A question about Authoritarianism

mapuc · 07-22-15, 01:01 PM

Earlier today the news showed us a video clip from USA

The video showed a car stopped by a police. The police standing beside the car on the drivers side-saying "Shall I use the "Stunner"(forgot the correct word) Later on this women hang her self in her cell.

A friend made a post about this on FB. and here he wrote.

"I agree that this policeman was to brutal in his acting, but why didn't this woman do what she was told ?"

I wondered when I read that. Are the American less Authoritarianism than we in Denmark and Sweden.

Heck here in Denmark or Sweden a person stat to jump up and down when the police gives the order to do so-most of them do.

Markus

The Enigma · 07-22-15, 01:10 PM

The description of what happened in that video is kind of a very short version.

I saw an officer acting very bully to the lady who was (as far as I know) legally in her rights.

He obviously didn't like the way she responded to his requests, but the law applies to all citizen, also to police men.

mapuc · 07-22-15, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Enigma

The description of what happened in that video is kind of a very short version.

I saw an officer acting very bully to the lady who was (as far as I know) legally in her rights.

He obviously didn't like the way she responded to his requests, but the law applies to all citizen, also to police men.

I didn't take that into account and I don't know if my FB-friend was doing the same not taking her rights into account when writting his post.

I admit my knowledge about which rights an American citiziens have is very low.

Markus

Jeff-Groves · 07-22-15, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

I admit my knowledge about which rights an American citiziens have is very low.

You've just passed the first test to be a Cop over here.

mapuc · 07-22-15, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

You've just passed the first test to be a Cop over here.

What !? does it not take more to be a policeman in the States ?

I was talking about these little small laws not the big one, like

Free Speech, free religion a.s.o(first amendment)

And

Second amendment

Markus

Catfish · 07-22-15, 01:35 PM

Has the police the right to demand you put out your cigarette, make you leave the car, treat you like a criminal and incarcerate you, if you did not use the turn signals?

Heard a longer report on the radio today about this. The video is said to have been edited, by the police. And according to friends and relatives it is implausible that she committed suicide.

A bit of trigger-happy, a bit of frustration, a bit of illegal alien thinking, a bit of racism. Altogether this seems to describe perfectly all the latest police infringes we heard about.

Yes i know there are a hundred thousand cases where the police did it right, but of what we hear nothing.

Schroeder · 07-22-15, 01:37 PM

A burning cigarette is actually considered a weapon IIRC.

So yes, they are in their right to ask to put it out.

vienna · 07-22-15, 01:39 PM

The "full" video was released just a couple of hours ago; I wrote "full" because there is some dispute about just how "full" the video released actually is:

Quote:

The Austin Department of Public Safety released the 52-minute video from the July 10 traffic stop Tuesday night but now says it will release a DVD version of the footage because "some of the video that occurred during this conversation was affected in the upload" to the Internet, spokesman Tom Vinegar said in a statement.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-sand...ry?id=32615846

The video, released as "raw footage" shows some possible signs of looping and or inserts indicating possible editing rather than "raw footage". It is entirely possible the "flaws" are the result of some processing or upload errors (anyone who has done a good deal of video editing knows how artifacts can pop up in the process), so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the LEOs. However, there is still no excuse for the sort of bullying conduct shown by the officer, in any case...

<O>

mapuc · 07-22-15, 01:45 PM

My friends my post was not really about rights it was if the American is more or less anti-authority.

E.g
A person has done something wrong and a police ask the person to step outside the car and this person refuse to do so-just because this person are anti-authority and it escalate.

Or the person haven't done anything wrong and therefor refuse to apply the policemans order.

Edit we can of course discuss this video in this thread.

Markus

Wolferz · 07-22-15, 02:31 PM

If you don't do what a LEO orders you to do, you risk getting your ass kicked.
BUT. always the big but, if the LEO makes a request, you are under no obligation to comply.
Since I was not there to witness this incident, I can neither confirm nor deny who was in the wrong. Though threatening to taser a driver for not putting out a cigarette seems a tad heavy handed. She's lucky she wasn't shot on the spot. Maybe the LEO thought it more prudent to wait until he had her in jail without the camera documenting everything. There are any number of ways around oversight devices.

This country has more than its fair share of criminals and psychopaths and unfortunately some of them made it into the ranks of law enforcement where they do their dirty deeds and get away with it more often than they should.

mapuc · 07-22-15, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

If you don't do what a LEO orders you to do, you risk getting your ass kicked.

As I wrote before if a policeman ask a Danish or a Swedish person to get out of the car about 90-95 % of the people would do so-even if they have or haven't done anything wrong. We are so to say pro-authority

This and my FB-friends post "why didn't this woman do what she was told ?"

which made me make this post asking if the American people is more or less "anti-authority"(maybe there is a better word)

Markus

Joefour · 07-22-15, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

As I wrote before if a policeman ask a Danish or a Swedish person to get out of the car about 90-95 % of the people would do so-even if they have or haven't done anything wrong. We are so to say pro-authority

This and my FB-friends post "why didn't this woman do what she was told ?"

which made me make this post asking if the American people is more or less "anti-authority"(maybe there is a better word)

Markus

All I'm going to say is this: If the men that founded this country came back to life and observed what has become of this country, they would be sharpening their swords and checking the priming in their flintlocks.
Enough said.

Jeff-Groves · 07-22-15, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

which made me make this post asking if the American people is more or less "anti-authority"(maybe there is a better word)

Markus

I respect a LEO as long as he respects my rights.
Given I've been told I can't do things because "I'm a Cop" when I know better?

Also seems to many are Cops just because they were beat up in school and can now be Mr. BadArse with a badge.

Pretty sad that I now have cameras in my trucks and cars to protect me FROM Cops like that.

August · 07-22-15, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joefour

All I'm going to say is this: If the men that founded this country came back to life and observed what has become of this country, they would be sharpening their swords and checking the priming in their flintlocks.
Enough said.

Well said too...

Platapus · 07-22-15, 06:26 PM

The police are given a lot of authority to take command of a situation on the spot. The check and balance is that they are supposed to be held accountable for any violations after the fact.

So the proper procedure is to do what the officer tells you to do and then lodge a complaint afterwards. Unfortunately, the police are not being held accountable for their actions so complaining after the fact is worthless.

Once the citizenry understood this, their fear of the police has, in my opinion, justifiably, increased. Unless something is caught on a recording, the police will most likely be able to get away with pretty much anything up to and including homicide. Even when there is video, it is seldom that the police officer is held accountable.

Why?

First of all, we have a flaw in the system where the police are responsible for investigating the police. Talk about conflict of interest! This ranks up there with congress investigating itself for ethics violations.

In my opinion, that needs to change. No government body should have sole responsibility for investigating itself concerning violations of civil rights including homicide of the citizens!!

Second, the police, in many cases, have adopted a change in attitude from being public servants for the citizens to being combat troops against the citizens. I have read and heard the police assuming a "us against them" where the "us" is the police and the "them" is the rest of us.

I put partial blame on this on the general over reaction from the 911 attack. Secondly, since 911 there has been an increased "militarization" of the police.

I am against police having military ranks, wearing military like uniforms, and being issued military weapons. The police are NOT the military. Unfortunately, uniforms, titles, and equipment do affect how people act. There is a very good reason why the military has uniforms and titles as they do. The law that President Obama signed increasing the transfer of military equipment to the police was a mistake. When you are given a hammer, all problems start to look like nails. The same can be said for military equipment and arms.

My second solution is to "civilianize" the police. Give them police uniforms and police titles and get them back to the attitude of protect and serve as opposed to interdict "at any cost".

Lastly, if it were my birthday, I would want, and would be willing to pay extra taxes for, research on non-leathal weapons for the police.

The police need to be able to stop a criminal from committing a crime, and neutralize a threat. One way to do this is to introduce a few hundred grains of metal into the chest of the citizen. But that can't be the only way. It is the 21st century. I can't believe that there is no technology that can't be developed to neutralize a threat without killing the suspect.

A live suspect is always better a dead suspect.... at least from a citizenry standpoint. Because a live suspect can be tried. However, from the police standpoint a dead suspect can't testify.

Being a police officer is a dangerous job. There is nothing we can do to prevent this. However, the police can not be allowed to adopt a "shoot first, and forget the questions" attitude when it comes to interacting with the citizenry.

The citizens need to believe that most police are good people.
The police need to believe that most citizens are good people.

If the police adopt an attitude and take action based on a belief that most citizens are the bad guys, what do you think the reaction of the citizens will be?

07-22-15, 01:01 PM	#1
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,537 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	A question about Authoritarianism Earlier today the news showed us a video clip from USA The video showed a car stopped by a police. The police standing beside the car on the drivers side-saying "Shall I use the "Stunner"(forgot the correct word) Later on this women hang her self in her cell. A friend made a post about this on FB. and here he wrote. "I agree that this policeman was to brutal in his acting, but why didn't this woman do what she was told ?" I wondered when I read that. Are the American less Authoritarianism than we in Denmark and Sweden. Heck here in Denmark or Sweden a person stat to jump up and down when the police gives the order to do so-most of them do. Markus

07-22-15, 01:10 PM	#2
The Enigma Seer of visions Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Under the surface Posts: 2,315 Downloads: 31 Uploads: 0	The description of what happened in that video is kind of a very short version. I saw an officer acting very bully to the lady who was (as far as I know) legally in her rights. He obviously didn't like the way she responded to his requests, but the law applies to all citizen, also to police men. __________________

07-22-15, 01:35 PM	#6
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,766 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Has the police the right to demand you put out your cigarette, make you leave the car, treat you like a criminal and incarcerate you, if you did not use the turn signals? Heard a longer report on the radio today about this. The video is said to have been edited, by the police. And according to friends and relatives it is implausible that she committed suicide. A bit of trigger-happy, a bit of frustration, a bit of illegal alien thinking, a bit of racism. Altogether this seems to describe perfectly all the latest police infringes we heard about. Yes i know there are a hundred thousand cases where the police did it right, but of what we hear nothing. __________________ >^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong.

07-22-15, 01:37 PM	#7
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	A burning cigarette is actually considered a weapon IIRC. So yes, they are in their right to ask to put it out. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

07-22-15, 01:45 PM	#9
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,537 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	My friends my post was not really about rights it was if the American is more or less anti-authority. E.g A person has done something wrong and a police ask the person to step outside the car and this person refuse to do so-just because this person are anti-authority and it escalate. Or the person haven't done anything wrong and therefor refuse to apply the policemans order. Edit we can of course discuss this video in this thread. Markus Last edited by mapuc; 07-22-15 at 01:52 PM.

07-22-15, 02:31 PM	#10
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	If you don't do what a LEO orders you to do, you risk getting your ass kicked. BUT. always the big but, if the LEO makes a request, you are under no obligation to comply. Since I was not there to witness this incident, I can neither confirm nor deny who was in the wrong. Though threatening to taser a driver for not putting out a cigarette seems a tad heavy handed. She's lucky she wasn't shot on the spot. Maybe the LEO thought it more prudent to wait until he had her in jail without the camera documenting everything. There are any number of ways around oversight devices. This country has more than its fair share of criminals and psychopaths and unfortunately some of them made it into the ranks of law enforcement where they do their dirty deeds and get away with it more often than they should. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

07-22-15, 06:26 PM	#15
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,361 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	The police are given a lot of authority to take command of a situation on the spot. The check and balance is that they are supposed to be held accountable for any violations after the fact. So the proper procedure is to do what the officer tells you to do and then lodge a complaint afterwards. Unfortunately, the police are not being held accountable for their actions so complaining after the fact is worthless. Once the citizenry understood this, their fear of the police has, in my opinion, justifiably, increased. Unless something is caught on a recording, the police will most likely be able to get away with pretty much anything up to and including homicide. Even when there is video, it is seldom that the police officer is held accountable. Why? First of all, we have a flaw in the system where the police are responsible for investigating the police. Talk about conflict of interest! This ranks up there with congress investigating itself for ethics violations. In my opinion, that needs to change. No government body should have sole responsibility for investigating itself concerning violations of civil rights including homicide of the citizens!! Second, the police, in many cases, have adopted a change in attitude from being public servants for the citizens to being combat troops against the citizens. I have read and heard the police assuming a "us against them" where the "us" is the police and the "them" is the rest of us. I put partial blame on this on the general over reaction from the 911 attack. Secondly, since 911 there has been an increased "militarization" of the police. I am against police having military ranks, wearing military like uniforms, and being issued military weapons. The police are NOT the military. Unfortunately, uniforms, titles, and equipment do affect how people act. There is a very good reason why the military has uniforms and titles as they do. The law that President Obama signed increasing the transfer of military equipment to the police was a mistake. When you are given a hammer, all problems start to look like nails. The same can be said for military equipment and arms. My second solution is to "civilianize" the police. Give them police uniforms and police titles and get them back to the attitude of protect and serve as opposed to interdict "at any cost". Lastly, if it were my birthday, I would want, and would be willing to pay extra taxes for, research on non-leathal weapons for the police. The police need to be able to stop a criminal from committing a crime, and neutralize a threat. One way to do this is to introduce a few hundred grains of metal into the chest of the citizen. But that can't be the only way. It is the 21st century. I can't believe that there is no technology that can't be developed to neutralize a threat without killing the suspect. A live suspect is always better a dead suspect.... at least from a citizenry standpoint. Because a live suspect can be tried. However, from the police standpoint a dead suspect can't testify. Being a police officer is a dangerous job. There is nothing we can do to prevent this. However, the police can not be allowed to adopt a "shoot first, and forget the questions" attitude when it comes to interacting with the citizenry. The citizens need to believe that most police are good people. The police need to believe that most citizens are good people. If the police adopt an attitude and take action based on a belief that most citizens are the bad guys, what do you think the reaction of the citizens will be? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.