I think you’re probably referring to the other case, which we discussed yesterday. If you watch the video on this thread, it’s crystal clear that the guy was handed a citation, and was told to “get along, and take it up with the judge”, when he decided to escalate things. He resisted being taken into custody, and when that resistance stopped, the force stopped. What I continue to find fascinating is the following:
1. In the majority of these threads, the media are reporting the story told by a plaintiff’s attorney (as in this case.) In no other circumstance would FReeprs so uncrictically accept the spin from such a dubious source, especially when lined up against an institution that is traditionally the recipient of conservative benefit of the doubt. That’s sufficiently far out of the conservative mainstream, at least as I understand it, that it’s worth digging in to, at least a little bit.
2. There is a consistent notion that “the cops have gotten rougher/more likely to use force/more violent etc.” than they were in some unspecified past. Now, I’m an old fart, so my timeline may be longer than folks are meaning, but if you go back to the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, that’s just plain not so. Policing was far more physical back then than now, post Rodney King. That, too, I find curious. Sure, there’s excessive use of force that occurs, but the municipal and county constabularies have never been held so accountable as they are today. These stories themselves are evidence of that scutiny, IMHO.
3. Related to 2, above, is that in both this case, and the one from downtown Denver, a “bystander” chose to involve himself in an unrelated detention/arrest. Maybe that’s the ettiquette these days, but that’s a huge change from the recent past, and shouldn’t go without comment. Maybe that’s a good thing, to stop on the street and offer your opinion, vociferously, to the officer on the validity of the traffic stop, drunk in public arrest, etc. But we, and by we I mean the, working, conservative citizenry, didn’t used to think that was such a good idea. That’s a big change in the culture, and really does deserve dissection, too.
So, I’m interested in the cultural attitude, more than anything else. The conservatives I know in person all tend to have the outlook that things have swung too far in favor of those who think that “the rules don’t apply to them (say, DUI, drunk in public, weed smokers, meth tweakers, shoplifters, robbers, burglars and the like), and away from the rule of law and civil order. Yes, we don’t much like the over-reach of big government in the economy, land use regulations, and other traditionally individual areas of responsibility, but we draw the distinction at the enforcement of the penal code, vehicle code, and other areas that haven’t really fundamentally changed in many years.
Hence my attempts to post on these threads. I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong, in fact, the opportunity to clarify my thinking keeps me coming back to FR. I just don’t get it on this particular topic yet.
Point taken. I watched the unedited video provided at the link.
...especially when lined up against an institution that is traditionally the recipient of conservative benefit of the doubt.
Traditionally, conservatives are wary of government. the cops ARE the government. I don't know where all of the boot licking conservatives have come from.
If you watch the video on this thread, it’s crystal clear that the guy was handed a citation, and was told to “get along, and take it up with the judge”, when he decided to escalate things.
That's not crystal clear to me after watching the entire video. I do see that he appears to get a citation (and he is nasty about the way he takes the two pieces of paper from the cop), then I see the butch cop get in his way (with her uber-macho stance) as he tries to walk away.
...a “bystander” chose to involve himself in an unrelated detention/arrest.
I'm not convince that it would be a good thing for every one to put on blinders and ignore possible wrong doing.
I think you bring up some good points. Cops probably aren’t really getting more aggressive than they’ve always been, and in fact, with the high profile brutality cases, some of them at least are surely trying to be more careful. However, with the preponderance of surveillance cameras and cell phones, the public is just more likely to find out about these cases. What’s amazing to me is that the cops know these cameras are out there, and we still see some “bad actors” who step over the line anyways. In the story from yesterday, the officers seemed to realize this and decided to go get the phone to cover-up their own wrongdoing.
As for whether bystanders stepping into a police stop is more common or not, it may very well be. I don’t think it’s very advisable, since even the gentlest police officer is probably going to get annoyed by that kind of thing. Annoying a guy with a gun and a nightstick who’s already probably got his adrenaline pumping is just not a smart move, in my experience.
However, it seems to me that police officers more and more take the attitude of “us vs. them” when it comes to the public. I’m sure it’s an outgrowth of the increasingly dangerous environment they work in, but the attitude and the impact it has on their behavior is what the public is going to come away with. So it’s no wonder if the public begins to do likewise and starts to band together for protection against abuses of police authority.