much, but it’s more than they have.
They aren’t a madrassah (no madressah teaches those subjects) but they are an agent of change - and imho an actual agent for long term peace.
But damn, I’m so fucking subversive
yeah I’m pissed
You have to listen very closely, but I beleive he said he was going to go talk to his rep about being denied entry.
Whenever he is well enough to start interviewing lawyers, I’m barred in the District. Love that he was wearing the pin because that should seal the deal on the First Amendment/Civil Rights Act claims.
It a modern-day lynching of Yearwood. That is exactly what it is.
And Pamela, this isn’t a near-police state — it is a police state. We, the United States, are the Iran of the Western Hemisphere.
People who show up with the sole purpose of creating a disturbance should not be surprised when they indeed are in the middle of one. If one enters a highly sensitive arena behaving like an agitator, how then can you be so appalled when you are treated as an agitator. If this man in fact turned out to be dangerous, it is the same people who would then be screaming that the police did nothing. Give me a break, we cannot have it both ways people.
Christie,
Shut up. Just shut up. I am so fucking sick of racist dickheads like you trying to find reasons to continue this institutionalized bullshit.
Fixed!
Well Christie your argument falls flat for several reasons:
1. He was not agitating, he was not acting like one, he was peacefully walking in. So are you assuming his future intent? Are you reading minds?
2. Cindy Sheehan was not arrested UNTIL she “agitated”
Christie, you don’t lose your civil rights just because you don’t like the decisions our politicians are making. Of all the things the founders of this country believed in, that was near the top.
It’s interesting to see how quickly some people welcome a dictatorship when they feel insecure…
“He was not agitating, he was not acting like one, he was peacefully walking in. So are you assuming his future intent? Are you reading minds?”
Thoughtcrime…
I was thinking “Minority Report” but thoughtcrime works just as well
Re: Christie
On that note, Jesus Christ had it coming to him. If he was going to create disturbance in the Empire of Rome, disturbing the economy of a church no less! That bitch /deserves/ to be nailed to cross.
But he didn’t say “Yessir, Massa, yessir. I be going to the back o’ the line now, Massa.”
He was calling them on their shit, and he walked around them when they told him to go in a different direction.
I still don’t get where they think he assaulted them. And how he was so dangerous they needed to tackle him with SIX guys.
I got a kick out of them telling him “Stop resisting!” while he responded “I’m NOT resisting.”
BushWorld, where insane authority figures lie and expect everyone else to believe their version, even when it flies in face of the facts.
He was still able to form coherent speech
Our men and women are supposed to be fighting for our freedoms. Sadly, they are losing that battle because Bush and his rogue cronies are taking away our rights as we blog.
MikeEss,
Which civil right right was violated?? Are you trying to point out the PRIVILEGDE of peaceful assembly? I saw a man who was asked to not cut in front of others, and I saw a man who immeiaetly cried out ‘why are you singaling me out’ when they police were not doing that at all, they were asking him to go back to the end of the line which he loudly refused to do. I did not hear him told he could not enter, he simply had to go back in line.
Damian,
Where did I mention race? You did that. You may want to look at the chip on your own shoulder.
Amendment 1, United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Looks to me like a guaranteed right, not a privilege.
“On that note, Jesus Christ had it coming to him. If he was going to create disturbance in the Empire of Rome, disturbing the economy of a church no less! That bitch /deserves/ to be nailed to cross.”
Excuse me??? The Jews wanted Jesus nailed to the cross, the Romans were simply the henchmen. Do you know your history?
>>Are you trying to point out the PRIVILEGDE of peaceful assembly?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My relatives are cops. Chicago cops. And so I know you should always listen to the cops, or they’ll jump you. He shouldn’t have tried to go around them, even though they were wrong to try to keep him out. It’s just an invitation for the cops to overreact.
The problem with that is that, if nobody ever tries to go around them, they just keep trampling all over people.
This is just scary.
If this man in fact turned out to be dangerous, it is the same people who would then be screaming that the police did nothing. Give me a break, we cannot have it both ways people.
I know!
You people are so unreasonable- you can’t expect to exercise your rights and be free from police brutality. One or the other, people. One or the other.
Amendment 1, United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
MAJeff;
I do not read anywhere within this Admendment where any person has the guaranteed right to disrupt. Nor do I read any person has to put up with it either.
I saw a man who was peacefully filing into a room while standing in line as he was supposed to be. Several other people filed into the room before him, and suddenly he’s the one who gets stopped.
Was his leg broken? That is over the top brutality. He didn’t even raise his voice when responding to the police, let alone become physically violent.
What you call ‘disruption’ is called ‘free speech’.
I do not read anywhere within this Admendment where any person has the guaranteed right to disrupt. Nor do I read any person has to put up with it either.
Well, I guess it’s a damned good thing that’s not what was happening, then. Unless, of course, “waiting patiently in line and attempting to enter just like everyone else while wearing a pin to love for fellow human beings” constitutes “disruption”.
In which case, I’d point out that you likely have a very different and, imho, ridiculous definition of what constitutes a disruption.
The Senators wanted him nailed to the cross. The Capital Police were merely the henchmen.
Actually, the guy was also petitioning his government for the redress of grievances by trying to attend a Congressional hearing. If breaking someone’s leg is a valid time, place, and manner restriction on that activity, I’d like to see the case law. If anything, petitioning is an even more sacred right than plain old political speech, which is not always directed at representitives in such an obvious manner.
Christie,
So, in other words, when someone calls out your bullshit (lie) about peaceable assembly, you change the subject. You were wrong. Peaceable assembly is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, not a privilege.
Excuse me???
No. I’m done with excusing viscious stupidity.
The Jews wanted Jesus nailed to the cross, the Romans were simply the henchmen.
Wow. That’s some classical ass anti-semitism for ya.
Do you know your history?
As a matter of fact I do. Quite well in fact. I know that Jesus of Nazereth is not a historical figure and I know that the Bible is not a historical document and I know what Romans did to rebels who denied the godhood of the Caesars and I know that they would probably have shoved a live snake up your ass for even intimating that they were henchmen of a bunch of fucking barbarians in a shithole provence at the ass end of the Empire.
Do wingnuts enjoy being intellectually pistol-whipped or are they just THAT stupid?
MAJeff,
Here is the thing, I do not know what you saw on that video, but what I saw was a man who was standing at the entrance being asked to get in line. He immediaetly begins to ask the officers why he is being singled out. I did not see him get ’singled out’ for any other reason than he was NOT in line. It has nothing to do with first admendment rights or anything else except he was told to get in line and he immediaetly began to question those who told him to do so. The same people who were there to GUARANTEE peaceful assembly for everyone else in the room. So the question becomes, why was he so special? Why did he immediaetly begin to question the police? I say he wanted to create a disturbance. Simple.
Christie,
You claimed that peaceable assembly was a privilege. Indeed, you went so far as to capitalize it, to emphasize it not as something the government is bound to recognize and respect, but something that can be taken away in a whim. When shown you were wrong, you changed the subject. I say you’re a bullshitter. Simple.
The video shows that when the police were escorting the minister away from the door, he attempted to rush past them. In this situation it is their duty to prevent him from entering the chamber. They did the correct thing. I would feel more sympathy for the minister if he had been tackled while calmly trying to convince the police to let him enter, but this was obviously not the case.
Remember, this is a both/and blog.
“I say he wanted to create a disturbance. Simple.”
And what is a “disturbance” anyway? Why it’s something disturbing. And what could be more disturbing to the Reichwing than a black minister who disagrees with the Administration, especially regarding America’s Holy Crusade to Bring Christianity to the Islamofascists?
So they HAD to Rodney King him. (Besides, we can’t have those negroes getting all uppity and shit…)
Christie, you probably thought Martin Luther King had it coming too, right?…
Let’s see if I have this straight:
1- Rev. waits in line.
2- It’s his turn, and he isn’t permitted in.
3- He asks why he is being singled out.
4- He isn’t told. The police language moves to demands that he “obey”.
5- He wants to speak to his Congressman.
6- He is tackled by six police officers.
There is so much wrong with this that it’s scary.
No, wait. Maybe they thought he was Rep. McKinney?
Christie:
Perhaps it’s because they were wrong to try to detain him for attempting to enter the room just like everyone else who was there. I realize this might come as a great shock to you, goose-stepping little shill for fascism that you are, but the police are occasionally not in the right, especially when it comes to how they deal with black men.
I say you don’t know have the slightest fucking clue you’re talking about. Simple.
“There is so much wrong with this that it’s scary.”
Correct. I noticed they left him on the floor for a long time - gotta send the right message to the sheep so they know to toe the line…
I cannot believe how quickly civil rights are pulled out of a bag to justify bad behavior. I say we would have nothing to discuss if the man would have simply stood in line like everyone else. Somehow that turns into racism, amendment rights being stripped away on a whim, a black minister trying to disagree with the administration (when did the man even mention anything about the administration),and some right wing christian’s crusade against Islam??? Are you kidding me?
Peaceful assembly yes, creating a disturbance, no. It truly is very simple. Personal responsibility, quit hiding behind everything else to justify bad behavior.
“I realize this might come as a great shock to you, goose-stepping little shill for fascism that you are, but the police are occasionally not in the right, especially when it comes to how they deal with black men.”
It would have been more than bad enough if he really was some Dirty Fucking Hippie, but he’s a quiet, well dressed man waiting in line to hear White House lies in person. What’s wrong with that?
We are not worthy to wear the mantle of freedom given us by the founders of this country…
Roy, I know my comment about the cops was disturbing. That’s why I tried to emphasize that I wasn’t blaming the victim–what those cops did was wrong.
It was doubly wrong as you realize he just told them not that he was going in, but that he was going to see his representative to seek redress. That’s twice they violate his 1st Amendment rights.
Christie, it’s hard to hear, but listen again. The cops tell him to go to the back of the line. He tells them repeatedly that he was in line and that he’d been in line all morning. Fellow members of his church (white no less) were allowed in before and after him. You can hear them chanting in support (Arrest Bush not Rev.)
Now, I can see how you might think that chanting at the cops is a “disturbance”, but the cops STARTED it by yanking a man out of line b/c they didn’t like his button. Or maybe they didn’t like his color. Or the color and the button together.
Seeing as it would be political speech, case law would still say it was protected (as opposed to shouting “fire” in a theater).
They yanked someone who had waited all morning out of line and told him to go to the end. He probably could not have regained entry b/c there were too many to accommodate–so no saving seats. It’s first come, first served; not first come if we think you agree with the President or else go to the back of the line.
Most of all, until you admit your above quote is 100% wrong, as peaceful assembly is a civil right, you’re not going to get any respect around here.
Go ahead. Say it. You made a mistake. It’s not that hard.
Christie,
personal responsibility also means owning up to it when you are wrong. You claimed that peaceable assembly is not a right. You were wrong. Gonna be responsible and own up to it, or are you going to keep bullshitting?
Lets get some things clear for you folks. Rights are NOT absolute. There are 28 definitions of “right” and none of them mean absolute. The only absolutes there are are death and taxes. You absolutly have to pay taxes and you will absolutly die.
The Bill of “Rights” are not absolute. They are in fact PRIVILEGES. Why do you ask?? By definition Privilege means “any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government” This one too has several different definitions, but that one seemed most appropriate.
You DO NOT have the RIGHT to Free Speech. Why you might ask? Because you cannot run around saying whatever you want, when ever you want. Example: FIRE!!! In a crowded room is not acceptable. You can be arrested and prosecuted for that.
You DO NOT have the RIGHT to Vote. Why you might ask?? Because if you are not 18 you cannot vote. If you are a convicted felon, you CANNOT VOTE!
You DO NOT have the RIGHT to “Peacefully Assemble” Why you might ask?? Because most of the time you have to get a permit. Beyond that, criminals are not allowed to “peacefully assemble”. Teenagers cannot assemble after 10pm in most cities. Therefore not everyone is not enjoying that RIGHT. Therefore its a priviledge.
NOW, to the REAL point. Does anyone know for a FACT that his man was in line?? And that he had been in line for a long period of time? OR did you just ASSUME, because he was black and wearing a collar that he was doing the RIGHT thing? (Oh look, I used the word “right” correctly by definition.) What he did NOT do was respond to police correctly. They asked him to get to the back of the line. Based on some sort of reason that he had not been in line or that he had cut in line. Why they had that belief, NONE OF US KNOW! Did he immediately raise his voice and become hostile with the police. Yes he did. Are they suppose to ignore that? According to you people, YES. Because his “right” to something, which is not clear, because “peacefully assemble” isn’t the correct RIGHT to use here. And in the video I saw, I saw this man go towards an officer and as a matter of fact FALL ON TOP OF THAT OFFICER. SO who was really in the wrong here?????
THANK YOU anonNY! Glad someone else actually looked at the video!
Another note. Little Timmy was always told “ooh stop, they are ministers” as he was forced to be an alter boy in the catholic church in Boston!
“Are you kidding me?
Peaceful assembly yes, creating a disturbance, no. It truly is very simple. Personal responsibility, quit hiding behind everything else to justify bad behavior.”
Christie, we’re not kidding you - but you’re kidding yourself if you can’t see what’s plainly before your eyes.
Wake up and smell the fascism - it’s what you’re soaking in…
The Sister,
I think you have your analogy mixed up. Those who abuse their power are the cops and the priests. Those who are screwed by the power-wielders are this minister and the altar boys.
WTF does the RCC’s fuckupedness have to do with police abuse in Washington DC, and blatant violation of a man’s civil rights?
The Sister,
I think you have your analogy mixed up. Those who abuse their power are the cops and the priests. Those who are screwed by the power-wielders are this minister and the altar boys.
WTF does the RCC’s fuckupedness have to do with police abuse in Washington DC, and blatant violation of a man’s civil rights?
I cannot believe how quickly civil rights are pulled out of a bag to justify bad behavior.
That’s right. Civil rights are only available to the POLITE.
(Isn’t being black automatically rude?)
And we’re saying he DID stand in line like everyone else. And that because he happened to be wearing a button that professed the Christian tenet of loving your enemy, the police pulled him out of line and told him to leave.
That’s why we’re upset. His civil rights guaranteed by the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution were violated. Twice.
Yeah. captcha
The stupid is out there. Everywhere.
New Troll!
Yeah, I even reference that above when I mention case law. You left out obscenity laws, too. However, no matter how conservatively you want to grant that right, political speech is pretty much a given. You can say anything you like about the government without being arrested.
That doesn’t mean you WON’T be arrested; it just mean that the case will be thrown out, you’ll be acquitted and you’ll probably be able to sue the daylights out of someone.
Well, the people he was with were admitted. The white people, at least.
It’s not random people shouting “He’s a minister.” It’s the other people he was in line with–they say he’s their minister.
And *they* are allowed to go in to the proceedings.
Christie and The Sister apparently believe there was another black minister on The Grassy Knoll who cut in line, shouted anti-American slogans, and fought with police.
Who are you gonna believe - the wingnuts defending the brownshirts, or your own damn lyin’ eyes?…
I hate to dignify sister with this, but just for the record, First Amendment Rights are indeed rights, not priviliges. Indeed no rights are absolute, but the Supreme Court has put quite a few paramaters on the ability of government to abridge those rights. As to free speech, the government may enact time, place and manner restrictions, but they can’t be based on the content of the message and have to be administered in a non-discriminatory way. So no pulling someone out of line due to the statement on a button - that’s administering the restriction based on content. The Supreme Court explained that in a case about a guy who wore a shirt in court that said *uck the Draft. But let’s say for giggles that the speaker in question did violate the time, place and manner restriction (did not get the parade permit, did not stand in line, threw one million water balloons saying get out of Iraq at the vice presidential motorcade). Or,like, say, assembling with fellow students at Kent State to discuss America’s involvement in a certain war. Does someone need to spell out for you that the government can’t deal with that with guns, fire hoses, and piling six people on top of one unarmed person? And that the cost of not following procedure is NOT losing all your rights, and even putting your life at risk? At least that’s not what the guys with the wigs and silver buckles on their shoes intended, I think.
oh, goody. Lectures from pedantic wingnuts on why we don’t have rights, and why we should probably welcome not having rights.
I’m taking bets on sockpuppetry.
I never said he was arrested because they didn’t like his political speech. I’m pretty sure that he was arrested because he was disturbing the peace. And very possibly for resisting arrest. And maybe even attacking a police officer. Because by no means, are you allowed to move forcefully towards a police officer. And for all of you people that want to make this a RACE issue. Notice in the video the BLACK officer who is initially speaking to this man. Just because you are a minister doesn’t not automatically mean you are a good person. I’d seriously question those who think that because they are “godly” or believe in Jebus that they are superior to anyone.
And if you haven’t figured it out by now, I read and participate in the blog on my own free will. But mostly because of the women’s issues Amanda (MY SISTER) addresses. I whole heartedly believe in our rights as women. I’m not a troll.
My analogy is not mixed up or confused. I actually know exactly what I’m talking about. And more specifically have been educated in politics. I know and understand both sides of the conflict. To automatically assume cops abuse their power is ignorant. I hope you never in the position that you need the police to help you.
Rights are not rights, they’re priviledges?
Nonsense.
MAJeff,
We don’t have rights because of people like you who insist that everything is a right.
Whatever are we suppose to do??? OOh I know, tax them more and give hand outs!! Who needs to work for the American Dream when the government will just give you a hand out!
oh, and now we get strawmen from The Sister.
What a fuckwit.
Wait, this is comedy gold!
“I’m not a troll.”
Followed by this non-sequitur:
“Whatever are we suppose to do??? OOh I know, tax them more and give hand outs!!”
What to believe…
MAJeff, what are “rights” anyway?
Now money - that’s real. But “rights”, what the hell are “rights”? Do what you’re told, don’t raise a fuss, stay in line, smile while they beat you, do what everybody else is doing so you fit in.
And at the Two Minutes Hate, shout louder than anybody else…
***
If The Sister is Amanda’s real sister then there’s a good chance Christie is Amanda’s mom (at least she’s posted under that name before).
However, sorry Sis & Christie but you’re both wrong. That man did nothing to deserve that treatment, and he has as much right to attend that hearing as anyone. I hope he sues and wins big.
It’s sad when stuff this basic to what America is has to be pointed out…
If anyone wants to start a defense fund for this guy to sue the crap out of the officers, I’ve got $5 to give.
If this happened to me, I would want to see heads roll (even more than I already do).
HOSPITAL BILLS: paid for
TACKLING OFFICERS: fired
FORMAL APOLOGY: given
That’s what I would seek, plus possibly compensatory damages (to be apid to the church).
Do you have the guaranteed right to peaceful assembly? Yes. Do you have the right to disrupt? No. What does being a minister have to do with his right to disrupt? Should he be given special treatment because he is a minister? Should he have special treatment because he is black? There is nothing in the video that indicates truthfully he was in line at all, except that he says he was. To believe otherwise from the video is readin or seeing something that simply is not there. The other people passing him? There is nothing in the video that indicates they were even with him. You are reading that into it along with so many other things I have lost count. This man immediaetly began to question the police as to why they were singling him out when all they asked him to do was GET IN LINE like everyone else. There is nothing in the video that even suggests he was anyplace else other than at the door, except he himself stating he had been in line and he was being singled out. Yes other people there said he is a minister. SO????? Has nothing to do with the fact he was asked to get in line like everyone else. Why should he have any privilege over and above any other person who was there for the same supposed reason? His purpose was no more important or less important than everyone else in the room. He drew attention to himnself purposely, created a scene purposely and then was aghast at the outcome. Did the police have the RIGHT to injure him? No. The enitre episode was out of control and I am saying he had no right whatsoever to behave in the manner in which he did, which was to create a scene, purposely. He could have avoided all of it by standing in line like everyone else. Quit screaming civil rights violation when none exists.
“Who needs to work for the American Dream when the government will just give you a hand out!”
I wonder if there’s a connection between this little turd and the minister being Black? No, there just couldn’t be…
I mean, what kind of a person would pull that out just because a non-white person was involved?…
Fabulous! Love it when people (no matter their political stance) take things out of context to form it into something they want.
Oooh. An educated troll. Too bad it was in politics and not grammar.
All evidence to the contrary to be ignored.Here’s the thing: cops are bound to protect and serve even those who don’t like them. So even if we were ignorant, the cops would still save us. Unless they were really shitty cops. They’d find your statement above implying that they shouldn’t help to be really offensive.
Can you read the posts here? Somewhere way up there I thought I posted that my inlaws are cops. I mean, yeah, you can tell exactly when the cops are gonna jump him–when he walks around the guy. But six of them? That’s just so over the top.
My father-in-law once took out a guy stabbing a pregnant woman in Walgreens all by himself, off duty and unarmed. You telling me it takes six DC cops to subdue a man who’s not even yelling? Those cops’d never survive a day in Chicago.
Which is all besides the fact that they shouldn’t have pulled the guy out of line in the first place.
As for it being a race issue, this isn’t an either/or blog, it’s a both/and blog.
You DO NOT have the RIGHT to Free Speech. Why you might ask? Because you cannot run around saying whatever you want, when ever you want. Example: FIRE!!! In a crowded room is not acceptable. You can be arrested and prosecuted for that.
Show me the statute. I double dog fucking DARE you to show me any statute that says any such thing in any state in this union.
A statute banning “yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre” would be unconstitutional as PRIOR RESTRAINT of the ABSOLUTE right to freedom of speech. What you would be arrested for were you to say such a thing AND THERE WAS NO FIRE would be RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT because, you see, while you are ABSOLUTELY free to say whatever the hell you wish you are also RESPONSIBLE for the effects of your speech.
Your example is actually the perfect counter-example to what you are arguing.
No, we don’t have rights b/c Congress hasn’t exerted any oversight over an Executive Branch that breaks the laws that defend our rights.
And being a minister has nothing to do with how he was or should have been treated. It does go to show that the people claiming him as their “Rev” were with him in line.
Yeah, and black people LIE.
Please, what is in the video that indicates truthfully that he wasn’t in line? The cops keep ordering to leave and go to the back of the line. Cops lie, too, you know.
We do not have video of the man waiting outside for hours. We have video of him saying he was in line (and “on line”). We have video of women telling the cops that he’s a minister, that he’s their minister, that they should “Arrest Bush not Rev”. Then we have video of SIX cops blitzing the guy–which is a ridiculously over the top response to an older guy trying to walk past.
There’s a lot of info there that indicates that the man WAS in line. I wish it could be preposterous to believe that cops would pull someone out of line for wearing a button. That’s the America I want to believe in.
However, I’ve read too many articles in the past 6 years of people getting tickets for “obscene” bumper stickers, being arrested for wearing T-shirts that oppose the President, being forced off airplanes for wearing T-shirts that slam the Bushies, war protesters forced away from the President’s route, etc. It’s, unfortunately, all too plausible that not only did these cops pull someone out of line for wearing an anti-war button, but also that their superiors TOLD them to prevent any anti-war protesters from entering the hearing.
And that, dear Christie and Sister, is a clear violation of an American’s right to free expression of political speech.
Sitting back and saying it’s okay to subvert those rights to keep ourselves safe is EXACTLY how we lose those rights.
The whole “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” argument was originally made by William Jennings Bryan to justify the sentencing of anti-war demonstrators during World War I, by the way.
Oops, sorry, that was Oliver Wendell Holmes. We just rented “Inherit The Wind” and I got the names confused.
Well Christie, regardless of who nailed Jesus to the cross, he still deserved it eh? …because if he didn’t want to be at the end of a violent consequence, he should have been a nicer man, nice being non-objective always;
For people outside of Christie’s reality…see;
Article 1 - “Nice” Doesn’t Always Mean “Moral” by John Russell
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/ngc/ngi-1.shtml
and maybe its sequel;
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/ngc/ngi-2.shtml
I think, that “Nice” Doesn’t Always Mean “Moral” is a good thing to keep in mind when looking at the disparity between the demeanor of Bush’s people, and their actions and consequences.
A direct quote from the article under discussion:
You need to read the fucking entry - not just look at the pictures.
Christie -
What was he distrubting when he was stopped?
Cutting in line? No, watch the video again.
here’s the url for part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiradcejA6o
turn up the volume and watch it in full screen
He says he was inline, the woman in pink agrees with him, he points to people inside (we don’t see them) who agree with him.
He is trying to discuss with the police what is going on and present his case, so that they will allow him in.
They informed him that he was underarrest at 00:53 (probably at 00:51 or 00:52 but I’m using the piont at where the minister asks “for what”
it get’s physical at 01:38
Up until that 01:38,he was NOT creating a disturbance - but he had already been informed that he was
underarrest for creating on for merely presenting his case to the cops.
sorry — too many edits I didn’t read through
Up until 01:38,he was NOT creating a disturbance - but he had already been informed that he was under arrest for creating one, merely for trying to present his case to the cops.
State statutes abridging speech rights are subjected to differnt degrees of scrutiny by courts depending on what kind of speech they regulate. The most instense scrutiny is applied to goverment abridgement of political speech. This means the cops would have to have an iron clad reason for what they did, not just the willies. These same goofballs recently let in a guy with an actual gun, then tried to take my buddy’s affordable housing brochures just recently. Sorry, but they are NOT the sharpest tools, and they don’t get any benefit of the doubt from me.
Christie, I hope you are thoughtlessly smacking gum in a hearing one day and the bailif comes over and hits you on the head with a bat. Hey, you created a disturbance didn’t you?
The Sister,
“Fabulous! Love it when people (no matter their political stance) take things out of context to form it into something they want.”
Funny, it rather seems to me that the problem with the line ‘being taken out of context’ in this case is that it didn’t any visible context to it.
So either it’s just random, psychically defective squawking, or it has some other reason to it being in this thread. I personally think it’s giving you too much credit to assume the latter is true.
Count yourself lucky, troll.
Welcome to RATE MY TROLL, where bloggers and commenters create an interactive information database for analysis and amusement! We value your opinion!
Troll: Sister Trolledya
Sockpuppet, Correlate, or Alias: Christine
Please rate this troll according to the following criteria (dyslikert scale):
A.Grammar, punctuation, spelling: 1(perfect)2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (trollicious)
B.Clue deficiency: 1(obtuse)2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(acute)
C.Bellicosity: 1(meek)2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(violent)
D.Verbosity: 1(terse)2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(turista)
E.Jingoistic Fervor: 1(Aynal)2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(True RW&B)
F.Religious Fervor:1(wicked)2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(wicked righteous)
G.Amusement Value: 1(NLOL)2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10(ROFLMAO)
Please compute the Underbridge Index as Follows:
(B+C+D+E+F-G-A)/(sqrt69) = # of Bunnies!
Thank you for participating in RATE MY TROLL.com!
So, what part of Simi Valley are you from, Christied Sister?
Ah yes, something about this reminds me of home—one family member trying to out-bullshit the other.
Awww, man. You mean there has to be math before we get bunnies now? :::scuffs toe:::
Kate:
4
A.Grammar, punctuation, spelling: 3
B.Clue deficiency: 1
C.Bellicosity: 8
D.Verbosity: 7
E.Jingoistic Fervor: 8
F.Religious Fervor: 5.5 (none seen, going for average)
G.Amusement Value: 4
20.5/8.3ish = 3.67 bunnies.
…
.67 bunnies…?
G’lord.
(a) Ms Kate.
(b) Kill that stray ‘4′.
(c) That’s 30.5.
(d) Counting + bunnies = “Everyone Has Had More Sex Than Me” (video).
“I still don’t get where they think he assaulted them. And how he was so dangerous they needed to tackle him with SIX guys.”
Assaulting an officer includes bruising their knuckles when they punch you in the face. If they beat you with a baton, that’s damaging police property.
Wow, Amanda, not to be mean or anything, but if this pair o’ fascist clowns really are your family, then your family’s kinda fucked up.
Thank you. I remember having a similar argument in a criminology class. I think stating something similar helped to get me an A.
In another thread, Amanda remarked that the war made her aware that the US had the same percentage of people that would have joined the SS.
The Sister: We don’t have rights because of people like you who insist that everything is a right. Whatever are we suppose to do??? OOh I know, tax them more and give hand outs!! Who needs to work for the American Dream when the government will just give you a hand out!
This thread has made me aware that the US has a certain percentage of people who would have problems spelling “SS”.
oh, goody. Lectures from pedantic wingnuts on why we don’t have rights
The terrorists hate us for our privileges?
“Everyone Has Had More Sex Than Me” (video).
Awwwwww! Great song, too!
For those refering to the Rev Yearwood as an old guy. He’s not. I’m pretty sure he’s in his 30’s…I could be wrong, but he’s certainly not old. Which explains why the cops were so threatened. Everybody knows that a young black guy that doesn’t automatically do what he’s told is very threatening. You see, old black guys are wise old farm hands. Young black guys are very scary rebelious slaves.
Christie, would you care to tell me the difference between a “disturbance” and free speech? What good is a right to free speech if it only protects speech everybody agrees on?
Does anybody have an update on his injuries? How bad was he hurt? I did a google and couldn’t find anything. This video really hit at my emotions. I can’t believe the way they brutalized this guy.
I hope he sues and wins in a very big way, and that in the future police learn that it is not their job to keep political dissent a secret!
Here’s his Wiki page: Lennox Yearwood.
(Sidebar: What is especially interesting is that he is an officer in the USAF reserve, and the service is trying to throw him out. He doesn’t seem bothered by this, but it does rather shine a light on how much the services hate their members actually exercising the rights they are defending.)
Rev. Yearwood, it seems, been arrested at the US Capitol twice in the past year and a half. This may go some way to explaining (note: NOT condoning) why the Capitol Police singled him out. They may have believed that it gave them a right to deny him access to the hearings as he would be likely to cause a breach of the peace. They’d be wrong, but in cop-think they may have thought that they were doing right. I would hope, though, that a six-to-one gang swarming of an unresisting man resulting in a broken leg results in shame, if only of a macho variety.
I’ve been following this thread and the events, and it seems to me that the police were indeed guilty of violating his civil liberties and excessive force. What is illustrative, though is how vividly Christie and The Sister vividly demonstrate the authoritarian mentality. In the authoritarian’s worldview, everything is forbidden unless specifically permitted or permissible; the act or thought is judged not by whether it is good, necessary or societally acceptable per se, but whether it is good, or societally acceptable to authority. The sole rationale necessary is that Authority permits or denies. The mindset is perfectly painted by the officers themselves in the video, when they bark “orders” to people to obey them. Sorry, officers. A policeman in a free society has no right to give an order to somebody outside of his own chain of command. He can demand compliance with the law, and arrest you if you are in breach of the law, but he cannot order you to do anything. It is more than a semantic difference. The authoritarian state feels that all subjects are within a vast chain of command, and that armed, uniformed authority is by definition superior in the command chain to individuals. A free society stands as a direct challenge to such an obscenity. Why did the officers yell that Yearwood was “resisting” when he wasn’t resisting arrest? Because he was resisting their lack of right to command him, he was properly negating their improperly exercised authority, and that in Authority’s eyes is sufficient.
By way of direct contrast, the civil libertarian’s worldview is that every act is — and must be — permitted unless harmful to others. Even when an act is forbidden, they why must be just, explicable and explained. Even if correct and just, Authority is never to be permitted the fascist luxury of saying, “because I said so!”. This is where Yearwood was standing, and he was right to do so. Police officers have the right to move people along in or from a public space without indulging in lengthy explanations when public safety is threatened. They do not have the right to do so at any other time.
We see it all so clearly in the video. Yearwood is singled out, not told why; he denied entry, and not told why; is denied access to his elected representative, and not told why. Any or all of these things, in the eyes of Authority — and in the eyes of lickspittles like Christie and The Sister — is adequate reason for not only detention also but as meriting the use of force.
Yearwood seems to be a seasoned and savvy activist, so we may be watching a confrontation which he designed, and expected to happen. In some eyes that will be held against him, because that is what infuriates many authoritarians: intelligent or effective dissent. They argue that such things as “free speech zones” and restrictions on the ability of people to craft an effective message are permissible because somewhere, somehow, people are notionally free to say what they want. That’s a lie. Such excessive restrictions are in fact happy faces put over the lock of a cell: if you can’t see the lock then the cell must not be there, right? This is why words like “activist” and “agitator” roll so easily from their lips. They can deep-down hate your freedom, but they know they can’t say so out loud. They do let the poison slip out, though, in the words they use to describe actual exercise of freedom.
In a free society the police are not allowed to attack people because they know how to work the system in a free society: the system is there to be worked by free people. It is just, necessary and important that people step outside the cell of potemkin freedom and seek to effect real change. This is what the Christies and The Sisters of this world will never understand, nor do they approve of it. They will — as here — frequently express their authoritarian views in the language of freedom, but they cannot objectively deny that they are hostile to freedom and effective dissent.
Well that’s not exactly news. Shortly after WWII a guy I used to work with told me that a friend of his in his army company circulated a copy of the Bill of Rights within the company.
He was threatened with a dishonorable discharge for, among other things, inciting insubordination.
Even in Army JROTC in high school they kind of don’t like it when you go off the reservation. Like when you are seen on the TV news protesting at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons plant and come to school the next Monday wearing buttons from said protest.
That was my last year in JROTC.
Seeker, Rock On. Excellent analysis.
Christie and The Sister deserve neither liberty nor safety.
That’s probably true, but they let Cindy Sheehan through which is where Yearwood has legal wiggle room. How many times has Cindy Sheehan been arrested? Twice at the US Capitol (2005, 2006 and now 2007).
I believe that’s true is-so-much-as if you are a well known activist, and have been arrested a few times, it becomes intuitive that if you go to the white house, etc. you probably will meet some trouble.
Would he stood up in the gallery and yelled something out? We’ll never know, because in this new world of pre-emtive war, we have pre-emptive arrests - arrests that happen before someone does anything illegal or disruptive.
My new boss’s neighbor is a DC Metro cop (I think–he has DHS logos on his squad) and he absolutely upholds this. Same “Well, if he didn’t want to get beat down, he should have been more docile” approach.
He’s one of those “Maybe I will or maybe I won’t give you a ticket, depending on how much you work the shaft” guys. Assholes.
Having worked in and around the government in one incarnation or another for the past ten years or so…I have to say that the apparatchiks are getting worse and worse. Another buddy was talking to the VA and their rep didn’t want to help him…so she just hung up on him. Government workers are in general completely untouchable and never held to account. How did this happen??
Seeker, you’re right.
I’d also add that if there was a valid reason to prevent anyone from entering (and I would have to be a good one, I admit), then when they pulled said person out of line, they would have a responsibility to say exactly that - “You are on the list of people who are not being let in” or possibly “Please leave the building, or come with us so we can explain it to you in private” or even putting him under arrest for an actual crime he was already wanted for.
What they have no excuse for whatsoever is “go to the back of the line.” If there was a good reason to keep him out, then keep him out. If not, then let him in. But, sending him to the back of the line so that they could subsequently not let him in because the room filled up on a first come first served basis is indefensible.
Why did this guy think he was going to get in with a pin saying “I love the people of Iraq”? That is just asking for trouble.
He should have worn a pin that said, “I hate the people of Iraq”. They would have let him in, politely escorted him to a good seat, maybe even offered him refreshments…
Seriously, if they made the decision to exclude him based on prior arrests (and there is no indication that is what this is about), why not just tell him that? “We have determined that you may be a potential disruption, and you will not be permitted access to the hearing.” He might still make a fuss about it, but the cops would be on a lot more solid footing with that, and it could be done while he was still in line, before the doors opened.
Instead, they let him stand in line, then when he gets to the door, tell him to go to the end of the line (effectively preventing him from entering, but still implying that he can enter?) and refuse to tell him why. How did they figure that would be the way to handle it?
This thread so far has been most interesting in the attempted invention of facts. We have the video, and a news article associated with it. A wingnut posts and says that he was trying to cause a disruption, but there is nothing to back that up. So it morphs into, “he was trying to cut in line” but the article contradicts it. Then we go briefly to “he resisted arrest”, which is silly if you watch the video. Then we get to, “he was a potential security threat based on prior arrests”, but there is no evidence that the people who denied him access knew anything about those.
You really have to watch the wingnuts constantly and stamp these lies out the moment they pop up, don’t you?
Must… post… faster…
Agreed, but the thing that really drives one to despair is that they actually believe the lies. As you note, it doesn’t matter if they actually see what happened, there on video. All that matters is that they believe and It Must Be So. It’s one of the reasons that there is such a huge overlap in the USA of religious fundamentalists and political authoritarians.
Well, that’s fine for sociological and political debate, but the fact is those cops yelled “stop resisting” b/c that ‘allowed’ them to be rougher than they are otherwise legally allowed to treat people. Saying “stop resisting” implies that he was resisting and requiring 6 officers was not an overreaction. Saying “stop resisting” gives them the wiggle room to break his leg.
We’ve seen how easily people will believe repeated lies and how easily they will put the words of Authority over the evidence of their own eyes. The cops are also aware of this, and use it to their advantage.
I want to smack this guy I don’t like over the head with my baton. “Stop resisting!” SMACK!
I love the part where they tell him he’s being arrested for assaulting an officer.
Were they just unaware of the camera? I noticed the cameraperson put the camera on the ground, which allowed Yearwood to stay in the shot while looking like the camera might not be on. Wise move.
I just didn’t understand why the cops didn’t move the camera people away much sooner to try to block the video. They did circle Yearwood, but it didn’t seem like they were specifically trying to block the video.
The video gives lie to both the disturbance and resisting charges and opens the officers up to discipline. So, just as saying “stop resisting” and claiming assault, making sure there’s no video evidence gives them a my word/their word argument that the establishment and the sheeple will automatically give to the cops. So why did they allow it?
Cindy Sheehan was also arrested for shouting “Arrest Bush Not the Rev!”