Tasers again (from Occupy DC this time)

[LordRahl]

The hipster douche in pajamas was clearly resisting arrest - case closed. Next time, while under arrest, listen to the officer's instructions and comply - argue your case in front of a judge later. Getting arrested is not the time to argue.

99% of cops are just trying to do their job. I've been pulled over a few times, but have yet to get a ticket. I just treat the cops the way I would like to be treated in their position. It's a dangerous job, and belligerent idiots - like that pajama turd in the video are not making it any easier.

 

[Traitorfish]

There were some disturbances in Oakland, Oregon in the USA.

I know that, what I don't follow is how you got to a repeat of those disturbances from the fact that a man was shouting .

I would say that as a general principle this is the behaviour he should adhere to, else he is not a trustworthy and impartial police officer.

However, I wouldn't say "always" because there may be important exceptions.

So "only following orders" is an acceptable excuse for engaging in immoral behaviour, until it isn't. Would you be able to give us some rough idea of when this 180 occurs, or...?

The hipster douche in pajamas was clearly resisting arrest - case closed.

It's so nice when Objectivists remind us of exactly how passionately in love with the state, lest we mistake them for something approaching a libertarian. I wouldn't do them the disservice of assuming that this is an altruistic act on their part, no sir, but my sincere thanks none the less.

 

[Ayn Rand]

They could have talked to him, calmly explained that he was being arrested/detained and why, then taken him away. It works in Britain, and if it doesn't work; then restrain and cuff him.

Or, you know, just walk up and taze him.

Americans don't seem to understand consensual policing as we practise it in Britain. I get the impression that in the USA, you are simply a subject who has to surrender to police action rather than a citizen and mutual participant.

I know that, what I don't follow is how you got to a repeat of those disturbances from the fact that a man was shouting.

As I said before, it was probably a tactical decision to prevent any incitement to riot or disorder.

So "only following orders" is an acceptable excuse for engaging in immoral behaviour, until it isn't. Would you be able to give us some rough idea of when this 180 occurs, or...?

What you're forgetting is that police officers come from a wide range of backgrounds. Should a muslim police officer allow his religious beliefs to influence his actions, or should he remain objective and practise the law impartially?

Everyone has his own idea of what is moral - that's one of the reasons why we have a common law and a police force.


You might think that tazering pajama-man was very immoral, someone else might have a different opinion. As for where to draw the line, I can't answer that it's too complex.

 

[BSmith1068]

They could have talked to him, calmly explained that he was being arrested/detained and why, then taken him away. It works in Britain, and if it doesn't work; then restrain and cuff him.

It looks to me like they were doing just that. They were trying to talk to him, but he kept walking away and screaming at them. They tried to restrain and cuff him, but he continued to resist. My question to you is what do the police do at this point?

 

[Ajidica]

I watched the video. The guy was not the smartest brick in the wall and should have been more polite, but the police overreacted.
End score?
Hippies: 0
Police: 0

 

[Traitorfish]

As I said before, it was probably a tactical decision to prevent any incitement to riot or disorder.

Why would they have had reason to believe that he was inciting a riot?

What you're forgetting is that police officers come from a wide range of backgrounds. Should a muslim police officer allow his religious beliefs to influence his actions, or should he remain objective and practise the law impartially?

Everyone has his own idea of what is moral - that's one of the reasons why we have a common law and a police force.


You might think that tazering pajama-man was very immoral, someone else might have a different opinion. As for where to draw the line, I can't answer that it's too complex.

I didn't take you for a moral relativist.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Why would they have had reason to believe that he was inciting a riot?

Disorder leads to further disorder - it's called escalation, and certain times and places act as flashpoints where escalation can occur quickly.

I didn't take you for a moral relativist.

I didn't say they were correct in their beliefs.

 

[warpus]

Do you guys have an equivalent to the Independant Police Complaints Commission? It's not perfect, but it's better than letting the Police handle complaints about staff internally.

Also, seriously; tasered for that? I've seen puppies put up more dangerous resistance. Is there a major problem with your cops being overweight and weak?

They don't and they're just lazy. Instead of serving and protecting, they intimidate and taze.

 

[Traitorfish]

Disorder leads to further disorder - it's called escalation, and certain times and places act as flashpoints where escalation can occur quickly.

What reason did they have to thin that this was a "flashpoint"?

I didn't say they were correct in their beliefs.

You don't believe that moral obligations exist whether or not a given individual is concious of them?

 

[Ayn Rand]

What reason did they have to thin that this was a "flashpoint"?

I don't know if they actually thought that, I just suspect that they did. I would imagine that all OWS sites are considered flashpoints that have the potential for public disorder, wouldn't you?

You don't believe that moral obligations exist whether or not a given individual is concious of them?

How does this question follow from my response?

But to answer it, I do think that moral obligations exist - and for a policeman, his primary moral responsibility is to uphold the law and to do so objectively.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know if they actually thought that, I just suspect that they did. I would imagine that all OWS sites are considered flashpoints that have the potential for public disorder, wouldn't you?

I imagine they are, but what is considered to be the case has only limited bearing on what actually is the case. The police are not automatically valid in their analysis any more than the rest of us are, and can be held to account if they are not.

How does this question follow from my response?

You seemed to suggest that morality is not generally applicable, but rather individually specific. That's moral relativism.

But to answer it, I do think that moral obligations exist - and for a policeman, his primary moral responsibility is to uphold the law and to do so objectively.

The police officer has no moral obligations outside of his status as a police officer? The usual law of morality are suspended while he is in duty, and the state acts as the font of morality? Again, that is moral relativism; the state and its agent are not subject same morality as other people, thus negating the possibility of general morality, and are instead subject to a specific, relative morality.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I imagine they are, but what is considered to be the case has only limited bearing on what actually is the case. The police are not automatically valid in their analysis any more than the rest of us are, and can be held to account if they are not.

I agree, although I think their assesment is correct [and usually is], but I assume you don't. Would you care to provide some reasoning if that's the case?

You seemed to suggest that morality is not generally applicable, but rather individually specific. That's moral relativism.

I'm talking about moral beliefs, not morality itself. In any society where people have different moral beliefs, they must come to some sort of agreement if they are going to be able to co-operate. Each may support the agreement [ie the law] out of other motives, such as a sense of pragmatism and tolerance, although they may each continue to believe in their own private morality. That, however does not make morality subjective, it just makes certain beliefs subjective.

The police officer has no moral obligations outside of his status as a police officer? The usual law of morality are suspended while he is in duty, and the state acts as the font of morality? Again, that is moral relativism; the state and its agent are not subject same morality as other people, thus negating the possibility of general morality, and are instead subject to a specific, relative morality.

I said that his primary moral responsibility is to uphold the law. You yourself made a distinction between the law and ethics, meaning that you recognise that the law has a special nature. Part of this nature is that it must balance a wide array of principles, interests and problems in an imperfect manner, and that police officers are not free moral agents when on duty, nor called upon to think and act as such.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree, although I think their assesment is correct [and usually is], but I assume you don't. Would you care to provide some reasoning if that's the case?

Well, put simply, I don't see what danger he opposed. Riots don't begin because one man gets shouty. At the very least, I can't see how a situation so close to violence as to require only a shoutyman to kick things off could be anything other than exacerbated by their actions; even on their own terms, they were acting in an irresponsible manner.

Unless these weren't there terms, and they just wanted to remind the plebeians who's boss. I'm still not sure which one would constitute giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm talking about moral beliefs, not morality itself. In any society where people have different moral beliefs, they must come to some sort of agreement if they are going to be able to co-operate. Each may support the agreement [ie the law] out of other motives, such as a sense of pragmatism and tolerance, although they may each continue to believe in their own private morality. That, however does not make morality subjective, it just makes certain beliefs subjective.

So you would agree that there is a single, general morality, to all which all accountable?

I said that his primary moral responsibility is to uphold the law. You yourself made a distinction between the law and ethics, meaning that you recognise that the law has a special nature. Part of this nature is that it must balance a wide array of principles, interests and problems in an imperfect manner, and that police officers are not free moral agents when on duty, nor called upon to think and act as such.

Well, let's put it simply: does the law supersede morality, or does morality supersede the law? Is "I was just following orders", because we may as well be honest about what has been lurking under the surface of this discussion, a legitimate defence?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Well, put simply, I don't see what danger he opposed. Riots don't begin because one man gets shouty. At the very least, I can't see how a situation so close to violence as to require only a shoutyman to kick things off could be anything other than exacerbated by their actions; even on their own terms, they were acting in an irresponsible manner.

Unless these weren't there terms, and they just wanted to remind the plebeians who's boss. I'm still not sure which one would constitute giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, good arguments - I think those are sufficient grounds to question the police action and gain an explanation from them. However, I do also think that police officers work their tactics by briefing officers beforehand so that they go in with a prepared line of action in response to certain situations. Thus it is somewhat an a priori tactical justification rather than a judgement call on the spot, if that makes any sense. ie they were going to do it the moment anyone kicked off, no matter how pajama-clad.

So you would agree that there is a single, general morality, to all which all accountable?

Except in the theological sense, I don't know what kind of accountability you could be referring to. People within society are held to account by the law.

So I do agree that there is an objective morality. But I know that not everyone agrees on what it is, and that the best compromise we can reach is the law. In the reality of our complex society, we have an obligation to sometimes reign in our sense of righteousness in order not to tread on our fellow man.

Well, let's put it simply: does the law supersede morality, or does morality supersede the law? Is "I was just following orders", because we may as well be honest about what has been lurking under the surface of this discussion, a legitimate defence?

For the most part, the law supersedes morality and has to do so. The defence "I was just following orders" is a form of defence that does possess some legitimacy. It does not justify all actions, but nor can one dismiss it completely. The individual has limited perspective and judgement, and a claim to the superiority of morality can quickly become a claim to omniscience and infallibility.

 

[Aroddo]

land of the free, eh?

i can't wait to see when the 99% finally have enough and riot for real. 400 million guns in private hands, i believe?

 

[Crezth]

They could have talked to him, calmly explained that he was being arrested/detained and why, then taken him away. It works in Britain, and if it doesn't work; then restrain and cuff him.

I really don't understand why American police never do this.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Shooting him in the head would have worked too, if that's the logic you're going with.

Probably would have happened, too, if this had been Iran.

Stop giving Obama Ideas on how to deal with Republicans !

 

[ParkCungHee]

For the record I've seen teachers and SER workers both more physically capable and professional in restraining someone actually resisting, and they were a decade older at least.

 

[CaptainF]

There were some disturbances in Oakland, Oregon in the USA.

I think you meant to say Oakland, California.

This is what Oakland, Oregon looks like:

Spoiler :

Riot City, USA!

 

[holy king]

I really don't understand why American police never do this.

different training.