Outside of government and mainstream media, YouTube is home to the largest contingent of resident self-proclaimed experts.
A series of recent videos published by a former police officer offers no exception.
In one of these videos, the YouTuber presents footage captured by a citizen who recorded a traffic stop from her vehicle in a parking lot.
One of the police officers on scene approached the videographer to inform her that the traffic stop is “none of [her] business.”
The officer told the woman, “You have no interest in that traffic stop whatsoever.”
The officer then insulted the two citizens by calling them “ignorant” and telling them to “go do something else, go have fun, go do something.”
The officer then concluded, “It’s Friday night. Don’t be such idiots.”
In summation, the YouTuber labels the so-called "First Amendment auditors" as "big losers."
The dilemma presented here is rather interesting.
On one end, we have a police officer who’s professionally employed as a public servant during the interaction.
On the other, we find two citizens who are free to record so long as they are not interfering with the police investigation.
Therefore, we have a law-enforcement officer who, on one hand, is held accountable for his professional conduct, or lack thereof, and two individual citizens who, on the other hand, have no such obligation.
In this particular situation, it is the law-enforcement officer who is accountable to a higher standard of courtesy, whereas the taxpaying citizen is free to remain vigilant, to monitor the public servant, and to record him in the execution of his duties.
Whether they like it or not, law-enforcement officers are in the business of supporting and defending the Constitution, and each ought to embrace the public for their awareness of the laws instead of condemning them.
Indeed, it is this particular sentiment which historically distinguished the United States from much of the rest of the world.
As French diplomat and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville promulgated in his famed 1835 treatise, in the face of passive obedience and unquestioning deference, absent this form of heightened vigilance, ”Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate.”
Tocqueville warns of its nuance: “It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
Thus, the unceasing questioning of authority stands truly as a signature of the American spirit, the lone opponent to tyranny, the essence of which is canonized in the United States’ founding documents and the framing of their confederacy.
Aside from the historical backdrop, this respect for community, liberty and each member of society forms the bedrock for law, order and the betterment of society.
This form of respect, particularly in the face of adversity, leads by example and forms a model worthy of the community’s emulation.
What's more, from the perspective of the ordinary law-enforcement officer, one of the guiding principles ought to be the development of mindfulness and investment within the community.
After all, the ultimate objective of law enforcement is to inspire a mutual respect for each person and his property. Everything else serves merely as the means to this end.
In aspiring to this end, one of the primary malignant influences within the ordinary community today takes the form of apathetic, discourteous community members who assume little to no responsibility for their own neighborhoods, who inculcate the next generation with the same forms of indifference and irresponsibility.
Police largely cannot prevent crime, and in the great absence of law enforcement it is the bond between neighbors that protects the community from those forces which intend to do them harm.
Embracing community involvement and awareness is therefore one of the major steps in preempting or deterring crime through the informal enlistment of the community to assume this responsibility for themselves, respectively; believe it or not, this approach concomitantly serves as a conciliatory tool during such events that annoy or even possibly interfere with police, such as citizens' videotaping or questioning of police investigations, public protests or demonstrations, assertions of rights and liberties.
Finally, many law-enforcement officers detest the First Amendment, and the people they serve, because they lack the maturity, confidence, life experience and legal, historical comprehension to appreciate their place in the conversation.
Many officers view the Constitution as a hurdle to overcome in pursuit of their own versions of justice, instead of respecting it as the very basis, or veritable gospel, of their profession.
In many cases, an officer’s maturity, or his lack thereof, manifests in the midst of unnecessary debate with the public, where he is shown to have lost his composure in hopes of winning a personal battle or argument that rests outside the scope of his job.
In many cases, if not most such cases, professionalism and public service take the form of merely respecting the citizen by saying little to nothing at all, by allowing the citizen to express himself while continuing in the performance of his professional duties.
Ultimately, police officers broadly tend to lack insight and perspective on these subjects, for their training underemphasizes these valuable skills, so most officers are left to learn on the job from disgruntled veterans who typically opt for insults instead of logic or sympathy, as they have served them thus far, and they have been embedded into the culture of police work.
The most ironic aspects of modern law enforcement are the officers' desperate longing to compare themselves to the military: this is glaringly obvious in the manner in which officers treat, and even view, the public, which stems from their time in the police academy, where their instructors treat recruits in a manner similar to the way basics are treated during basic military training.
Here is the irony, however: soldiers are trained to kill and manage enemy combatants, whereas law-enforcement officers are charged with serving their respective communities who are fleeced to pay their salaries and equip them with the tools to, purportedly, uphold the law.
Their common link: both have been exposed to a form of “leadership” that is loud, obnoxiously stern and uncompromising, while neither the soldier nor the law-enforcement officer has read, let alone comprehended, the Constitution each has affirmed an oath to unconditionally support and defend.
It is plainly disheartening to witness the devolution of the law-enforcement profession through the likes of officers with casual indifference or profound contempt for the communities and laws they serve.
Graduating from the police academy hardly qualifies an individual as an adept law-enforcement officer, while the callousness of the more seasoned officer is hardly an improvement.
It is the responsibility of every law-enforcement officer to challenge himself or herself to improve every day; to prioritize the law and the community over his or her own comfort, conscience and opinions; to reject the temptation to exert force or intimidation in the face of opportunity for conduct more humane, thoughtful and sympathetic.
The temptation to exert force and intimidation, along with the attending training which reinforces these tactics, serves only to subvert the rule of law while distancing public servants from the very public whom they reportedly serve.
Meanwhile, the increasing militarization of police, by their equipment, their training and their attitudes toward their communities, serves to bring the country under widespread tyranny through the most local of agencies, who in turn come to view the public as their enemy while interpreting their usurpations as nothing more than part of the job.
A series of recent videos published by a former police officer offers no exception.
In one of these videos, the YouTuber presents footage captured by a citizen who recorded a traffic stop from her vehicle in a parking lot.
One of the police officers on scene approached the videographer to inform her that the traffic stop is “none of [her] business.”
The officer told the woman, “You have no interest in that traffic stop whatsoever.”
The officer then insulted the two citizens by calling them “ignorant” and telling them to “go do something else, go have fun, go do something.”
The officer then concluded, “It’s Friday night. Don’t be such idiots.”
In summation, the YouTuber labels the so-called "First Amendment auditors" as "big losers."
The dilemma presented here is rather interesting.
On one end, we have a police officer who’s professionally employed as a public servant during the interaction.
On the other, we find two citizens who are free to record so long as they are not interfering with the police investigation.
Therefore, we have a law-enforcement officer who, on one hand, is held accountable for his professional conduct, or lack thereof, and two individual citizens who, on the other hand, have no such obligation.
In this particular situation, it is the law-enforcement officer who is accountable to a higher standard of courtesy, whereas the taxpaying citizen is free to remain vigilant, to monitor the public servant, and to record him in the execution of his duties.
Whether they like it or not, law-enforcement officers are in the business of supporting and defending the Constitution, and each ought to embrace the public for their awareness of the laws instead of condemning them.
Indeed, it is this particular sentiment which historically distinguished the United States from much of the rest of the world.
As French diplomat and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville promulgated in his famed 1835 treatise, in the face of passive obedience and unquestioning deference, absent this form of heightened vigilance, ”Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate.”
Tocqueville warns of its nuance: “It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
Thus, the unceasing questioning of authority stands truly as a signature of the American spirit, the lone opponent to tyranny, the essence of which is canonized in the United States’ founding documents and the framing of their confederacy.
Aside from the historical backdrop, this respect for community, liberty and each member of society forms the bedrock for law, order and the betterment of society.
This form of respect, particularly in the face of adversity, leads by example and forms a model worthy of the community’s emulation.
What's more, from the perspective of the ordinary law-enforcement officer, one of the guiding principles ought to be the development of mindfulness and investment within the community.
After all, the ultimate objective of law enforcement is to inspire a mutual respect for each person and his property. Everything else serves merely as the means to this end.
In aspiring to this end, one of the primary malignant influences within the ordinary community today takes the form of apathetic, discourteous community members who assume little to no responsibility for their own neighborhoods, who inculcate the next generation with the same forms of indifference and irresponsibility.
Police largely cannot prevent crime, and in the great absence of law enforcement it is the bond between neighbors that protects the community from those forces which intend to do them harm.
Embracing community involvement and awareness is therefore one of the major steps in preempting or deterring crime through the informal enlistment of the community to assume this responsibility for themselves, respectively; believe it or not, this approach concomitantly serves as a conciliatory tool during such events that annoy or even possibly interfere with police, such as citizens' videotaping or questioning of police investigations, public protests or demonstrations, assertions of rights and liberties.
Finally, many law-enforcement officers detest the First Amendment, and the people they serve, because they lack the maturity, confidence, life experience and legal, historical comprehension to appreciate their place in the conversation.
Many officers view the Constitution as a hurdle to overcome in pursuit of their own versions of justice, instead of respecting it as the very basis, or veritable gospel, of their profession.
In many cases, an officer’s maturity, or his lack thereof, manifests in the midst of unnecessary debate with the public, where he is shown to have lost his composure in hopes of winning a personal battle or argument that rests outside the scope of his job.
In many cases, if not most such cases, professionalism and public service take the form of merely respecting the citizen by saying little to nothing at all, by allowing the citizen to express himself while continuing in the performance of his professional duties.
Ultimately, police officers broadly tend to lack insight and perspective on these subjects, for their training underemphasizes these valuable skills, so most officers are left to learn on the job from disgruntled veterans who typically opt for insults instead of logic or sympathy, as they have served them thus far, and they have been embedded into the culture of police work.
The most ironic aspects of modern law enforcement are the officers' desperate longing to compare themselves to the military: this is glaringly obvious in the manner in which officers treat, and even view, the public, which stems from their time in the police academy, where their instructors treat recruits in a manner similar to the way basics are treated during basic military training.
Here is the irony, however: soldiers are trained to kill and manage enemy combatants, whereas law-enforcement officers are charged with serving their respective communities who are fleeced to pay their salaries and equip them with the tools to, purportedly, uphold the law.
Their common link: both have been exposed to a form of “leadership” that is loud, obnoxiously stern and uncompromising, while neither the soldier nor the law-enforcement officer has read, let alone comprehended, the Constitution each has affirmed an oath to unconditionally support and defend.
It is plainly disheartening to witness the devolution of the law-enforcement profession through the likes of officers with casual indifference or profound contempt for the communities and laws they serve.
Graduating from the police academy hardly qualifies an individual as an adept law-enforcement officer, while the callousness of the more seasoned officer is hardly an improvement.
It is the responsibility of every law-enforcement officer to challenge himself or herself to improve every day; to prioritize the law and the community over his or her own comfort, conscience and opinions; to reject the temptation to exert force or intimidation in the face of opportunity for conduct more humane, thoughtful and sympathetic.
The temptation to exert force and intimidation, along with the attending training which reinforces these tactics, serves only to subvert the rule of law while distancing public servants from the very public whom they reportedly serve.
Meanwhile, the increasing militarization of police, by their equipment, their training and their attitudes toward their communities, serves to bring the country under widespread tyranny through the most local of agencies, who in turn come to view the public as their enemy while interpreting their usurpations as nothing more than part of the job.
Comments
Post a Comment