When, oh when, will people start obeying Law Enforcement commands?? In Muskogee, near Tulsa, Oklahoma, an 84 year old lady got pepper-sprayed because she wouldn't obey a Law Enforcement command. The female officer wouldn't have sprayed her if she would have listened to/obeyed what she was being told. The officer did warn her that she would be sprayed if she didn't obey what she was being told. I firmly believe the female officer was correct in what she done, even if the lady is 84 years old. Don't comply with officer's commands, things can/do get ugly. Now, if these people would just obeyed officer's commands, this story wouldn't have made it to the media, but instead the lady yelled at officers and her son, who was the one they were looking for, cussed at them and had to be tazzered. The ladies son did have a police record, was driving with a suspended license and ran a red light. He wouldn't stop/pull over for officers, but instead drove to his mother's home and ran in. Officers yelled that they were there and to open the door, which nobody inside did and an officer had to bust in the door. If people would just obey Law Enforcement commands, things that happen, wouldn't happen. Like I stated in another Thread, Officers go thru training, but when something is actually "live" happening, Officers have only split-seconds to react.
What would we do for entertainment without incidents such as this, on Cops and Cops Reloaded? I agree, the force was warranted. It really irks me when people do stupid things like this, but we have to keep in mind there are some people who are just contrary and enjoy challenging authority in its many forms. I had a very sweet grandmother and another who was like this woman. I have no doubt the one grandmother (we called grandmother, not something more cutesy, which says a lot) would have done similarly to this woman, and suffered at least the same consequences. When you think that this woman has raised her son with her values, which he will no doubt in turn pass on to his own children, it helps us understand why some families and some communities have more contact with law enforcement than others.
While in practice, I would do just as you suggest, I am bothered by this. While this may have been a reasonable and lawful command, in a free society the police would not be in a command authority over us. Although we have gotten away from the rule of law in recent years, an unlawful order is no order at all. Until recent years, if a police officer commanded you to do something that he did not have the authority to ask of you, there was no obligation on your part to obey. In fact, a Supreme Court ruling found that an unconstitutional law was no law at all, so if we still lived in a constitutional republic, that would carry over to unlawful police commands, as well. The police frequently command people to do, or to stop doing, things that are not lawful commands, and are given solely upon the authority of the guns, the tasers, and other weapons that they are carrying; that and the fact that the citizens of this country have been acclimated to accept that we live in a police state, and often to applaud this.
Like in the military, if an Officer gives an enlisted person a command/order or gives a command/order to a lower ranking Officer, better do it, and not disagree, or it could mean Brig time and/or even discharge. Don't follow what a Judge in court says and see what happens.
Well, that's not the country our Founders gave us, although it is what we have now. Strictly speaking, even in the military, soldiers are supposed to follow only lawful orders, and there are people who are in prison for following unlawful orders. American citizens are not in the military today unless they choose to be there, and the police are not our commanding officers. In fact, they are supposed to be public servants. A few years back, we were collecting signatures to recall three of our seven town councilors. We were on the sidewalk in front of the post office, where it was fully lawful for us to do so, as we were not on post office property, nor were we impeding the sidewalk. After a couple of hours, and within fifteen minutes of one of the town councilors having walked by us, the police chief told us we could not collect signatures there, and that we were going to have to move. I asked him what law we were violating, and he told me that we could not collect signatures on post office property. I pointed out that we were not on post office property. He then said that the postmaster had complained so we would have to move. Knowing that it wasn't the postmaster who had complained, but the town councilor whose name was among the three on the recall petition, I challenged that, telling that I doubted that it was the postmaster who had complained and that, regardless of any complaints, we were within our rights. He then resorted to, "Well, I am telling you that you are going to have to move so you are going to have to move." I suggested he review the laws first, as I had done so. He left. I found out later that he had gone to the town manager's office to ask him what to do, and the town manager told him that there wasn't anything to be done. That, in itself, was a violation of the law because a town manager is not permitted to direct police business. Frequently, in response to a complaint or just because they happened to come upon it, the police will make unlawful demands, such as telling someone that they cannot openly carry a weapon in a state and town that has no laws or ordinances against it. The correct response is to be respectful and polite, but not necessarily to acquiesce the rights that people have fought and died for to the whims of a police officer. Of course, if your rights don't really mean a lot, it is easier to simply go along with whatever it is that they are asking of you as if you were an unpaid solider and he were your commanding officer. Of course, not everything is worth fighting over. When told to do something that I don't believe to be a lawful order, I would ask first, whether it was important to me, and often it's not. In the above case, I knew that the town councilor (not the postmaster) had been the one who made the complaint, and that only because he was one of the councilors being recalled. I knew also that the only reason the police chief decided to act on the complaint was that it was a town councilor who was making it, and he did so only because he assumed that we wouldn't question what he said. It is also significant that the Patriot Act and other unconstitutional laws have greatly enhanced the powers of the police over us, making it a lot harder today for anyone to be able to say, "They can't do that."
I always obey orders, that's the way I am. But in a case like this, they have to use common sense. The lady is 84 yrs old; could be deaf, demented or any number of things where she just doesn't understand. I would be so shocked if police came storming at my door that I'd go into shock.
@Ken Anderson "the fact that the citizens of this country have been acclimated to accept that we live in a police state, and often to applaud this." This is mind-bending in the way reminding me of the old term "brain-washing". Acceptance of becoming "Sheeple". Frank
@Frank Sanoica , I don't think we live in a police state ...far from it. Go to some other country and see how many rights you have. In some...none. Also "sheeple" is so overused....it's in every political post. What do you suggest? Take the law into your own hands? I want the police to come when I call...not Frank.
Well, it's not only in America but also over here, some people are so stubborn as to resist the authorities. In so many cases that are reported daily, some arrests lead to the killing of the suspect who had resisted and even fought the arresting officers. Most common of this is the grabbing of the officer's gun by the suspect, leaving the other officer no other choice but to shoot the suspected criminal. I guess that attitude was borne from the school. Some schools are lax with their students which may be the reason for rearing stubborn students who grow up as brats like that 84-year old woman in the topic. But on second thought, that woman may be acting on instinct to protect her son whom she knows to be a law-breaker.
The guy put his mother in harms way by driving to her home and running in to get away from the officers. The mother had to know that her son had a police record and run-ins with them. The mother was shocked, but that sure wasn't the officer's pursuing this dude fault. When they seen him run into his mothers home and shut the door, these officer's had no idea what was going on inside the house. I still stand firmly with what the female officer and other officers done.
Police often tell a citizen they must produce an I.D. when asked, per Hiibel, not so. Of course Hiibel does not apply when pulled over while driving, as one example.