On Flexing Your Rights. Or At Least Humbly Attempting To Hold on to Them.

The invaluable organization Flex Your Rights has released its latest video, 10 Rules for Dealing With the Police (good Washington Post writeup here). Narrated by Baltimore criminal defense attorney Billy Murphy, Jr., the new video is targeted at minority groups subject to profiling stops.

But while giving the Flex organization proper credit for educating the public about stops and searches, Ken at the Popehat blog raises an important point about the first rule, "Always be calm and cool."

See, if your goal is not to be abused, wrongfully arrested, falsely accused, searched without probable cause, or proned out on the pavement because you irritated someone with a gun and a badge, then “don’t be mouthy to a cop” is excellent practical advice. But dammit, we shouldn’t have to give that advice. The concept that you should expect to be abused if you aren’t meek (or, to be more realistic, subservient) in dealing with public servants ought to be abhorrent to a society of free people. Courtesy is admirable, and unnecessary rudeness is not, but rudeness ought not be seen as inviting government employees to break the law. But the reality is that our society largely issues apologias for, not denunciations of, police abuse. The prevailing belief is that claims of abuse are about lawyers or crooks trying to game the system, that people accused of crimes generally committed them, and that cops are heroes of the sort who deserve the benefit of the doubt when their account of a roadside encounter differs from that of a citizen. Our society, for the most part, indulges cops in their expectation that citizens will be subservient. As a result, “don’t talk back to a cop” remains tragically apt practical advice.

Moreover, the truth of it is that many cops will interpret an assertion of your constitutional rights, however politely delivered, as a rude challenge. They are supported in that view by four decades of “law and order” talk that classifies constitutional rights as mere instrumentalities of crime, not as the rules by which we have chosen to live.

Shame on us if we put up with that.

Here's a good example to illustrate Ken's point: Last week, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three Seattle police officers were justified in using a taser three times on a pregnant woman for resisting arrest. The woman had been pulled over for going 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car ahead of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket. That's when they tased her.

The problem is that under Washington law, (a) you aren't required to sign a traffic ticket, (b) speeding isn't an arrestable offense, and (c) you can't be arrested for resisting an unlawful arrest.

So the woman was completely within her rights. Yet asserting those rights got her the business end of a stun gun. Three times. And two of the three federal appellate judges to hear the case see nothing wrong with that.

So yes, submission to police officers even when you're well within your rights is good advice. But it shouldn't be.

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.

  • Kyle Jordan Prime||

    "Last week, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three Seattle police officers were justified in using a taser three times on a pregnant woman for resisting arrest."

    Thank you and good night!

  • ||

    Well, once for the woman and once for the baby might've been okay, but why the extra one? Unless she was having twins.

    Go ahead and laugh, but cops have been killed by the unborn before.

  • Untermensch||

    I saw it an a movie when one of those Alien things ripped its way out of a chest and attacked a cop. You can never be too careful.

  • asdf||

    Hey man, those fetuses (feti?) can be pretty threatening when they gang up. I think we need to give the cop who tased that woman the benefit of the doubt here. He clearly feared for his life.

    And lord knows driving 32 mph has resulted in literally dozens of near accidents over the last century, and this woman should probably have been arrested and tortured vigorously.

  • ||

    a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three Seattle police officers were justified in using a taser three times on a pregnant woman for resisting arrest. The woman had been pulled over for going 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car ahead of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket. That's when they tased her.

    We're off to a great start to this week, Radley. A great start.

  • sage||

    Well, as the rule "do not talk to the police" applies here, she should not have insisted it was someone else, because she's acknowledging that someone was speeding. Rather the canned line "are you detaining me or am I free to go" should be used.

    Nonetheless, the parade to the police state continues...

  • Bob #2||

    Maybe the police secretly hate snitches, too.

  • Kyle Jordan Prime||

    Yep. Like I said, they kept Morning Links somewhat benign and then unleashed the horror.

    Mr. Balko,

    I'd like to take the opportunity to say that you sir, are a better man than I. I have no idea how you are able to keep any sort of positive or simply non negative views on life with the barrage of horrors you find and report on.

    Seriously, I look up to you for this.

  • Mari Dupont||

    Indeed, Radley is doing the Lord's work.

    But dont be too depressed, Mr. Prime, Radley's posts are increasingly monitored by the "good guys" and the result is a lot of top law firms are volunteering to do pro-bono work for the victims.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Mari, That one comment lifted my spirits more than you could imagine. I run a similar site and can't help but get caught up in the feelings of helplessness that come out of constantly hearing about these sorts of incidents. I myself have been fairly lucky with law enforcement a number of times, but few have my luck and one shouldn't have to rely on chance with the law on their side.

  • Abdul||

    So many people refuse to sign the ticket. So dum, dum, dum.

    Signing for your ticket merely means that you will pay the fine or plead not guilty and show up in court. Not signing means the cop has to arrest you and bring you before a magistrate because you have not promised to handle it later.

  • k-y||

    "The problem is that under Washington law, (a) you aren't required to sign a traffic ticket, (b) speeding isn't an arrestable offense, and (c) you can't be arrested for resisting an unlawful arrest."

    Apparently not.

  • Radioactive Man||

    i'd love to see a bait car show for cops.

  • Scotch Hamilton||

    The police are allowed to use Tasers to force complience with lawful orders...being pregnant does not mean you can disobey such orders.

  • ||

    Jesus Christ monkeyballs, how many Choad/Tony sockpuppet trolls do we have to deal with in a given month?

    Whoever is behind this, you suck. At the very least you could have made a pretty good sockpuppet that agreed here that the police were wrong, but instead you wanted to go for the troll in every aspect.

    Get better or get lost.

  • Kill The Hippies||

    Some of these sockpuppet trolls are most definitely a Reason staffer

  • ||

    The shitty ones are probably Suderman.

  • ||

    how many trolls will you deal with this month? Only God knows the true answer

  • ||

    Nope. 3 trolls max, then i crunch down to the tootsie center.

  • ||

    Read the article ass-hat. They were not "Lawful Orders". No crim was committed. They just needed a macho fix and fucked up a pregnant lady.

  • ||

    Wow, you're even stupider than the 9th Circuit. Even THEY recognize that Tasers can’t be used simply to force a non-violent person to bend to an officer’s will.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, this is the entire problem with tasers.

    The police should only be allowed to use tasers in situations where they would previously have been allowed to use deadly force - i.e. to protect the lives of themselves or third parties.

    They shouldn't be allowed to use tasers to make someone stand up who is lying in the street, for example.

    The entire problem here is the standard that some departments have applied to the use of the taser. Every last department that allows the use of the taser to "obtain compliance" is explicitly endorsing the use of torture to obtain obedience. And then they scratch their heads and can't figure out why people hate them.

    And actually, a federal court ruled last year that tasers CAN'T be used to obtain compliance. That case had not been decided when this incident took place, however.

    http://www.kens5.com/news/Court-Taser-use-80332377.html

  • dennis||

    A friend of mine's father is a retired cop. He hates tasers. Long ago a cop had to try every avenue possible to peacefully defuse a situation because if he didn't he would have to get into a fight or shoot the guy. Now, while there have always been sadistic monsters in law enforcement shooting someone has always been a pretty big line to cross. Tasers have given cops the go ahead to escalate a situation without risking injury to themselves or having to cross a line half of them wouldn't want to cross: killing an innocent person.

  • ||

    I won't bother addressing the immorality or cowardice of your statement. That would be a waste of time.

    But even a Statist bootlicker like yourself should be able to see the impracticality of your position. For the police to be able to carry out their ostensible duty to serve and protect the community, they must have the trust and active cooperation of that community. That's not going to happen in a community where the sensible advice about police officers is to avoid them if possible, or be extremely cautious in their presence. It's the same advice given to people who encounter large dangerous animals in the woods. If the police are seen in the same light nobody is going to help them or even talk to them.

  • hamilton||

    This new (apparently Scottish or malt-enabled) version of me is a new level of irritating in trolls.

  • ||

    How odd... The malt-enabled version of ME is never irritating (at least from what I can remember the next morning).

  • robc||

    In my experience, at least moderately irritating.

  • robc||

    Also, how long you lagering the maibock?

  • ||

    I'm usually too impatient to lager that long. I'll probably do a two-week primary followed by a three-week lager. At that point I'll put it on tap and then see how it matures from there. My general experience with bigger lagers (1060-1070) is that any difference between three weeks of lagering and six is negligible... You ever brew Bocks?

  • deluded1||

    I usually go with 2 week primary 1 week diacetyl rest, 4 week lager...especially. My 1.090 smoked doppel was 3 weeks in primary, 8 weeks in lager.

  • ||

    Damn, that sounds good. Do you bottle? For me, one of the reasons I'm cool with being impatient is that it continues to condition while it sits in the kegerator, so if it's a little green I'll just wait another week or two before drawing another half-liter.

  • robc||

    I have a oddly out of style dopplebock going now. 2 weeks primary, 1/2 week diacetyl rest, 3.5 weeks lager, the DRY HOPPED* it a week ago, going to keg it later this week.

    *I said it was out of style. Its about 80 IBU, and overly chocolaty too.

  • ||

    maibock? In Thai, that would be some questionable beer.

  • ||

    I find the Scottish/malt enabled version of me to be witty and erudite.

  • hamilton||

    I on the other hand, become amazingly attractive to women. And remain erudite.

    As opposed to becoming a statist douche; which should be sufficient proof that this "Scotch" Hamilton is an obvious troll.

  • ||

    Two Words: Scotch Guard

  • ||

    Perhaps if this woman's male relatives found the offending officers in secluded places one by one this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the future. When people fear the police you have a police state. The police should fear the just retribution of the people. If the so-called justice system won't give you any, what is a person to do? Seek "natural justice".

  • T||

    No, Tim, you're not supposed to advocate violence against those who would try to strip away your rights. Haven't you been paying attention? Talk of violence isn't the American way.

  • zoltan||

    Or female. If someone did this to one of my family or friends I'd be getting my hurt on too.

  • ||

    Since you're in Philly, it's understandable that maybe you haven't heard about the cops that were ambushed and killed in the Seattle area.
    6 total, three gunmen.
    The cops around here are still quite jittery. The community outraged.
    Instead of a rational discussion about the abuses of law enforcement, those killings have only served to squelch any legitimate criticisms.
    You probably were just being sarcastic, but around here that kind of talk will have you branded "kook" and marginalized faster than a good taser shot to the groin.

  • deluded1||

    he's from philly....cops get shot here several times a week.....

  • ||

    Yea, I didn't take that into account. (nor was I aware of that fact)

    I guess Seattle's a bit quieter on that front, and so it really is a big deal here. The recent killings make it difficult to voice legitimate complaints about LEOs without being lumped in with those 3 certifiably insane bastards.

  • Catholic Schoolboy||

    "Caress me, Father, for I am 10.”

  • Scotch Hamilton||

    For those of you actually interested in the case itself, check this link for a more detailed account of what happened and the laws that apply to the situation:

    http://www.morelaw.com/verdict.....mp;d=43386

    You may still not agree that the use of the Taser was justified but you will at least learn that the AP article as well as Mr. Balko's summary are not exactly accurate.

  • The Gobbler||

    Yes. He forgot to mention the bitch played the race card.

    "Officer Jones tried to obtain her signature himself, but Brooks also refused his entreaties, despite assurances that signing was not tantamount to admitting the violation. She accused Officer Jones of lying to her about the import of signing,4 suggested he was being racist"

    Fucking. Racist. Bitch.

  • T||

    So what? Being a racist bitch isn't a good reason for the cops to tase you.

  • The Gobbler||

    Show me the part in my post whre I condoned her tasering? I'll give you $5 if you can.

  • sage||

    He forgot to mention the bitch played the race card, so it's a good thing he showed her who's boss.

    I take paypal.

  • Maureen Dowd||

    Oh wow, that happens to you too??

  • Fluffy||

    I just read the case, and it is transparently obvious that when she refused to sign the notice, they could have chosen simply to issue the unsigned notice, but chose to issue her a Citation to Appear specifically in order to be able to taser her for being rude to them.

    I am trying to turn over a new leaf and not freak out and call people cunts at the drop of a hat, but you cunts are making it really hard.

  • The Gobbler||

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    If I'm ever confronted by bullying cops again, I hope I have the guts to tell them off regardless of the consequences. From past experience, it will probably be the lesser of two evils for its effect on my self-respect.

  • Brett L||

    I felt like a sell-out Friday night. DUI checkpoint on 98 coming back from Panacea. Apparently, they were looking for Spring Breakers and I didn't fit the profile. They looked at my DL, checked my tag was valid, and sent me on my way. I hate that crap, but it only seems to happen when I have others in the car.

    Can I get a ruling on what is an acceptable level of hassle before you incovenience your passengers? They sure as hell weren't going to get permission to search, but I guess valid ID and registration ain't worth possibly inconveniencing friends for.

  • ||

    If they say it is a safety checkpoint, ask them take a look at your rear brakes that have been making some noise.

    Been wanting to do that for a long time. Surely they have expert mechanics on hand for such things.

  • ||

    I don't understand, the ninth circuit recently said that you couldn't use tasers for compliance in non-violent crimes.

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/da.....-55622.pdf

  • Geotpf||

    Different cases, different circumstances. In the case you linked, the taser victim was standing 20-25 feet away from the officer, wearing only jean shorts (so he didn't have a concealed weapon), and the taser was in the more painful "dart" mode-and being struck caused him to lose his balance and fall on the pavement. In the Seattle case, the woman was seated in the car, close to the officers, and the taser was in the (somewhat) less painful "touch" mode. I guess the rights of the fetus weren't considered here, but ignoring that, the case you cite had a higher chance of serious injury and a lower level of danger the officer (which was very low in both cases).

    That is, even though the first case seems stupid, the facts in your cite were more stupid, it seems. So the two rulings aren't contradictory, IMHO.

  • robc||

    Ummm...I dont see how the different circumstances matter. If you cant use tasers to enforce compliance, you cant use tasers to enforce compliance. Jorts or taser mode or pregnancy or etc dont change anything.

  • ||

    Legally the different circumstances matter because the issue is one of proportion... The 9th Circuit never actually held that you can't use tasers to enforce compliance. What they held was that the police response in the previous case was so disproportionate that no reasonable jury could find it was appropriate. Given the different facts in the immediate case, the majority concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the police response was proportionate to what they were dealing with. I'm not saying I agree with their decision, but I would agree that legally it's not at odds with previous 9th Circuit case law.

  • Thomas||

    jorts

    Damn. You beat me to it.

  • robc||

    Personally, I think that qualifies you for a tasering. Not sure how a reasonable jury could find otherwise.

  • zoltan||

    A fabulously reasonable jury could find otherwise!

  • Invisible Finger||

    America - eating itself since 1929.

  • ||

    I thought it was 1913.

  • ||

    America-eating itself since the ratification of the Constitution, 1788.

  • Anonymous Backstabber||

    Taser questions:

    Weren't Tasers originally promoted (and pitched to the public) as *alternatives* to deadly force? As in: if and only if the situation justified *shooting and killing* the suspect, a Taser could be used as a humane alternative.

    When did the *practice* change - when did it turn into a new kind of nightstick, for pain compliance, and for subduing suspects in situations where lethal force would have been utterly unjustified and and illegal?

    Is its newer use as a pain compliance tool in codified in law?

    According to the purported standards (I thought) Tasers were originally advertised under, the standard in this case would be "would the officer have been justified in drawing his firearm and shooting the pregnant speeder to death?"

  • ||

    Seems to me tasing is cruel and unusual punishment where the crime is "not signing the ticket."

  • robc||

    It changes when the cops realized they didnt kill and no one was going to throw a fit over them tasing someone. We would be better off getting rid of tasers and having to rely on firearms.

  • ||

    We might be better off returning to night sticks. Folks see the tazer as being sort of benign, while a cop whacking a woman on the head with a stick presents a more...violent image.

  • Mo||

    The thing that sucks about tasers is they don't leave a mark where a billy club would. So instead of only using a tazer when it's appropriate, they over use it. I doubt the 9th Circuit would have been so lenient if they beat her instead of tazing her.

  • ||

    What do you tell a pregnant woman with two black eyes that you pulled over for speeding? Nothing; you already told her twice.

    BAM

    Seriously, though, the taser is a supremely nasty invention for just the reason you stated: it doesn't leave a mark. Cops have been looking for ways to beat suspects without leaving a mark forever (sledgehammers and phone books come to mind), and the taser is just what they wanted. Is it even remotely surprising that they abuse it?

    I'd also like to note the inherent depravity in tasering a pregnant woman. What kind of animal does that?

  • BakedPenguin||

    What kind of animal does that?

    hint: it has a curly tail and wallows in shit.

  • Pip||

    Tony?

  • ||

    He said curly tail. ;-)

  • Grandpa Whithers||

    Then yes, that would be Tony.

  • ||

    No. Tony had his tail docked to comply with his local dog license regulations.

  • ||

    Not to mention his plums. That usually calms down pets. I guess he is just anomalous.

  • Ska||

    Anyone here watch Breaking Bad? This post reminded me of it (a little bit).

  • ||

    I saw season one, but I don't remember anything like this in it.

  • Ska||

    It was last night's episode - second episode of the new season. Walter gets pulled over, and then argues with a cop for not allowing him to disagree with the cop or express himself under the first amendment (Walter's words). Walter ends up getting maced and arrested for disrespecting authoritai, then issues a lame apology for it at the police station when his brother-in-law shows up to use his DEA props to have Walt released.

  • BakedPenguin||

    What is wrong with pepper spray vs. Tasers? They both have a small chance of not working, yet pepper spray is, TMK, never lethal, while Tasers have a small, but not negligible, death rate.

  • ||

    Pepper spray usually just pisses them off.

  • ||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

    The Los Angeles Times has reported at least 61 deaths associated with police use of pepper spray since 1990 in the USA.

    http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/

    Website that tracks taser deaths. They report 500+.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It may be hard to compare, but it appears Tasers are more lethal than pepper spray, although both are apparently more deadly when there is an underlying condition.

    Still, I have a lung condition, and of the two, I'd picked being pepper sprayed before Tasered.

  • ||

    Yeah, no real comment. I was just looking up the numbers. I'd probably lean toward pepper spray too. I might survive it.

    "These are not tears! This is self-inflicted friendly fire!"

  • Citizen Nothing||

    A Community quote?
    Your range never ceases to amaze me, SF.

  • ||

    Media junkie.

    I do love that show, though.

    "Can I ask you something I've always wanted to ask the real Batman?"

    "Yeah."

    "Am I good-looking?"

    "You're a very attractive young man."

    "I knew it!"
  • ||

    Community is great, you dope.

  • alan||

    I think I would rather die than be called a 'lexicon of American culture'. Not that I have anything against lexicons, America, or culture, just the flaky mindset that would mistake those things pulled together constitutes something of value.

    The same kind of flake that probably takes Rolling Stone Magazine reviews seriously when they designate the latest Striped Cabbies for Backstreets as the greatest band evah! would ever come up with 'lexicon of American culture'

    Media junkie, as Sugarfree called it, and I'm one too.

    I hope that was not too obscure, I'm just now recovering from the creepiness of the incident a few months back on these boards that I'm referencing.

  • alan||

    'as constituting something of value'

    Fuck, meant to correct that.

  • hurly buehrle||

    Well, to be fair, the new Striped Cabbies for Backstreets album is pretty awesome.

  • alan||

    Yeah. It is not that I don't enjoy a tune of theirs here and there, but it is really the critic's hyperbole and bullshit that gets to me. Calling, Gavin White Morrison's vocal performance 'shamanistic', 'Dionysus reborn', and the greatest thing since Bobby Darrin makes me want to belch. He is just a kid with a respectable amount of talent. If you need Gods, rock music and movie directors are as poor a substitute as a brad mold growth shaped like Jesus.

  • alan||

    bread mold growth

    but to be fair, it really does look like Jesus, and has commanded only about half as many followers to kill themselves as Jim Jones did.

  • Paul||

    Still, I have a lung condition, and of the two, I'd picked being pepper sprayed before Tasered.

    A lung condition and you'd prefer the pepper spray? Kayyyy.

    I'm not so sure I'd choose pepper spray when I had a respiratory condition.

    "I have weak lungs, therefore I choose Teargas!"

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I'm a little skeptical. I'm certainly not saying police abuse doesn't go on, but it's pretty common knowledge that you don't have to sign your traffic ticket so seems odd she would get tased for that unless this officer has a history of tasing people for no good reason. Seems like everytime (in recent history) I see a video of cops using force, it was because the person was non-compliant and physically resisting them in situations where most law abiding people would comply. Haven;t seen any where the person mouths off and gets tased or beaten although I'm sure it probably happens on occasion.

  • Corduroy Rocks||

    We have a former cop here in Virginia who is now in state govt. A personal friend of mine (who has a big mouth) was privileged enough to receive a beatdown from this cop, while he was in handcuffs.

    I've always been taught to not give them the excuse they so desperately want. Most of these guys are just hankerin' for the chance to administer some justice.

  • Caleb Williams||

    Hey AlmightyBS, you shouldn't try to talk with your mouth full.

  • Pope Jimbo||

  • BakedPenguin||

    Also: always appropriate for a Balko thread.

  • sage||

    HAMMER TASER OF JUSTICE CRUSHES ZAPS YOU AND YOUR UNBORN, OVERPOWER

  • ||

    Well done.

  • ||

    The "rights of teh unborn!" and "cops are wonderful--really... aren't they just dreamy" cognitive dissonance going on right now in certain commenter must be painful.

  • IceTrey||

    I have a taser and let me tell you touch mode hurts like a motherfucker.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Remind me not to attend your parties.

  • Pip||

    Philadelphia Man Charged for Death Threat Against Cantor
    A 33-year-old Philadelphia man was charged Monday with threatening to kill House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his family after posting a YouTube video in which he said, among other things, “You receive my bullets,” according to the Department of Justice.

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/44797-1.html

  • ||

    “You receive my bullets.”

    ESL instruction in Philadelphia must be really shitty.

  • ||

    As Werner Herzog would say, "It is not a significant bullet."

  • WTF||

    Maybe what he meant was that he had sent Eric Cantor a box of bullets as a present, and he simply was inquiring as to whether Cantor had received them. He just isn't very good at punctuation and forgot the question mark.

  • ||

    Oh, I see... Like when I call Warty at 5am and hoarsely whisper "You receive my drawings?"

  • Warty||

    I received your drawstrings, yes. I don't understand how you're keeping your sweatpants up without them, but thank you for them anyway.

  • ||

    The waistband caught on my huge and permanently erect penis.

  • Pip||

    BTW, I think this Scotch "Eggs" Hamilton is MNG.

  • ||

    He's a bunch of the fake trolls. Only he believes some of his stuff, I suppose.

  • alan||

    He is also a fan of U2 so that should tell you something.

  • matt2||

    The unnecessary ellipses are a dead giveaway.

  • ||

    I so hate gratuitous use of ellipses.

  • ||

    Eh, screw you. I need my excessive ellipses. How else...am i...supposed to sound...like Shatner?

  • T||

    He meant bullets of pure love. No threat there, right?

  • ||

    Someone just tell Cantor that when he's ready, he won't have to dodge bullets.

    WHOA

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH LIKE BULLET TIME. I TRY TO DO SAME THING WITH LITTLE STEVE.

    "STOP TRYING TO RAPE ME AND RAPE ME!" HA HA. THAT LINE MAKE STEVE SMITH LAUGH EVERY TIME.

  • ||

    Max Payne is an older game, Steve. Why aren't you playing Borderlands?

  • ||

    IT HARD BUY GAMES IN FOREST! STUPID OWLS NEVER TAKE STEVE SMITH OLD GAMES FOR TRADE IN!

  • Solanum||

    Played the add-on Secret Armory of General Knoxx yet? Crawmerax is damn near impossible to kill solo.

  • ||

    I'm playing it currently. I read about Crawmerax. I'll probably join a group and try to kill him that way.

  • Ska||

    People here play Borderlands but not Bad Company 2 or MW2?? You disgust me.

  • ||

    Don't look at me. I finished Mass Effect 2 last night.

  • ||

    Me neither. Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age are both in the can. Working my way through Assassin's Creed 2 now. Damn that Visitazioni's Secret! Damn it to hell!

  • Geotpf||

    I'm still too busy killing zombies/eating humans in Left 4 Dead 2.

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH IDENTIFY WITH MAX. MY WIFE AND CHILD KILLED BY CRIMINALS TOO. NOT RAPED TO DEATH AS POLICE SAY.

    PLUS, I WANT TO PLAY FUNKY BUNCH WITH MARKY-MARK.

  • Sudden||

    Disregarding the taser case, I gotta disagree with Ken from Popehatblog. Does being a disagreeable douche give police license to beat the shit out of you? No. However, rule #1 in getting your way in any situation is to appear to be on the same side as the person youre dealing with. I don't care if the return counter at macy's or the police station, there is something to be said for basic human civility and I think especially minorities tend to approach interactions with police as viewing themselves as victims before anything even happens. Often times, people can become so disagreeable that the appear agitated, and given the threats that officers of the law do have to deal with in their line of work, they are a bit too quick to interpret such douchebaggery as a perceived threat, rightly or wrongly. The rule doesnt state allow the cops to walk all over your rights, it simply states, remain calm, collected, and keep your composure and professionalism.

  • ||

    ""there is something to be said for basic human civility""

    But your talking about an organization that routinely defends shooting, sometimes killing, innocent people by memembers of their organization. Not to mention, blaming the victim for anal rape.

  • nebby||

    Professionalism? Doesn't that only apply to the professional (cop, supposedly) in that interaction? Minorities have every reason to fear interactions with the police. They have been and are currently the targets of daily police malfeasance.

  • Sudden||

    Self-fulfilling prophecies. When you believe you are going to be taken advantage of, you approach an interaction with an abrasive or confrontational demeanor, which in turn leads the officer your interacting with to view you as a threat.

    It pains me to see libertarians viewing these kinds of things de facto from a whiny, victimhood bitchiness that I think is more fitting of those who leech of the public dole.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    The cops are my employees. They're the ones who should show some fucking respect.

  • ||

    Mental note: don't try to do a "blaming the victim" shtick. Sudden has that one all wrapped up.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Damn straight. Those uppity minorities should know better than to sass their betters.

  • Fluffy||

    Guess what?

    I have an absolute and unlimited right to be abrasive and confrontational with representatives of the state.

    No one else in the world - no one - asserts the right to employ life-threatening force against me because I'm abrasive or rude to them. I refuse to acknowledge the validity of any line of reasoning that claims to put LEO's in a different category.

  • ||

    Without disagreeing with anything that you said, that, and 2 bucks, will get you a cup of coffee and a serious ass kicking at the hands of a LEO.

    Like it or not, we live and die at their whims. It shouldn't be that way, not ever, not for any reason, but reality is a bitch sometimes.

    Mouth off to a cop, without your own witnesses, at your own risk. Being right has a price.

  • dennis||

    The witness better have video evidence and be far enough away that the cop can't steal their camera or beat the piss out of them as well.

  • cbmclean||

    Better to die (or at least receive an ass-whooping) as a free man than live as a slave. At least, some feel that way.

  • First ||

    Rule of traffic stops is to live.

  • Paul||

    Here's a good example to illustrate Ken's point: Last week, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three Seattle police officers were justified in using a taser three times on a pregnant woman for resisting arrest.

    So I ask again, who's the brave soul standing in the front willing to get shot down so the pratt in the back can have his freedom?

  • Paul||

    They also noted that the force used wasn't that serious because the Taser was in "touch" mode rather than "dart" mode, which hurts more. They reversed the lower court's opinion and held that the officers were entitled to immunity from the lawsuit.

    "It's a free country, brother" are words I rarely hear anymore.

  • ||

    Say, is it feasible to make oneself taser-proof? You'd think criminal types and the justly paranoid would be utilizing some sort of defense system.

  • Paul||

    Some sort of tinfoil hat or suit is probably in order.

  • ||

    I remember seeing a coat/windbreaker that was supposed to be taser-proof.

    The YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XvABQOfcO4) video showed people wearing it and getting tased with no effect. Apparently there was something in the lining.

    The press release I read said they were only going to be selling them to LEO and government agencies

  • ||

    Well, naturally. That ensures that only criminals will have access to them.

    Next up? A jacket that reverses the effects of the taser.

    Technology is a bitch.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Colloidal silver. It won't keep you from getting shocked, but the cops will be laughing so hard at your blue skin they'll forget to taze you. It's the ultimate Libertarian solution.

  • T||

    I would think all that silver would make you more conductive, so it would hurt more.

  • Scotch Hamilton||

    The lesson here: sign the ticket like an adult and you won't get tased.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    That's a good little Scotch. Here's a Scotchy treat for you, you good little boy!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Come to think of it, I bet it is MNG. He's such a good little boy, yes he is yes he is!

  • ||

    Really? Sure of that, are you? Why? Come on, you're not that fucking naive.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Roll over, show your soft underbelly, avert your eyes and acknowledge them as alpha, you know, like an adult!

  • ||

    QFT

  • Lib Ehurteariun||

    Why do we have to follow the rules?

    It's JUST NOT FAIR!

  • ||

    Is this the cops talking or is it supposed to be coming from the "whiney" citizens whose tax dollars pay their salaries??? When you don't follow "the rules" you get tazed and beaten or worse. When the cops don't, they get a paid vacation.

  • Steff||

    Not all police are like that, though. It's the same 'broad brush' painting that leads to all sorts of bad things.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Here's a little treat for you, Libby. That's a nice Libby, that's a good Libby!
    Does ums like it when I rub it's belly? Yes it does yes it does!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Scotch, Libby! Bad, bad! No nipping! We're going to have to give you a gentle correction.
    ZAAAP!
    There, there! It's ok! Show me your bellies! Yes, 'em a got a show daddy their bellies, yes they do!
    Yes, that's a good Scotchy, that's a good Libby! Who loves you! Daddy loves his little Scotchy and little Libby, yes he does yes he does!

  • Heather the Safety Dog||

    If you really loved them, you'd be feeding the peanut butter-stuffed madjool dates while you rub their bellies.

  • Grandpa Whithers||

    "Your post (#1633444) has been marked as spam by a third-party spam filter. If this is a mistake, please email webmaster@reason.com."

    Eat shit, server squirrel.

  • ||

    I'd be a lot happier with this decision if the judges had confirmed, personally, that "touch" mode is less painful than "dart" mode.

  • ||

    Yeah, would at least show some balls. Fucking bullshit pansies, except for the dissenter of course.

  • Steff||

    Submission? No. But courtesy, yes, is good practical advice. On the other side of it, there are certainly good cops, who work long hours, and who risk their lives for somewhat meager pay, because they're doing what they believe is right.

    When one gets rude to you, all bets are off. But assuming good faith at first is probably wise for any number of reasons. Including the fact that it might just save you a ticket. Courtesy, frankly, goes way further to keep you from getting into trouble for doing 15 MPH over the limit than arguing will.

    Of course, then you get into the state highway patrol... and no amount of courtesy saves you there.

  • Oklahoma Court Dockets||

    We must abide by the rules.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement