# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 409
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8162 "2016-05-15T16:37:32Z")
You forgot to mention the part where he grabs her _after_ she tries to flee the scene, and continues to struggle and resist being handcuffed. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8163 "2016-05-15T16:43:12Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You forgot to mention the part where he grabs her _after_ she tries to flee the scene, and continues to struggle and resist being handcuffed. I know how police brutality turns you on, but be careful not to get jizz on your keyboard. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8164 "2016-05-15T16:47:14Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You forgot to mention the part where he grabs her _after_ she tries to flee the scene, and continues to struggle and resist being handcuffed. She moved forward a couple of inches, then he jerked her off the bike to the ground, jerked her right back up and slammed her against the car then had his hand around her neck. At the time, he has acting as a MALL cop, and the “crime” was CUTTING THROUGH A PARKING LOT. **Smapti** , just this once-know when back away. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8165 "2016-05-15T16:53:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > She moved forward a couple of inches Is there a certain distance that police are obligated to allow a fleeing suspect to travel before they’re permitted to take action? > [@](#): > > At the time, he has acting as a MALL cop Mall cops don’t wear police department uniforms and patrol in police department vehicles. He was not “acting as a mall cop” - he was acting as a cop who was patrolling a mall. > [@](#): > > and the “crime” was CUTTING THROUGH A PARKING LOT. No, the crime was resisting arrest. If she hadn’t tried to run away she wouldn’t have gotten manhandled or Tased. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8166 "2016-05-15T16:59:32Z")
You type pretty well with one hand. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8167 "2016-05-15T17:20:51Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You forgot to mention the part where he grabs her _after_ she tries to flee the scene, and continues to struggle and resist being handcuffed. You are one scary sad fuck. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8168 "2016-05-15T18:46:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Is there a certain distance that police are obligated to allow a fleeing suspect to travel before they’re permitted to take action? > > Mall cops don’t wear police department uniforms and patrol in police department vehicles. He was not “acting as a mall cop” - he was acting as a cop who was patrolling a mall. > > No, the crime was resisting arrest. If she hadn’t tried to run away she wouldn’t have gotten manhandled or Tased. I don’t know the answer to your question, but there is no evidence she was fleeing. Maybe you believe that police have the right, or even duty, to tackle, taze, or roughly manhandle minors that make small movements while they are being addressed by a police officer, but I don’t agree with you that this is acceptable. It’s not like this girl was a threat to anybody. She had not even committed a crime that I am aware of. I don’t believe that riding a bike through a mall parking lot is trespassing and until I see a jury convict her, I believe she has a presumption of innocence. You know, like the law says she has. If she was breaking the law by trespassing, why didn’t they charge her with this crime **Smapti**? You obviously have come to the conclusion that she is a dangerous criminal, doesn’t it seems strange to you that she wasn’t even issued a ticket for this? Anyway, let’s say she was going to try and run away on her Schwinn bike; where do you think this 8th grade career criminal would go anyway? She was surrounded by 2 armed adult males with SUVs; do you really think she would make it far? I get that you believe that police can kill people if they have a fear for their lives whether or not the people they kill are armed or even remotely a threat, but now I see that you believe that police can assault, taze, and probably even shoot people that they believe might possibly flee. Is this what you believe? That only the officer’s fear that the a person might flee is enough to warrant any kind of violet response to take said person down? Regarding your second paragraph, you don’t know what you are talking about; it says right in the linked story that the family is suing the security service the officer was moonlighting for. Who the fuck cares anyway? It was still egregious to treat a 15 year old guilty of nothing more than riding their bike through a parking lot this way. Regarding you last paragraph, you are either stupid or a liar (but either way, you are definitely an asshole). It said right in the article that the charges of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer were dismissed by the court. At this point, I believe that writing she resisted arrest is libelous. Finally, what kind of police force do you want **Smapti**? How should the police interact with our kids in middle and high school? You think tazing them if they ride their bikes where they shouldn’t is a good idea? Slamming them to the ground? Is this really the best way to police our young citizens? Do you think that the fact there is a large fraction of our population that does not trust the police and will not call them even if they have been the victim of a crime is a problem? Do you think this is good for our society? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8169 "2016-05-15T18:57:33Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > I don’t know the answer to your question, but there is no evidence she was fleeing. [From a less biased source;](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/teen-sues-tacoma-police-officer-others-over-brutalizing-her-in-mall-parking-lot/) > [@](#): > > As the officer appears to take a notebook from his chest pocket, Tillman can be seen in the video trying to pedal away. > [@](#): > > It’s not like this girl was a threat to anybody. She had not even committed a crime that I am aware of. Irrelevant. Fleeing detainment is unacceptable behavior even if you’re completely innocent. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe that riding a bike through a mall parking lot is trespassing and until I see a jury convict her, I believe she has a presumption of innocence. You know, like the law says she has. If she was breaking the law by trespassing, why didn’t they charge her with this crime **Smapti**? From the same above cite, she _wasn’t_ “accused of trespassing”. She was told she would be _trespassed_ from the mall. > [@](#): > > You obviously have come to the conclusion that she is a dangerous criminal I’ve come to the conclusion that she attempted to flee and was resisting arrest. This is not a judgment on her status as being dangerous. > [@](#): > > Anyway, let’s say she was going to try and run away on her Schwinn bike; where do you think this 8th grade career criminal would go anyway? She was surrounded by 2 armed adult males with SUVs; do you really think she would make it far? No, I don’t. Maybe _she_ should have thought of that before deciding to make a break for it. > [@](#): > > Regarding your second paragraph, you don’t know what you are talking about; it says right in the linked story that the family is suing the security service the officer was moonlighting for. You’re right. I concede the point. > [@](#): > > It was still egregious to treat a 15 year old guilty of nothing more than riding their bike through a parking lot this way. The treatment she got has nothing to do with what she was doing before the stop. This is the same fallacious exclusion we’ve been seeing in this thread for years when people say “Michael Brown was killed for jaywalking” or “Eric Garner was killed for selling cigarettes” and so on. > [@](#): > > Regarding you last paragraph, you are either stupid or a liar (but either way, you are definitely an asshole). It said right in the article that the charges of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer were dismissed by the court. At this point, I believe that writing she resisted arrest is libelous. Double jeopardy has not been established. > [@](#): > > Finally, what kind of police force do you want **Smapti**? A police force that people will obey. > [@](#): > > Do you think that the fact there is a large fraction of our population that does not trust the police and will not call them even if they have been the victim of a crime is a problem? Yes. That is not rational behavior. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8170 "2016-05-15T19:32:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > A police force that people will obey. If this is your most important goal, then why not advocate that police be allowed (or, perhaps better yet, mandated) to use deadly force any time someone doesn’t cooperate? If they immediately executed every single person who didn’t immediately obey, then wouldn’t obedience to police increase hugely? > [@](#): > > Yes. That is not rational behavior. It’s entirely rational in circumstances in which people are mistreated by the police. If a kid grows up seeing his family mistreated by the police, and his cousin who cooperated with police get beaten up, and his other cousin who fled from the police get away to safety, then it’s entirely rational to see fleeing from (or otherwise not cooperating with) police as the wisest course of action in some circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8171 "2016-05-15T19:39:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If this is your most important goal, then why not advocate that police be allowed (or, perhaps better yet, mandated) to use deadly force any time someone doesn’t cooperate? If they immediately executed every single person who didn’t immediately obey, then wouldn’t obedience to police increase hugely? In most circumstances that would be overkill. > [@](#): > > If a kid grows up seeing his family mistreated by the police Then he should ask himself what his family has been doing and whether his definition of “mistreated” needs adjustment. > [@](#): > > and his cousin who cooperated with police get beaten up That’s the fault of the criminal element, not the police. > [@](#): > > and his other cousin who fled from the police get away to safety His other cousin is a fugitive from justice and he should not be harboring any sympathy for him. > [@](#): > > then it’s entirely rational to see fleeing from (or otherwise not cooperating with) police as the wisest course of action in some circumstances. And in this case, fleeing from the police clearly _wasn’t_ a very wise course of action, as the video demonstrates. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8172 "2016-05-15T19:44:23Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > In most circumstances that would be overkill. Why? I thought what you wanted most was for the police to be obeyed. If that’s the highest goal, then why wouldn’t you support something that would help that goal? > [@](#): > > Then he should ask himself what his family has been doing and whether his definition of “mistreated” needs adjustment. So you don’t believe that any child in America (or American history) has every truthfully and honestly grown up witnessing police mistreatment of his family? > [@](#): > > That’s the fault of the criminal element, not the police. You don’t believe it’s the fault of the police officers who did it, or the other police officers who witnessed it and said nothing, or the other ones who heard about it and did nothing? > [@](#): > > His other cousin is a fugitive from justice and he should not be harboring any sympathy for him. So you believe that his cousin should have submitted himself to be beaten up by those same cops who abused his other cousin? > [@](#): > > And in this case, fleeing from the police clearly _wasn’t_ a very wise course of action, as the video demonstrates. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t rational from her point of view at the time. Do you believe it’s ever in all of American history been rational for any person to run from police? Was it rational for a slave to flee a slave-hunting police officer in the 1840s? How about for a black person to flee a group of policemen in 1870s Alabama who say that he illegally touched a white woman? Or how about a black person fleeing from police officers leading a lynch mob for a false rape accusation in the 1930s? Or a black person fleeing from cops in Mississippi of the 1960s who say that he broke the law by protesting for Civil Rights? If you think that these might have been rational, then at what point in American history do you believe that it ceased to ever be possible under any circumstances for fleeing from the police to be rational? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8173 "2016-05-15T20:45:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why? I thought what you wanted most was for the police to be obeyed. If that’s the highest goal, then why wouldn’t you support something that would help that goal? Because it’s unnecessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater. > [@](#): > > So you don’t believe that any child in America (or American history) has every truthfully and honestly grown up witnessing police mistreatment of his family? I believe most people’s definition of “police mistreatment” boils down to “There I was, just breaking the law like I do every day, and the cops went and bothered me for no reason!” > [@](#): > > You don’t believe it’s the fault of the police officers who did it, or the other police officers who witnessed it and said nothing, or the other ones who heard about it and did nothing? What “police officers who did it”? Your hypothetical said nothing about any police officers doing it. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean it wasn’t rational from her point of view at the time. That’s her failing. > [@](#): > > Do you believe it’s ever in all of American history been rational for any person to run from police? No. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8174 "2016-05-15T21:04:03Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Because it’s unnecessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t understand. I thought your most important goal for police was that they were obeyed. Is that not the case? Is there something even more important than that the police are obeyed? > [@](#): > > I believe most people’s definition of “police mistreatment” boils down to “There I was, just breaking the law like I do every day, and the cops went and bothered me for no reason!” We’re not discussing “most people’s definition” – we’re discussing a situation in which a child has grown up witnessing his family mistreated by police. Unless you’re arguing that this is impossible and could never occur. > [@](#): > > What “police officers who did it”? Your hypothetical said nothing about any police officers doing it. My hypothetical was about police beating up my hypothetical child’s cousin even though he cooperated with them. > [@](#): > > That’s her failing. I see it as society’s failing if some people actually have rational reasons to flee from police. > [@](#): > > No. Got it – you believe that, even when police officers (not all, but some) brutalized, raped, and murdered black people who did nothing wrong throughout American history, the only rational behavior by their victims was to cooperate with their own brutalization, rape, and murder. We can add this one to the **Smapti** position bank that the only moral way for slaves to behave was to obey their masters; that it was wrong for MLK Jr. and other Civil Rights leaders to conduct civil disobedience; that Harriet Tubman was wrong for breaking laws to help slaves escape; among other truly hideous moral stances. You are a broken human being, and I’m sorry for whatever trauma has caused your moral sense to be so massively distorted. The best thing for you would be to recognize that you have no ability to rationally analyze anything regarding conflict with authority, lest one day your colossally screwed up morality leads you to cooperate with authority figures conducting atrocities like genocide. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8175 "2016-05-15T21:06:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We’re not discussing “most people’s definition” – we’re discussing a situation in which a child has grown up witnessing his family mistreated by police. Unless you’re arguing that this is impossible and could never occur. I’m arguing that most people have a definition of “mistreated by police” that includes “they were breaking the law and got caught”. > [@](#): > > I see it as society’s failing if some people actually have rational reasons to flee from police. They don’t. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8176 "2016-05-15T21:19:45Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I’m arguing that most people have a definition of “mistreated by police” that includes “they were breaking the law and got caught”. You’re arguing a lot of things from a position of zero evidence. > [@](#): > > They don’t. Someone who, like you, believes that the only morally correct way for slaves to act is to obey their masters, is incapable of rationally analyzing such a situation. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8177 "2016-05-15T21:26:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’re arguing a lot of things from a position of zero evidence. The overwhelming majority of this thread is testimony to the fact that people don’t think the law ought to apply to them. > [@](#): > > Someone who, like you, believes that the only morally correct way for slaves to act is to obey their masters, is incapable of rationally analyzing such a situation. In order for society to function, the rule of law must be upheld. That means it is the responsibility of anyone living in a given society to obey any and all laws applicable to them, whether they agree with the law or not, whether they think the law should be changed or not, whether they have any power to change the law or not. If the law of the land is that slavery is legal, and a person has lawfully been made a slave, then they are thus obliged to obey, distasteful as it may be. It’s as simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8178 "2016-05-15T21:32:51Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The overwhelming majority of this thread is testimony to the fact that people don’t think the law ought to apply to them. That’s an incorrect analysis, which isn’t surprising coming from “slaves should obey their masters” advocates. > [@](#): > > In order for society to function, the rule of law must be upheld. That means it is the responsibility of anyone living in a given society to obey any and all laws applicable to them, whether they agree with the law or not, whether they think the law should be changed or not, whether they have any power to change the law or not. If the law of the land is that slavery is legal, and a person has lawfully been made a slave, then they are thus obliged to obey, distasteful as it may be. It’s as simple as that. Simple and wrong. Such a society is broken and is non-functioning, and it’s the duty of decent people to violate such laws. If you live by the same philosophy as you post, then you are not a decent person. Harriet Tubman, and others who helped free slaves, were decent people… those who tried to hunt them down and kill them were not. If you live as you post, had you been alive, you would have been one of those helping to hunt down Tubman and others involved in the Underground Railroad. You won’t understand, and I don’t expect you too, since whatever trauma you have suffered has broken you, probably irreparably. But for the good of humanity (especially your neighbors and others close to you who may suffer due to your monstrous moral sense) you should accept that your capability to rationally and morally judge any situation regarding authority is skewed and non-functional, and you should not trust your own instincts and beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8179 "2016-05-15T21:42:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The overwhelming majority of this thread is testimony to the fact that people don’t think the law ought to apply to them. Bullshit! The overwhelming majority of this thread is testimony to the fact that people think the law ought to apply to the police! > [@Smapti](#): > > In order for society to function, the rule of law must be upheld. That means it is the responsibility of anyone living in a given society to obey any and all laws applicable to them, whether they agree with the law or not, whether they think the law should be changed or not, whether they have any power to change the law or not. If the law of the land is that slavery is legal, and a person has lawfully been made a slave, then they are thus obliged to obey, distasteful as it may be. It’s as simple as that. You’re wrong about this too; there are such things as unjust laws and dictatorships. Government is for the people, not to oppress them, and laws that give police carte blanche authority without limit or oversight are morally wrong. You may think that the USSR worked well under Stalin during the purges, China during the cultural revolution, or in the killing fields under the Khmer Rouge, but almost everybody else in the world would beg to differ. I had forgotten what a warped individual you were and will bow out of this discussion to preserve my emotional well being. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8180 "2016-05-15T22:11:04Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If the law of the land is that slavery is legal, and a person has lawfully been made a slave, then they are thus obliged to obey I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Smapti is not fully human. Sometimes once something is broken, it can’t be fixed. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8181 "2016-05-15T22:43:58Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The overwhelming majority of this thread is testimony to the fact that people don’t think the law ought to apply to them. By “people”, you mean “police officers”, yes? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=408) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=410)