When will they learn?
It was just a few days ago that I had occasion to drive into a state police road block. It was at a familiar place which typically has had road blocks at other times of the year, Christmas holidays, Independence Day, etc., and strategically held so as to be impossible to detour out of once committed to that direction. The road block on this day was just like all the others, driver’s license check and a check of the vehicle tag. Upon slowing to a stop at the officer’s direction he asked for the license and instructed me to wear my shoulder belt over the shoulder instead of under my arm as I typically do. I find it uncomfortable to wear a shoulder belt at all, but due to the law I make allowances by wearing it under my arm being the least uncomfortable to me. I looked him in the eyes as I turned over my license. He examined it, then returned it to me and said, “Get rid of the attitude or I’ll ticket you for no seat belt.” He then turned and walked away. During the entire encounter I never uttered a thing or made any gesture. Of course, in these types of things it’s better not to say or do a thing as anything done or said can be easily judged to be an escalation of tension and police will simply up the ante. Thinking back on it, I would’ve said something sarcastic like, “You must be that kind of officer that gives police everywhere a bad name.” But he threatened me and I’m the one with a bad attitude.
Actually the State of Georgia code 40-8-76.1 subsection “b” which applies to vehicle safety belts reads as follows.
(b) Each occupant of the front seat of a passenger vehicle shall, while such passenger vehicle is being operated on a public road, street, or highway of this state, be restrained by a seat safety belt approved under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.
There is nothing in the Georgia code about how a safety belt should be worn, simply that occupants “shall be restrained by one”. 49 CFR 571.208 of the FMVS standard simply describes the requirements of seat belts. But again I’m the one with a bad attitude because I’m aware of the law and comply in the way that conforms to it, not the police.
The point here is that the written law, code, etc., means little to nothing. It’s use is only convenient insofar as that written law, code, etc., can be leveraged by those wielding it to accomplish their designs. To police, lawyers, judges, et. al., it is an archaic nuisance otherwise. The familiar police motto “to protect and to serve” is universally misapplied to civilians when it really applies to police themselves. The Thin Blue Line marks the demarcation between the two. Police look out for themselves with a boorish arrogance. Occasionally do the interests of civilians coincide with theirs, seldom as a rule. Police typically carry firearms which means that their already inflated arrogance in carrying an government issued “badge of immunity” is further emboldened by the knowledge that their will can be enforced, no matter how insensibly illegal it may be.
A white police officer who gunned down a fleeing, unarmed black man appeared to plant his service-issue Taser gun at the side of the victim’s lifeless body, according to shocking videotape which emerged in the wake of the senseless killing.
Why the officer chose to open fire from a distance rather than simply giving chase demonstrates the inept judgment of police. A fit 33 year old could overtake a 50 year old in a foot chase, and if the taser didn’t work the first time, simply try anything to detain or let him go and catch up to him later. It was purely raw brutish force to kill a man over a broken tail light. Curiously…
Scott may have tried to run from the officer because he owed child support, which can get someone sent to jail in South Carolina until they pay it back, Stewart said. He had four children, was engaged and had been honorably discharged from the U.S. Coast Guard.
He also said that without the video, and the ‘hero’ who recorded it, there would have been no murder charges. He told TV crews: ‘What happened today doesn’t happen all the time – what if there was no video? What if there was no witness – or hero – to come forward?
‘The initial reports stated something totally different – the officer said Mr Scott attacked him and tried to use his Taser on him. But somebody was watching.’
What if, indeed. That should be the first line of defense against them. Document the facts in any way possible. Pictures, video recordings, audio recordings, specifics and particulars of the people involved should be available. This is not the kind of society to go blithely about the day unaware of surroundings and people. A little paranoia is a good thing. In the future it will eventually come to the point where even the facts don’t matter, as the officers of government will be empowered by the wanton disregard of law by judges themselves. The corruption is already endemic. It won’t be too long before safety and security will be strictly up to the individual in a mob society. Then, when the police, government and judges cooperate, will be the time to understand that the law truly restrains no one and force is all they know.