I'm not saying what they did was OK. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why it happens.
And settled on an illegal way of doing so. When they are law enforcement officers. It's hard to understand that anyone signing up to "protect and serve" would think that they are given the right to do whatever it takes as long as they think they are doing right by the greater good.
If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve to go to jail.
And you deserve to go to jail for longer than a regular citizen should if you do it in the performance of your job. I never agreed to follow any laws, let alone enforce them -- they did.
You obviously do not watch American TV. This is EXACTLY what is popularized.
I do agree with your opinion, unfortunately Andy Griffith is not the norm any more.
so at some point the cause of alot of problems lies at corporate media production creating a positive feedback loop of shitty culture (low quality information).
The longterm solution is clear, its a waste of effort to try and put the tubepaste back into the tube.
Is that true? The story doesn't say that. He was standing out of the way and holding a sign, legally. How that does amount to impeding the officers? How often does seeing a random protestor on the street make you suddenly belligerent with officers, and what evidence did you read that makes you think that happened here? It seems like you're making big assumptions.
If he's impeding police, what is YouTube doing with its thousands of checkpoint videos?
> I'm not saying what they did was OK.
Good? Because it was illegal what they did. Against the law. It was not only not OK, it was bad and wrong. Doubly so because the protestor was being peaceful and legal, and also because the police are charged with representing the law and upholding it's values, and they have a responsibility to not seize property, to not escalate a situation to violence, and to tell the truth about what happened.
It's a shame if this is easy to understand and commonplace, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than this.
It is easy for me to understand that if I have a heart attack then my chances of dying in the next hour go way up. That does not mean I want to have a heart attack.
Understanding why problems happen is the first step in preventing them. Professing ignorance at why a problem could happen is not laudable.
I'm just staying that if you start with "I don't understand why our law enforcement standards are currently so low!" then you're probably not going to be helpful in fixing the problem.
Gotta diagnose first. Diagnoses comes with empathy and understanding.
Yes! Agreed, and the good news is we can do both, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. We can have empathy and high standards at the same time.
It's just much easier to rationalize it away than it is to stand up against injustice.
It's dumb....but also an understandable facet of human nature. ;-)
But even if that was it, it'd be like going into an article about a rape and saying "Well, he was horny. Not justifying, just explaining..." Of course the rapist was horny, and of course the police were annoyed at having their authority questioned. But offering these explanations when they aren't needed is explaining-away their crimes.
Certainly it's better than throwing up your hands and saying "I don't understand how anyone could ever commit rape!"
The way they sought to prevent his protest was by breaking the law without punishment.