. 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.

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?

You really have to watch the wingnuts constantly and stamp these lies out the moment they pop up, don’t you?

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.

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?

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.

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??

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.

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).

Yearwood seems to be a seasoned and savvy activist, so we may be watching a confrontation which he designed, and expected to happen.

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.

Christie and The Sister deserve neither liberty nor safety.

(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.)

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.