Police Abuse

"End the Fed" Pamphleteers Near Liberty Bell Handcuffed and Cited

|

Interesting video that went up on YouTube a couple of days ago (the date of the incident uncertain) of two pamphleteers handing out "End the Fed" flyers near the Liberty Bell—Oh the irony!–who are handcuffed on the ground and eventually ticketed by park police. Their flyers were also taken by the park police.

According to the female of the pair of pampheteers, the ticket was for "interfering with agency function" and "failure to obtain a permit." 

My 2009 Reason feature on the "End the Fed" movement.

The full video, in which the videographer does a great job being a consistent thorn in the side of the huge pack of park police, and a bystander wonders what sort of lesson in liberty is being taught to her son, there by the Liberty Bell:

NEXT: Rebels Who Posed For Photo With Sen. McCain in Syria Identified As Kidnappers By Lebanese Press

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sie m?ssen eine Genehmigung vor Freiheit der Aus?bung Ihrer Freiheiten erhalten!

    1. Thanks to Google Translate, I know this means “You must obtain a permit before exercising your freedom freedoms!”

  2. Of course she interfered with the agency. They had to dispatch agents to cite her, right?

  3. It’s a good thing he didn’t have a knife and some pizza.

    Cop shoots woman with knife 5 times, accidentally shoots other cop as well

    So, several officers cannot disarm one woman with a knife, without shooting her 5 times? I am getting so sick of this crap, it’s an every day thing now. When are Americans going to finally wake up and put a stop to this crap?

    1. it’s an every day thing now

      It is here.

      I am getting so sick of this crap

      What do you propose to do?

      When are Americans going to finally wake up and put a stop to this crap?

      Oh, so now it’s up to me?

      1. Oh, so now it’s up to me?

        It’s up to all of us. One thing we can do is to elect people to congress, like Rand Paul, who will actually talk about stuff like this. As long as we have a majority in congress who support a police state(doesn’t affect them after all), we aren’t going to get rid of it.

        Most people don’t have time to go out and protest like this, because they are working all of the time.

        1. Voting doesn’t matter. I can accurately gauge the outcome of an election by taking the inverse of my ballot.

          1. So, the fact that people voted in Ron Paul and Justin Amash, doesn’t make a difference? I would agree with you that voting here in MD doesn’t matter, but whenever we can primary a GOP statist with a good Libertarian leaning candidate, it matters.

            1. Rand Paul, not Ron…

            2. Here in Maine we got governor LePage (google him up and you’ll find a ton of news stories about how awful he is which means he’s doing something right by pissing off the Dems and the media) so I guess it can matter now and again.

        2. Voting at the Federal level means jack squat to the behavior of most LEOs. We need to vote better people in at the local and state levels to cause real change there.

      2. New troll. Or old troll with new handle. Possibly Tulpa what with the fellating of authority.

    2. When are Americans going to finally wake up and put a stop to this crap?

      How, exactly, is that supposed to happen? By the time most people wake up, they have a family to support. You can’t support your family if you are killed or imprisoned for defying authority, so you shut up and take it.

      1. When I was young we actually took to the streets.

        Now we take to the blogs.

        Maybe that’s the problem.

        1. No, you and you ilk starting the drug war are the problem.

          1. I can’t speak for the ilk, but I personally enjoy drugs, and I never started or participated in or supported any wars, “drug” or otherwise. But lame try!

    3. Cop shoots woman with knife

      What caliber rounds did the knife have?

      1. She was coming right at them.

      2. The King’s Men must have knives to shoot teh womynz with.

    4. When are Americans going to finally wake up and put a stop to this crap?

      How’s never? Is never good for you?

  4. “That guy can run?”

    About the fat cop. Awesome.

  5. Watching that video, it seems very believable to me that it’s being filmed in a totalitarian police state.

    Do you have to be a completely brain dead useless tool, to work for the government? I think it must be the first question on the application.

    1. Do you have to be a completely brain dead useless tool, to work for the government?

      All it really takes is a squeaky clean record and boundless respect for authority. So, yes.

    2. Watching that video, it seems very believable to me that it’s being filmed in a totalitarian police state.

      It isn’t? Almost no human expression on any of those guys. If they had to account for their actions that day, they wouldn’t even mount a Nuremberg defense. They’re happy to be there.

      That those gangsters are still stealing my taxes shows sequester hasn’t cut deep enough yet.

      1. They get to carry guns when others don’t, they get a generous salary, benefits and pention when others don’t – they are THRILLED to be there, be seen doing there duty as agents of the state.

        1. Not to mention virtually unlimited overtime.

    3. I say it without equivocation: America is a police state. When the cops can drag you off the street or simply shoot you or seize your property, all on pretense, then the cops run this country, we’re just here for their amusement.

  6. Freedom means asking permission and taking orders.

  7. Reminds me – turns out the Liberty Reserve was a $6 billion fraud. From yesterday:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05…..d=all&_r=0

    1. Fuck off, sockpuppet.

        1. Fuck off sockpuppet!

          1. Enlighten me. Whose sock is he supposed to be?

            1. I think he’s Sarcasmic.

              1. Is there a consensus on this?

                1. You must be new to Reason.

            2. While he did change his name, he has been consistent in using that name for over a year now. So he’s not a sockpuppet. Troll, maybe.

    2. Fraud? What fraud?

      1. They provided paying customers with banking and money transfer services, and these customers were able to move money without the govt watching it.

        The government likes to pretend it’s fraud, but it’s not: the customers weren’t defrauded. The business refused to pay protection money to the mafia, and the mafia put them out of business and is about to send a few uppity shopkeeps to sleep with the fishes.

        1. Yes, it is debatable whether it is fraud or not. The disturbing part is this:

          While Liberty Reserve was incorporated outside the United States, federal officials used a provision in the Patriot Act to target the organization and other financial institutions with whom they conducted business. It was the first time the provision had been used to prosecute a virtual currency provider, officials said.

          1. turns out the Liberty Reserve was a $6 billion fraud.

            But the disturbing part is the actions of the federal government. Have you ever had a coherent thought?

          2. “Yes, it is debatable whether it is fraud or not. ”

            “Reminds me – turns out the Liberty Reserve was a $6 billion fraud. ”

            Pick one lying sockpuppet.

      2. It wasn’t fraud. PB is being dishonest, as he often does. Liberty Reserve facilitated money laundering by not caring (or at least not vetting) the people they dealt with. There’s evidence that some of the money came from truly heinous things like child porn. But fraud, it ain’t.

        1. not caring (or at least not vetting) the people they dealt with

          Ah, the Pirate Bay defense. They were shocked, shocked to find that money laundering was going on in there!

          1. Correct. When goods and services move without the nod of Federal approval, that is, by definition, laundering.

            We’re shocked, SHOCKED that money was moving without our express approval! Use the PATRIOT act (that thing that Obama was against before he was for) to stop it!

            1. By “they” being shocked I meant the people running Liberty Reserve, not the U.S. government. Regarding the Pirate Bay analogy, the only pertinent question is whether the proprietors knew about the illegal activity, and whether they approved of it and knowingly facilitated it.

              1. I know exactly what you meant. The point has whizzed over your head. When money moves without government approval or oversight, it will become a magnet for people doing unscrupulous things. However, some of those things are only unscrupulous because government has declared it so.

                Someone selling marijuana is engaging in ‘unscrupulous’ activity, even though the trade, sale and consumption of marijuana should be completely, 100% legal.

          2. You’re profoundly stupid.

    3. You need to learn what “fraud” means.

      1. Now, to be fair, although Shriek first said it was fraud, then he said it was debatable whether it was fraud. If holding two contradictory thoughts in one’s head doesn’t mean you’re right half the time, then I don’t know what the point is of doing it.

        1. Now, to be fair…

          What’s fairness got to do with Hit & Run?
          You see an enemy, you attack!
          Because, if you don’t, somebody might believe them!

    4. operated beyond the traditional confines of United States and international banking regulations in what prosecutors called a shadowy netherworld of cyberfinance

      Uhm, you do realize that anything which steps outside the Fiat currency is, by the Federal Government’s definition, a shadowy netherworld of cyberfinance, right? You do get that, right?

  8. Obligatory:

    “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!”

  9. so now it’s up to me?

    It puts the donut in the road, or it gets the hose.

  10. “So, we need a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?”

    Of course you do. “Reasonable” people decided we need permits to exercise our Second Amendment Rights – why should the others be any different?

    1. You’re still free to exercise your freedom of speech, as long as you ask permission first.

      1. That one is being attacked just as vigorously as the 2nd. It’s called PC. Soon, anything you say will be considered a hate crime.

        1. Soon, anything you say will be considered a hate crime.

          It all depends. If you are a member of a protected class you can say just about anything you want.

        2. Crying wolf again, eh Hyper?

          The 2nd amendment is stronger now than it ever has been.

          1. And yet, still not as strong as the 3rd.

      2. You’re still free to exercise your freedom of speech, as long as you ask permission first.

        I DIDN’T GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO ASK!!

        1. Fill out form 16-J-475: “Permission to Ask Permission” first.

      3. Ah yes….the Guliani Amendment!


    2. So, we need a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?”

      Of course you do. “Reasonable” people decided we need permits to exercise our Second Amendment Rights – why should the others be any different?

      You’re still free to exercise your freedom of speech, just not on public property.

      The right of the people, to speak freely with an unamplified voice in a public square of the government’s choosing, shall not be infringed.

      1. Are you against laws against speech acts like perjury and death threats, too?

        There has been reasonable restriction of speech since the early days of the Republic. It’s just that damage from speech is much harder to do than damage from firearms, so the reasonable restrictions on the latter are going to be more expansive.

        1. I think his complaint is that people just can’t do whatever the hell they feel like doing on public property. I sympathize with that emotion, or at least I did when I was 14.

          1. *facepalm*

            No, my complaint is that people cannot hand out pamphlets in front of the liberty bell.

            Jesus fuck sticks.

  11. Calling for the abolition of a limitless supply of fiat money for the federal government is vastly more troublesome than shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Of course this speech should be prohibited.

    With extreme prejudice.

  12. At least there letting them film.

    1. IRS audit soon to follow.

  13. Whose sock is he supposed to be?

    George Soros, according to the link in his evanescently clever “handle”.

  14. Mr. Buttplug is George Soros himself?

    Where does he find the time?

    1. No, he’s Soros’ sock puppet.

      1. Maybe I don’t know the correct definition of “sock puppet.”
        Maybe I should look it up.

        [Does.]

        A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception…a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community….A significant difference between the use of a pseudonyn and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.

        So…who is P.B. attempting to “deceive?” And how?

        Is the use of a pseudonym (something we all do) deceptive?

        If P.B. is not himself, who is the “independent third-party” that he is pretending to be?

        1. He’s not a sockpuppet by the strict definition, but the commentariat here uses the term for anyone who changes their name and is irritating.

          PB is a pain in the ass, that’s for sure.

        2. I should add that PB used to post as “shrike” years ago, and given how many people here use name-based filters, changing your name when a lot of people are filtering you is viewed as a sin.

          1. Oh, OK. Now I get it. It’s more of a vendetta thing. Not reality-based, but an emotional reaction to an internet enemy.

            Um, but…if he’s been using the same name for a year, couldn’t those wise people who use name-based filters just, you know, add “Palin’s Buttplug” to their filters?

            1. Many have, but the “sockpuppet” label sticks.

            2. I dont see his posts.

              Unfortunately, reasonable doesnt filter out the entire subthread under people I have filtered, like I would prefer.

              1. Why not filter out all those sinners who respond to the sockpuppet troll? Miles and miles of worthless subthreads, fuled by worthless troll-enablers, vanquished! Think about how much better your life would be.

          2. IIRC, someone snapped up ‘shrike’ when registration hit. Or it went to a non-real email or something.

            Didn’t someone snap up Tony, too, which lead to Tony with spaces?

        3. something we all do

          Speak for yourself.

          Although I guess in real life I captitalize the R, so its sorta a pseudonym, although a lame one.

  15. I didn’t know the NPS had enough money to employ that many NPS police in Philadelphia.

  16. Given the pervasiveness of cameras (both public and private) in our society, I’m struck by how often the videos on this site show only what happened after the alleged crime occurred. It’s almost as if we’re getting only one side of the story which, coincidentally, always seems to favor the alleged victims of alleged police malfeasance.

    1. Why would they be filming before the police showed up? Are they precogs? Or is there a big audience for pamphleteering videos?

    2. Fuck off

    3. Wow, you have a strikingly similar argument style to Tulpa.

      Only one side of the story is being reported here because this website stands against the state. If you want the state’s side of the story, ask the police for records of what happened. Wait, what? Their dash cams seemed to have malfunctioned at that particular moment. Darn, not again! (shrug at 4th wall as camera fades into a commercial break)

      1. Wow, you have a strikingly similar argument style to Tulpa.

        Yes, it’s called critical thinking.

      2. Only one side of the story is being reported here because this website stands against the state.

        Reason is not an anarchist publication last I knew.

        1. Reason is not an anarchist publication

          Opinions vary.

        2. Even minarchists stand against the current state.

      3. Hey, I did call it a coincidence. The last thing I want is for people not to think that I don’t obediently believe everything I see here, even if it is only half the story. For the record, I don’t see why people can’t do whatever they please on public property. Those hippies have a right to take a dump on that silly old bell if they want to, because if you can’t deface public property, then there really is no liberty.

        1. Great comparison to handing out pamphlets.

          1. They should be able to hand them out, and then throw the leftovers on the ground. The state’s “littering” is my “free expression.” If I can’t do whatever I feel like doing, I AM NOT FREE.

            1. Why do you keep making things up?

    4. Given the pervasiveness of cameras (both public and private) in our society, I’m struck by how often the videos on this site show only what happened after the alleged crime occurred.

      I thought we knew what the crime was. The crime was handing out libels against the government. That’s hardly “alleged”. It’s right there on the pamphlets. They were caught red-handed.

      1. Actually, if you go to YouTube and read this crackpot’s hilarious wall-of-text manifesto, he was detained for violating one of the park’s rules, specifically peddling pamphlets without a permit. Yes, you may argue about the merits and justice of such a law, but your beef, then, is with the law, and not those government employees whose job it is to enforce the law, however silly or “anti-free speech” the law (in your opinion) may be. I seriously doubt whether the park cops, just by virtue of their jobs, are crusading, ideological defenders of the Federal Reserve. They probably couldn’t care less whether the hippies were handing out anti-Fed propaganda or Chinese takeout menus.

        Of course, your real complaint has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with hatred of government, right?

        1. Actually, if you go to YouTube and read this crackpot’s hilarious wall-of-text manifesto

          Why would I waste my time with some 888 sperg-out?

    5. ” I’m struck by how often the videos on this site show only what happened after the alleged crime occurred. ”

      Blame the police and their unwillingness to be filmed, or wear cameras, for that.

    6. This is an important question to ask, though Mr Cheney’s point about the stuff going on before the police arrived not being something you’d want to film anyway is well-taken.

      Also it doesn’t look like the vid has been sliced & diced like the UC Davis Pepper Spray incident video was, so I’m inclined to believe it’s telling the whole story. I’m sure the Park Police will tell their side of the story in the coming days if the video is misrepresentative.

      1. if the video is misrepresentative

        Don’t believe your lying eyes. Believe what authority says.

        *slurp*

        1. Sometimes authority is right.

          It certainly doesn’t look like they were right from what we see in the video, but I’m willing to hear their side of the story and evaluate it, just as critically as I evaluate the video. Forgive me for my open mindedness.

          1. I believe the video. A couple of hippies were detained for breaking a law. Boo hoo. But worse, they were “handcuffed on the ground and eventually ticketed”. Oh, the humanity!

            1. What law did they break?

              1. They exercised their freedom of speech on public property without first asking permission.

            2. You really don’t get it? The law as it is written is unethical and wholly wrong.

          2. In my experience law enforcement officers are almost incapable of telling the truth. I’m guessing you’ve never been a victim of a serious crime or been accused of a crime. If you had you’d know that these people are dishonest sacks of shit that care only for bending you to their will.

            1. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and an almost infinite amount of time on your hands to publicize it. Don’t you ever get tired of it? Or is this your therapy? Are we your support group?

              1. Google “ad hominem.”

  17. and a bystander wonders what sort of lesson in liberty is being taught to her son, there by the Liberty Bell:

    A very, very important lesson, that hopefully her son will heed.

  18. I kind of wish the dude screaming would stop. It’s interfering with my ability to hear what the fuck’s going on. Even though I agree with him.

  19. Not sure about the arrest vs. detention thing. Normally a mere “detention” consists of telling someone to stay where they are and making sure they don’t leave. If they attempt to flee or threaten violence you can cuff them, but under those circumstances you can also immediately arrest them.

    So, not sure how the PP cop justifies calling it a “detention” when they’re cuffed.

    1. You should follow the YouTube link and read this guy’s manifesto. It’s hilarious.

      ***SPOILER ALERT***
      The cops were vicious and cruel and wrong and those cuffs really hurt!

  20. Yes, you may argue about the merits and justice of such a law, but your beef, then, is with the law, and not those government employees whose job it is to enforce the law

    All together now:

    They were just following orders!

  21. They were just following orders!

    Nah, just doing their jobs, something an anarchist simply cannot accept.

    Laws, HUH!
    What are they good for?
    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
    Say it again, y’all.

    1. Wow. There’s a lot wrong with that post.

      First off, anarchism is not an absence of law. It’s an absence of a central authority that enforces legislation.

      Second, law and legislation are not the same thing. Law is the rules that society agrees upon and lives by. Legislation are rules written down by legislators and enforced by assholes. Here’s an interesting talk about it.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn84m1pvh4

      Finally, ‘just following orders’ and ‘enforcing unjust laws’ are pretty much the same thing.

      1. My reaction exactly.

        In fact, I’d have a smidgen more respect if they were following actual orders instead of what they did which was guess at what the orders might be.

        1. Public servants don’t take orders. They give them.

      2. Anarchism is not an absence of law. It’s an absence of a central authority

        So you’d be OK with the park’s permit process, so long as there wasn’t a “central authority” enforcing it? A private, unofficial street gang, issuing the same citation, would be OK with you?

        In essence, people like you and Brooks just can’t stand to be told what to do. You’re like toddlers rebelling against the tyranny of your mommies.

        1. I didn’t say I was an anarchist. I said you don’t know what anarchism means. Not the same thing.

        2. In essence, people like you and Brooks just can’t stand to be told what to do.

          Free people don’t have to ask permission or take orders so long as they don’t do harm to the life, liberty or property of other people.

          Why do you disapprove of wanting to live like free people?

  22. In essence, people like you and Brooks just can’t stand to be told what to do.

    Not by morons, anyway.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.