Good lord, it's a horse race. Hillary won Pennsylvania as was expected, and the conventional wisdom is that she'll take the states around it too and narrow the gap. The question is whether it will be by enough.
I watched Colbert last Thursday where Hillary, Obama and Edwards were all there, grinning for the camera and doing their very best to keep themselves--meaning the Democratic party--firmly in the camera eye. Edwards hasn't backed either, not because he doesn't have a preferred candidate, but because what he's preferring the most is obviously to keep himself relevant and more than that push whichever of the two win, and the other one will be doing the same.
For all the fuss and bother about the Democrats destroying themselves, I'm really not seeing it. I think they're digging the skeletons out of the closet early so that when McCain tries it, he'll look like a clueless old goat trying to chew yesterday's news.
Obama is likely still frontrunner, but Hillary has herself poised to pick up the baton if he stumbles, and he certainly might. The Republicans have no such safety net, and for them, it's McCain or nothing.
Last year I was cleaning out the cabinet and found some truly
ancient pecans and walnuts. The trouble was, they were still unshelled
nuts and some of them were still good and not rancid, even if not
tasting terribly good. Of course, that still wasn't terribly good.
So I put them out in the garden on the roof of the shed. They lay
there for several days until I went out and suddenly a squirrel came
down the fence, paused, sniffed, then looked at all the nuts and had
this expression like it had seen a mirage, quickly followed by one of
"I found the Mother Lode!" Then it noticed me watching it and it
quickly selected one pecan and ran off with it, looking back at me
frantically every few feet down the fence as if it were afraid I was
going to jump its claim.
The next day all the old nuts were gone except a few fragments, and the day after, even the fragments were gone.
The amusing thing is the squirrels have stashed them all over the
place since a month later I saw a squirrel come out of the bottle brush
tree holding one of the same old pecans.
A small two-cents note on the "gang problems" in inner city (and even suburban) schools: Yes, it exists. Yes, it is a problem. However, it's often inflated due to money concerns.
Short explanation: In California's underfunded public schools, there's extra money for schools that have "gang abatement" programs. However, rather than doing things like expelling the kids who are gang members (which would lose them funding because they get money from Average Daily Attendance), the gang abatement programs generally consist of bizarre fashion police policies and assorted frippery, going on the false assumption that kids can't quickly come up with new gang signs just as easily.
However, the main purpose of the fashion police policies is to put on a sufficient show for the state, showing a "gang abatement program" to justify the funds which can then be funelled wherever the school actually needs it.
(Yargh, screen froze and ended in multipost. Please nuke the duplicates.)
Terry: re 302/303
Cross-posted.
I'm wondering whether some of this is a regional thing. I remember back from my freshman orientation at UCSC (actually freshperson orientation) and the head of the campus police came out, and related something interesting: "And I can let you in on a secret: The cops on campus can tell the difference between those of you from northern California and those from southern California." *DRAMATIC PAUSE* "The ones from southern California are the ones who won't talk to us."
I thought this was vaguely amusing, but then found out it was rather true. My roommate from San Diego was horrified that I actually talked to a cop after I saw one of the campus shuttles sideswipe the mirrors off three parked cars and keep on going. I considered reporting it civic responsibility.
As for traffic stops, I may have been lucky, but when I've known the speed, I've always seen them being spot on or slightly under, and I've usually seen them shave an extra five or ten miles off, and once over thirty when a friend of mine wanted to test the power of my car. I told him I was game, but he was driving, and if he got caught, it was his ticket.
He got caught with the needle tapping out at 105, and the cop was nice enough to drop the ticket to five miles under whatever the cut-off was to have to take him to jail.
As for "deference," I generally just think that if you're nice to people, they're nice back.
Terry,
An interesting and illuminating perspective. I don't quite agree with all of it, because while I do agree with the thoughts about tribal thinking, I don't think the cop tribe needs deference because they're the grand and sacred cop tribe. What I do think is that every tribe has its rites and rituals and the cop tribe is really hung up on ritual forms of address, and the quickest way to get someone out of Copland is to convince them that you're a member of their tribe.
You mentioned public drunkenness as a crime. Unless someone is behind the wheel of a car or other piece of deadly machinery, why should anyone care? And the criminality varies from locale to locale. Drunkenness at the Jefferson Memorial would probably get you arrested whereas public drunkenness on Bourbon Street is almost expected. It, like most other laws, is utter bullshit, and arbitrary bullshit at that.
But it's necessary arbitrary bullshit to keep all the various tribes working together in a civil society. Drunkenness here. Hookers there. Female nipples are only to be shown on premium cable channels but male nipples may be shown on billboards blown up to the size of dinner plates. All the assorted madness which unduly restricts all sorts of individual freedoms in various circumstances and locales but allows members of various tribes to navigate society without undue fear of encountering whatever thing or act they consider taboo.
When not dealing with threats to public health, safety, or property, cops have to officiate this madness, and as members of a polite society, it behooves us to restrict any of our individual or tribal customs which the majority of the other tribes consider too outre to private homes, hotel rooms, or perhaps concert halls rented for the occasion. And if that's insuffient, declare a holiday or festival and do this until society at large considers whatever the hell it is normal or at very least not worth their breath or interest.
If our tribe wants to do whatever it is in a public space not already zoned for such things, we should try to get the cop tribe to not only agree to this, but have some sufficient bullshit explanation to tell the other tribes so they know why whatever taboo thing is now allowed in the sacred space. Even something as silly as iPod dancing at the Jefferson Memorial for Founders Day.
Terry,
An interesting and illuminating perspective. I don't quite agree with all of it, because while I do agree with the thoughts about tribal thinking, I don't think the cop tribe needs deference because they're the grand and sacred cop tribe. What I do think is that every tribe has its rites and rituals and the cop tribe is really hung up on ritual forms of address, and the quickest way to get someone out of Copland is to convince them that you're a member of their tribe.
You mentioned public drunkenness as a crime. Unless someone is behind the wheel of a car or other piece of deadly machinery, why should anyone care? And the criminality varies from locale to locale. Drunkenness at the Jefferson Memorial would probably get you arrested whereas public drunkenness on Bourbon Street is almost expected. It, like most other laws, is utter bullshit, and arbitrary bullshit at that.
But it's necessary arbitrary bullshit to keep all the various tribes working together in a civil society. Drunkenness here. Hookers there. Female nipples are only to be shown on premium cable channels but male nipples may be shown on billboards blown up to the size of dinner plates. All the assorted madness which unduly restricts all sorts of individual freedoms in various circumstances and locales but allows members of various tribes to navigate society without undue fear of encountering whatever thing or act they consider taboo.
When not dealing with threats to public health, safety, or property, cops have to officiate this madness, and as members of a polite society, it behooves us to restrict any of our individual or tribal customs which the majority of the other tribes consider too outre to private homes, hotel rooms, or perhaps concert halls rented for the occasion. And if that's insuffient, declare a holiday or festival and do this until society at large considers whatever the hell it is normal or at very least not worth their breath or interest.
If our tribe wants to do whatever it is in a public space not already zoned for such things, we should try to get the cop tribe to not only agree to this, but have some sufficient bullshit explanation to tell the other tribes so they know why whatever taboo thing is now allowed in the sacred space. Even something as silly as iPod dancing at the Jefferson Memorial for Founders Day.
Terry,
An interesting and illuminating perspective. I don't quite agree with all of it, because while I do agree with the thoughts about tribal thinking, I don't think the cop tribe needs deference because they're the grand and sacred cop tribe. What I do think is that every tribe has its rites and rituals and the cop tribe is really hung up on ritual forms of address, and the quickest way to get someone out of Copland is to convince them that you're a member of their tribe.
You mentioned public drunkenness as a crime. Unless someone is behind the wheel of a car or other piece of deadly machinery, why should anyone care? And the criminality varies from locale to locale. Drunkenness at the Jefferson Memorial would probably get you arrested whereas public drunkenness on Bourbon Street is almost expected. It, like most other laws, is utter bullshit, and arbitrary bullshit at that.
But it's necessary arbitrary bullshit to keep all the various tribes working together in a civil society. Drunkenness here. Hookers there. Female nipples are only to be shown on premium cable channels but male nipples may be shown on billboards blown up to the size of dinner plates. All the assorted madness which unduly restricts all sorts of individual freedoms in various circumstances and locales but allows members of various tribes to navigate society without undue fear of encountering whatever thing or act they consider taboo.
When not dealing with threats to public health, safety, or property, cops have to officiate this madness, and as members of a polite society, it behooves us to restrict any of our individual or tribal customs which the majority of the other tribes consider too outre to private homes, hotel rooms, or perhaps concert halls rented for the occasion. And if that's insuffient, declare a holiday or festival and do this until society at large considers whatever the hell it is normal or at very least not worth their breath or interest.
If our tribe wants to do whatever it is in a public space not already zoned for such things, we should try to get the cop tribe to not only agree to this, but have some sufficient bullshit explanation to tell the other tribes so they know why whatever taboo thing is now allowed in the sacred space. Even something as silly as iPod dancing at the Jefferson Memorial for Founders Day.
Terry,
An interesting and illuminating perspective. I don't quite agree with all of it, because while I do agree with the thoughts about tribal thinking, I don't think the cop tribe needs deference because they're the grand and sacred cop tribe. What I do think is that every tribe has its rites and rituals and the cop tribe is really hung up on ritual forms of address, and the quickest way to get someone out of Copland is to convince them that you're a member of their tribe.
You mentioned public drunkenness as a crime. Unless someone is behind the wheel of a car or other piece of deadly machinery, why should anyone care? And the criminality varies from locale to locale. Drunkenness at the Jefferson Memorial would probably get you arrested whereas public drunkenness on Bourbon Street is almost expected. It, like most other laws, is utter bullshit, and arbitrary bullshit at that.
But it's necessary arbitrary bullshit to keep all the various tribes working together in a civil society. Drunkenness here. Hookers there. Female nipples are only to be shown on premium cable channels but male nipples may be shown on billboards blown up to the size of dinner plates. All the assorted madness which unduly restricts all sorts of individual freedoms in various circumstances and locales but allows members of various tribes to navigate society without undue fear of encountering whatever thing or act they consider taboo.
When not dealing with threats to public health, safety, or property, cops have to officiate this madness, and as members of a polite society, it behooves us to restrict any of our individual or tribal customs which the majority of the other tribes consider too outre to private homes, hotel rooms, or perhaps concert halls rented for the occasion. And if that's insuffient, declare a holiday or festival and do this until society at large considers whatever the hell it is normal or at very least not worth their breath or interest.
If our tribe wants to do whatever it is in a public space not already zoned for such things, we should try to get the cop tribe to not only agree to this, but have some sufficient bullshit explanation to tell the other tribes so they know why whatever taboo thing is now allowed in the sacred space. Even something as silly as iPod dancing at the Jefferson Memorial for Founders Day.
Terry,
An interesting and illuminating perspective. I don't quite agree with all of it, because while I do agree with the thoughts about tribal thinking, I don't think the cop tribe needs deference because they're the grand and sacred cop tribe. What I do think is that every tribe has its rites and rituals and the cop tribe is really hung up on ritual forms of address, and the quickest way to get someone out of Copland is to convince them that you're a member of their tribe.
You mentioned public drunkenness as a crime. Unless someone is behind the wheel of a car or other piece of deadly machinery, why should anyone care? And the criminality varies from locale to locale. Drunkenness at the Jefferson Memorial would probably get you arrested whereas public drunkenness on Bourbon Street is almost expected. It, like most other laws, is utter bullshit, and arbitrary bullshit at that.
But it's necessary arbitrary bullshit to keep all the various tribes working together in a civil society. Drunkenness here. Hookers there. Female nipples are only to be shown on premium cable channels but male nipples may be shown on billboards blown up to the size of dinner plates. All the assorted madness which unduly restricts all sorts of individual freedoms in various circumstances and locales but allows members of various tribes to navigate society without undue fear of encountering whatever thing or act they consider taboo.
When not dealing with threats to public health, safety, or property, cops have to officiate this madness, and as members of a polite society, it behooves us to restrict any of our individual or tribal customs which the majority of the other tribes consider too outre to private homes, hotel rooms, or perhaps concert halls rented for the occasion. And if that's insuffient, declare a holiday or festival and do this until society at large considers whatever the hell it is normal or at very least not worth their breath or interest.
If our tribe wants to do whatever it is in a public space not already zoned for such things, we should try to get the cop tribe to not only agree to this, but have some sufficient bullshit explanation to tell the other tribes so they know why whatever taboo thing is now allowed in the sacred space. Even something as silly as iPod dancing at the Jefferson Memorial for Founders Day.
PJ Evans re: #288
Apart from actual innocence and actual guilt, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" as a general principle of law. But I also know that if an officer perceives me doing something that they consider an infraction of the law, they usually have it in their discretion to cite me, arrest me, or let me off with a warning. And it depends on how well I argue my own case, explain extenuating circumstances, or simply convince them that their suspicions were unwarranted and that whatever it is I'm doing is completely innocent and legal that that will figure out where that discretion will swing. And if they decide to proceed to citation or arrest, this is a matter of passing the buck to a judge, who will then decide. I have rather fond memories from childhood of the time my mother got a ridiculous traffic citation, took it to court, and the judge not only dismissed the charges and apologized to my mother, but reprimanded the cop and laughed at him.
That said, I've also seen people being rude enough to a cop to talk their way into a ticket, whereas if they'd gone with honey instead of vinegar they could probably have just got a warning. I think that's a lot of what we're seeing here.
Looking more and more at the coverage, the video and whatnot, it looks like public memorials are indeed intended as places of silent or at least quiet reflection and reverence and there's a relevant law to back this up, there's some variety of signage to the Jefferson Memorial to this effect, and the park patrol or at least their designated rent-a-cops are on video saying "You're being disruptive" and asking people to leave, which looks like about all the legal justification needed.
I think it's up to the Park Patrol's discretion to decide what volume level constitutes "quiet," what particular acts or gestures denote "reverence," and for that matter what sort of behavior is "disruptive." Moreover, I expect these definitions vary from day to day depending on who's on duty, but will still probably have as their baseline the same sort of hushed voices, respectful silence, sage nodding and whatnot expected in your standard Western church, temple, museum or library.
The flash-mobbers were there I believe by their own admission to "celebrate" Jefferson rather than "revere" him, so I don't think the park patrol made the wrong call by deciding the iPod dancing was too loud and insufficiently reverent. I do think they made the wrong call in how they dealt with the situation since it would have been less headache all round if they just let the event run its course and written it off to Founders Day weirdness, but hindsight is twenty/twenty and they probably thought they were just dealing with goofy kids rather than argumentative libertarian activists. (I think it's fair to characterize Radley Balko as an activist, as he has a blog call The Agitator.)
As for whether memorials should be a places of quiet reverence, rather than boisterous celebration, that's another question, but I think a judge would point out that's what we have pubs for, and I bet the ones in DC have Sam Adam's on tap too.
As for whether reverence or at least accepted practices denoting same can be required by law in certain public buildings, if you're in other certain public buildings you are expected to show respect for the law by saying ritual phrases like "Yes, Your Honor" rather than "Eat my shorts" or whatever other phrase you find personally fulfilling. Precedent there.
Rather nice write up with informative quotes here from the Parks Department explaining the exact charges here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080414-the-dance-dance-revolution-will-be-televised.html
Mark Z. #282--
Fair point. What the WashPost reports very often has vague relation to the truth.
A more accurate statement would be that the WashPost took the police's claims as fact regarding the arrestee's actions.
Of course it's also true that Radley Balko clearly has an axe to grind and there are some interesting comments going on on his blog regarding the "silently" claims verus the amount of noise heard on the video.
In any case, I still think the whole situation could have been avoided with just a pinch more diplomacy on any side.
Debbie--
Understood.
Looking at the Washington Post article, a number of things become clearer: These were indeed rent-a-cops, the woman who was arrested was purportedly arrested not for talking back but for returning repeatedly and dancing anyway, and there were posted signs about silence and reverence at memorials with legal statutes to back this up.
Of course it was also Founders Day, and the general rule of thumb is that if you give people some holidays to get their yayas out, you can suspend the general rules for a day or two. Cutting a little extra slack would have saved a great deal of fuss and bother.
The WashPost article also mentions that the arrested woman is a former ambassador's daughter, which is going to make the whole thing a lot more politically interesting.
Terry-- (re #237)
I don't think the crowd should have been arrested. Ordered to disperse? That's a judgement call. I don't live in Copland, but there may have been fears that this was just the first wave and in ten minutes there would have been a hundred more, overwhelming security, and by the end of the evening, the statue of Jefferson would be photographed wearing a beer hat.
Or something more serious.
As to the particulars of the one person who was arrested, I don't have the video of everything that went on, so really can't say. Obviously it wasn't just the fact of asking questions, as I've mentioned, otherwise the videographer would have been arrested too.
Heresiarch #232: "Your "dog bites child" example fits the same profile. A dog is not an actor we can really expect to act rationally, is it?"
Obviously you don't have dogs, or at least don't know how to deal with them.
Dogs are social animals, same as human children, or human adults for that matter. They can be well socialized, badly socialized, or somewhere in between. That applies to all of them. And it's an ongoing process.
Getting along in society is a matter of learning to put yourself in other people's shoes. I was recently up in the mountains and dashed into a bank to avoid the rain, meanwhile fumbling around inside the ski jacket I'd had over my head to find the check I wanted to cash. When I got to the teller, she looked spooked, and she explained to me that I probably shouldn't come into a bank with a bulky jacket over my hands, because there'd recently been a string of robberies at local banks and she'd been afraid I was reaching for a gun.
I apologized for accidentally frightening her, cashed the check, and mentally filed the info for future reference under "The Scary World of Bank Tellers."
My sister had an afghan once that she got from the pound. The dog had an extreme fear of tall men wearing sunglasses. I had my friend Evan over, who was a tall man who was wearing sunglasses, but as a child he'd been attacked by a large dog and still had a phobia. Suddenly the dog started barking and Evan froze and I was watching two mammals terrified of each other given their past experiences, acting rationally given what they knew. Luckily I was able to tell Evan to take off the sunglasses then calmed the dog down. Evan too.
What does this have to do with the current situation? Cops view things from "The Strange Scary World of Copland" which has only a tennuous connection to "The Land of Wired Bohemia." Ideally, yes, the cops should already be aware of what "Wired Bohemia" is and already categorized it as "Mostly Harmless" and laughed off a flash mob of Jeffersonian iPod dancers but in the real world I have a friend whose father is now his department's "Occult Expert" because he was the only cop on the force who was able to look at a page of arcane scribblings they'd found on a suspect and recognize it as a D&D character sheet.
So, do I blame the dancers? For what? The arrest? I will note that the guy with the video camera was also asking questions and wasn't arrested, so obviously there was some different variable with woman who was arrested. It wasn't just the mere fact of questioning an order to disperse, elsewise we would have seen the videographer arrested too.
But anyway, blame. Is there enough blame to spread around? Clueless cops, oblivious bloggers? Does it all have to be heaped on one doorstep?
Terry--
The wiggle room and debatable bit in "the right to peaceably assemble" isn't in "assemble," it's in "peaceably."
Peaceably can easily be construed as "nonviolently" but it can also be construed as "quietly," as in the case of charges for "disturbing the peace" for playing your stereo too loud after some significant portion of the populace have gone to bed. And by extension, "disturbing the peace" can be causing any sort of ruckus or spectacle.
That the flash-mobbers decided to do it at an hour with less tourists (so as to cause less disturbance) and silently with iPods (for the same reason) rather indicates to me that they were aware of this particular extension of "peaceably." Otherwise, why bother? Bring the boomboxes, bongos, and a full chorus, right there in front of the noon tourist crowd, rather than silently at midnight for an audience of six.
Of course the security would likely have objected to the louder noontime show too.
As for security scrutinizing nonconformity, um, if you're looking for something out of the ordinary, you by definition have to scrutinize anything nonconformist. Of course you also hope that your security can differentiate between "exotic but harmless" and "exotic but dangerous" and still not miss the "common but dangerous."
Debbie--
Cross-posted: "I guess I'm bothered both by your apparent shoulder-shrugging about the violations of civil liberties, and by your apparent belief that situations can be resolved if you're only diplomatic / polite / whatever enough. (And if the situation turns out badly, then it's because one wasn't "XXXXX" enough.) If this doesn't accurately reflect your views, clarification would be appreciated."
Civil liberties are always debatable and so are violations thereof. It's right there in the Bill of Rights: "unreasonable searches and seizures." What the hell is "unreasonable"? Getting people to agree on that is the art of diplomacy.
As for my belief that situations can be resolved through diplomacy, sure. It's not just luck that makes cops reasonable. Politeness and reason work wonders, and when they don't, they work on the cop's superiors, who inform them as to what's "reasonable" this week.
What we're also seeing is part of the process. Give it an extra week or two of phonecalls and someone higher up will be telling the park patrol "Yes, goofy dancing is permitted" and things will be hashed out.
Terry--
Cross-posted.
I'm trying not to ascribe motive for the most part, but everyone has to look at something and make their best guess, and coming up with a dichotomy of "Well, either she wanted to be arrested or else she didn't" seems pretty objective to me.
With the "the Romans," what I'm saying "prevailing social custom" which is not the same thing as "legal right" but very often comes to the same thing, de facto and du jour synching up.
If I go to a new town or state or wherever, hell if I know what the local laws are. What I go by is what I see the locals doing, and from that I learn whatever is either legal or illegal but tolerated. Can I get a drink? Can I walk down the street with an open container of alcohol? Can I take one in my car?
Cops default to the same custom, and it's a good thing too. Otherwise they'd run around enforcing ridiculous blue laws, like the one in San Jose against fortune-telling that's violated by anyone with a pack of Tarot cards or a newspaper horoscope.
Contrawise, while it's legal for me to walk down the street in a ski mask because I'm on my way to a ninja party or just because I think it makes a cool fashion statement, the cops may wonder why I'm dressed like a pantomime mugger and will probably come and ask me about this.
As for whether I think the flash-mobbers did anything wrong, wrong in what sense? Wrong illegal? No. Wrong as in a social faux pas? Debatable. We're talking culture-subculture-counterculture here. Wrong from a diplomacy standpoint? Well it certainly could have gone better, couldn't it?
As for the cops doing anything wrong, in order: Wrong assessment of the threat level of the situation? Yes. Wrong from a diplomatic standpoint? Again, could have gone much better. Wrong legally? There's a huge amount of elastic put it into statutes about "disturbing the peace" and "loitering," so while I think they made the wrong call about what to do about the flash-mobbers (I believe the right call would have been "Ignore them until they get bored and go away"), I do think they had the authority to make that call. And as abuses of authority go "Please go rock-out with your iPod somewhere else" is pretty damn mild.
The arrest itself is troubling, but I'm certain we'll be hearing more details soon enough.
Heresiach #161:
"Wow. Do you even realize what you just said? Either Y deliberately fucked up, or Y accidentally fucked up. Those are the only choices you see here? No possibility that fault might lie with X? None--you don't even register X as a decision-making actor at all. He's just a force of nature to be finessed or avoided."
The fault can certainly lie with X. There are lots of aggressive cops the same as there are viscious dogs. However, whenever I hear a "dog bites child" story, I don't automatically side with the "That dog is viscious and must be destroyed!" crowd nor do I side with the "My precious Foo-Foo would never hurt anyone!" side either. I try to assess the actual situation.
What I saw in the video was a woman explaining something to a cop, then the guy with the camera talking to another cop with neither of them being marvels of diplomacy, then finally a woman (possibly the one seen earlier, maybe another who looked similar) being led away in handcuffs.
As for how the first scene led to the final scene, I don't know. I can only make suppositions, most of which will likely be wrong, but any of which are plausible. Woman possessed by the shade of Zsa Zsa for a cop-slapping moment? Possible. Cop possessed by Cartman: "You must respect my au-tho-ro-tah!"? Possible. Woman says something which is misheard by cop, leading to tragic misunderstanding? Also possible. Other scenarios? Undoubtedly.
Now whether the cops should have been asking the flash-mobbers to clear out is another question, but while it would be nice, I can't expect cops to be paragons of all virtues with oracular-level threat assessment and encyclopedic knowledge of the law with unquestionably fair and reasonable decisions pleasing to all citizens. Hell, we can't even get that from our Supreme Court Justices. You expect it from someone working the graveyard shift for the park patrol?
If you want to legality prank the cops, you should probably be better prepared.
I remember an anecdote I heard back in Santa Cruz about an initiation prank done to rookie cops: There was (and probably still is) a beach which is topless by legal code but generally non-topless by prevailing social custom and the right of toplessness not posted. (And Santa Cruz itself is legally clothing-optional but by custom actually clothed: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/09.22.99/guide-nudity-9938.html) Some women would go the beach, doff their tops and wait for the shock from fellow beachgoers who did not know this was a topless beach, followed by them squealing to the local rookie cop, then the rookie showing up and asking them to put their tops back on, at which point they'd hand him a copy of the Santa Cruz legal codes.
In any case, the only reason this video is more than a footnote is because someone got arrested, and that's the thing we're curious about and debating. If there's eventually a court hearing, it should be entertaining.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 26 |
| 2007 | 23 |
| 2006 | 56 |
| 2005 | 56 |
| 2004 | 36 |
| 2003 | 207 |
Total: 404 comments. View all these comments on a single page. (May take some time to load.)
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Kevin Andrew Murphy:
Show all comments by Kevin Andrew Murphy.