do you want to get rid of all police in all situations?

do you want to eliminate tasers in all situations?

do you want to rely on always-lethal weapons in all situations?

do you believe there is a legitimate need for police in any situation at any time in any place?

should the police always be unarmed?

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

... do you think somebody videotaping a public servant during the exercise of their duties should be tasered because the camera could be used as a weapon?

What next? Tasering for wearing sneakers? After all, in the Jena 6 case, the DA called sneakers a deadly weapon.

Shit, coulnd't we just get back to "the good old days" where the police at least had to drag you back to the station house?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

We simply want police accountable to the same rule of law everyone else is.

Sarah, you're using straw man arguments.

Illegal search and seizure and police brutality have nothing to do with protecting lives and property unless, of course, you own all the cops and all the property too.

Police have been known to function perfectly well following legal procedure and not the whims of their egos.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

unless they're breaking either 1) their own procedures, or they're 2) breaking the law. Cops always claim situational immunity: they ALWAYS say they fired because they thought the suspect might have a gun...

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Accountability.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

...a weapon of democracy.

Who will be the first camera operator shot for operating a weapon of democracy--outside Iraq, that is...

There is a project in the barrios of LA to have young people with vid shadow all police actions in their vecinidades...Called Cop Watch LA. (See also Cop Watch LA

I wonder how it'll be explained when they shoot a photographer?

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

But I obviously live in a different world.

We had a SWAT incident in Lubbock several years ago where a young officer was shot to death.

Turns out he was killed by another police officer.

The cops here have been sued twice for using tasers in just the past year. One of those incidents resulted in a fatality. Say what you want about medical examiners and police officers, and then accuse me of raising strawmen, but these cumulative incidents have led to a lot of public scrutiny upon our local PD.

It has definitely had an impact on their behavior.

Bringiton has visual evidence that Meyer, the tasered student in the Kerry incident, did in fact bring the tasering on himself by continuing not only to misbehave but to attempt and succeed in assaulting a police officer while resisting arrest for being a disruptive nuisance and appearing to threaten a US Senator, who just happened to be the podium speaker.

But the position here is that the Meyer is an innocent angel and the cops are Nazis, and Kerry should have stopped the cops from the podium.

The Jena 6 attacked one person. It was six-on-one in that incident. Had it been six white kids beating one black kid, everybody here would want the kids treated like adults, and because there would be an obvious conspiracy to kill the one kid by the six kids, "justice" would be six kids jailed for life without parole.

But the position here is that the six kids ought to go free because the one kid didn't die after all, and because those six kids were black and felt victimized, they shouldn't be held to the same standards as white kids would be -- after all, they're not as capable, and they've been repressed.

I dunno, guys. Sometimes I just don't see things the same way you do.

Sure, public scrutiny is a good thing.

And it frequently imposes certain restraints upon officers' behaviors...

Until the scrutiny dies off, the next bright, glittery thing comes along, and the cops revert--as they ALWAYS do--to the kinds of thuggery they believe their employers--the 'good' people, the status quo--will tolerate.

Cops will go as far as their employers--the good burghers of Lubbock, or Atlanta, or Chicago--will let them go in pursuit of 'order.'

Have you noticed that in cop dramas, nobody's a 'suspect' anymore? the bad guys are all, defacto 'perps' (or worse)...

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Sarah:

1. I'm not seeing a response to this post. In fact, so far as I can tell from your response ("a lot of public scrutiny") you'd support citizens videotaping the police. So why is OK to taser those citizens?

Regarding Mr. Meyer:

2. I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on that thread who thought that Meyer was "an angel." My view was that Meyer was engaged "pissant-level propaganda of the deed", which is hardly the same as calling him an "angel." And don't you think the "he was asking for it" idea is a very dangerous one to start propagating? First, they came for the Jena 6. Then, they came for Meyer...

3. As far as "Kerry should have stopped the cops [cooled the situation, I said] from the podium," hell yeah! As I said elsewhere:

I don’t know about you, but if “on my watch” at the podium a member of my audience were tasered and dragged away screaming, I’d regard that as a personal failure, a failure in my duties to the audience, and even a failure for Meyer, obnoxious as he certainly was. In fact, I’d have a hard time sleeping at night, and I’d remember the incident for a long, long time.

Meyer is going to be dining out on this story for the rest of his days, having correctly assessed Kerry's weak ethos (what should have been "soft power"), and the, er, lack of finesse of the local police. And all for, God save the mark, a shouted and ill-thought-out piece of CT. Again, nobody looked good.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Sarah--

The point is that Tasers were originally conceived and promoted as lethal force replacements, as you suggest, but that is not how they are used for the most part. In practical use Tasers have turned into all-purpose compliance tools that take the place of, not lethal force, but talking, negotiating, less painful and dangerous form of physical restraint, and, say, yelling. Police use Tasers now in situations where most cops in the past would have used no force at all, let alone deadly force. Your example of the SWAT team in Lubbock is tragic, but misplaced. The problem there is the overuse and abuse of SWAT teams, often poorly trained ones. It's not like a SWAT team would be using Tasers, but for all the criticism.

All I want is cops who remember watching Adam 12 as kids.

"to protect and to serve"

Maybe it will sneak an extra smile to cop faces more often.

http://www.kentmccord.com/images/archive...

Waterhouse was arrested, accused of criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. A jury acquitted him of all charges.

We should all hope so.

But in the meantime, he was arrested, booked, printed, hassled, intimidated, and rousted by the Cops, he had to hire an atty to defend himself against the charges, and now he's known to the cops as a 'problem'...cops remember shit like who made 'em look bad; the dude's fucked, whether he ever does anything 'wrong'...cops never forget...

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

I have become.

What are the alternatives that the police should have employed, in these situations?

Should Meyer's hijack go on unimpeded? After all, he's only stealing time and preventing a speaker (who I am certain wasn't there just for giggles) from interacting with the people who came to hear that speaker. Is that a legitimate civil disobedience on Meyer's part?

If so the appropriate response on Kerry's part was what?
What about the appropriate response on the audience's part?
What about the appropriate (other) response on the cops' part?

In the case of the police following the dog during a chase, if the dog alerts, are the police supposed to ignore that? Having been told by the property owners that nobody had run onto the property, should the police have just gone away?

And what if -- I hypothesize here -- the persons telling the police nobody had run onto their property were mistaken, or deliberately trying to mislead the police?

Yes, the over-militarization of police forces is a problem. But even in England, where *all* handguns among civilian populations are banned -- if you want to go shooting you must use a range or club-kept firearm -- unarmed policemen aren't effective against yobs, thugs, and other forms of bad guys.

So what do we do? Seriously, how do we control not just the police, whom as liberals we're obviously supposed to dehumanize and demonize as much as possible because they're never men and women trying to do a good job in a bad situation, but the yobs, thugs, and bad guys?

And yes, I will demonize yobs, thugs, and bad guys.
It is entirely possible to make bad choices. It is entirely possible to come from tough circumstances. To use either of those possibilities as an excuse or a justification not merely to scoff at the law but to actually hurt other people -- not merely to steal time and goodwill, but to commit assaults, thefts, murders -- is reprehensible and OUGHT to come with highly unpleasant consequences.

Those of us who believe in liberty must believe that responsibility matters too.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a video camera can be used to ensure a record of events is made and kept, and I have no doubt whatsoever that in the hands of honest people such a record is a good thing.

I also believe that video cameras, as firearms, are neutral tools and their use is only as evil or only as good as the intent of their users.

It all comes back to that, to my mind, in the end: the people.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

It’s the magical invisibility of electricity, isn’t it? That’s what feeds some primal fear, engenders the irrational emotional rise, shorts out (heh) logical thinking.

I propose that everyone get a taser and use them frequently so we can all get over the fear thing. Lambert says he would lose sleep if someone were tasered in his presence but the truth is I would sleep better tonight if I had zapped the rude sonofabitch that was arguing for five full minutes with the grocery clerk this morning about the price of a buck-ten item and I had already loaded a cart full of my purchases on the conveyer belt so moving to another line was out of the question. Whine, bitch, piss, moan, complain, on and on and I had to just stand there in all my progressive glory and tell myself to be patient and understanding.

Or it could have gone Zap, Splat, moving on and the odds are good the fool wouldn’t do that again, at least not with me standing next to him. We used to do this out here in the West with six-guns, I see Tasers at High Noon as a significant step forward.

Next time you go for groceries, dress as Crocodile Dundee and encourage the idiot up the line with a little body language.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

All the assholes getting tasered, right in front of us. So much for logos, eh? Except when we're the assholes. But then that would never happen. Right? (I'll just assume that the "magical fear of electricity" riff is just the kind of snark I myself would run, and ignore it.)

I guess I'm losing my sense of irony about all this. As I said above, "He was asking for it" is a very bad meme for progressives to be propagating, on simple pragmatic grounds.

And I find it amazing, just amazing, how difficult it's been to get those who have climbed out on a limb about all this to even think about crawling back -- even when the tasered citizens, as here, got tasered because the police deemed a camera a deadly weapon, and when the tasered citizens were acquitted by a jury.

Or is simply filming a public servant in the performance of their duties "asking for it" these days? Good to know.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

In the case of the police following the dog during a chase, if the dog alerts, are the police supposed to ignore that?

Breaking a window's a bit much. I can see how it might be needful (I've done it myself when I locked in my keys, but that's a different rant) if the dog alerted on a vehicle with limo-dark glass and all the doors were locked. How else should the police find out if their fugitive were hiding inside that car? (Logic suggests that if the fugitive had found such a place to hide, the fugitive would be reluctant to leave it for the asking; further, if the police then simply leave, what of the car's owners, should they desire to use the vehicle before the fugitive has concluded s/he can safely flee?)

Having been told by the property owners that nobody had run onto the property, should the police have just gone away?

And what if — I hypothesize here — the persons telling the police nobody had run onto their property were mistaken, or deliberately trying to mislead the police?

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Why is it OK to taser citizens who are videotaping public servants in the performance of their duty.

That is the only salient point in this post. Let's dispose of it, first, before purusing side issues.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

And hyperbole, and a bit of humor sadly lacking in most of this thread.

Lambert. You keep bringing up and condemning “he deserved it” as though someone here had made that claim. Did they, or are you confusing Sarah and I with someone else? “Deserve” is not a word that applies, in my mind, to what happened with Mr. Meyer. It is more a matter of actions generally have consequences and if you hit a cop then your ass is grass. What part of that is difficult to grasp?

Why you are out dangling from a leaf tip on the end of a very slender limb defending this twit is a puzzle to me, please accept that he was at fault for hitting the cop and climb back down already, we have better things in and around the roots to argue about.

I have taken a careful look at that video above from Oregon and I’ll come back at you with a different point of view (wouldn’t want to disappoint!) as soon as I have some more time.

Oh, and with everybody armed it couldn’t be dystopia, that’s a top-down authoritarian society, not possible if everyone is strapped.

Bringiton:

Why is it OK to taser citizens who are videotaping public servants in the performance of their duty?

I don't have time to deal with the rest of your humorous comment now, but don't be concerned; I'll get back to it.

(Incidentally, VL also viewed the vid, and says he didn't see what you write that you saw; would you address that, please, if you have not already? Thanks in advance.)

Oh, and on dystopia; thanks for educating me on the use of the term; I would have said a dystopia was a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding; the kind of society where assholes keep getting tasered.

Only following the Leader in this discussion, more than happy to comply with your new directive, please don't taser me, please don't taser me, AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH............

The "leader" riff particularly so; I'll have to remember it.

And your answer would be? Let me help:

It's OK for a public servant to taser a citizen who s videotaping them in the performance of their duty when _______ ______ ________.

I mean, pretty soon I'm going to think that you have no answer. We--and by we, I mean you--keep talking about Meyer, but so far as I can tell, that has nothing to do with the incident mentioned here.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Lambert, Lambert.

"(Incidentally, VL also viewed the vid, and says he didn’t see what you write that you saw; would you address that, please, if you have not already? Thanks in advance.)" No clue here, what exactly did I say I saw that VL didn't see? You know I'll respond, just don't have any idea what the query is about, and if this is about Meyer by all means move it over to wherever else you think appropriate so this thread stays on topic as you requested.

On dystopia you're welcome, any time.

there's no question the citizen shouldn't be tasered.

Next, please answer my questions. What would be the correct response if the dog alerts?

What would be the correct response if the persons who told the police no one had come onto the property were mistaken?

What would be the proper response if they were lying?

Is it possible that Waterhouse could have used the camera as a projectile?
Is it possible that the police feared being U-tubed for ridicule?
Is it possible that they feared being sued?
I submit that seeing a camera as a weapon indicates all three of these responses.

What would you have the police do?

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Were helpfully entitled entitled "bringiton." Returning to that thread, I see you answered them. My answer to you re: Meyer is there.

Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question on this thread.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Lambert: "Returning to that thread, I see you answered them. My answer to you re: Meyer is there."

Dunno where "there" is, not enough neural capacity remaining for me to keep all the threads straight and not allowed by the system to use the search function (guess that's where the secret stuff is kept).

Please provide a link or something and I'll look there for your comment, thanks.

Here.

I'm too busy fondling my check from George Soros to fix the Search function right now, but thanks for your concern.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Hadn't popped up on the comment list for some reason, maybe a delay in the feed due to the NSA spywear or something. Cheers!

Lambert asks for my opinion on: “Why is it OK to taser citizens who are videotaping public servants in the performance of their duty?” My reply follows, in several parts because Lambert is a clever fellow and has tucked numerous topics in to this apparently simple question.

I can think of a couple of circumstances where it might be reasonable for police to order a citizen to stop video or photography; say for instance if one of the police was an undercover agent and the dissemination of the agent’s appearance with uniformed police might compromise investigations or put the agent at risk, or where the police were using a tactical maneuver that if disseminated might be useful for criminals perpetrators suspects seeking to evade capture. No idea if either of these circumstances applied in this case but the point is made that it may, sometimes, be reasonable to order the taping stopped. If the citizen doesn’t stop then the police may choose any number of means to ensure the order is followed. Whether or not that includes tasering depends on circumstances but yes, under some conditions a taser might be the best available option.

As to videotaping in general, in a public place and absent an overriding safety issue such as I described above, it ought to be a protected activity. The rule of law is that the eyes cannot trespass and this principle extends to video recording in public spaces. The police themselves have become leading advocates for videotaping, read somewhere recently that around 15% of all patrol cars are now equipped with dashboard cameras and the rate of installation is rising rapidly. The limiting step is cost, about $3000 per. The newest Taser has a built-in video chip to record from the time the device is activated, before it is fired. Beltbuckle cams are the hot new thing but again the cost, about $5000 each, will slow adoption. In time, all law enforcement personnel will be equipped with video recording ability and a lot of the current uncertainty around police-suspect interaction will decline.

On the other hand, let’s consider what the downsides might be of citizens whipping out cell phones or video cameras during police activity. Put yourself in the place of an officer in the process of pursuing or confronting a suspect. All police are trained to assume that everyone out there is armed, because assuming otherwise is what gets you or your partner killed. Your adrenaline is pumping, your heart is pounding, you’re out of breath, the bad guy/girl is behaving aggressively, and out of the corner of your eye you see a bystander reach under his jacket and draw something shiny and metallic from his belt and point it at you. Do you assume it’s a camera, or a gun? Do you wait to see how it all turns out or do you draw your weapon and shoot? Be honest now and consider that if you hesitate even for a moment and it is a gun, you’ll be shot.

Did you pause to think? Too bad. It was a gun, and you are now dead.

Just because you as a citizen have the right to do something doesn’t mean you are always right to do it. Video the police if you think it may be useful, but do try and use some common sense.

Now to the specific case at hand. We can’t actually know what happened there, everyone involved has a point of view and perhaps some bias, and the available information is far less than complete. But still, we might again put ourselves in the role of the police and see what that tells us.

[Step into character now.]

You’re one of a group of cops chasing a suspect. You don’t know if the suspect is armed but you have to assume that they are. You’re pumped up, you’re frightened, your pulse is way over 100 and you’re jumpy as all hell.

The canine tracks the suspect into what looks like a junkyard (see the video). Beat-up, broken down cars and appliances are scattered around everywhere, lots of hiding places. (Is it legal to follow the dog onto private property? Yes, actually, it counts as hot pursuit so no warrant is required and neither is the permission of the property owner.) The suspect could be anywhere in the confusing jumble, maybe waiting to pop up and take a shot, you have no way to know but you are now headed into very dangerous territory and you have to behave as though your life is at imminent risk.

People who say they are the property owners start shouting at you to get off the property. Are they in league with the suspect? Don’t know. As they get louder and more confrontational, are they armed? Don’t know. Are there more of them than are apparent, who might be armed? Don’t know. Very, very scary and what you want is for these people to shut the fuck up and let you do your job without getting any more frightened than you already are, but they just won’t stop. (Another consideration: if these people are not connected to - and covering for - the suspect, shouldn’t they want to have the police conduct a thorough search of the property to either capture the suspect or ensure that its all clear? If not, why not, and how would you know?)

The dog points on a car, so the suspect could well be inside. Doors are locked, windows tinted, can’t see inside so you take a chance and break a window so you can see, knowing that at any moment you might get shot in the face. Meantime, the shouting people scattered around the junk-strewn property are still yelling at you and one of them has pulled out a video camera. Fortunately you are able to make the judgment that it isn’t a weapon so no shots are fired but you order the person to put down the camera because there are a lot of police around, the suspect is still at large, the idiot people are still shouting, everyone is on edge and you don’t want anyone to get hurt by mistake. Part of the “protect” oath, actually, rather than a “suppression of rights.”

Next thing you know there’s some other idiot who has taken a position on high ground with something metallic pointed at you. Bravely, you walk over to the man, suspect still at large and other people still shouting, and see that it’s that same damn camera you already told the first person to put away. You tell him to put down the damn camera. He doesn’t. (If there is one thing the police absolutely hate, its people who won’t follow orders. Makes everything much harder and much, more dangerous than it needs to be.) You draw your taser, point it at him and repeat the command. He refuses and tells you to "Get away!" Well, that’s not happening and so off goes the taser and down goes the guy and no more waving around of a video camera that might be mistaken for a weapon. (Please note that on this video the officer firing the taser is a woman, just as with – dare I say it in this thread – the Meyer case.)

[Return to self now.]

Granted, that’s some pile of speculation but maybe, plausibly, that’s how it went down from the police point of view. Perhaps Sarah with her law enforcement background will comment on the reasonableness of this scenario. There is a civil case pending so hopefully the truth will emerge and justice will be served. Of some note is that Mr. Whitetrash Waterhouse came through the tasering without physical damage, for which all of us including him should be at least relieved if not pleased.

That being said there has been a spate of problematic police issues in the Portland area. Again in this article only the complainant side is presented so a rush to judgment would not be fair, would it?

Also of interest is this article and associated editorial discussing a terrible event in which a disturbed and drunken young man with a knife was killed in a police confrontation after threatening to hurt himself, the officers and his family. The police shot him when bean-bag rounds were ineffective and he turned and moved towards his unprotected family.

The family is asking for an independent review of police procedures, suggesting that the failure of police to use a taser was negligent. Their lawyer opines:

Cox questions why other non-lethal tactics were not used against Lukus, who was standing in front of his family home in Metzger.

Tasers, which stun people when fired, are only accurate up to about 21 feet, but all three officers were no more than 15 feet from Lukus, Cox said.

“The (Tigard officer) could have used a taser,” he said. “They should have considered using a taser before shooting their guns. Why wasn’t a taser used? The deputies didn’t have tasers but the Tigard officer did.”

The lawyer goes on to spot the real source of our “police problem”:

Cox maintains that the deputies were poorly trained and had no crisis-intervention training.

And there it is. Inadequate training and inexperience are the predominant reasons for the misuse of technology regardless of the type or setting. Additionally, police are woefully underpaid with a median annual patrol officer income of $43,500. For me that is far too little for putting my life on the line day in and day out. If you want better police quality, the progressive position would be the same as for educators - higher pay and better training will attract a better quality of recruit and help them to be better at what they do.

Additionally, we need to come to grips with the extraordinarily disgusting mental health crisis in this country, so bad that fully 25% of the inmates of the LA County jail system are certifiably mentally ill, and vast numbers of the chronically mentally ill roam our streets and live haphazard transient existences without appropriate medical and psychiatric care or needed medication. Having police try to deal with both violent criminals and act as the first line contact and caretakers of the pathologically mentally ill is a stretch that beggars belief – no human being can be expected to have that breadth of skills.

Whatever police “problem” there is in this country is the result of the priorities that this country has chosen. Change the priorities, fix the problems. Castigating the police for deep-seated societal problems is to ignore the root problems, and thus perpetuate them.

that is all.
___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

bringiton is far, far too kind [blush]. A dedicated writer and editor, perhaps.

I'll consolidate all this tasering stuff into a single thread at some point and address bringiton's concerns. Suffice to say, for perspective, now:

1. We're really talking about how the police powers of the state should be operate in a post-Constitutional environment. That's an important topic.

2. I have far less desire to put myself in the shoes of the police than bringiton seems to (though I have fewer issues with LE than some other commenters not privileged with white skin might have). I'm not averse to empathy, but I feel for the ordinary citizens more.

3. One of the principles of checks and balances is that nobody is to be trusted with power. Not anybody. As a corollary, the more power anyone has, the less they are to be trusted--leading us directly to the issue of the police and their powers.

4. When our system of checks and balances starts to fail, as it is, citizens step in and do the checking and balancing themselves. Obviously there are downsides to that.

5. As far as the latest straw man, "castigating the police"--to anticipate, "to criticize or reprimand severely"--let me refer to the original extract:

Waterhouse was arrested, accused of criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. A jury acquitted him of all charges.

The lengthy commentary above -- "we can't really know" -- seems to dismiss the jury verdict. Surely they "knew," insofar as any of us can know anything?

Was the jury right in their verdict, or wrong? If they were wrong, why?

UPDATE The headline "Shocked, Shocked I Say" is, of course, meant as humor, but has the doubtless unintended effect of minimizing or even normalizing the incident. Were I Waterhouse, having been shocked, arrested, and put on trial, and having had to handle the lawyer's bill, and lose the time, and undergo the stress, it's possible that I might find the headline somewhat less than humorous. But then, as I said, I feel more for the citizen than for the police. Chacun son goût.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Everybody has their kink, thanks for sharing yours.

Do please try to not wear them all out, kb is counting on at least some of them having enough energy for the mass roundup of innocents.

Your scenario is not only plausible, it's eerily reminiscent of the last time a crazy guy pointed his .38 at me.

I haven't been able to see a video for this Portland incident, but I did read the story lambert linked, and I note that it is sympathetic to the Waterhouse viewpoint.

That lambert wishes to conflate jury acquittal with police misbehavior bothers me for other reasons, but I note that he still has not answered my questions about what he would have preferred the police do instead of what they did.

A jury acquittal means the DA didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt; the charges -- disorderly conduct and criminal trespass -- suggest the guy aggravated the officers sufficiently so that somebody ran a check to see if the guy owned the property upon which the incident occurred. Criminal trespass suggests someone was willing to complain about the guy being there at that time OTHER than the cops, too.

Not being privy to the testimony, I have no idea what made the jury decide to acquit; being me, I'll say that juries sometimes do the damnedest things (sit through two or three murder trials, when the only dog in the fight you've got is writing a story on the trial for the local paper, and you'll see what I mean) when deliberating -- and they will pin their decisions on the most insignificant detail, too. Ask some of 'em sometime; better yet, serve on a jury sometime. We need not even go into the convolutions a good defense attorney could raise; but since civil litigation remains pending, at least one jury's still out. The jury were not sitting in judgment of the police's actions on the scene, by the way; they were sitting in judgment on the criminal case against Waterhouse, which is a separate animal. If Waterhouse's lawyer was able to use the perception of the jurors that the police misbehaved to Waterhouse's advantage, then Waterhouse should hope his civil attorney does as well by him as did his criminal-defense attorney.

Over-militarization (SWAT teams in towns of 5,000 total population, for example) of the police is a separate issue from what I want to talk about here. What I will say is that bringiton makes a valid point: police are spit out onto their shifts in a hostile world, with the (often proven) expectation that anybody who approaches them in an agitated manner, particularly anybody who's *pointing* something at them, is a threat.

Now, do we want cops tasering the citizens who are filming them in pursuit of their ordinary duties? Nope.

But I submit that I'd prefer being tasered to being shot (I have been shot at, and missed; I have been shit on, and hit; and I have been shocked with a stun gun, and of the three I recommend avoiding all of them) if I were the citizen with the camera, and I suspect Mr. Waterhouse would agree.

Pointing something at a cop who has asked you, particularly if the cop has done so repeatedly, to put down the thing you're pointing is unwise. In an adrenaline-fueled environment, behaving unwisely amounts to being foolhardy, which is a fraction of a hair on the fair side of suicidal.

Was Waterhouse, in fact, videorecording cops in the pursuit of their ordinary duties? Nope.

Pursuit's not a normal activity. Searching what appears to be a junkyard, in the middle of being verbally harangued by people who may or may not belong on the scene, while trying to locate a suspect presumed to be armed and dangerous is NOT part of the ordinary police day -- or if it is, Portland's really woefully understaffed in its PD.

Did Waterhouse act to provoke the cops? IMNVHO, yep.

Do cops (in general) need good community relations? Uhuh.
Do cops (in general) *have* good PR? No.
Do cops (in general) need better training? Oh hail yeah.
Do cops (in general) have the crisis intervention training they need? Not even.
Do cops (in general) get this kind of training? Not before something goes so wrong the PD can no longer justify not spending the money to do the training. It's a reactive world, folks.
Do cops (in general) have a siege mentality? Probably.
Do cops use their tasers too quickly or too often? Hmm.
Depends.

Here is what I would recommend, if you're ever in a situation where you're about to find out firsthand:

Don't be stupid.
You can be the world's most compleat sonofabitch, and get away with it (the crazy guy who pulled the .38 on me didn't even get a free ride to the county jail), if you're NOT stupid.

If you are stupid, then you will lose some time off work and have some legal expenses, at the very least; you may also find yourself further inconvenienced, should a jury decide not to acquit, or should your stupidity lead you into the line of fire.

I suspect a tasering is painful and unpleasant (which is part of the point). Still, I think it is less so than being shot, and I suspect neither comes close to the "lawful" behaviors of waterboarding and other intensive interrogative techniques so beloved of this administration.

Further, lambert, I'd caution you against making too broad a leap in painting police with the same brush as soldiers or interrogators. Police are governed by state and federal statutes, and the Constitution has not been quite as completely shredded at your local PD/SO as it has in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib -- that's why those operations are conducted mostly overseas, still, as well as by other-than-regular soldiers/police.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

I'm pressed for time today. I'll consolidate your questions. They are not being ignored. I suspect we will have more such incidents to discuss.

Agreed, tasering is not waterboarding. And it's not lethal force. Somewhere, on one of these multiple threads, a commenter expressed the idea that exactly because tasers were not lethal, their use was becoming normalized in interactions where, in the past, no force at all would have been used.

Agreed, foreign is not domestic, nor are, thank God, the police interrogators a la Abu Ghraib (unless aberationally, I would say). Unfortunately, it seems to me that there's great danger of "bringing the war back home" over time. It's the trends that worry me.

As far as the jury verdict: Waterhouse wasn't guilty of what he was arrested for, which was disorderly conduct. Anybody is free to speculate that the jury acted irrationally, I suppose. I don't know how to respond to such, other than labeling it speculation.

It seems like a very, very bad idea for Progressives to normalize the idea that it's OK for citizens to be tasered when they "provoke" the police. How is that different from the idea that Republicans should be able to beat up people who wear Kerry T-Shirts to Bush rallies? And that's the idea that I see bringiton pushing here (and on the Meyer thread (no, I am not "embracing" Meyer, forsooth)) and, to my regret, you, Sarah as well.

The trend that concerns me is a frogs-in-boiling water normalization of what it OK for the police to be provoked by. And, obviously, what I'm worried about isn't anybody waving a .38 in Sarah's face, for pity's sake.

Consider the following thought experiment:

Suppose the police catch the Freeway blogger as he posts a sign saying "Impeach Bush" on a highway bridge:

What is the "stupid" act that makes it OK for the police to be "provoked" and the Freeway blogger to be tasered:

1. Resisting the police?

2. Running from the police?

3. Posting the "Impeach Bush" sign?

4. Being on the bridge carrying an "Impeach Bush" sign?

5. Driving while in possession of an "Impeach Bush" sign?

6. Being in possession of an "Impeach Sign"?

We can view Abu Ghraib, and possibly the entire Bush administration, as a gigantic Stanford Experiment, where authority figures licensed, with nods and winks, behavior that would previously not have been thinkable, and ordinary, good people, trapped in the experiment, committed evil acts. I'm astonished and distressed that I can't seem to make it clear how arguments like "he was asking for it" or "don't be stupid" could be used by those not so progressive to support such an experiment on the domestic front.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Enjoyed the back and forth on this, and look forward to Lambert’s compilation (also thanks again for all the mysterious electronically computerish stuff you do to make this community possible.)

I’m not as convinced as some that we’re in anything that could be called post-Constitutional, an error I think to cede that kind of powerful accomplishment to those who would take us there just because they’ve chosen to violate its provisions. Rather, I see us as being in a transitional period where we have to come to some agreement about how to adapt a 200+ year-old document to modern times and modern technology. The world and the people in it are quite different than in the 1780’s and I don’t hold with those who are vested in absolutist viewpoints whether secular or sectarian. “Founder’s intent” means much less to me than what works for us now.

Balancing the equally valuable goals of national security and personal liberty has always been a struggle, no less in the past than in the now. Were we truly in the grip of an authoritarian dictatorship we would not be having these sorts of conversations.

Don’t in any way mean to diminish the need for concern, or the motivations or sincerity of those more apprehensive than I, and it will be a grand day when the village of Crawford gets its idiot back (there may be a theme for a national party, eh?) but I see what we’re experiencing as a necessary process and remain hopeful that it will lead to a better world for all rather than an end-of-times kind of epic. My opinion.

Damn, the Waterhouse jury trial. Did intend to address that and failed to append the section when I posted, more weary than I recognized. Lambert fairly asks:

“Was the jury right in their verdict, or wrong? If they were wrong, why?”

Well, I couldn’t find any more than what is in the articles linked to, so who knows actually. The charging was a little odd, “criminal trespass” when from the press report he had the property owner’s permission and “disorderly conduct” which is just legalese for “pissed off a cop” so maybe it was some ineptitude on the DA’s part. Maybe he was just flat innocent of everything and the cops were entirely out of line. Maybe the jury felt he had already been punished enough and found him not guilty even though they actually thought he was; that happens a lot. As Sarah (thanks for the kind words, dear) said, a jury is a funny thing and not always right, which is why we have/need such an elaborate system of appeal for those convicted. So we’re left with speculation and that will not really help the matter much. There’s a process underway and the civil case outcome may be illuminating, or not.

And Lambert, dear fellow, your modesty is excessive. Here’s the deal. You asked an 18 word question and I needed 1700+ words to give an incomplete response. Either I am pitifully slow or you are immensely clever. If we can all agree, let’s go with the latter. :-)

...In a post-Constitutional environment."
Woweeee!
Are we? really?
Have we given up on the Constitution, then?
If so, then, to the barricades, mon freres, because absent the Constitution, the powers of the State are absolute.
and 'we' are toast...and we might as well arm ourselves and prepare to repel marauders.

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

in the past, no force at all would have been used."

Chi-Dyke, very early on.
She's right. The forces of order will always seize upon any device that stops just short of death to compel obedience.
In 'civilized' cultures, the State doesn't like having to excuse the application of mortal power. It is awkward, and tends to remind the populace of that power in ways that might encourage doubt about the fairness, or wisdom, or justice in the applications thereof.
Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

The question all this begs is that police powers don't simply exist in the hands of responsible government employees that answer to the law. No one is arguing, Sarah, that you or bringiton's friends and relatives are going to be bashing down doors and tasing and arresting people for dissin' the preznit.

Police powers now exist in the hands of a several large private enterprises that actively lobby for more money and influence.

They have a profit motive in profiling and incarcerating as many perpetrators as possible, without habeas corpus.

One excuse they're fond of using, for example about the no-fly list, is that there are thousands of sleeper terrorists out there. We all agree this is not the case. The DHS has contracted billions out to such private security firms. They've built detention camps that have gone unused because there are no real terrorists to detain.

Giving police or private contractors that view protection of their corporate identity as an essential police act less oversight and more leeway for abuse is absolute folly.

Giving police or private contractors increased license and ability to engage in abusive action is particularly irresponsible when there is a profit motivator involved.

Just because the work camps have yet to be filled doesn't mean they won't be filled at a future date. It only means the companies that built them haven't figured out a way to fill them and make a buck at the same time yet.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

of this incident and I think we may have talked about this back in August, when it happened. I haven't found any "aftermath" on that yet -- don't know what the outcome is/was/will be.

Freeway bloggers, IMHO, are like Robin Hood: heroes to some folk, bandits to others.

If you're going to stand somewhere holding a sign in your hands, I'm all for it.

If you're going to rig something from an overpass, PLEASE don't make it something that falls into traffic or risks the lives of the maintenance folks who will eventually have to take its tattered remains down.

If you are going to do your highway blogging live, choose your spot well. Be sure you're not obstructing traffic, and don't just drop trou if you need a potty break (cause that's not criminal trespass, that's indecent exposure, and you'll wind up on the sex-offender website), and if you're NOT on the right-of-way (which you may need to not be in order not to violate ordinances about obstructing sidewalks, creating a traffic hazard, operating a public nuisance, having too large or small or not properly mounted a sign, etc.) get *permission* to stand there.

If you don't want to get busted as a panhandler, be sure you smile, wave at everybody and don't look broke (e.g. dress up a bit: clean cargo pants or shorts, a clean T-shirt, sunblock, a hat and *real* shoes -- something you can walk in; have a wallet in a secure pocket, and make sure you've got either a credit card or cab fare in it, otherwise ancient vagrancy laws may creep out and bite you).

Make your sign serious-looking: don't have a crayoned cardboard scribble nobody can read and everybody will throw stuff (ranging from nickels and dimes to rotten fruit) at as they drive by.

If the courthouse steps are five feet wide, don't block them with a five-foot-wide sign halfway up, in other words, 'cause that's "disorderly conduct" (legalese for pissed somebody with clout off, cop or not). Carry a copy of the pocket-size Constitution for fun, and prepare in advance by being sure you're not inadvertently breaking a law, and the cops won't have any cause to mess with you.

I know that sounds like asking a lot. It's a great deal more fun to paint something on a secondhand bedsheet, let it dry in the backyard, and then ropeline it to an overpass...but "maintenance" will just come along and cut the rope and put your message in the landfill.

Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics -- Ambassador Londo Mollari, "Babylon Five"

... where the hook is, of all things, the Meyer tasering. Always nice to read Silber. He makes me look like Pollyanna.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

and start a thread on the prison industrial complex and what it means, huge problem, ties into a lot of other societal ills from inadequate prenatal care to crappy public education to plutocratic usurpation of governance, just goes on and on and extremely worthwhile as a topic of discussion and perfectly suited for The Corrente edifice.

Plus we'll be able to agree for a change, what would that be like?

Oddly, the employees of the TSA are a federal government agency replacement of what was in private hands, and the process is immensely better, much more polite and efficient than it was immediately post-9/11 with the marginal trainables that were screening then. (The little bottles of Mother's milk idiocy comes from the top, not the staff.) Funny what a decent wage, health care and a retirement program will do for employee quality.

Lambert writes:

“It seems like a very, very bad idea for Progressives to normalize the idea that it’s OK for citizens to be tasered when they “provoke” the police. How is that different from the idea that Republicans should be able to beat up people who wear Kerry T-Shirts to Bush rallies? And that’s the idea that I see bringiton pushing here (and on the Meyer thread (no, I am not “embracing” Meyer, forsooth)) and, to my regret, you, Sarah as well.”

Lambert, if you can point to any passage anywhere in anything I have ever written that even remotely suggests that I am “pushing” the idea that “Republicans should be able to beat up people who wear Kerry T-Shirts to Bush rallies” or that I even find such a repulsive construct remotely acceptable then I will retract it and apologize. If you can’t find such a passage, and you cannot, then you owe me an apology for making such a scurrilous accusation. Didn’t like that one at all.

Now for the first sentence on its own. I personally think that it would be a very, very bad idea for Progressives to do anything other than support the principle of legitimate law enforcement practices including the use of non-lethal force when justified. To suggest otherwise is to support anarchy and chaos. Why, Lambert, would a progressive support chaos? Why would a progressive be opposed to law and order? If the laws themselves are anti-progressive, then oppose them and work to get them changed. If some of the police abuse their trust and break the law, support their punishment by all means as do I but do not condemn the whole for the sins of a few. One might as well condemn all bloggers as witless fools because of the behavior of Malken and her ilk. That wouldn’t be fair, or progressive, would it?

Are you truly unable to differentiate between duly sworn officers of the law, empowered and paid for and regulated by the citizenry for their own protection, and vigilante thugs? Or is that an attempt to salvage an indefensible position by equating the legitimate will of the people with criminality? If you’ve run out of arguments perhaps it is time to concede that you may have been wrong. If you have rational arguments remaining please present them. This line of argument is not rational.

That’s it for now. Waiting for your apology.

I'm not sure I've made many friends with my positions regarding this matter, but I am aware that as an ex-cop, I do have certain prejudices. Since I'm also female, over 40, and Caucasian, I'm a target for certain other prejudices. So be it.

I'm all for anything that lets cops not kill people and not be killed in the line of duty. (I'm pro-life, that way.)

I've asked repeatedly what the police should have done, and outlined specifically what my concerns with the actions of the citizens at the scene were.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Saw this on WGN at noon, the Trib clip has a video attached for those who watch such.

A federal jury late Tuesday held two Chicago police officers liable for the unreasonable search of a man who alleged that the officers sodomized him with a screwdriver during a search for drugs.

Coprez Coffie, 23, had testified that the tactical officers used the tool on him in a West Side alley in 2004...

Coffie's attorney, Jon Loevy, said he believed it was the totality of the evidence in the case that led to the favorable verdict. Loevy had presented evidence that an internal police investigation uncovered screwdrivers in the car used by the officers, that Coffie had an injury to his rectum and that a forensic test suggested there was human fecal matter in the car's glove compartment.

Loevy called the case a black eye for the [Chicago] Police Department, which did not discipline the officers.

Bad apples, indeed. Good thing he didn't try to video them while they shoved a screwdriver up his ass, that might have made them feel threatened and heavens to Mercy knows what Our Friend The Policeman might have done then.

cited here, who didn't kill or sodomize or taser anybody.

But they're cops, and they responded to a call as if it were real.

What should they have done instead?

And by the way, what punishment, if any, would be appropriate for the teen who placed the false call to 911?
I'll say here and now I don't think he needs to go to work for DHS tomorrow.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

(See her Kirk quote.) I have very little faith in any unchecked, systemic power, including those of the police.

At bottom, this blog has work to do. Friendship is not about agreement, but working together. Alas, working together is sometimes not enjoyable either.

In a normal society, in the sort of society that at least some of us grew up in, the informed discussion of police procedure (Sarah: "what the police should have done"; Bringiton: ".. sworn officers...") would be totally on point, and I would not be raising the kind of questions I am raising.

That's not the case today. The fish rots from the head, and at the head we see the rule of law vanishing, and the powerful acting with complete impunity (Libby; perhaps, soon, the telcos). How long before the rest of the fish rots, and what will happen when it does? This is why (Sarah) I've given answering procedural questions less of my limited time on this thread -- they're not the point!

Unfortunately, I see I have completely failed to bring either you, bringiton, or you, Sarah, to recognize or even accept that the context into which I am trying to place these tasering issues is legitimate. (Sheesh, didn't you see me slap Woody around for calling the police "pigs"?)

This failure gives me even less hope that we can arrest a further slide into authoritarian rule, operationally defined at the local level as impunity for the police -- because if somebody I've been working with for years can't see what I'm trying to say, what hope is there that anyone else will?

What will happen in a society like ours today, one that is being conducted along the lines of the Stanford Experiment (links above), when the officers of the law are allowed to taser people under the conditions cited -- when "they're asking for it"? (Which I regard as a completely fair summary of why it was OK to taser Meyer, and under normal conditions WOULD BE OK) It can "happen here."

Or taser with impunity when citizens are "being stupid"? (ditto) It can "happen here."

Or taser with impunity when citizens "provoke" (ditto)? It can "happen here."

Isn't it even conceivable that setting "provoked" as a societal standard for inflicting violence on citizens is a very, very slippery slope? A slope we should be trying to walk back from, rather than dance on the edge of? Check your history books, if you don't think so. (For example)

INTERLUDE: Bringiton, you wrote "Did Waterhouse act to provoke the cops? IMNVHO, yep." That is the idea that I think you are "pushing" -- that it's OK for public servants to taser citizens when they are "provoked."**

Next, bringiton writes (I extract the declarative sentence):

I personally think that it would be a very, very bad idea for Progressives to do anything other than support the principle of legitimate law enforcement practices including the use of non-lethal force when justified. [emphasis mine].

I couldn't agree with you more. And I'm also the one on this thread who's upholding that principle based on the only evidence adduced--Waterhouse's acquittal of "disorderly conduct" when tried by his peers. To me, that's prima facie evidence that the tasering was not "justified" (that is, that the camera was not a deadly weapon, and hence did not "provoke"). When I bring up this "legitimate" point, the argument shifts to "Well, juries do funny things," and "the paper is biased." I'm sure you'll forgive me for not finding that such speculation dispositive.***

Finally, bringiton writes:

Are you truly unable to differentiate between duly sworn officers of the law, empowered and paid for and regulated by the citizenry for their own protection, and vigilante thugs?**

Well, I am "clever" enough to avoid rhetorical questions like that one.

However, if you read your history, and study the Stanford Experiment, and think about what happened to ordinary soldiers when evil men who should rot in the Ninth Circle of hell for causing others to sin put them into Abu Ghraib, then you will see that the difference between "duly sworn officers of the law" and "vigilante thugs" is... Well, the fish not having rotted. (Sarah, you might consider whether I am not imagining you being put into a domestic Abu Ghraib, and trying with all my heart to prevent it.) The difference is contextual and systemic. Keeping the line between thuggery and law enforcement bright might be imagined to depend, to take one example, on giving the results of jury trials due weight, and not trying to explain them away.

Finally, bringiton, about that apology; an excellent rhetorical tactic, that I shall no doubt have occasion to use in the future. I did not demand an apology regarding my supposed "embrace" of Meyer--an offense you repeat with "defending this twit." I try to take the good, and rise above. I suggest you do likewise.

NOTE ** One of the features of authoritarian societies is the blurring of these distinctions, shown in little when IIRC Republican operatives impersonated Secret Service agents in Colorado at a Bush rally in 2004, and threw out attendees who had a Kerry bumper sticker. The fate of the Justice department under Bush shows the line between law and thuggery being slowly blurred, in large.

NOTE *** Upthread, I see that bringiton has introduced further, more sophisticated speculation on the news story. Readers may form their own opinions regarding their worth.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Richard Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich; and The Third Reich in Power.

Sober, and sobering, scholarship. If you want to see an Enlightenment society--the home of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Strauss--descending into absolute evil, this is the book for you.

It can happen here, though of course "it" won't happen in the same way; the virus mutates. Evil is a thinking enemy....

I respect KB's vigilance, even if I don't necessarily agree on the theories. If he's wrong, that will truly be cause for rejoicing.

UPDATE KB, bringiton's right. Please make this material into a post, and let's keep this thread on topic. Like the Vick's thread, this thread is hard work but enlightening. Thanks.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Theories are just ideas, not facts, and if you can prove them wrong, it's a good thing. If you can't, it's a good thing to entertain them. Although I admit to being attracted to the more Orwellian if not Lovecraftian ones. Maybe it's just the Halloween thing coming up.

But until I'm proven wrong finally, I'll drift the high plains of cyberspace and continue to describe the mountains and the shadows and guestimate their height and depth.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

The police are not entitled to use force or arrest someone who is not committing a crime.

Meyer was being obnoxious, but that's not a crime.

Videoing the police is not a crime.

The police were out of line in both situations. Period. They were assaulting citizens illegally. They were committing the crime.

More liberal media at The Sideshow.

Generously defining zap-worthy public behavior in a time of creeping fascism is about the worst thing a so-called progressive could be doing.

Hat tip: You know who you are...

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

We ask an awful lot of our police in this country.
We ask them to be as patient as school teachers, as forgiving as pastors, as vigilant as sentries, as fit as soldiers, as adept as dancers, as acute as attorneys.
We pay them about what we pay ordinary schoolteachers, ordinary soldiers, ordinary pastors -- nearly a living wage -- and would not offer the most incompetent neophyte attorney, lest said attorney sue. For that princely income, we ask them to be ready to save other people's lives -- or give up their own, trying.

Fascism in America isn't going to be recognizable using the Nazi model. Godwin and the eponymous Law can go suck an egg.

I cannot even see the video from the Oregon incident. I know there is one: there's a hole in the page, and I trust that lambert posts what he says he posts. (Please see my updates on the post from yesterday regarding McConnell; I am endeavouring to do my best to post what I say I have.)
There is also supposed to be a video of the Portland incident here.
I get only audio, and it's women's voices, and one of them repeatedly says she doesn't know what's going on but the police are going to pay for the car. This doesn't tell me anything about who was there or what they were doing.
Yes, I am very much in lambert's debt for his computer wizardry; he is a patient and thorough correspondent when he's not having fun, as much as when he is. I am not without my faults, and my father's favorite one, all my life, was my hardheadedness. Onward to the point of the essay: I don't believe we are, yet, in a post-Constitution condition. I just don't -- although I also believe Bu$hco is doing its dead-level best to take us there.

The police are not entitled to use force or arrest someone who is not committing a crime.
I'm with you on that.
Videorecording the police (no tape is needed in cell phones or digital devices, so we must upgrade the word) is not a crime.
I'm with you on that.

I am a proponent not merely of the Declaration of Independence or the Preamble to the Constitution but of the Bill of Rights, as well. All of them, and the remaining unrescinded amendments. Putting on the uniform, taking the oath, wearing the badge, doesn't change that. Taking them off, reading to the kids at night, doesn't change it either.

Is it possible that these police overstepped the bounds of their authority? Is it possible that they made mistakes? Yes, absolutely, it is possible.

But the jury that acquitted this plaintiff did not sit in judgment on the police's behavior in the Oregon arrest; they acquitted Frank Waterhouse on charges of disorderly conduct and criminal trespass. I am not lightly dismissing that fact. I believe the jury found the case unconvincing; why the jury might find a case unconvincing, I could only guess. I can find no evidence in accounts of the case to suggest what the jury found unconvincing.

Should police officers be held accountable for their mistakes? Yes, absolutely: breaking the law is breaking the law, and age or sex or race or occupation is no more an excuse than ignorance (please note: I would hope that parents today still teach their children, as mine taught me, that if you sneak candy into your pocket in the store without paying, you are breaking the law. This is not cruelty to the child. This is instilling a sense of right and wrong, responsibility and honorable behavior. One need not attend Sunday School to understand!).

So I went to findlaw:
This is what I found there, on the subject of 'assault'.

In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm.

Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as "assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.

Not having photographic evidence to go on for the Waterhouse incident, I cannot say what happened. Having watched the Meyer incident more than once, I believe Meyer committed assault upon at least one, and possibly as many as three, police officers during his attempt to re-hijack the microphone, the stage, and the center of attention; and he certainly, whether intentionally or not, committed battery on at least the large male officer.

Is it possible that these police officers are human beings, under stress? Is it possible that they are interacting with other human beings, under stress?
Is it possible that all those human beings compounded, reinforced, and furthered the stress? Um, yes, I'd say so.
Does that excuse the police? No.

Last month three units of Odessa's city police responded to a domestic disturbance call one Saturday evening. Three officers were killed that night, although one was taken by ambulance 140 miles to an ICU here in Lubbock, where he never regained consciousness before his heart stopped the following Wednesday. The man arrested at the scene will stand trial for capital murder; the Texas Rangers are investigating (in Texas, especially outside Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston, the Texas Rangers also get to do what LA and NYC relegate to their Internal Affairs divisions: they investigate officer-involved shootings). I hope we're not going back to the conditions of crack-and-cocaine fueled 1990s gang wars. Such conditions expand the combat zone to neighborhoods with drive-by shootings, increasing the risk to civilians whose ordinary familiarity with any portion of the risk police undertake everyday at work is normally the risk all of us face when we get behind the wheel of a vehicle and go somewhere, at the mercy of all the other drivers on the streets, regardless of their inattentiveness, inebriation, or inexperience.

Finally, I will again invoke the martyrs: the police who mistreat their prisoners, such as those who mistreated Amadou Diallo and Rodney King, should be punished for their behavior. There is no question of that in my mind.
(Ask an honest cop what the lowest form of scum on earth is, and you'll get one answer: a dirty cop -- although sometimes you'll get the name of one particular individual dirty cop, as you would get "Tom Coleman, Tulia," from me. Your criminals -- murderers, rapists, extortionists, kidnappers -- are criminals, sometimes madmen, often twisted geniuses, occasionally breathtakingly vile individuals; but to flaunt a badge and act the traitor is loathesomeness personified.)

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Lambert, it is a challenge for me to keep the comments within a thread topic boundary without ignoring things that, well, I don’t want to ignore. Any suggestions on how to do that better would be appreciated.

Agreed that healthy debate shouldn’t be muted or altered by friendship, although some influence inevitably does occur. I believe Sarah’s phrasing “didn’t make any friends” is a Western idiom for “didn’t get any agreement and maybe pissed a few people off” rather than a literal statement. Surely, the evident affection here for Sarah remains undiminished.

I didn’t come to Corrente seeking friendship, well past the point in my life where that’s an ambition, and participation came at an invitation (by CD, who now seems perhaps to regret her rashness) and with some reluctance, but in the end I did so precisely because you all are quite influential and becoming steadily more so. I frequently see later repetition in other blogs, often word for word, of writing first seen here both with and without attribution. (Perhaps just coincidental so I won’t say where but it happens and hey, influence is influence.) You know, Lambert, because I’ve said it before, that I find you in particular to be extraordinarily impressive both in the magnitude and quality of your work, and the Fellows to be uniformly intelligent, articulate, talented and interesting across an unusually broad range of backgrounds and interests. There are bigger blogs, as you constantly bemoan, but in them I would be of little or no influence, a very small voice in a hurricane. Here, for now, I can at least be heard. Agreement or influence, well, more than I might aspire to. If anyone takes a moment’s longer pause before heading off in the direction of one of my pet peeves, that is quite sufficient reward.

I don’t know anything about where you grew up or what your personal experience with the police might be. I am originally from the SF Bay area, thence as a young adult to Utah and Colorado. I've travelled all 50 states and DC. My contact with the police for many years was varied and interesting, from oppositional to evading, on far too many levels and in far too many ways. At the time I saw the police as Woody and others appear to feel now but on reflection it is clear that I was at least in large measure responsible for the conflicts as a result of my own behavior. It doesn’t do any good to hold on to grudges, just a poison that eats at one’s own heart and soul without affecting the object one whit. I do hope that those who harbor anger can find a way to forgive – not forget, but forgive – past wrongs. Life is too short to waste any of it blowing on the smoldering embers of old anger.

That being said my experience is that the local and state polic