I was wrong last time I thought this
But again, I think the author was being sarcastic.
I don't know what lesson we can take away from this incident. How far do we authorize police for crimes that are minor? While he wasn't giving up, he also wasn't fighting or fleeing. So how long do we talk to a person in that state before opting to physically restrain him?
And we had this
Here is someone tasered for a seat belt violation.
Our minister on Sunday said he doesn't believe in the cause of the week, so he seldom speaks on issues that are breaking. But he pointed out that part of his family is Black, and they are prosperous. They tell him that their dealings with the police are different than his are, that even routine seat belt stops are much more nerve racking. Let me suggest if the person being stopped is more on edge that the officer also is. This creates a much more dangerous situation for all involved.
I don't have a solution, but those that seem to believe there is no problem whatsoever seem to be failing to prove their point. Part of the problem is that we don't know, there is no requirement to report police actions to any authority. So are these things the rare black swan, or are they systemic? Why don't we require local law enforcement to report? It seems we would then develop an understanding of where we are and where we are heading.
And you probably will love this, maybe we need to scale back some of the laws. I believe, for example, the seat belt law was a perfect combination of people with good intentions teaming up with police and prosecutors who want more stops which result in more of a chance to look in a car for violations of the drug laws. Maybe if there were fewer of these interactions the tensions would subside.
There is an interesting change in sides that has happened with the Garner case. David Koresh also refused to surrender to the authorities, and a police action went tragically wrong and Koresh (and the others who refused to come out) died. At the time liberals agreed the police had to do something, they couldn't let someone flaunt the police like he was. Conservatives were livid at an overreach of police powers that they would start an action that would lead to those deaths when they presented no immediate danger to anyone.
Now we flash forward. Garner is dead. He presented no danger to anyone. Conservatives argue he should have surrendered peacefully and the officers could not have known the unfortunate result of their actions. Meanwhile liberals argue that police shouldn't have resorted to a physical attack such as a choke hold on someone who presented no danger.
Now, where am I wrong in equating these two events and wondering why we have flipped sides? Again, in neither case was there an immediate threat, in neither case did the law believe their actions would result in the tragedy it did.
