We’ve got so much work to do here. Mall cops are not “cops”, they are security personnel. They have no more rights than a typical citizen. About as close to a real cop as they get is when they call 911 for help.
That still doesn’t answer the question.
When a mall cop pepper-sprays me and then tries to puts me in handcuffs, do I have the right to resist? Do I have the right to remove myself from his grasp and walk away unmolested?
If yes, then the guy in that video was kidnapped and falsely imprisoned, right? (Of course not.)
If not, then the “mall cop” vs “real cop” is a distinction without a difference in the context I’m talking about.
Morgenstern, I hope with “So far, I’ve seen a few threads, with a mere handful of questionable police officer activity, being used as the standard for ALL police conduct in the US ” you aren’t admitting scope of knowledge is internet. That would be a bad idea.
Most of those on the receiving end of improper, unlawful, anticonstitutional and even criminal behavior aren’t hanging out on the internet or elsewhere talking about it, and they aren’t talking to reporters or filing complaints and lawsuits. When they have idle time, it makes sense that they’re doing something OTHER than fixating on their station in life. (It should go without saying that few minorities have the luxury of being activists and protestors; the population generally leaves that to those with the time and wherewithal to engage in those pursuits.) 
I’m sure also that some are preoccupied with life administration, and dealing with the fallout of forces that aren’t interested in their well-being. It goes without saying that their government isn’t overly interested in changing the status quo; drastic change can be expected when the makeup of the government changes … when the minorities become the majority (and not too soon). To be sure, the largely Caucasian power base will hold on for as long as it can, and it’s engaged in machinations at home and abroad in an attempt to ensure the status quo doesn’t change. I don’t think those measures will be enough. Eventually, it’s a matter of simple math. Eventually, gerrymandering will no longer be an effective tool, nor will the current criminal justice policies and practices hold back change. Seems to me, as to brown Americans, people have been all too happy not to think about the institutional policies that have created today’s situation, and that those policies have simply modernized since the Civil War. The government organism changes when forced by circumstance, not unlike a virus whose sole goal is survival: it mutates.
“So many here are so willing to taint the 3/4 million good officers based on the questionable actions of a very few.”
This remark doesn’t make sense. Are you of a mind that 95% of cops are “good” and by that I mean to include good at what they do? Do you believe only 5% of the human population is dishonest and/or so dumb or ignorant as to be scary? Statistically, 95% competence is impossible. Ninety-five percent of ANY occupation or profession being competent, ethical and resistant to breaking the law is statistically impossible. (Never mind that we have reason to conclude that a solid third (if generous) of the human population suffers from less than optimal intelligence, and far more than that suffer from woeful ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills such that they’re completely vulnerable to miseducation.)
If anyone’s said “all cops”, then that notion will naturally be rejected out of hand. However, the notion that even a vast majority of cops are on the job solely because they want to protect and serve the public is ludicrous. That’s like saying that 95% of the military serve because they WANT to, which is also ridiculous. That’s like saying all prosecutors take a state’s attorney job 'cause they’re all about justice and protecting the public from criminals. (Career prosecutors are not the norm, btw, and a majority of career prosecutors don’t kid themselves about why they’re doing the job. (Some do, mind, but most do not engage in wilful denial but instead only polite public pretense.) Same goes for career politicians. The overriding concerns for a majority of them have nothing to do with the public good.
So who told this security personnel person they have the right to pepper-spray, handcuff, and detain someone who hadn’t done anything wrong? If they’re just joe-schmo with no special rights, then the guy was fully within his rights to not comply with anything that cop said.
I somehow get the suspicion that if the guy had flexed his rights and he received something worse than pepper spray, you fools would be telling us that if only he’d fully cooperated, nothing like that would have happened.
I’ll tell you what I’m saying. I think it’s fucking ridiculous that you try and compare some guy working security for a mall with real police officers who are granted the powers of the government to serve as their agents.
If you still don’t grasp my point, I can use braille if that would help.
I’ll tell you what. You answer my questions, and I’ll answer this one.
Mall cops are private security guards, they are not cops. They cannot give you a citation nor can they arrest you. They can kick you off the property, and search your packages. If you do not want to be searched, leave the property. They can hold you (citizens arrest) for a short period of time waiting the arrival of the police if they catch you breaking the law (shoplifting, etc.) They cannot hold, arrest, detain you for breaking a mall rule (spitting in the fountain for instance)
Wow, I never thought an appeal to authority could be so underwhelming. So much spittle, so little substance.
Did you watch the video? A “real cop” was there. And did nothing while the mall cop slapped the guy in handcuffs and whisk him into some building.
Why are yall intentionally missing the point, though? Who cares if he was a mall cop or real cop, when my point is that there is power in resisting abuse? By portraying the security guard as nothing but a civilian in a uniform, you actually only underscore how offensive his conduct was. He did a lot more than “holding someone”, and the police did not intervene.
And… you didn’t answer my question. Again.
Yes, I think we have the right to resist cops when they are acting unlawfully and abusively. Rolling over like good little sheep when cops harrass, violate, and dehumanize us is exactly what will lead to our downfall as a nation founded on human rights.
Sitting idly by while others are harrassed, violated, and dehumanized will also be our downfall. That is what I was trying to communicate with the video I posted, but sadly you chose to focus on the oh-so-important fact that it was a mall cop serving up abuse this time rather than a REAL cop. What a spectacular case of missing the mother fucking point.
The protest was held in an open courtyard area, it appears. For someone just strolling through (as the guy was), I’m sure it wasn’t clear that the area was more private than public. Or that the security officer wasn’t a “real” cop, just a rent-a-cop. All he saw was a guy in a uniform acting in an authoritative way.
If he’d resisted the mall cop, we know good and well what would have happened next. The real cop on the scene would have done exactly what he did in this situation–side with the mall cop and facilitate an injustice. Or worse. The real cop may have tased the guy. Or shot him. And as I said before, the peanut gallery would be blaming the guy for not complying with the original request…for “escalating” matters and being “needlessly” difficult.
Talk about lose-lose. That is what happens when we worship the uniform. It gives those with lookalike uniforms permission to deny people their civil liberties.
Last I heard about this thing, civil charges had been brought against the security company contracted by the mall. I don’t know how it panned out, though.
And then, if you resist, the cops are fully within their right using the amount of force necessary to force your compliance. Pepper spray is just one option as we saw in this case.
No one is arguing that it isn’t humiliating to be wrongly accused, detained, and/or questioned. But your remedy is after the fact, not during it.
Quit equating a mall cop to a real cop. That’s like equating a skateboard to a Porsche.
Yes, obviously that’s all they have to do, and yes, I’m cool with it. I’m also cool with the fact that, if it’s done maliciously, the caller will be thrown in prison. So please, go ahead and make that call, I’m sure you posting about doing so on a message board will support you when you’re on trial… By the way, I’ve already posted in this thread about this actually happening (I think), but if I haven’t, it’s called Swatting, and if you want me to post more links I will.
What do you want to happen? Do you seriously want the police to ignore emergency calls? If the police get a report that someone’s screaming for help in my house, yes I want them to fucking break in and check I’m OK!
What, to you, is “unlawfully”? If police show up with an arrest warrant for something you know you didn’t do, do you get to resist the arrest because you think they’re acting “unlawfully”? Or if the police arrest you for domestic battery based on the word of your significant other, but you think you’re not guilty because your SO hit your first, do you get to resist arrest?
Suppose Mr. Currie, knowing full well they were police, opened fire on them after they announced themselves and entered? Could he be arrested and charged for that? Or if, instead of a gun, he started punching a police officer? Is that OK to you?
Such rhetorical flourishes. “Good little sheep”! “Dehumanize us”! “Downfall as a nation”!!!
Sound. Fury. Signifying …
I really hope he wins, and I hope Currie sues too. Hitting them in the pocket each and every time shit like this happens is the best way to incentivize better training, more selective hiring, and serious disciplinary actions when abuse happens.
Going back to Currie, I so very wish the cops had been wearing lapel cameras.
No. Just no.
Saying you have a right to resist means that you have s right to do it without fear of the cop using force to counteract you.
If your only remedy is after the fact, then it is a meaningless right.
Are you kidding? Watching people like you and Leftie sputter is one of the most entertaining things I can do with my pants on.
That’s part of the fun of the Pit. And a lot of that is watching the desperate attempts to enrage me enough that I don’t respond with snickers.
LHoD isn’t always an contemptible buffoon (you generally are). So on some level, he (and Colibri and Marley23) recognize that what they are posting is worthy of ridicule. We know that from the instant accusations of trolling and foolishness that ensued. They got that uncomfortable sinking feeling that you get when someone steps into a Pit thread and spoils the self-righteous fun. So they attempted a counter-attack with the unanswerable accusations of trolling and racism. The problem is, I don’t care.
I don’t care about being called a racist, because it is too obviously a ploy when no other options look like they are going to work. And I don’t care about being called a troll because
[list=A][li]The non-mods don’t matter. And [*]The mod who did it recognizes what I said earlier - it isn’t trolling to make fun of liberal knee-jerking, at least not yet.[/list]So I am not wasting time. I am entertaining myself, very much at your expense, but that’s what the Pit is for. [/li]
I don’t expect you to recognize this, because as I mentioned, you’re an idiot and not good for much beyond answering the question “what would liberalism sound like if the person propounding it were maliciously stupid”, but (possibly) someone else may.
Or may not, in which case I will continue to make fun of y’all and enjoy myself. It’s the Pit, after all.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - in this case, the sign off means I am trying to pretend I have a higher opinion of your nonsense than I do a baboon’s hemorrhoid.
That’s what they use to say in the 50’s and 60’s too. That didn’t work because the corruption ran too deep, too high. So then people started resisting cops and making sure the atrocities were caught on film. And things changed for the better.
History repeats itself. We are in the 60’s again, whether yall want to face that reality or not. Camera phones and dashboard cams have lifted the veil that has enshrouded police brutality for decades now. If after-the-fact remedies were effective, we wouldn’t be seeing so many of these stories. Nor would we see so many people defending the cops in these stories.
If anyone seriously believes that, I strongly suggest they carry the business card of their bail bondsman in their wallet.
Can you point me to any statutory authority that says you have a right to resist?
You With the Face: You have a right to resist
Morgenstern: And then …
The logical implication in that sequence is “Yes, you have a right to resist, and then …”
I’m pointing out that these propositions cannot follow in sequence.
If you meant to say, “No, you do not have a right to resist. If you resist, the cop can …” then you should have said so.