"You should never talk back to a police officer"

[YoungDemCA]

That's what I've heard from a number of people who have defended Darren Wilson's actions. The argument is basically: if anyone stopped by law enforcement ever directly challenges them, then "all bets are off." Because the law only has legitimacy if people obey it-which includes obeying officers of the law.

That's the Hobbesian view of this, anyway. And that's not really a good thing-Hobbes was very much NOT a (small d) democrat. But that authoritarian impulse is sadly, very common in our society.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. No. The police don't get to act unlawfully

That being said if a policeman or woman is acting unlawfully there will be plenty time to address it. Challenging a policeman or woman on the spot is lunacy.

[Kablooie]

8. It should be dealt with within the legal system afterwards, not at the moment.

That's certainly the safest procedure.

The problem is that the legal system doesn't work the way it's supposed to when dealing with police unlawfulness and with African American complaints.

[Socal31]

2. Correct.

You are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to winning an argument when you are dealing with a peace officer.

Just because it shouldn't be that way doesn't make the advice any less useful.

A police officer can ruin your day/month/year in a single moment, even if the BS "resisting arrest" or "disorderly conduct" catch-all charges never stick.

[bowens43]

7. peace officer?

ROFLMAO!!!!

[Socal31]

9. At least here in CA....

Peace Officer is a broad technical term for someone with specific powers of arrest. It includes city, park rangers, Fish and Game, etc.

[treestar]

22. Its a

term and apparently one you have never heard before.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I reject that idea, too, though as a matter of personal safety in the real world, it's true.

Also, treat any stray dog as if it has rabies and might bite you.

Darren Warren's acts are indefensible.

These are two different questions, but I agree that it's offputting to read people say that Michael should have acted differently.

[YoungDemCA]

4. Oh absolutely

but, there's a big difference between pragmatic concern for one's personal safety, and the bigger issue of police brutality and abuse of power. Like you said, the two shouldn't be conflated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Believing it's prudent...

Believing it's prudent to always comply with the police and believing they don't have a right to put a cap in you if you refuse aren't mutually exclusive.

[YoungDemCA]

6. Yup

nt

[Savannahmann]

10. This raises an interesting question.

In the military, or Government service, you have no responsibility to obey an unlawful order. In fact, you have a moral duty to oppose such an unlawful order. But such moral arguments in the civilian world always end up with the person on the right side suffering. Sure, justice may reign in the out of control officer who is taking the unlawful act, later. But if a person acted with force to prevent an unlawful act, they would have committed a felony.

Let's take an example of this story shall we? Raw video starts at 2:56 into the vid.

In that situation, a man in handcuffs was murdered by police. If you were a citizen standing there, and saw this taking place. You saw the police officer draw his weapon and aim it at the handcuffed man, you have a moment in which you could charge in and knock the officer down, preventing the murder. Yet if you do, you've assaulted a police officer, a felony. Perhaps you know about the video, perhaps you don't.

Oh, and the cop was not charged with that murder by the Grand Jury either. A situation in which a man is in handcuffs, and the police resort to deadly force to "defend themselves" from this man. Perhaps the man made the kill shot difficult for the officer, writhing around like that. It would probably be easier if they tied him to something, like a pole, before they shot to defend themselves.

[SomethingFishy]

18. +1 One of the major problems I see is we have turned the police force

into a military operation. We have given them military hardware and weapons but none of the training that goes with the "responsible" use of those weapons. We have turned them into soldiers without a chain of command. And we're surprised when it backfires on us.

[FLPanhandle]

11. I'm an old white guy and I'd never get into a pissing match with a cop

Even when I was a teen and stopped by the police, I was nothing but "yes, sir", "no, sir". My dad, who used to run moonshine in the south, taught me that. Be polite or things will go badly for you.

It's a smart calculation too. I would have nothing to gain and lots to lose by confronting an officer.

[Oktober]

12. Only in the sense that if you are rude or assholish to anyone with the power to cause you problems..

... i.e. your boss, the bank teller, girl on the phone help desk, waiters , valets etc.. etc.... The list is endless....


You will likely not get the results you want and if that person can cause you some trouble within the bounds of their authority, whatever it may be, they will.

What's so surprising about that?

Don't be an ass to anyone is the rule, which include peace officers, and if you are an ass don't expect them to treat you in a very friendly way.

Common sense...

[pipi_k]

20. It's either a lack

of basic common sense, or an overwhelming (and somewhat pathological) hatred of authority.

And maybe a bit of failure to understand or appreciate consequences of one's actions.

Like you said...people with the power to affect your day...to make it unpleasant, if not downright miserable...why would anyone in his right mind antagonize them?

[Oktober]

23. These are the same folks who scream at the customer service folks behind the counter...

... and then are all shocked and surprised when they can't get a refund.

[Lurks Often]

13. Arguing with police is rarely a good idea, 99% of the time you are going to lose.

I look back at my interactions with police, all motor vehicle infractions when I was younger. I can look back and recognize that I deserved the a ticket in every one of those cases, but I also noticed that in the cases I was polite and pleasant, the police officer would either give me a warning or in one case wrote the ticket as a speeding ticket instead of the reckless driving charge he could have hit me with.

[ElboRuum]

14. There is a stark difference between this being an authoritarian impulse...

...and there being a measure of understanding the situation you find yourself in. Due to the nature of their jobs, every person they pull over, question, etc. is, to them, a potential threat to their own safety. I don't think any reasonable person, regardless of what view you may have of the police, would argue against the idea that when their safety is being threatened that they have justification to protect themselves (just like any ordinary citizen would).

What you never want to do is prove that perception of threat as justified even if you feel or know you have the right to do whatever challenging statement you make or act you perform.

That said, I do not defend Darren Wilson's actions by saying that this is good advice. I say this because it is simply good advice.

Darren Wilson is indicative of a system which no longer sees itself as a protective agent of the community, rather it sees itself as a control placed upon communities for the exclusive purpose of serving the needs of the law and the government which enacts it. In such a role, the implied requirement for an even temperament that community protection would naturally entail is removed. Modern law enforcement appeals to applicants with aggressive tendencies and authoritarian mindsets. In such an environment, any interface between the police and the citizenry comes precharged with the potential for lethality. Darren Wilson is a poorly trained officer whose position shielded him from consequence from his glaring overreaction to a what he irrationally thought was a threat to his safety.

[Savannahmann]

16. Curious point.

I don't think any reasonable person, regardless of what view you may have of the police, would argue against the idea that when their safety is being threatened that they have justification to protect themselves (just like any ordinary citizen would).

But what if they are threatening your safety, do you have a right to protect yourself then?

[ElboRuum]

17. That's an interesting question.

No, because the law gives them authority (and protection) greater than that of the citizens they police. While the police may not be above the law, they are granted exemption from prosecution in the execution of that law within certain necessary bounds.

Threatening your safety may be in the execution of protecting the safety of themselves or the citizenry at large. In which case the threat they pose to you is justifiable if you are yourself presenting threat.

In a more abstract philosophical sense, you do have the right to protect yourself because every being has a right to attempt to survive by any means necessary, however, in a practical sense, because we have given authority to the police/government to perform the arbitration of criminality and the preservation of safety, we cede the right to determine that for ourselves except in extreme circumstance (where police are not available and/or the threat is immediate).

So what happens if the police are the threat in question (your question, I believe)?

Therein lies the rub. For us to cede authority for the preservation of our own safety, we trust that the police are acting in the best interests of their community. We trust that those whose safety they threaten through the execution of their charge are those who represent a threat to the community at large, either through criminality, dangerous or threatening behavior of their own, or both. That person's right to protect him/herself is held in abeyance. However, it is presumed that if the person in question submits to that authority with no further threat, they can at least be relatively well assured that lethality will not result.

The police only serve their purpose correctly if this necessary trust in the appropriate execution of authority exists and is correctly maintained. Darren Wilson's case indicates that this assurance, given the state of attitude of the police as "controllers" rather than "protectors", isn't necessarily a given, and this specifically when that authority has irrational fear of those he/she is attempting to control.

[SomethingFishy]

21. LMAO... Bullshit.

You claim in the first paragraph that "Due to the nature of their jobs, every person they pull over, question, etc. is, to them, a potential threat to their own safety"

And then your last sentence is "Darren Wilson is a poorly trained officer whose position shielded him from consequence from his glaring overreaction to a what he irrationally thought was a threat to his safety."

So is every traffic stop a potential threat or are they overreacting to an irrational fear?

I got stopped for speeding once. The cop had a bug up his ass and asked to search my car. Seeing as I had done nothing but speed I asked him why..

Well he must have felt some irrational fear because he got really pissed off. Said the fact that I asked him why was suspicious and now he had probable cause. I had to sit there and wait while "backup" came and they tore my car apart looking for something that didn't exist. Stupid, waste of time and money, because officer Friendly was having a tough day.

Yeah the incident made me angry. Now being a white guy I can only imagine how furious I would be after getting stopped for having my hands in my pockets.

[seabeyond]

25. Not to mention, that being said, every cop is potentially poorly trained and a threat to me. Nt

[ElboRuum]

27. Actually, that's true.

But we know that all are not poorly trained, and thus present no threat. The problem is obviously when you get a bad one, and who knows which one you get until you have cause to wonder.

However, it appears to me that we are moving in that direction more and more. So long as people like Wilson, who exhibit neither the temperament nor restraint required to be given a gun and a badge, can become police officers and then avoid prosecution when their actions have deadly consequences, I'd expect to see it continue.

As to what it will take to get our police forces to actually serve their communities AND the law rather than the enforcement only posture they currently assume, I don't know.

[ElboRuum]

26. Clearly, you are not understanding my point.

But I don't mind addressing your concerns.

"So is every traffic stop a potential threat or are they overreacting to an irrational fear?"

Every traffic stop is a potential threat. And they are not overreacting to an irrational fear. The irrational fear I alluded to was the irrational fear that Wilson carried with him into the job and onto the street that day.

My point was actually one that you are making for me, that because of the shift from society's protectors to society's controllers, the job tends to draw in people with aggressive tendencies and authoritarian mindsets. Congratulations, you got as your officer du jour one of these hyperaggressive creatures and then committed the greater "sin" of questioning his authority by asking him why. Now did you actually question his authority? No, you didn't. Does this information help you in any way with said police officer? No it does not.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding just what about what I said was "bullshit" and why you felt the need to LYAO over it. Darren Wilson, even in the context of a greater expression of authoritarianism within the police as a whole, did not have training sufficient to deal with that situation, or the outcome would have been different (with Brown alive). His position as a police officer shields him from consequence.

[noiretextatique]

15. and...there is a belief that black people need to accept being "suspicious"

form ANYONE, including former neighborhood watch cop wannabes.

[Old Codger]

19. Just for starters

It has always been my position to never ever mouth off to an armed person regardless whether they are an officer of the law or not... I have also added the position of not flipping people off just because they cut me off while driving,but going so far as to be afraid to even honk my horn is probably further than I am willing to go...

[seabeyond]

24. Ya. See? I am thinking about the number of girls raped by cops or sexually assaulted and

The number of posters in here in this thread stating no one should speak up to the law

Not working for me

[ElboRuum]

33. There is a time for speaking up to the law.

Because of the unequal rights distribution between the police and the citizenry, the redress of grievances to the action of police is not at the interface between the police and the citizenry, but rather through the court system after the fact. The police have one charge, the enforcement of the law. I wish that were different, but it is not. They also are given wide latitude to protect their own safety, and NO requirement to protect anyone else from harm. I also wish that were different, but it is not.

I think the suggestion here is that you'll not win if you confront the police directly. At the point where they must interact with the citizenry, the law overwhelmingly protects and supports them.

I don't think anyone's really suggesting that you don't speak up to authority.

[seabeyond]

34. It us inevitable, lay back and enjoy and in time, maybe someone will listen?

Meh... No.

No way do cops have such power over ya we lower our eyes, stick ass out for the fuck and whimper...

[ElboRuum]

35. Mmm hmm...

Are you suggesting people risk their lives mouthing off to cops?

[RoccoR5955]

28. You are supposed to follow a police officer's "orders."

Yeah right. This only proves that we now live in a freakin' police state.
I am not in the military, I do not follow "orders." I am not a waiter, nor am I a servant of theirs'. THEY are my servants, as they are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and should follow MY orders!

[Iris]

29. The most disgusting part of this assumption is the idea that black parents somehow aren't teaching

their kids to be respectful of the law, when, I'm sure many more black parents have discussions about what to do when a police officer pulls you over than white parents do.

[KingCharlemagne]

30. "Talk back to a police officer" is an impossibly vague and overbroad moral

maxim which no one can be expected to understand, much less follow.

What does it even mean, anyway?

[socialist_n_TN]

42. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^ was my first thought too..

Is "What did I do Officer?" talking back to a police officer?

[gwheezie]

31. What if the cop is causing you pain

I dunno if I was getting slammed around put in chokeholds guns pointed at me I might snap.

[loyalsister]

32. That's one of the "rules"

It goes along with the assumption that people of color are about to, or have committed a crime. That there are people who accept without question, that idea that it is natural for citizens of this country to have to prove they aren't guilty of a crime or full of bad intentions in order to avoid being shot by police, speaks to how deep racism still goes in this country.

[doc03]

36. The cops have a hard job, they never know even with a routine trafic violation

they sometimes get killed. I worked with a guy who's father was a cop, his dad stopped a car for speeding and he was gunned down, he didn't know they had just robbed a bank. I imagine they are always on edge when they have to confront anyone. If you are walking in the middle of the street and a cop tells you to get off, just get off the street don't start trouble.

[seabeyond]

37. The 10 Deadliest Jobs:

The 10 Deadliest Jobs:

1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

police do not even make the top ten

[doc03]

38. So does that mean more should be killed or what?

[Man from Pickens]

40. It means they don't really have an excuse to act as an occupying army

"Shoot first ask questions later or never" is not the creed of a domestic police force.

It's the creed of an oppressive tyranny that rules by violence and fear.

[socialist_n_TN]

44. Well if they want to claim some sort of "Most Dangerous Job" award......

I guess that would be what needs to happen. But what the poster was pointing out is that the "dangerous job" part of being a cop is pretty much bullshit. Being a cop is not even in the top ten.

[Man from Pickens]

39. That's the creed

Cops - from local to federal - claim the privilege to kill anyone who doesn't immediately comply with their orders.

This is the order of things, when we are the slaves, and they are the overseers that keep the slaves in line.

[Nye Bevan]

41. Talking back to a police officer will almost certainly not benefit you.

By far the best thing to do is to exercise your constitutional right to remain silent.

Of course, this does not excuse cops acting inappropriately when people do talk back to them.

[justiceischeap]

43. I think the Supreme Court recently ruled you don't really have a constitutional right to silence

any more. That your silence can be used against you.

[bhikkhu]

45. We aren't subjects or property, and freedom means nothing if we surrender it immediately

People should just behave like people, cops and regular citizens alike. I haven't ever been in a position where "talking back to an officer" was a reasonable response, so I'm not sure how things would go if I was treated unreasonably. Probably being a white male, basically calm and off the radar helps. If I were a different person and was regularly treated unreasonably I like to think I could exercise my right to ask for reasonable treatment and not be shot or put in prison (by the same people who treat my white self with some deference).

[Gormy Cuss]

46. How about "You should never be tasered, bludgeoned, shot, or killed for talking back to a LEO?"

Even if you said bad things about the LEO's genitals or called the LEO's mother or child a bad word.

Now one should expect modest consequences if the LEO made a lawful request and you ignored it, but that's a different story.