Why do we all need to conform to every order from every police officer, even, and sometimes especially, when that order is unlawful?
When the police are using unlawful orders to escalate violence, and then justify that violence by asserting that one was not complying with their order, which was unlawful, or otherwise stated illegal, is that not wrong?
I do not believe that any law, or logic, supports a situation in which anyone must "do what [they are] told" in this context. This argument can be restated as "do what I say, no matter what, or die". This is pure terror enacted by the state against its population.
Lighthouses don’t.
The sum of the final argument is “I believe that you should do whatever the gunman says, so much so that I don’t care if they kill you”, directed at a commenter here.
In the story, the admiral is conceited about his position so much so that he believes that he has the right not to understand the situation. Which is exactly why the commenter is in the stated position about the "righteousness" of their argument.
Without it, how are people supposed to demonstrate about things they want the government to change? How can democracy function?
> 20 people are encircling your car, banging your windows, shouting and ready to break your car.
Of the 400 videos, how many of them were this type of situation? I would guess 3 or fewer. This isn't a representative scenario.
> Can you tell me how you would respond?
People (police or otherwise) who aren't trained will respond in any number of inappropriate ways. Your argument is basically just justification for police to act inappropriately anytime they encounter a situation for which they haven't been explicitly trained. We don't pay police departments 40% of all municipal revenues to put untrained people on the street to act in completely unprofessional ways towards the same people who pay their paychecks, retirement, union dues, medical bills, and department lawsuits.
Actually check that. Apparently we do and those departments settle for billions of USD per year in legal settlements. The problem is that the officers largely aren't held accountable -- but the taxpayers frequently are. Moral hazard.
> Sit there and wait for them to assault you?
Professional police have a whole belt full of tools, a radio (to 40,000 other officers in NYC), a megaphone, a long gun, a short gun, and frequently a tazer.
Also, why is an officer in a car surrounded by angry citizens? Because someone in the same uniform mistreated their brother/father/son/husband/etc. Police have a lot of ability to de-escalate the problems before they happen, but they aren't doing it. Instead, police {departments, chiefs, unions, officers, wives} are pointing at violent protesters as if violent protesters have no incentive or excuse to be angry at police.
And while we're at it, shouldn't your logic be equally used against officers who assault civilians? Why shouldn't the entire country support civilians defending themselves against officers who use "extralegal" force? (rhetorical question)