Sunday, March 29, 2009

A boot-licker tells us how to "cooperate" with the jack-booted thugs

My friend Charlie sent me the following Deseret News article, written by an evident state-worshipper who wants us to bow and scrape before "authority":
Your rights and the police
By Sara Israelsen-Hartley
Deseret News

There's something that makes our hearts race and our pulses quicken when we see a police car in our rear-view mirrors or hear sirens wailing in the distance.

Although they're hired to serve and protect, many of us fear or distrust our local and state law enforcement officers more than we appreciate them.

Maybe we've had a bad experience. Or perhaps it's because we don't fully understand their responsibilities or our rights. The Deseret News wants to make that line a little clearer.
So is she really speaking on half of the Deseret News, not just herself?
Police say you should cooperate during an arrest.
Sure, sure, in the same way that rapists say victims should cooperate. "To make it go easier," you know.
On a level-one stop, it's just the same as if you approached a stranger on the street and asked for the time. The person can either answer or give you a strange look and walk away.

The same thing applies to officers on a level-one stop. If you don't want to talk, you can simply walk away. But that's somewhat rare for people to do, police say.

"Most people are going to say, 'Sure, what can I do for you?'  " said Mike Larsen, director of the Orem Department of Public Safety and past president of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association.
This doesn't even fall under the pigs' so-called "authority" in Utah under section 77-7-15 of the Utah Code, "Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.": "A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions."

Simply asking you a question is something any private individual can do, and you're free to ignore him. However, the nature of pigs being what it is, being the least "uncooperative" (in their perception) will make them suspicious.
For a level-two stop, the officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that you committed or were involved with, say, a car burglary.

As he asks you questions, this becomes an official stop. The officer can also frisk you for dangerous weapons if he reasonably believes he or anyone else may be in danger.
"Reasonably" must mean in the same "reasonable" way Amadou Diallo was gunned down by 41 bullets, or Sean Bell and his two passengers had 50 bullets fired at them.
At this point, you have an obligation to answer questions about your "name, address and an explanation of your actions," according to section 77-7-15 of Utah Code. You cannot just walk away. If you start to walk away, the officer will let you know that you need to stay and answer his basic questions.

If you don't answer, you can be slapped with a class B misdemeanor for failing to disclose your identity.
So much for your "Fifth Amendment right" to refuse to be a witness against yourself.
And even if you disagree, never argue with the officer or talk back. And never, ever, touch an officer.
Of course. Lick the thug's boots upon request, no matter how wrong he is. And every time he strikes you, simply say, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

The problem with state-worshippers' view of government is that they never, ever consider that government might just be wrong. That's the problem with "rule of law" conservatives like Mark Levin, who insist that whatever is "the law" must be followed. As I've said before, ironically their "But it's the law" stance disappears when it comes to gun control and things they don't like.
And just like any other human relationship, a calm, respectful attitude from both parties goes a long way.
Really, who'd have thought? So how about a calm, respectful attitude from the police? Where was their "calm, respectful attitude" when threatening me with arrest, when threatening to detain my mother "all day" for blowing her car horn at a truck blocking the road?

With the stupid tone of the article, "rights" are whatever the pigs and boot-lickers "allow" us to have.
When citizens understand the role of law enforcement and the extent of their personal freedoms, they can calmly comply when appropriately asked and respectfully report potential violations.
That says it all about the writer's belief. Your freedom is limited by whatever the state dictates.

The comments are too numerous for me to go into, but one struck me in suggesting, "Maybe what should happen here is the Fed, state, county and local Police should pay the same fee for their attorney's as the public has to pay." Uh, no good. Where does the government get its money?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home