Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Anonymous LAPD Writer: Running Your Mouth About Your Rights Can Get You Shot, And Don't You Forget It
A fellow who writes regularly for National Review Online under the name "Jack Dunphy" who says he's an LAPD officer writes re: the Henry Gates arrest brouhaha:
[A policeman talking to a citizen is] concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
When the officer has satisfied himself that it was not you and your Hupmobile that were involved in the Piggly Wiggly heist, he owes you an explanation for the stop and an apology for the inconvenience, but if you’re running your mouth about your rights and your history of oppression and what have you, you’re likely to get neither.
The LAPD, strangely, is seeing a polled upswing in L.A. citizen support these days, but that's probably only among citizens who have not been arrested or shot for the crime of discomfiting an officer who is bothering them. I blogged recently at my Southern California news and politics blog City of Angles at KCET.org about the LAPD recently getting out from under its court-ordered independent monitor, and about officers evading being fired for their use of excessive force on the May Day 2007 immigration ralliers.
Xeones|7.27.09 @ 2:50PM|#
And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be
free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer
asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your
own.
Yep, Mao was right.
Paul|7.27.09 @ 2:51PM|#
VE VILL HAFF ORDAH! VE VILL HAFF ORDAH! YOU VILL OBEY UNDT VE VILL HAFF ORDAH!
Paul|7.27.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Oh by the way, this attitude by the cops is nothing new. Nothing annoys a cop more than to be forced to confront the legality of his own actions while engaging in said actions.
|7.27.09 @ 2:54PM|#
It's not much of an assertion to utter the following:
"I do not consent to any searches, sir."
"Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?"
AFAIK you are not required to answer any questions with perhaps the
exception of establishing ID. Other than that I would answer any
question with the question above.
hmm|7.27.09 @ 2:58PM|#
And people wonder how I justify, or why I group all cops
together. The mentality mentioned in the article is pervasive and
those that don't act like this do not protect me from this.
Had an interesting run in with a dipshit with a 1* patch Sunday
morning. I swear I have no faith in those charged with protecting
us.
|7.27.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Everybody in my family knows the drill:
(1) Don't answer any questions asked by a cop about your personal
activities.
(2) Don't say anything that could give a cop permission to stay on
your property or search you or your property.
(3) Don't leave the house if a cop comes to the door.
(4) Don't invite a cop into the house.
(5) Clarify that you are free to leave or not answer questions
right away.
Two caveats:
The above don't necessarily apply if the cop is responding to your
request to investigate a crime against you.
Discretion may be the better part of valor during a traffic stop,
since cops have plenary authority to arrest you and impound your
vehicle if you assert your Constitutional rights.
Kyle Jordan|7.27.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Well let's hope then that several cops (spit) end up with holes
in them too. Particularly in their heads after being severally
beaten and admitting what worthless pieces of shit they are on
camera (that's uploaded to the 'net). Or have their heads slowly
cut off.
It's a death befitting terrorists since that's what they are.
bubba|7.27.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Doesn't the Gates case actually prove Dunphy right? At least with respect to how things *are* if not how you would like your unicorns to prepare your ice cream sundae.
|7.27.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Rules can really only apply after the fact, not during the stop,
so I would establish my rights via what "sage" said, while at the
same time not trying to antagonize the officer. If the officer is
intent on violating my rights and is abetted by those in charge
above, unless I plan to take up armed rebellion against the
government, my rights are going to be violated.
The best you can hope for is making any case portray you in the
best possible light and law enforcement in the worst possible light
so as to renew the check against police.
hmm|7.27.09 @ 3:19PM|#
The sad thing is that the phrases, "No you can not enter, no you can not search, am I free to go" are almost always seen as you have something to hide or you are escalating the situation and being defensive.
|7.27.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Public Service Announcement
There's a vignette coming and it's not for the faint of heart.
Don't even read the first line.
|7.27.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Jack gently parted the hairs around his partner's anus. The
smeared headlights of the cars passing them on the highway lit up
the tender folds of Bill's balloon knot. Jack felt sorry for those
drivers. They could never know, never understand what he felt for
Bill or what they had been through to get them to this place. Those
passing motorists could not understand the unbearable sexual
tension that builds when you taser a smartmouth in the crotch or
rattle the teeth of an insolent teen or shoot some uppity professor
for looking you in the eye. They could never understand the furtive
glances that passed between them as they got their story straight
or the soft brush of Bill's knuckles against his hand as they faked
incident reports together.
Jack grunted from his revelry as Bill twisted the saliva-lubed
nightstick into his anus. He tensed against it, forcing Bill to
twist harder, push harder. Jack began to lap eagerly at Bill's
man-cunt. As he briefly wormed his tongue inward he tasted ashes
and some exotic spice he could not place. Jack slid his tongue
downward, lightly flicking along the seam of Bill's scrotum. Bill
engulfed him with his mouth; Jack's penis throbbed, seemingly
begging to ejaculate in the back of Bill's hot throat. Jack's index
finger slipped into Bill's rectum. Probing as far as he could, he
could feel a gnarled nugget of feces. Jack pressed against it
urgently as Bill suckled him harder and harder.
They rocked in and out of each other, in time to the frantic
beeping of the radar gun.
Kyle Jordan|7.27.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Bravo Sucralose!
Now write a non-homo sex story. You seem good at it.
|7.27.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Sage is exactly right. But be polite. It doesn't help anything being an ass to the cop. That just gives him an excuse to be an asshole back. Further, maybe you do want the cop to catch the guy who knocked over the Piggley Wiggley up in Yazoo. Not every confrontation with a cop is a bad thing.
MNG|7.27.09 @ 3:57PM|#
"Doesn't the Gates case actually prove Dunphy right? At least
with respect to how things *are* if not how you would like your
unicorns to prepare your ice cream sundae."
The scary thing is that this is not how Dunphy just thinks things,
he thinks things are right that way...
MNG|7.27.09 @ 3:58PM|#
"this is not how Dunphy just thinks are, he thinks things are right that way..."
T|7.27.09 @ 3:59PM|#
(4) Don't invite a cop into the house.
At our house, we've broadened that rule to include any agent of the
state.
|7.27.09 @ 4:00PM|#
RC,
Good advice. Oddly, it's also how one is supposed to act around
vampires.
I'm not surprised. Dunphy came from the same culture that lead to
the Rodney King beating and the Rampart Scandal. Trying to learn
proper police discretion from an LAPD officer is like having a lady
of the night teach abstinence only sex ed.
hmm|7.27.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Not every confrontation with a cop is a bad
thing.
But everyone has a higher chance of turning out poorly for me than
most other confrontations.
I'm not here to make their case. If they want to talk to me take me
in custody, get my name and information and subpoena me, or arrest
me. It's a shitty way to look at it, but everything I say to the
cop can be used against me and all of it becomes hearsay as soon as
I say it so it can't help me. I
|7.27.09 @ 4:04PM|#
It's not much of an assertion to utter the following:
"I do not consent to any searches, sir."
"Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?"
AFAIK you are not required to answer any questions with perhaps the exception of establishing ID.
This is true when you're just an ordinary citizen minding his or
her business, and not appearing to commit any crimes.
However, if you were just spotted breaking into a house, you'd
better be prepared to answer just about every question in a civil
manner if you want to avoid going downtown to sort things out.
alan|7.27.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Has the underlying rationale of police bullying, that is that is
keeps them alive on the streets, actually been studied carefully. I
can think of at least two dozen incidents in my life I came out of
without a scratch precisely because I acted in a manner exactly the
opposite of how a cop would handle the situation.
Hell, the martial arts schools I'm familiar with (not bragging, I
suck in practice) emphasize being unassumingly non cop like.
alan|7.27.09 @ 4:15PM|#
bubba | July 27, 2009, 3:13pm | #
Doesn't the Gates case actually prove Dunphy right? At least with
respect to how things *are* if not how you would like your unicorns
to prepare your ice cream sundae.
Every unicorn I have ever encountered came through it with a broken
neck and with out a horn which I duly pocketed for sale. I didn't
come to my position in life by being anything other than a extreme
realist about life, asshole.
|7.27.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Has the underlying rationale of police bullying, that is
that is keeps them alive on the streets, actually been studied
carefully. I can think of at least two dozen incidents in my life I
came out of without a scratch precisely because I acted in a manner
exactly the opposite of how a cop would handle the
situation.
I was wondering the same thing. The cop reflex is to dominate. You
don't dominate by de-escalating. Attempting to dominate someone
will often generate a reaction, push-back, that escalates the
situation, perhaps unnecessarily.
Citizen Nothing|7.27.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Warty: Great link to video at 3:55. Should be required viewing in every high school civics class.
hmm|7.27.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Nice story. Could use more lube, handcuffs, and maybe some tazer
to the nuts bondage.
The run-in I witnessed and somewhat participated in Sunday morning
occurred solely because the cop (claimed to be a cop) stuck his
nose into business it did not belong and then started demanding
things that were not in his purview if he was a local cop even if
he was on duty.
hmm|7.27.09 @ 4:47PM|#
|7.27.09 @ 4:54PM|#
Mr. Dunphy was NOT talking about just any citizen under any circumstance here. Rather, he specifically constructed a scenario where, going into it, the cop had reason to believe the citizen was a dangerous criminal. I am thankful that the link to the full text was posted because it would do well for everyone here to read it.
Warty|7.27.09 @ 4:55PM|#
CN, there's a companion video from the same lecture of a cop saying the same things. Seriously, never talk to the police about any criminal matter.
|7.27.09 @ 5:03PM|#
Rather, he specifically constructed a scenario where, going
into it, the cop had reason to believe the citizen was a dangerous
criminal.
Ah. So, the cop has left his house. OK, I'm following so far. . .
.
Seriously, though, it doesn't make any difference to me what the
cops thinks (like I could even know); I'll respond exactly the way
I advise above?
Richard |7.27.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Jack Dunphry says that Doherty is misquoting him.
Those who bothered to read the entire post would have understood that in the scenario I presented, the officer was not merely "talking to a citizen," but rather stopping one he reasonably (albeit mistakenly) believed had just committed an armed robbery. This important distinction was either missed by Mr. Doherty, or else he is deliberately misleading his readers. I can't decide which is worse.
Warty|7.27.09 @ 5:13PM|#
he officer was not merely "talking to a citizen," but rather
stopping one he reasonably (albeit mistakenly) believed had just
committed an armed robbery.
Weak. What difference does that make?
robc|7.27.09 @ 5:17PM|#
At our house, we've broadened that rule to include any agent
of the state.
Nearly a decade ago now I slammed a door in a Census takers face
because he started asking questions beyond how many people (1)
lived in my household.
|7.27.09 @ 5:20PM|#
mcg,
So, because I might resemble a criminal suspect, I should expect to
be shot if I get the crazy idea that that ratty old piece of paper
called The Constitution is supposed to protect me from the police
doing anything they like to me. But if they are wrong about me, I
might get an apology?
Fuck you and your cop friends, cuntcicle.
|7.27.09 @ 5:24PM|#
The key here is your speech is either "Distracting" or
"Delaying" the police officer. If the officer was a robot looking
for clues in the speech dispassionately or could quickly determine
suspicion based on non-verbal clues without being distracted by the
beration, this would not be a problem. However, the officer is a
human being, a very stressed and testosterone laden human being who
has a very specific goal at the time and doesn't have the ability
to judge things dispassionately. Hence, why you could get your head
blown off by said individual. There is no right or wrong when
you're dead.
Sigh, its going to get worse before it gets better.
highnumber|7.27.09 @ 5:28PM|#
Richard,
It's not clear to me how Dunphry [sic] thinks Doherty has missed
the point or mislead his readers. Could you provide a link to his
response, please?
|7.27.09 @ 5:32PM|#
I'm always reminded of the line M. Emmett Walsh delivers to
Harrison Ford in Blade Runner:
"You know the score, pal. If you're not cop, you're little
people."
Never more true than today!
hmm|7.27.09 @ 5:46PM|#
Mr. Dunphy was NOT talking about just any citizen under any
circumstance here. Rather, he specifically constructed a scenario
where, going into it, the cop had reason to believe the citizen was
a dangerous criminal.
So, since the president is keen on offering instruction, here is what I would advise he teach his Ivy League pals, and anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer: You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
Fuck I hope no one robs a bank in make and model. Cause as an
innocent person I would hate to get shot over asserting my
Constitutionally protected rights.
T|7.27.09 @ 5:50PM|#
This important distinction was either missed by Mr. Doherty, or else he is deliberately misleading his readers. I can't decide which is worse.
Fuck him.
And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
He deliberately set up a scenario to make him, and by extension all
police officers, look better. It's all boo-hoo, we have a hard job,
so cut us some slack when we act like power-mad pricks.
But don't miss what he's really saying. If you are mistakenly
accused by a cop of a crime, he gets to shoot you when you start
reminding him of the Constitution and refusing to comply with his
demands? Again, fuck Jack Dunphy.
He's either trying to explain police brutality or trying to
legitimize it. I can't figure out which is worse.
|7.27.09 @ 6:00PM|#
Someone asked for the linky.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDEyMDQ5NjYxMDlkNjI0NTJlYzdlZjliMTBlY2I3ZmE=
|7.27.09 @ 6:12PM|#
I've read a lot about this case and those involved. Assuming
what I've read is true, the COP WAS RIGHT. Read about his history -
he was hand picked (by a black man) to teach other cops not to
profile. He gave cpr to a dying black nba player. The other cop on
the sign supporter his story of events and is also black. (Save me
your tired uncle tom arguments, people.)
Now look at this harvard prof. He has a victim mentality and a chip
on his shoulder because of things that happen generations ago. He
didn't (again, fwih) show valid id, and was belligerent. He's
gotten exactly what he wanted: liberal street cred. He'll be on
magazine covers soon, if he isn't already.
There are some criminal cops out there and swat is basically out of
control gangs of thugs. However, this case is not abuse of police
power.
If I were in Gates position, I would have simply given the cops my
id and explained the situation calmly. That's called being an adult
- you're respectful to everyone, unless they give you a (LEGIT)
reason not to be. I would be GLAD that a neighbor cared enough
about my home to call the cops and GLAD that the cops checked
investigated it.
Stop crying wolf about police abuse. There are real problems (swat)
that might be ignored after stupid false alarms like this. The bulk
of news outlets, commentators, and especially Gates, are crying
wolf.
How about focusing on REAL ABUSE??
DevHyfes|7.27.09 @ 6:20PM|#
If a cop stops you under the assumption that you just knocked
over a bank, he doesn't have any right to harm you without
provocation. (And Dunphy says that, upon clearing you of the crime,
cops owe you an apology and explanation of their behavior.)
But if, while trying to investigate this crime, you act like an
insufferable ass, you should expect much more than a routine
traffic stop. Since you fit the description enough to warrant the
stop, and then you are uncooperative, you've turned a quick
check-and-go into a long ordeal. Good for you...You've just wasted
everyone's time!
Dunphy wasn't saying it's Okay for officers to shoot you if you are
a jerk to them. He's saying that if you try starting a
confrontation with a cop who thinks you may be an armed criminal,
you have no control how that confrontation will end up- and it
could end up with you being shot.
Fluffy|7.27.09 @ 6:22PM|#
If you are mistakenly accused by a cop of a crime, he gets
to shoot you when you start reminding him of the Constitution and
refusing to comply with his demands? Again, fuck Jack
Dunphy.
It especially doesn't matter, because the actual armed
robber also possesses all of those Constitutional
rights.
So the distinction he thinks is important here actually isn't.
highnumber|7.27.09 @ 6:40PM|#
Thanks for the link, John-David, although I find it not at all illuminating.
|7.27.09 @ 6:50PM|#
It especially doesn't matter, because the actual armed robber also possesses all of those Constitutional rights.
So the distinction he thinks is important here actually isn't.
Absolutely. An armed robber has the constitutional right to remain
silent as the cuffs are put on him, gets a free ride in the back of
the police car, and gets a nice warm cell to sleep in that
night.
If you are reasonably believed to be an armed robber, this too can
be yours if you don't cooperate.
|7.27.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Once again I ask myself how libertarians think the police are supposed to do their jobs.
|7.27.09 @ 7:01PM|#
I've thought of myself as a libertarian but I find the comments
here irritating. Isn't there some distinction between anarchism and
libertarianism? For myself I believe all government is ultimately
coercion by violent means and that there is a *very* limited sphere
where such coercion is legitimate. A policeman investigating a
report of a serious crime falls within that sphere. Since the
policeman's mandate is to deal with the violent and criminal among
us by means of violence himself it's not unreasonable to expect, or
even to mandate, a certain degree of cooperation. That's true if
only for the sake of prudence to avoid fatal misunderstandings
between innocent citizens and those who are mandated to deal
violence in their defense.
Your constitutional right to be an ass is important but so is the
cop's right to life and his own right of self-defense. He's not
infallible or omniscient. He does not have some divine insight into
your innocence of the crime he's investigating or possibly of a
crime he's NOT investigating that may give you a motive to kill
him. Erratic, provocative, confrontational behavior on your part is
stupid and will increase his fears and his suspicions. His training
(necessary for his legitimate function) is to take control over
chaotic, heated, potentially violent situations. One of his means
of doing so will be to simply arrest anyone contributing to the
heat and chaos of the situation. Unless it's accompanied by actual
physical harm, or some excessive punishment after the fact I can't
get too worked up about it being a fundamental violation of
anyone's civil rights.
Ari|7.27.09 @ 7:03PM|#
The sad thing is that the phrases, "No you can not enter, no
you can not search, am I free to go" are almost always seen as you
have something to hide or you are escalating the situation and
being defensive.
"Suspect refuses to cooperate and is becoming tumultuous and
disorderly."
Fluffy|7.27.09 @ 7:19PM|#
If you are reasonably believed to be an armed robber, this
too can be yours if you don't cooperate.
Well, if all the cop has is "Drives the make and model car of the
robber, and declined to allow me to search his vehicle or answer
any questions" and he arrests me on that, I not only will
sue the pants off the city and department, but will put a lawyer
and private investigator on retainer to make the officer's life a
living hell for the rest of his career, to the extent that I can
manage the budget for something like that.
hmm|7.27.09 @ 8:01PM|#
One of his means of doing so will be to simply arrest anyone
contributing to the heat and chaos of the situation.
That is exactly why disorderly person exists as a statute. Now lets
apply this to the facts we know about the case. He identified the
man as the homeowner or proper resident after a lengthy and heated
confrontation. He moved to leave and the homeowner still distraught
continued to be angry and follow him. At some point the officer had
to stop leaving a scene at which he had already decided there was
no crime and arrest the person yelling at him. The situation,
consisted of the officer and Gates. The officer had complete
control and could have completely diffused the situation by saying
here is my business card, my superiors name is on the back. I have
to return to patrol, I'm sorry for the inconvenience. He had has
the power in the situation both ultimately (armed) and legally
(bullshit statute abuse that will fly in any court). There was no
chaos he had investigated and was not being stopped from leaving.
By your account anyone that questions an officer, whether about
concerning their rights or otherwise, is potentially contributing
to the chaos and thus subject to arrest. Which is absurd, even if
the norm.
|7.27.09 @ 8:09PM|#
Once again I ask myself how libertarians think the police
are supposed to do their jobs.
Gee, how can they possibly do it? By gathering evidence, getting
witness statements, and collating that all into a criminal case?
HOW FUCKING UNFAIR! Obviously, the police should be able to arrest
anyone who even looks at them the wrong way and put the burden of
proof on the person arrested.
In case you didn't catch my point, buried in all that subtlety,
here it is: Fuck you and fuck the police.
MNG|7.27.09 @ 8:45PM|#
"how libertarians think the police are supposed to do their
jobs"
I'm not a libertarian, but I think the answer "in compliance with
the Constitution and the law" will probably do.
Arresting people who have not violated the law would, yes alas not
be a weapon I would want them to have in doing their job. But I'm
all for arresting people in compliance with the law.
Bingo|7.27.09 @ 9:31PM|#
His training (necessary for his legitimate function) is to take control over chaotic, heated, potentially violent situations.
What ever happened to "protect and serve"? The police are not (or
should not be) an occupying force. You can't uphold the law and
break the law at the same time. Dying on the job is an occupational
hazard.
Or do you think it's okay for the police to break or bend the rule
of law to save their lives? Because that is essentially the
argument that you are trying to make, they are just regular guys
trying to put in their 9-5 and make it home to their family. They
knew the hazards of the job when they signed up, tough shit. Don't
trample on THE RULE OF LAW (the Bill of Rights) when your job is to
enforce it.
|7.27.09 @ 10:16PM|#
I should expect to be shot if I get the crazy idea that that
ratty old piece of paper called The Constitution is supposed to
protect me from the police doing anything they like to
me.
Sorry to nit-pick, but if you expect the constitution to protect
you, you're dreaming. The constitution does not create our rights,
it delegates some of our powers to the federal government. The
defense of our rights ALWAYS depends on our willingness to 1)
demand them or if push comes to shove, 2) fight for them.
-jcr
|7.27.09 @ 10:35PM|#
"Now lets apply this to the facts we know about the case."
Actually the case we were discussing was Jack Dunphy's hypothetical
about someone pulled over because they have the same (rare) make
and model car as the perpetrator of a heist.
His point was that after the mistaken identity is cleared up you're
owed an apology for the inconvenience BUT in the meantime you have
some responsibility yourself. In the encounter the policeman has a
very reasonable fear for his own life. As far as he knows you are
the criminal that just committed the crime, are likely armed and
highly motivated to kill him. He is more concerned with living
through the encounter than with your tender sensibilities, your
rights, or about YOU living through the encounter. Persisting with
exercising your rights to behave as an unreasonable, belligerent,
and provocative asshole increases the likelihood of a
misunderstanding that leaves you bleeding to death from multiple
gunshot wounds. This may be deeply unfair, but it's simply true and
won't change for all our internet ranting about how the rest of the
world owes us perfect fairness while we owe it nothing but unhinged
outbursts.
I find it disturbing that so many here expect government agents to
attain to godlike imperturbability and perfect judgement but expect
nothing from citizens. That conception of the relationship between
government and citizens is at odds with reality and it strikes
deeply at the premises upon which the ideals of freedom and limited
government rest.
Do you really think government agents are capable of such
perfection? If yes, why not sign up for some nice totalitarian
utopia? Do you really think free citizens are so childlike that
they can't be expected to be merely reasonable in response to a
crime having been reported? How can such children attain, or keep
(or deserve?) any degree of freedom?
hmm|7.27.09 @ 11:16PM|#
Actually the case we were discussing was Jack Dunphy's
hypothetical about someone pulled over because they have the same
(rare) make and model car as the perpetrator of a heist.
My fail.
MJ|7.27.09 @ 11:27PM|#
"A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad
manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss
of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a
riot..."
- Robert A. Heinlein
This is true even if the person you are dealing with is a cop.
Rock Justice|7.28.09 @ 12:28AM|#
It amuses me to no end that the National Review has made up their own imaginary cop friend sock puppet. At least they didn't name him 'Dick Tracy'
Jim Murphy|7.28.09 @ 12:29AM|#
Kids today won't believe it, but there was a time when you could read the National Review without IQ points flying out of your head.
|7.28.09 @ 1:01AM|#
>And people wonder how I justify, or why I group >all cops
together. The mentality mentioned in >the article is pervasive
and those that don't >act like this do not protect me from
this.
Yeah there are too many cops who are in that line of work because
they never outgrew their bullying phase. Employees at Canada's
"Human Rights" Commissions are similar.
|7.28.09 @ 6:45AM|#
'Jack Dunphy' is either a poor communicator or a tired cop. The
citizens of Los Angeles should hope it's more a matter of weak
communication skills. Either way the mere fact this mind set is
locked and loaded up front in the thinking processes of an LAPD
officer hired to 'protect and serve' telegraphs a level of stress
too high to warrant having him on the streets.
Retire, "Jack."
Fluffy|7.28.09 @ 8:33AM|#
This may be deeply unfair, but it's simply true and won't
change for all our internet ranting about how the rest of the world
owes us perfect fairness while we owe it nothing but unhinged
outbursts.
If it's "deeply unfair", how should the law react to it?
You're basically saying that, whether we like it or not, there's no
way to avoid having a police force that, occasionally, will fill a
citizen full of bullet holes even though that citizen does not
draw a weapon, if that citizen is merely hostile,
uncooperative, and anti-cop.
Now, if that's "deeply unfair", then the way the law should react
to it would be to stick the police officer in the gas chamber.
Right?
That's what annoys me about every last one of the a-holes who
offers the "It might not be fair, but it's what you should expect,"
argument. Fine, maybe you should expect to be arrested for no
reason if you hassle a cop. The question is what happens AFTER
you're arrested for no reason for hassling a cop. Is the cop
punished, or not? If you admit that it's unfair, why oppose
punishment for the cop? If you oppose punishment for the cop and
stand up for the cop, why should we regard your statement that you
think it's unfair as sincere?
That conception of the relationship between government and
citizens is at odds with reality and it strikes deeply at the
premises upon which the ideals of freedom and limited government
rest.
And the viewpoint that you have no rights if the police are afraid,
or in a hurry, or merely annoyed - how does that jibe with the
ideals of freedom and limited government?
Do you really think free citizens are so childlike that they
can't be expected to be merely reasonable in response to a crime
having been reported? How can such children attain, or keep (or
deserve?) any degree of freedom?
The number of citizens who will be reasonable when dealing with the
police will be directly proportional to the justice of the laws
themselves. If belligerence and hostility to police is so
ubiquitous that it becomes an insuperable problem, then you need to
take a serious look at the underlying laws. If your question is,
"How can we make sure people don't hate the police, while keeping
the laws and police procedures we have now?" the answer is that you
can't. This is where broader libertarian issues start to come into
play: if the reason the police face overwhelming hostility is
because they've been given unjust laws to enforce, or because the
police act in an overbearing manner with citizens regularly because
the legal system supports them in doing so, then it's perfectly
appropriate and fair for citizens to treat them with hostility, and
not "childlike" at all.
Your questions here also smack of the attitude that says, "I'm in
favor of freedom, but only if people act responsibly," which is, of
course, not being in favor of freedom at all. "I am in favor of
freedom as long as everyone acts in the manner they would if they
were not free." See the problem with that?
|7.28.09 @ 10:37AM|#
Your questions here also smack of the attitude that says,
"I'm in favor of freedom, but only if people act responsibly,"
which is, of course, not being in favor of freedom at
all.
Just so. As the Fourth Iron Law puts it:
4. You aren't free unless you are free to be
wrong.
|7.28.09 @ 2:15PM|#
This is most amusing:
RC Dean @ 3:01pm, 27 July
"The above don't necessarily apply if the cop is responding to your
request to investigate a crime against you."
OH, OF COURSE NOT!!! When that officer goes to stop the perpatrator
of said crime against you, you fully encourage that criminal to
resist all investigation and would, no doubt, demand that the
officer make no effort to restrain him.
In fact, the officer should ASSUME he stopped the wrong person, and
make no intrusion on their time or liberties whatsover, in his
attempt to retrieve your property or avenge the assault on your
person.
Should the officer have any doubt whatsoever, you will stand up for
that crook and demand the officer release him. 'Cause that's what
you believe in, right?
|7.29.09 @ 1:13AM|#
Juvenile "f*** the cops" posts like these are the reason I call myself a small l libertarian. In fact, after reading some of these comments, I think I should just take the l off and call myself an ibertarian.
Kolohe|7.29.09 @ 6:25AM|#
Nearly a decade ago now I slammed a door in a Census takers
face because he started asking questions beyond how many people (1)
lived in my household.
robc-
Ran out of chianti?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245