View Single Post
Old July 7, 2013, 03:58 PM   #45
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Anyone who works a job whether it be a police officer or the lady at the local Starbucks, we have to show a bit of respect and civilized behavior. Ask yourself, do you appreciate people testing you and giving you a hard time at your job? The person who created this video was purposely trying to give the officer a hard time. In return for the hard time the officer was given, the officer gave the video creator a hard time. It seems like a fair exchange.
Therein lies the issue...being a police officer is not even remotely the same as working at starbucks. A police officer a) works for the public good b)operates under legal authority c) has the potential to commit violations of someones rights under the color of that authority to a vastly greater degree than someone behind the counter at starbucks. How are people to trust officers to properly uphold and enforce the law, if they succumb to petty revenge/tit for tat behavior?

If you want to related it to private sector jobs, do you really think that if an employee of starbucks, for example, went off on a rude customer that they would remain employed? So somehow, you expect a lower standard to be applied to those who enforce the law? "Well its ok because the guy had it coming." Really...is that your argument? Whether or not one would appreciate being given a hard time is not relevant.

Additionally, while they may not have chosen their specific assignment, they did choose to be a police officer. I can be relatively sure that no one ever told them: "Hey this is a super easy and laid back job, no one ever gives you any trouble." In fact I would guess at some point in time they were told or recognized, that is is not an easy job. What they do have control over, even after an involuntary assignment, is how they behave. If you feel that someone with no authority should act respectfully, shouldn't this also go for the person with authority, regardless of how the person they're interacting with behaves themselves?

The issue with just bringing it up via letter writing is that, barring state law issues(which in TN its unclear whether they would survive a court challenge), checkpoints are legal. However, just because the checkpoint is legal, does not make all actions conducted at the checkpoints legal. Additionally, for a lawsuit to change the law or manner in which the checkpoints are conducted, it has to be shown that they are not operating within the standards set forth, and or are incompatible with current state law or constitution. For a case like that to have standing or merit, that evidence should come from more than just a theoretical legal analysis, ie showing actual harms done to people passing through those checkpoints.

So, while in this case, the person failed to follow up with a complaint which would bring additional scrutiny to the issue, as a whole, without people doing such actions, rude or not, and if everyone just complied, the outcome would be continued issues like this.

Furthermore, it is interesting, that in an issue that revolves around specifically enumerated rights, that you would consider attempting to assert those rights as "devious." If you were just walking down the street, and an officer told you to stop where you were and submit to their questioning, if they could not provide RAS or PC, I suppose by your logic it would also be "devious thwarting" to tell them you do not consent and keep walking.

To be clear, obviously not all officers act in this manner. However, it should be clear to all officers that this type of behavior is questionable, and policies/laws tend not to just change on their own. Something has to effect change.
sigcurious is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02393 seconds with 8 queries