by LAPD Officer By Sunil Dutta
I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.
It’s not the police, but the people they stop, who can prevent a detention from turning into a tragedy.
A teenager is fatally shot by a police officer; the police are accused of being bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers; riots erupt. This, we are led to believe, is the way of things in America.
It is also a terrible calumny; cops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed. And while they’re unlikely to defend it quite as loudly during a time of national angst like this one, people who work in law enforcement know they are legally vested with the authority to detain suspects — an authority that must sometimes be enforced. Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.
Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority. In the vast majority of such encounters, I was able to peacefully resolve the situation without using force. Cops deploy their training and their intuition creatively, and I wielded every trick in my arsenal, including verbal judo, humor, warnings and ostentatious displays of the lethal (and nonlethal) hardware resting in my duty belt. One time, for instance, my partner and I faced a belligerent man who had doused his car with gallons of gas and was about to create a firebomb at a busy mall filled with holiday shoppers. The potential for serious harm to the bystanders would have justified deadly force. Instead, I distracted him with a hook about his family and loved ones, and he disengaged without hurting anyone. Every day cops show similar restraint and resolve incidents that could easily end up in serious injuries or worse.
Sometimes, though, no amount of persuasion or warnings work on a belligerent person; that’s when cops have to use force, and the results can be tragic. We are still learning what transpired between Officer Darren Wilson and Brown, but in most cases it’s less ambiguous — and officers are rarely at fault. When they use force, they are defending their, or the public’s, safety.
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. If you can do just that much…you won’t ever be hurt by a cop.
Well said! Not just Ferguson, but for all law enforcement officers.
Ugh.
A rebuttal from Reason.com:
“If you have the attitude that you are owed deference and instant obedience by the people around you, and that you are justified in using violence against them if they don’t comply, we already have a problem. That’s especially true if official institutions back you up, which they do.
If you really think that everybody else should “just do what I tell you,” you’re wearing the wrong uniform in the wrong country. And if you really can’t function with some give and take—a few nasty names, a little argument—of the sort that people in all sorts of jobs put up with every damned day, do us all a favor: quit.”
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/19/police-officer-if-you-dont-want-to-get-s?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article
Chris you have morphed into the MASTER OF SPIN AND DIVERSION! Congratulations!!!
You constantly introduce NON EXISTENT CRAP that was never said by anyone here and then defend against it as if they were really our words and our positions. VERY CLEVER, but also totally underhanded and dishonest! Example: “…if you really can’t function with some give and take—a few nasty names, a little argument—of the sort that people in all sorts of jobs put up with every damned day, do us all a favor: quit.” Do you think a skull fracture and a fist pounding is trivial stuff cops just need to put up with for the sake of give and take? Do you really think that battery on an officer is just something that goes with the job? Because that’s what we’re talking about here – what are you talking about? We’re talking about a #@$#%%^ cop sustaining injuries that are classified as a felony battery on a peace officer! NOBODY except for you and that dumb-assed rebuttal is talking about cops who can’t handle a little antagonizing. That’s just pure made up #@#$%^& and you know it!
Jack: “NOBODY except for you and that dumb-assed rebuttal is talking about cops who can’t handle a little antagonizing. That’s just pure made up #@#$%^& and you know it!”
Jack, calm down and re-read the article you posted.
Here is what the officer in question said:
“if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me…If you can do just that much…you won’t ever be hurt by a cop.”
And here is the title:
“I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.”
It’s impossible to believe that you didn’t see this, because you quoted it twice, and the second time you even put it in bold.
It is ridiculous for you to now accuse me of making things up, and to claim that “nobody” but me and the editor of Reason Magazine (a conservative site) is “talking about a little antagonizing.”
The majority of the bolded portion you quoted is about verbal antagonization, not physical violence. Nowhere in the portion of the article you quoted says anything about a skull fracture or battery against an officer. (And those injuries have been disputed in the Brown case.) So in actuality, you are the one talking about something that is never mentioned in the article.
Datta is clearly referring to the Brown case, but he is also making a more general point about challenging police authority in general. And he clearly does say that if you don’t want an officer to hurt you, you should not even verbally challenging an officer.
Your denial of this is positively alarming. Are you OK?
Apologies for the multiple grammar fails in the above comment.
Chris continues his reign as “Bloviator of the Week.”
Unfortunately a large number of our citizens from the sixties generation on, have never fully grown up.
An adolescent thinks he’s the smartest person that ever lived and thinks nobody has the authority to tell him what to do or not do. He’s a special case and the rules don’t apply.
This attitude, and believe me it’s all attitude, is exactly what gets people into situations that end badly with the police.
We do not have the right to verbally (or physically) abuse a police officer as he is attempting to do his job. Too many of us lack the personal discipline to know better and stupidly cross that line.
I cannot believe the prevailing thought is that defiance of the people we PAY to be in authority is considered smart and savvy.
In the article posted by Jack the officer described the things that people say to him on a regular basis…they came from his experience not his imagination. Its likely a number of them are guilty of bad crimes, drunk, or on drugs…and still adolescents defend this behavior.
The paragraph from Reason assumes the trained officer lacks authority and is the instigator of trouble when almost always the untrained, rebellious civilian with attitude is the driver of trouble.
I submit the main cause of this is that our kids are no longer taught to respect authority figures. In fact they are encouraged to defy authority, to challenge authority, to have contempt for authority and to hate authority figures.
Read the Reason paragraph again:
This mental midget has forgotten that civilian police officers are GIVEN authority by the people. They are trained professionals. Almost always theirs is not attitude but professional presence.
And of course “the institution” backs them up! What is wrong with that? Would it be smarter to spend the money to train these guys, throw them out into the criminal night and then refuse to back them up?
What the hell is wrong with people? (Reason is not conservative by the way)
That does not mean officers are above the law. There are ways the “institution” deals with officers who don’t comport themselves properly.
Officers are owed cooperation. Only the guilty, or adolescent, refuse. Unfortunately…we train our kids to become perpetual adolescents.
Interesting that our teacher in residence doesn’t get the simple point made by the officer….
Teachers in the classroom often suffer the same treatment and for the very same reason. See here and here.
Abuse by an officer should be reported and investigated. But it is always smart and in your own best interests to do what a police officer asks you to do and cooperate with him/her fully.
Simple logic…common sense…and good manners.
Tina,
No one has said that defying police officers or verbally accosting them is a “smart and savvy thing to do.”
No one has defended this behavior.
I can’t wait for Jack to accuse you of “introducing non-existent crap that was never said by anyone here,” but of course he won’t.
What I, the editor of Reason (which is a free-market, right-leaning libertarian blog, not officially “conservative”) and many other critics of this piece are taking issue with is not Datta’s suggestion that people shouldn’t verbally antagonize cops.
What we are taking issue with is Datta’s suggestion that police violence is a legitimate response to citizens verbally antagonizing cops.
Before anyone tries to claim that Datta did not say that, he says it right here:
“Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.”
This is wrong. Simply talking back to a cop, or even calling them names, is not legal justification for a police officer to shoot you, taze you, pepper spray you, beat you with a baton, or throw you to the ground. For a police officer to say that this is proper justification is irresponsible and unprofessional, and should make everyone–especially other cops, Jack–question his judgment.
I apologize for coming across as condescending or a know-it-all. But I don’t know how you expect me to react when both of you routinely deny things that are in black and white, intentionally misrepresent the arguments of both your opponents and allies, and then accuse me of making things up for accurately describing an argument in a way that you find inconvenient. I don’t know why you expect me to treat such behavior as intellectually honest, let alone as an acceptable way for adults to behave.
Chris: “Datta’s suggestion that police violence is a legitimate response to citizens verbally antagonizing cops.”
The man did not say that Chris. He did not suggest a “legitimate” response at all.
He is saying it is STUPID to challenge a police officer. He is saying the civilian has complete control of the situation. That is the truth.
Things can easily get out of hand, especially with in situations with a lot of agitated people around. ANYBODY, even a trained officer, can be pushed beyond his ability to stay completely in control of a situation. It is stupid to take the risk to challenge and taunt even if that risk is slight, but downright dangerous in a volatile situation…besides it is the responsibility of every citizen to do so to keep order and prevent loss of life.
“No one has defended this behavior”
Not only has this behavior been “defended” it has been encouraged for decades. (Readers bored with long responses need not continue)
National Review
Bretbart: “‘Here Piggy!’ Occupiers Taunt NYC Cops With Doughnut On String”
Anaheim Blog:
TownHall:
CBS News:
Berkley in the 60’s:
Inflamatory, contemptuous poster indicative of the “new attitude” toward cops since the sixties radicals on campus made all authority figures the enemy and rebellion a clarion call for hip and savvy “youth”.
The Kent State Shootings marked a tipping point. More here and
National Review:
The message is subtle today but the resistance to (And hatred of) America, to the man (cops), to American values, ideals, and tradition are just as serious and just as destructive. Defiance of authority is most certainly encouraged by Eric Holder inserting himself and taking sides.
“This is wrong.”
You tell us then, in your infinite wisdom and worldly experience, what you expect an officer to do when the is charged, cussed at, threatened, charged, and his training..the things he is trained to do in these situations… is challenged?
YOU expect NOTHING of the citizens…nothing!
We cannot have a civilized nation if the people are not expected to obey our laws and cooperate with the men and women we PAY to do this job. Your lack of respect and understanding on this shows that you are a product of the radical sixties thinking…and not yet an adult.
“Simply talking back to a cop, or even calling them names, is not legal justification for a police officer to shoot you”
Now who is being ridiculous. This is a stupid, stupid statement! Nobody has suggested this…certainly not the officer in this post!
Your use of the word “simply” shows you believe that anyone who taunts or defies the police is an innocent angel, a victim, a poor baby whose just being harassed and hurt by the man!
You won’t understand anything we are doing or saying until you grow up.
Apology considered disingenuous. You think the problem is that you (inadvertently?) acted a bit superior. But the problem is the result of that attitude. It is that in your arrogance you assume you are always right. It is that you set yourself up as the blog cop, jury and judge. It is that you constantly nit-pick our comments and posts yourself while complaining that we do that to Obama. a public figure who’s actions and words affect our lives directly. It is that you find and express more offense in these small things than you do in the major lies and failures of the administration. It is that you hold us to standards you do not follow yourself and certainly don’t expect of the left generally. It is that even when you are acknowledged you continue to pile on. it is that you are a bit of a bully…and it is extremely off putting in terms of value and enjoyment for those who join us here.
Clear enough?
Me: “What we are taking issue with is Datta’s suggestion that police violence is a legitimate response to citizens verbally antagonizing cops.”
Tina: “The man did not say that Chris.”
Oh for f***’s sake.
This has gotten completely surreal. Are you and Jack Lewis Carrol characters? Do you live in an alternate reality where English words have completely different meanings? Or can your reading comprehension skills actually be that terrible?
Read this portion one more time:
“if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.”
Yes, this officer is clearly saying that police violence is a legitimate and reasonable response to verbal antagonization. He is saying that if you do not want to be subject to police violence, then don’t verbally antagonize a cop. Do I have to break this sentence down for you like a child?
You are so mind-poisoned by partisanship that you literally can’t see things that contradict your narrative. You immediately sympathized with this officer, so anything bad he might have said is rendered invisible! Like magic!
Me: “Simply talking back to a cop, or even calling them names, is not legal justification for a police officer to shoot you”
Tina: “Now who is being ridiculous. This is a stupid, stupid statement! Nobody has suggested this…certainly not the officer in this post!”
Read. It. AGAIN.
Ken White from Popehat apparently took the same meaning from Datta’s statement, confirming that the guy from Reason and I are not hallucinating:
“Would we accept “if you don’t want to get shot, just do what the EPA regulator tells you”? Would we yield to “if you don’t want your kid tased, do what the Deputy Superintendent of Education tells you”? Would we accept “if you don’t want to get tear gassed, just do what your Congressman tells you?” No. Our culture of individualism and liberty would not permit it. Yet somehow, through generations of law-and-order rhetoric and near-deification of law enforcement, we have convinced ourselves that cops are different, and that it is perfectly acceptable for them to be able to order us about, at their discretion, on pain of violence.
It’s not acceptable. It is servile and grotesque.”
http://www.popehat.com/2014/08/19/sunil-dutta-tells-it-like-it-is-about-american-policing/
I’d like to see this point addressed. Jack and Tina, you are constantly railing against the “authoritarians” of our government telling us what to do, how to live our lives, etc. You don’t accept their authority blindly; you instead fight what you see as government overreach into your lives, and warn others of the dangers posed by big government.
What I can never figure out is why, then, you show such blind deference to the enforcers of government power. You’re convinced that the government is corrupt and abusive to liberty, but you’re equally convinced that the actual guys with guns are paragons of virtue who should always be listened to without question. How do you reconcile those two contradictory positions? Do you reconcile them at all?
Chris you want to know what the real problem is, no you probably don’t, but I’ll tell you anyway! It’s absolutely not the cops. Do the math. 80% of homicides are African Americans killed by other African-Americans. A certain percentage of the remainder are killed by other minorities, a certain number by whites, and a certain number by police. And a certain number of the total will be deemed unjustifiable, but how many? 1 or 2 a year, or is it 10 or 20 or more? Tell us Chris…tell us how many black males are shot by police that were deemed unwarranted or illegal shootings and of that total how many were black officers doing the shooting?
YOU DON’T KNOW, BUT YOU ARE SURE QUICK TO PAINT WITH A BROAD BRUSH AND CONDEMN A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE. That’s pretty sad, but it’s so telling of a typical prejudiced liberal mindset going off, making wild accusation without knowing the real facts.
Let me help you out with this one: There were on average 96 cases of a white police officer killing a black felony suspect each year between 2006 and 2012. This figure is based on justifiable homicides reported to the FBI by local police. I know of only ((((((((((((( 1 )))))))))))))) case, in Oakland, where a BART officer accidentally discharged his weapon and killed the person being arrested. He meant to use his taser against a combative black male, it was not race based, it was not deliberate and he was convicted…so what?! I’ll even go so far as to say, there may be one or two more, but this is NOT anywhere close to the kind of picture you and other know-nothing liberals want to paint! COPS AREN’T THE PROBLEM, CRIMINALS ARE – GET IT?
Apparently one Ferguson cop took Datta’s suggestion to heart:
“Most of us are capable of interacting with other human beings without threatening to murder them, but most of us are also not cops deployed in Ferguson, Mo. On Tuesday, citizen journalist Rebelutionary_Z and compatriots were confronted by this John McClane wannabe, who pointed a loaded rifle in their faces and told them “I will fucking kill you.”
When asked for his name, he identified himself as “Go Fuck Yourself.”
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/ferguson-cop-threatens-fcking-kill-journalists-says-name-go-fck/#P01ORATF6eUCMS2V.99
The officer has since been suspended, which of course is totally unfair. By the logic of this blog post, if the protester didn’t want the officer to point a gun in his face and threaten to kill him, he shouldn’t have “challenged” him.
Chris, Video of the incident shows the officer threatening, “I will f—ing kill you.” Police commanders “strongly feel these actions are inappropriate” and further information was pending an investigation by St. Ann police, one of numerous agencies that have sent officers to help with crowd control during nightly protests in Ferguson. St. Ann police didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
How long was this cop on the front lines, how many threats had he taken, how many violent encounters did he have to deal with, what was said to him to provoke him so before he finally he mouthed off? You don’t know – neither do I. It’s being looked into. Whatever happens next depends on many things, but remember these are human beings, even though most people could not do a cops job for 2 days let alone make a career out of it.
Chris: “Yes, this officer is clearly saying that police violence is a legitimate and reasonable response to verbal antagonization.”
WRONG! And if you were not such an adlescent thinker you would know it. You are however supposed to be educated at least to some degree in the language. so let me ask you this way…what does the word “if” at the beginning of the officers statement suggest to you? Does it signal a declarative statement?
Do you give a $#!* what people are attempting to communicate or are you too wrapped up in your arrogant adolescent positions?
The officer is offering good advice to people, many of whom have probably never been taught the correct response to an official hired by the community. Cooperation IS the correct response. Had Mr. Brown simply done what the officer asked him to do he would be alive today…why is that difficult to understand?
Why do our efforts to explain this to you result in more insults: “Do I have to break this sentence down for you like a child?”
More insult: “You are so mind-poisoned by partisanship …”
What the heck does political persuasion have to do with common sense and civic responsibility?
I don’t have to read it again, Chris but I suggest you read it. If you still don’t get it perhaps you should arrange for a ride along sometime in a city like Stockton…you are dangerously ignorant.
Or let me just ask again…what do you think an officer should do when belligerent, drunk, drugged, out of control people treat officers as described: “don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me”
How do you handle a situation that has already escalated and is threatening…how do you defend yourself and possibly others when someone is acting like a wild man and will not do what you ask?
Come on smart guy…give us the scoop.
Ken White, and you, are mixing apples and oranges. If an EPA official were confronted with a person threatening to throw battery acid in his face while he was inspecting a garage I wouldn’t expect him to shrink and apologize to the arrogant out of control citizen. I would expect him to call an armed cop!
“What I can never figure out is why, then, you show such blind deference to the enforcers of government power.”
It isn’t blind deference. It is the expectation that citizens behave sensibly and with common sense rather than rebelliously and disrespectfully. It is with the knowledge that at least 95% of police shootings are justified. It is with the knowledge that a lot of young people have been taught to hate cops and treat them in a manner that could get them, and others, killed…stupid! It is also within a context, twice now, when the circumstances have been hyped and the person holding the gun is automatically deemed in the wrong and racist. Before the evidence is in, before the facts are known the black community in this town is being encouraged by high federal officials and left wing activists to riot and loot…they are being told they are justified.
If you want to be concerned about something you should be concerned about that. there is no justice or truth in that.
We have a system for handling our grievances in this country. They include an expectation of civility and morality. Only the radical left activists consider violence and disobedience an acceptable remedy for grievances and practice such on a regular basis.
You don’t know enough about your heritage as an American to see that this is the Marxist, Leninist, Che revolutionary thugs way to get things done…to created chaos, division, and disorder.
Chris you make me ill.
“Rebelutionary_Z and compatriots”
Perfect! They were not out looking for trouble…inviting chaos and division. They weren’t purposely engaging in provocative language and badgering….nope they were innocent bystanders.
We know what the press is reporting. We do not know what happened.
“The officer has since been suspended, which of course is totally unfair. By the logic of this blog post, if the protester didn’t want the officer to point a gun in his face and threaten to kill him, he shouldn’t have “challenged” him.”
If the report is accurate, and even if it isn’t, the officer should be removed and investigated…surprise, he was.
That doesn’t change the fact that it is reprehensible for people to disrespect and taunt the police, trash neighborhoods, burn down businesses, and riot.
The citizens of Ferguson and their police force endured professional activist out of town rioters who had no business being there stirring up trouble, looting and setting fires, and acting like animals.
You who defend them have some work to do on what it means to be a citizen in a free republic.
It’s also telling that suddenly the big government control people invoke the individual and freedom.
You lefties have no core principles…no ground of being in American values! Everything is activism and revolution and everything is used as a means of establishing single party control and absolute federal control. The powers that be, Holder and Obama, don’t give a fig for the black kid…they use him to stir up animosity in the black community…and you are their willing dupe.
I need a break….this is making me ill
Me too Tina… some people are way too thick headed to get it, no matter how hard we try. -Jack
Tina: “WRONG! And if you were not such an adlescent thinker you would know it. You are however supposed to be educated at least to some degree in the language. so let me ask you this way…what does the word “if” at the beginning of the officers statement suggest to you? Does it signal a declarative statement?”
You want to get into how if/then statements work?
Fine. Let’s look at it again:
“if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.”
What this implies is that if you do NOT “just do what he tells you,” then you may get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground. And that this is an acceptable response. THAT’S WHAT THAT SENTENCE MEANS.
I can’t believe you are trying to argue sentence composition with an English teacher.
“What the heck does political persuasion have to do with common sense and civic responsibility?”
It’s not about political persuasion, it’s about extreme partisanship. You and Jack have the most amazing selective reading abilities I have ever seen. Jack speculated that Obama’s reference to ISIL (which is what the UN calls ISIS) might be evidence that he supports the spread of sharia, but this guy’s clear statement that verbal antagonization warrants physical aggression goes unrecognized by both of you. You constantly take the least charitable interpretation of your opponents’ words, to the point of inventing things they never said, while at the same time denying anything bad about what your allies say. So Mitt Romney never said 47% of Americans lack personal responsibility, even though he did, AND Obama never called the people responsible for James Foley’s beheading terrorists, even though he did.
“Or let me just ask again…what do you think an officer should do when belligerent, drunk, drugged, out of control people treat officers as described: “don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me”
I would expect the officer to handle that the same way the rest of us do. Shooting, tazing, or beating would not be an acceptable response by any other person in this situation.
Tina: “Ken White, and you, are mixing apples and oranges. If an EPA official were confronted with a person threatening to throw battery acid in his face while he was inspecting a garage I wouldn’t expect him to shrink and apologize to the arrogant out of control citizen. I would expect him to call an armed cop!”
Do you even know what comparing apples and oranges means? Clearly you don’t, because that’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re comparing threats of violence to mere verbal antagonization! Of course I would expect anyone to defend themselves against a threat like this. But other than the vague “don’t walk toward me aggressively,” everything on Datta’s List of things not to do if you don’t want to get shot is verbal attacks, not threats of physical violence.
“Before the evidence is in, before the facts are known the black community in this town is being encouraged by high federal officials and left wing activists to riot and loot…they are being told they are justified.”
Please quote the federal officials who have said that the looting is justified. Use their exact words. Or is this another situation where someone’s exact words don’t matter, only your feelings or what you imagine them saying?
Chris: “I can’t believe you are trying to argue sentence composition with an English teacher.”
If the English teacher has a communication problem its imperative!
You don’t seem to understand that the officer was giving instruction to the public. VALUABLE INSTRUCTION!
He did not say, “I will shoot you if you don’t do as I say.” That would be a declarative sentence signalling an intent to do harm.
The officer is almost pleading, you insensitive ignorant fool!
“…this guy’s clear statement that verbal antagonization warrants physical aggression goes unrecognized by both of you.”
Jack is an ex-police officer…I can;t believe you are arguing with a professional…sound familiar?
The point is communication. What was the officer trying to communicate? Your rebellious, victim mentality has you stuck so you can’t even hear what is GOOD ADVICE FROM A PROFESSIONAL!
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS!
“I would expect the officer to handle that the same way the rest of us do.”
So, accepting for the moment that you are faced with Officer Wilson’s version of events in Ferguson, you have been overpowered by a very large menacing figure and smashed in the face, he has attempted to gain control of your weapon, he retreats but YOUR JOB is to take him into custody because he has broken the law, you point your weapon and yell freeze and this hulking figure begins to charge you, taunting you to shoot and you would stand there and call a time out?
You are a freaking moron with zero sense of reality!
I am so tired of the ignorance, the absolute absence of common sense, the sense of absolute entitlement to do whatever you want in all situations without consequence, and the twin attitude that the other guy is always responsible!
You have not been educated at all. You have been badly damaged.
“everything on Datta’s List of things not to do if you don’t want to get shot is verbal attacks, not threats of physical violence.”
Taken in the context of riots and escalating trouble! Taken in the context of an investigation of some sort! Probable cause…suspicious behavior.
What the hell makes you think that ANYONE should talk to anyone in that manner much less a cop in a potentially escalating and difficult circumstance
What does it tell our young people when the Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, et all (And you… a teacher) excuse and encourage this behavior by turning the focus to police violence.
For God’s sake Chris. Black on black murder is horrific in Chicago but that ain’t news. It ain’t news because it cannot be exploited.
This is sick….profoundly sick.
“Please quote the federal officials who have said that the looting is justified”
Naive child. Signals are everywhere. Attitudes are everywhere. appeals to emotion…especially rage, are everywhere. Your own attitude is that it is justified as evidenced by your adolescent posturing regarding police officers.
Eric Holder signalled immediately he would open a DOJ probe focussing on civil rights violations in Ferguson. The message…you are justified! You have a right to be angry, to loot, and to riot. America does not treat you right. He did this before the facts of the case were known. A total failure of his office. Irresponsible leadership at its highest!
Shall we talk of lighting a fire in a theater filled with gasoline? In his article in USA Today Jesse Jackson articulated the victims excuses:
Jesse Jackson: “Many are observing Ferguson and witnessing the anger, demonstrations, looting and vandalism and calling for quiet. But quiet isn’t enough. The absence of noise isn’t the presence of justice — and we must demand justice in Ferguson and the other “Fergusons” around America.“
“[H]ow many times was he shot?” “And where was he shot? And why was he lying in the street for several hours? That was kind of a state execution.”
Jackson called for the looting to stop and then provided all of the excuse for looting and rioting when he said the situation was a result of not enough “community development,” “inadequate investment in infrastructure,” “outdated public transportation,” and denial of capital investment for entrepreneurs.”
The question is when will the race batiers and poverty pimps, including the redistribution king in the White House demand civility and personal responsibility?
When will they ask that these citizens respect the rights and property of others?
Since Obama was elected incidents of black on black and black on white crime have been dramatic. Attitudes of the young people in the mob attacks is a direct reflection of what the adults are saying and signaling. Refusal to sentence Shabazz fin the civil rights case was a signal that in America under Obama blacks need not concern themselves with laws.
Don’t talk to me about exact words and imaginings. You support the party of utopia that uses activism, including threats of violence and extortion…not to mention bullying and harassment, to further causes.
Poverty is no excuse for bad behavior. The black community is suffering a crisis of morality and behavior as well as a crisis of violene. Police officers are not the core problem. Liberals refuse to acknowledge the problem. they refuse to see their failed approach causes this so they look for an excuse. They look for an excuse because they never take responsibility…never!
Personal responsibility is the key in ALL of these problems!
Liberal policies, attitudes, and approaches have not worked to improve things…they have harmed and undermined the black family and community. Rebellion and “revolution activism” has destroyed the values in the black community that any people need to succeed in life. Liberals have led this group toward incivility and ignorance! It’s time the American people called you out!
Going back further the President sayong if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin.
Rush was just talking about morality today as opposed to morality in Websters day. Which led to urban dictionary listings for morality:
morality:
This explains a lot.
Here’s Websters, 1828
“He did not say, “I will shoot you if you don’t do as I say.” That would be a declarative sentence signalling an intent to do harm.”
You are right. That would have been a declarative sentence. What Datta actually said was a series of imperative sentences, since they contained commands:
“If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.”
“Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names…If you can do just that much…you won’t ever be hurt by a cop.”
In addition to being imperative sentences, some of them are also first conditional sentences (as signaled by the “If/then” construction), much like these two:
If we want to succeed, we have to try harder.
If you are to get your pocket money, you must start behaving yourself.
These are different from most conditional statements because the condition is not sufficient for the consequence to occur, but it is necessary for the consequence to occur. In the last example, getting your pocket money is not guaranteed for behaving yourself; but it is one possible, logical consequence of good behavior. Conversely, a logical consequence of not behaving oneself is not getting ones’ pocket money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_conditional_sentences#First_conditional
Similarly, in Datta’s statements, getting shot/tased/pepper sprayed/hit with a baton/getting thrown to the ground is not a guaranteed result of talking back to a cop. But it is a possible, logical consequence of the condition. “If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me” stops short of guaranteeing police violence in retaliation for verbal antagonization…but it does put forth police violence as a possible consequence of such behavior.
So I stand by my original statement that Datta is saying that physical violence by the police is a legitimate response to verbal antagonization, and I think the English language backs me up on that (as well as the many, many critics of his piece on both the left and right).
“The point is communication. What was the officer trying to communicate?”
If he was not trying to communicate that “hurting” a civilian was an appropriate response to verbal antagonization, then the communication problem lies with him, not me or the many others who interpreted his statement this way. Perhaps this is not what he meant. But it’s what he said. The fact that he is a college professor who felt confident enough to publish this in the Washington Post indicates to me that he meant exactly what he said.
“So, accepting for the moment that you are faced with Officer Wilson’s version of events in Ferguson, you have been overpowered by a very large menacing figure and smashed in the face, he has attempted to gain control of your weapon, he retreats but YOUR JOB is to take him into custody because he has broken the law, you point your weapon and yell freeze and this hulking figure begins to charge you, taunting you to shoot and you would stand there and call a time out?”
Of course not. You are talking about threats of physical violence. That is not what Datta was talking about in the portions I quoted.
“What the hell makes you think that ANYONE should talk to anyone in that manner much less a cop in a potentially escalating and difficult circumstance?”
Of course, I never said that anyone should talk to anyone in that manner. I also believe that the consequences Datta suggests are out of proportion to the offenses described. There is no contradiction.
There are a lot of things I believe people shouldn’t do, that I don’t also think they should be arrested, tazed, or shot for. Can you understand how I can be against both cussing out a cop AND against the cop using physical violence to stop a cop-cusser at the same time?
I don’t allow gum-chewing in my class, but I would never tell my students “If you don’t want an automatic suspension and an F in my class, don’t chew gum.” The implied possible consequences would be out of proportion to the infraction.
“What does it tell our young people when the Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, et all (And you… a teacher) excuse and encourage this behavior by turning the focus to police violence.”
No one’s excusing or encouraging anything. The focus has turned to police violence because the police have acted violently. I’m not even talking about the Brown case–I actually agree with you that the protesters are jumping to conclusions, and to me the evidence leans toward the shooting being justified. But the police response in the aftermath has been ridiculous. Arresting journalists, tear gassing protesters who were already dispersing, and now a cop pointing his gun and making a death threat to someone on camera (I don’t care how bad a day he was having–Cop 101 says you NEVER point a gun unless you think you will have to use it) all show a police department that has become tyrannical and abusive, regardless of whether what happened to Brown was an example of that.
“Naive child. Signals are everywhere. Attitudes are everywhere.”
So you can’t name a federal official who has said the looting is justified, even though you just accused a bunch of them of saying that. OK.
“Jackson called for the looting to stop”
Thank you for disproving your own point for me; it’s a time-saver.
“and then provided all of the excuse for looting and rioting when he said the situation was a result of not enough “community development,” “inadequate investment in infrastructure,” “outdated public transportation,” and denial of capital investment for entrepreneurs.””
Well, he’s right. Those aren’t excuses, that’s just what happens in poor communities, and that’s been true since the beginning of time. Any effort to address crime without also addressing poverty is due to fail.
“The question is when will the race batiers and poverty pimps, including the redistribution king in the White House demand civility and personal responsibility? When will they ask that these citizens respect the rights and property of others?”
They already have:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/12/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKBN0GA0Q420140812
“Since Obama was elected incidents of black on black and black on white crime have been dramatic.”
Do you have evidence that these rates have increased? And are you blaming Obama for that?
“Refusal to sentence Shabazz fin the civil rights case was a signal that in America under Obama blacks need not concern themselves with laws.”
Unless you believe that the same refusal to sentence under Bush (his admin wanted an injunction; the Obama admin got one–where exactly is the difference?) was a sign that under Bush “blacks need not concern themselves with laws,” then you are engaging in a racial double standard.
“Poverty is no excuse for bad behavior.”
It’s not an excuse, it’s just what happens.
Chris: “but it does put forth police violence as a possible consequence of such behavior.
So I stand by my original statement that Datta is saying that physical violence by the police is a legitimate response”
It is not only a legitimate response, it is a sanctioned response depending on the actions of the person in question. If the person in question continues to accelerate his defiance and acts in an erratic or threatening way the officer must use the tools he’s been given to contain the situation or defend his own life and possibly the lives of others. WE pay them to get this training and do this job.
Hurting a civilian (My God how you suppose innocence and angelic behavior!) unfortunately becomes necessary when a civilian is out of control. Why is this so hard to get? Officers will do what they can to avoid hurting people but good Lord! If someone has bashed you in the head then you have to assume when he charges you like a bull that he may intend to kill you. (As some civilians have been killed by the knock out “game”)
“… he meant exactly what he said.”
But what he said is not what you got because of your prejudice and ignorance of criminal/thug attitudes. That is the point of this entire conversation…YOU DON’T GET IT! You keep trying to make his words a threat when they are meant as street wise and smart advice. Chris Rock gets it.
“You are talking about threats of physical violence. That is not what Datta was talking about in the portions I quoted.”
That is exactly what DATA was talking about. Attitudes that can escalate a situation and end very badly. What is your resistance to a simple command, “You boys need to get on the sidewalk/” Paraphrasing that is the oppressive command the officer gave brown. Browns attitude and response drove the results that followed. The officer was met with violence for a simple, legal, request.
“Can you understand how I can be against both cussing out a cop AND against the cop using physical violence to stop a cop-cusser at the same time?”
I can. I share the view that police should not use excessive force or violence that isn’t warranted. But the adults should not excuses Browns behavior and prejudge the officer because they think defiance is justified and it can get them killed. Adults in Ferguson were stupid to say the cop was wrong in a situation like this because kids don’t always understand the reason to respect police authority. Adults are irresponsibly teaching them that they have a right to act like hoodlums and the cops aren’t supposed to do anything about it.
“The focus has turned to police violence because the police have acted violently.”
No Chris. Politics is what drove the conversation. It is useful to turn this crisis into a we/they situation where blacks are victims. The “gentle giant” narrative was cooked up by lawyers just like the “white Hispanic” was.
“But the police response in the aftermath has been ridiculous.”
And they are the only ones with a very difficult job to do and very little cooperation. The circus created by activists is what is ridiculous. Looting and burning, possibly by imported activists, is what is ridiculous.
“So you can’t name a federal official who has said the looting is justified ”
My point is the circus sends that message…don’t tell me you can’t get that. Kids don’t need much encouragement to cop an attitude and it would appear that way to many of them have never been taught anything BUT attitude. MLK did not address situations like Jackson and Sharpton do…they preach the victim mentality and that justifies bad behavior.
“Well, he’s right”
No Chris, he is NOT right. Our nation has invested trillions of dollars and the morals and attitudes are not improved nor are the conditions. As you have pointed out so many times it is stupid to continue doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
“that’s just what happens in poor communities, and that’s been true since the beginning of time”
No sir! the black community in the thirties, forties and fifties was poor but it was not as dysfunctional and torn apart as it is now.
Walter Williams:
Creating a nation of victims requires victimizers to blame. A victim will justify their behavior when they believe they aren’t responsible for their actions.
Good read!
The Fairytale of the Victimhood:
“I recently read an article entitled “What Black Parents Tell Their Sons About the Police” and I began to ponder the downward spiral in race relations over the past five years. According to the author Jazmine Hughes:
“Such is the burden of black parenting. Being a black parent, especially of a black boy, comes with the added onus of having to protect your child from a country that is out to get him — a country that kills someone that looks like him every 28 hours, a country that will likely imprison him by his mid-thirties if he doesn’t get his high school diploma, a country that is more than twice as likely to suspend him from school than a white classmate. “
By the way, this author does not have any Black sons, or any children at all, but she promises that she will and when that momentous birth occurs, she will raise them in fear of the cops. She somehow believes that it is inevitable that failure will visit the Black boy or man and these events are beyond his/her control. She is certain of the inevitable “victimhood” of Black people — especially Black men. It is beyond their control to graduate from high school and not engage in activities that will encourage suspension from school, arrest, or incarceration.
This point of view is bolstered by journalists who write things such as “80 percent of the traffic violations in this town are waged against Black people” while neglecting to tell you that 90 percent of the town’s population is Black. Or when they report that “2/3 of all suspensions are of Black children” while neglecting to mention that the school might be 78 percent black and 22 percent Hispanic. The reality is that in many of the inner city public schools, there are little to no white children to suspend.
There is no mention of personal responsibility, familial responsibility or objectivity. Such is the culture of victim-hood.”
Continued.. http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/the_fairytale_of_the_victimhood.html#ixzz3BbrDTrhP
Peggy I searched then words, ““What Black Parents Tell Their Sons About the Police” and Jazmines article came up on Gawker.
I was tempted to post an article about it but I frankly don’t have the stomach for it. Whatever discussion we might have on this can remain here.
I can’t express the plethora of emotions going on with me about this. All of the work America has done since the sixties has been thrown in the toilet. It isn’t difficult to see how this came about if we pull the individual threads from the fabric.
Militant college professors and activist make up one thread…they have taught the mindset of victimhood and resentment to the young. Instead of building on the opportunity that affirmative action afforded black students they exploited the situation to push their anti-American, anti-white, redistribution, Marxist ideology.
Separatist studies, likewise on campus, only served to create a sense o division, resentment and entitlement. We are not Americans anymore we are hyphenated Americans focused on grievances rather than what it takes to succeed.
Another thread is the militant activists, also Marx inspired, including but not limited to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They made a cottage industry (ACORN, Rainbow Coalition) of the black man as victim. It was a means to wealth and prominence for them and it has harmed rather than helped blacks to integrate and meld into the American melting pot.
The sea change introduction of rap music, particularly gansta rap,embraced, promoted, and made legitimate by main stream media is another thread. Music from the black community prior to the introduction of this genre, was positive and uplifting. Barry Gordy created a bridge between back and white with the music he produced out of Mowtown Records. The musicians he hired, mostly black, were dedicated to the music and it attracted an entire generation that had stepped forward to end racism! If you love or are curious about the music do yourself a favor and check out a clip from the event and DVD The Funk Brothers. See here
Pull another thread to find the militant, anti-white, anti-semitic Louis Farrakhan whose preaching is a double edged sword. On the one hand he talks about the black man being responsible and disciplined but on the other teaches him prejudice and hate. Remember during the sixties civil rights push how often we were advised that racism has to be taught? Preaching hate to the young in our colleges was his main mission in the late eighties and early nineties.
I imagine there are many more threads in this toxic weave. Drug pushers, union thugs in education, damaging rules in the welfare system, out of wedlock births and abortion among them. If I attempt to look at this from my perspective over about three decades I see that blacks have become victims of those within their own community that have exploited and preyed on their vulnerabilities.
Black people need leaders that can turn all of this negative, hate filled garbage around to put them on a solid footing.
Any person of any color that puts forward a belligerent thuggish demeanor with police officers is going to be met with suspicion and if pushed some level of physical restraint measures to contain the situation. It isn’t color that drives the situation…it is ATTITUDE!
Thanks for sharing Peggy. I wish I could say I am hopeful about the future of race relations. I still believe that most Americans, including police officers, are not racist and would welcome an end to all the the hype and drama of the race baiters and activist. I still believe most Americans want to see everyone succeed…indeed we have certainly spent a lot of money and bent over backwards to give minorities “a shot”. But I think we are growing weary of the constant drum beat of the victim and the constant finger pointing and blame.
Tina: “It is not only a legitimate response, it is a sanctioned response depending on the actions of the person in question.”
I really wish you had said this twenty comments ago–it would have saved us a lot of time. Your original argument was that Datta didn’t say violence was a legitimate response to verbal antagonization. Are you now admitting that he did say this?
You go on to once again conflate threats of violence with things like name-calling cops…you realize that that is not illegal? It isn’t exactly smart, but by law, a cop cannot arrest you simply for calling him names.
Datta’s argument remains unclear, and taken literally, it is a dangerous attitude for an officer to have.
I have not made any excuses for the looting done by random idiots, but you are still making excuses for the excessive force used by trained professionals. I agree with you that the protesters in Ferguson have overreacted, and that citizens should be held more accountable. But I’m still waiting for you to hold the cops more accountable for their crimes.
Oh Tina, I think we are well on our way to improving race relations. I have not seen before so many positive statements said by so many minorities and those who have supported the civil rights movement going all the way back to the 60s. A few that come to mind are those involved in the Frederick Douglas organization, the group of blacks in Chicago, Alveda King, Ben Carson, Jason Riley, Herman Cain, Allen West, Mia Love and many others.
The civil rights movement didn’t happen over night, it took years before individuals got the message and made the necessary changes. I believe we are going through a similar change. It will require time to educate those who believed the lies of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeramiah Wright and the Democrat party, but I see it happening every day and it gives me hope that we will get there within my life time.
Here’s an impressive partial list of black Republican women and other black organizations that have recently come to being or didn’t exist ten years ago.
Famous African-American Women Who Are Republican:
http://www.ranker.com/list/advice-for-students/ellie1
National Black Republican Association:
http://www.nbra.info/
Jason Riley’s book, Please Stop Helping Us:
http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256
I too believe most cops are not racist and would give their life to protect anyone else’s life. Every educated or informed person knows this and also understands what took place in Ferguson was a perfect storm opportunity for the Democrats to continue to promote their racist agenda to increase the divide amongst us. That’s why Obama sent Al Sharpton there to be his liaison and three WH representatives to the funeral and mute on all of the killings daily in Chicago and the black cop who shot and killed the white guy. It doesn’t fit and promote their agenda. But thanks to the new media we can see what’s going on and get to the truth.
Hang in their Tina, you’re doing an awesome job in presenting great articles and opinions to inform and to discuss. Your view may be tainted because of the negative comments constantly coming at you from the liberals who visit PS. I don’t believe they’re in the majority any more and if you could see the world through my eyes I think you’d see why I have the hope for the future I have.
The next major step needed to get the racist promoters shut down is to get them out of the WH, DC and out from in front of every TV camera and looking for a minimum wage job living the life they’ve created for millions of others.
Chris is correct
Dewey, I’m sure Chris will be thrilled to hear YOU think he is correct.
I think Peggy is correct!
Chris you seem to think the name-calling, threats, and other verbally abusive language hurled at officers happen in a bubble as if the guy were just standing on a street corner shouting out epitaphs to nobody in particular. In fact, in the situations we are talking about the officer has already tried a simple request. When the citizen decides he can defy the law (A cop represents the law in this country)and resist it is the cops JOB to contain and control the situation so it doesn’t spiral out of control. If his words are not heeded, if the citizen chooses to accelerate the situation, the officer has no other option than to physically restrain…or protect himself and others depending on how far its taken with force.
You don’t seem to acknowledge that the civilian has a responsibility to his fellow citizens and the law enforcement officer we pay to do this job. You don’t want to admit it is within the civilians power to co-operate and walk away. That just blows me away.
Your position does reflect the contentious approach you take in our discussions though. You seem to have a lot invested in victim-hood and very little in the personal and civic responsibilities of all citizens.
Do you think Michael Brown was ever taught respect for the police? His actions don’t suggest that he was or that he gave a damn about the rights of the store owner. And yet certain members of our society, you included, are quick to jump to the conclusion that the officer was irresponsible!
I think this attitude is pathetic and explains a lot about why this kind of thing happens. these kids don’t have a chance when so many in the community have attitudes like criminals and fail to teach their kids proper respect for the law, for authority and for the rights of others.
“You don’t seem to acknowledge that the civilian has a responsibility to his fellow citizens and the law enforcement officer we pay to do this job. You don’t want to admit it is within the civilians power to co-operate and walk away…And yet certain members of our society, you included, are quick to jump to the conclusion that the officer was irresponsible!”
Absolutely none of this accurately represents what I have said in this discussion. I have repeatedly emphasized that I do believe civilians have a responsibility not to harass cops, and that I don’t know what happened in the Brown case, but I am leaning toward believing the officer’s story (surprise!). I’m not sure how you missed this.