The Glade 4.0

Vindi:

You are likely correct. As I don't spend much time in Hellfire, I don't keep track of each and every posters views.

Perhaps because the anti-authority bias has become so pervasive and is showing up so regularly here, I may be perceiving more than there actually are.

Apologies, it seems like many to me, at least. Off of the top of my head, I can think of at least six.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

I don't know, I'd only put Elmo and Coro in the category of "all cops are pigs and high on power and authority", everyone else seems to have expressed opinions somewhat less than "all", from what I've seen.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'm with Foamy...I am *perceiving* there to be a lot more anti-authority opinions than maybe there actually really are. I think I'm guilty of generalizing as well, if for no other reason than that DE is the only one I can think of who stands out as a regular on the pro-police side.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

My personal experiences with the cops are more akin to yours than Rynar's, LK. I've had a couple of speeding tickets, got a summons once because my dog's license was expired, and have been questioned briefly a few times when going for late-night walks in a rural area with a lot of empty camps (seasonal cottages for you non-New Englanders) that tend to get broken into during the off-season. The random questioning irked me a bit, and as a matter of policy, I think issuing a summons for a dog license is a waste of the court's time, but in none of those situations did I find the cops rude, aggressive, or power-trippy. They did their jobs professionally and politely, and within 5-10 minutes each time, I was on my way with no issues.

Here's the thing, though: In each of those situations, I was responsive and polite, I fully complied with all the cops' instructions, and I'm just generally clean-cut and respectable looking. I gave them no reason to get annoyed and no reason to suspect a fishing expedition might reveal something, so they didn't have any incentive to mess with me. However, if I had been rude, belligerent or uncooperative, or if I fit a criminal profile, I don't doubt that those situations would have played out quite differently.

Why? Because cops are human. If you're rude to a waiter, there's a decent chance you'll get a little something extra in your soup. If you're rude to a DMV clerk, don't be surprised if your paperwork gets screwed up. And if you're rude to a cop (or if you fit a profile that makes a pretextual stop worthwhile) you're probably going to find yourself getting hassled (and maybe ticketed or even arrested) to a larger extent than your initial actions warranted on their own.

Just because 99% of police officers are fair and cool, that doesn't mean we can let the 1% get away with uncool stuff, either. My amount of disdain for the officer in this video does not affect my opinion of other Po-po's.

I actually like cops, most of the time.

I get pulled over at least once a season on the way home from my brother's house, for no reason other than because I drive an early 90's model car. That goes beyond police "just doing their job." It is, simply put, harassment. I get pulled over because the cops see my vehicle, and think they're going to bust someone for underage drinking and search the car for marajuana. When they arrive at the vehicle and find out that not only am I stone cold sober, but also ten years older than they thought based on the age of my car, there's always an uncomfortable silence while the police officer makes up some bullshit excuse why he pulled me over.

The thing is, I'm well aware that I'm not getting pulled over by jerks on a power trip. To the contrary, these officers are what generally passes for a decent, upstanding cop. I would actually prefer it if I was being pulled over by pigs every time, because at least then I could be secure in the knowledge that other officers are better. Instead, I have empirical evidence that shows the typical, decent cop is out harassing law abiding citizens on a regular basis. That's actually more depressing, and more damning of the police force in general.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

LK, there's a difference between being "anti-authority" (hell, when it comes down to it, I'm anti-authority) and believing "all cops are pigs and high on power and authority", that's what I'm taking exception to.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

That's a question for a judge, or a jury, RD. No one claimed disrespecting a cop was illegal, and as for whether the other is or not,t he law does not make such fine distinctions. Hence the reason for courts.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Getting pulled over once a year = harassment? oooookay.

False. The cop was in the process of issuing a summons to the guy on the bike. The man walking by interfered with it.

If a judge or jury disagrees and the walker gets off, fince, but there is no reason it should have "not been issued" just because some people here would vote "not guilty".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm not buying that the reason you're actually getting pulled over is what you say it is. If we had the cop here, he'd most likely have a different evaluation of the situation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I can think of at least 2 other people off the top of my head. But yes, most everyone else has different opinions than all, although quite a few seem awfully quick to criticize the police for not essentially making their own "not guilty" finding and letting someone go.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Disrespecting a cop being illegal is not a question for a judge or jury; and, in fact, a belief that it is, in a generic sense, is indicative of a predisposition towards overstepping ones authority.

Furthermore, the insistance that anything as mundane as this could possibly be construed as interfereing with the work of a police officer, and appealing to the remainder of the legal process as the solution to a gross abusse of authority, is the biggest cop-out and example of a pass the buck government culture I've ever seen here.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No one said it was. The question of whether the man was interefering is a question for a judge and a jury. Read more carefully.



Your excuse that some arbitrary line in the mind of people who already don't like the polcie makes it "mundane", an "abuse of authority", or a "cop-out" just explains why you cannot be taken seriously.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And your insistence that I can't be taken seriously is evidence that I must be.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That's the thing. He didn't give him the chance to leave. The guy was in the process of leaving and was called back by the cop. He was understandably upset that he was getting a ticket for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong. He of course made the mistake of trying to resist the cop's abuse of authority. At that point you just act polite and do what they say, because they have all the power in that type of situation.

Foamy and LK - please educate me on the purpose of authority for its own sake.

I absolutely do not understand at all this mindset.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I agree with Coro here… Depending on the type of car you drive, your chances of being pulled over or not increases or decreases. It’s a type of profiling which obviously works for them.

I go to the city once a week and drive home on one of the main roads. When I’m in my little rice rocket, I have been pulled over for breath testing 90% of the time I’ve seen one. When I’m in my mum’s family car, I have been pulled over 0%. Not necessarily discrimination, but definitely profiling.

There are some real bad cops out there and some really nice ones. Unfortunately because the bad cops never get weeded out, they will always be in the bunch rotting the other yummy apples.

I understand there will be a lot of complaints just to get cops in trouble, but the extreme of not investigating means these bad cops could pretty much get away with what ever they want. I have personally had a cop practically grope my breast to get to my driver’s license which I was in the process of getting out of my bag for him. I now always have my wallet out and sitting inside the little compartment behind the hand break just so I am never in that situation again.

Without a process to complain, people will always claim favoritism, which it is.

The way to fix this problem is not to elect the same idiots for Sheriff and Mayor for 16 years strait. At least that's my local opinion.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

As a matter of fact, he didn't do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong. That is the point in contention. Trying to act as if that is a point of fact is simply begging the question, and will/would be the point in contention in court. Pretending as if it has already been resolved makes a mockery of the legal system in favor of setting up public opinion as a court.

They have "all the power" because the man in question had given the cop probable cause to believe he had violated the law. The law itself could be argued to be petty, but the fact of the matter is that the police do not make the laws. At that point, yes, they have all the power because otherwise the law could not be enforced in any situation.

Every time you try to use "abused his power" or "the man arrested did nothing wrong" or something to that effect as an argument you eonly establish my position more strongly, because these are the points of contention. Trying to base an argument on them as a premise just makes for begging the question or circular argument. In point of fact, whether he did something wrong is a matter for a jury. He unarguably did stick his nose in where the officer was conducting business.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Since no one has that mindset, you're unlikely to get an answer.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't really understand what you mean by authority for its own sake?

And as far as explaining it, I really wish I could, Elm, but there is a reason I don't usually get involved in debates in here and that is because I have a very hard time expressing my thoughts and opinions in a way that everyone else can understand them. I believe I have valid views and opinions, but all too often it's just incredibly difficult for me to jump in and lay it all out there in a way that some of you can relate to. I think this is, in part, because I am an emotionally-based person and I have a hard time expressing myself in logical manner....I write a whole page and it doesn't come out right so I re-write it and it still doesn't come out right, so I just give up and hope that someone else who has better thought-to-typing skills expresses a similar view for me.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I agree that ultimately it's up to the courts, but cops do have a large amount of discretion, both as a matter of law and just plain practical reality. I think that when faced with a situation like this, the cops should ask themselves, "Am I busting this guy (a) because whatever he did is both against the law and serious enough to warrant messing with his day and expending court resources on it, or (b) because whatever he did is against the law and, even though it's not that serious an infraction, he pissed me off so I want to mess with him?" If the answer is (b), I think it's inappropriate for the cops to take action, but even good, professional officers will do it from time to time because they're imperfect humans, just like anyone else.

We can argue the cop had discretion (which he did) but in that case the argument basically comes down to "I don't think he should have done that, because if I were him I wouldn't have."

I can buy that argument, but that fundamentally changes the nature of the debate.

In that case, each person will subjectively answer those questions because there is no precise answer to either of them. You may believe the answer to them is B; in point of fact I probably would not have arrested the guy either. However we are not that cop, do not have to deal with the shithole that is NYC, and just because we would answer differently does not make his answer wrong. "Inappropriate" in your "B" answer above, no longer means "abuse of authority", it means "less than optimal solution".

In point of fact, even your "B" answer is weak because A) "not that serious an infraction" is a very vague standard; shoplifting is "not that serious" compared to murder or arson and B) you assume the cop wants to "mess with him". In any case "messing with" someone who broke the law is an exceedingly weak position to take. It smacks of the same argument as "dog whistle politics"; you can argue anyone who gets arrested for any reason was being "messed with".

In that case it is merely a matter of you and I having different opinions. However, if you go down that road you can no longer cricticize the cop for making the choice he did in legal/professional terms because you have admitted he was within the law to do so. You can only criticize him on the basis that you would do differently. That is still valid but ultimately bumps up against the most formidable obstacle: you were not the man on the scene.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

Personal foibles of the founding fathers aside, this is a country founded upon the notion that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. The notion that it is up to the courts to decide whether being disrespectful to a cop is illegal is, to put it kindly, preposterous. As to the anti-authority sentiments, that is rather a given in any society based on the initial premise that all citizens are free and equal. We have state and federal constitutions that were drafted with specific protections put in place to safeguard the common man from precisely the sort of abuse seen in that video.

That police are charged with upholding the law does not grant them any special privileges. Their time is not more important than anyone else. As a society, we grant them certain concessions (for example, allowing them to run through a red light) in the execution of time-sensitive tasks, but many of those concessions are also granted to fire departments and paramedics. These are concessions granted in emergencies when lives may be at stake, not because police merit any special consideration.

It's the last sentence of that paragraph that contains the fundamental disconnect for a large portion of our society. We teach young children that authority figures should not be questioned, and that anything stemming from the government must have everyone's best interest in mind. The KGB salivated over the level of blind trust that the typical U.S. citizen has for anyone wearing a uniform.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.