Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here...but how does the Constitution relate to this incident at all? It doesn't seem relevant to me...but maybe you mean something I'm not thinking of, so I'll let you explain before I reply about this incident specifically.
What I mean is that the citizenry has basic rights and it seems to me that in a lot of policeman's minds, those rights are simply secondary to a Policeman's opinion or even mood at the time.
Like what? Well, take for instance Police officer's doing everything in their power to PREVENT citizens from video recording them.
Every single court at every level has ruled that it is your Constitutional right to record any public official doing their job. But time and time again police threaten, harass, even arrest people video taping them. Why do they do that? 1st amendment rights are pretty well known. Why are their thousands of youtube videos with cops repeatedly obstructing this right?
What exactly does the above have to do with this incident? Well, I'll get to that next.
What I will discuss is the concept of a "mindset" that you're talking about. I've worked with a lot of police, and I can say in total honesty and without hesitation, that I've never encountered any that believed themselves "above the Constitution". Not a single one. In fact, I think it's fair to say that Constitutional rights are rarely thought of and only briefly when they are during confrontations with citizens, and that's entirely reasonable. .
This statement is problematic. I think I get what you are trying to say, when you are in the middle of a situation you don't have time to worry about XYZ Constitutional right. Just because you are in a situation doesn't mean you have carte blanche to just do whatever you want. There is still a legal framework you need to be constrained by.
....The idea that you expect police to constantly assess their own actions in relation to the Constitution is ridiculous. They're taught and trained on when they can and cannot search someone or their vehicle...and when they need consent to search..
I think we are more aligned on this then you may think. Police that are properly trained stay within the "Legal Framework" while doing their jobs and for these police I 100% have no problem with how they perform their duties. The police I have a problem with are the ones that use any performance of their duty as an excuse to just completely ignore that legal framework and just do whatever they want. These are police that have the attitude, "Do what I say now, no matter what it is, and let the courts sort it out later." That is the mindset that is problematic. That is the mindset that doesn't care about the Constitution. These are the cops that arrest you and then figure out some trumped up charge later to arrest you for.
You do realize that you're expected to comply with any reasonable request from a police officer...right? Most, if not all, states have some version of the "failure to obey a lawful order" law..
This is the crux of the problem, right here. This law / procedure is where all the problems come from.
On one hand, you have the Constitution that says "Hey citizen, you have these inalienable rights..." but then on the other hand you have a lesser law that says, "Hey citizen, you need to obey a lawful order..."
but then, many police define lawful order as "Do whatever the hell I tell you to do."
A police officer pulls you over, you are smoking a cigarette in your own car, the officer tells you to put out that cigarette, you say no, now you've disobeyed a lawful order? Furthermore, now that you've disobeyed a lawful order the police officer now has carte blanche to commit any act of violence against you he sees fit in order to "enforce the law"??? Talk about a slippery slope.
I do understand the premise of this, the argument is the following which I've heard police officers say time and time again which you said...
This is because they need this legal authority to tell you what to do to be able to do their job. It would be a nearly impossible job without that authority..
Ugghhh I hate this argument because it has a lot of truth to it. Yes, police need the legal authority to give lawful orders. The problem is, by definition "any order they give you while they are in the process of doing their duties can be construed as a "lawful order". Then if said citizen disobeys that "lawful order" now police have near unlimited power by the State to commit violence against that citizen while enforcing the law.
Do you not understand the problem of this? This is like a legalistic Catch-22 as relates to the Constitution.
Basically, it is saying, "Police must follow the Constitution except for when they are doing their jobs..."
Here is a fictional scenario to illustrate my problem. I am riding my bike on the sidewalk with my earbuds in my ear talking on the phone. A police officer stops me and says, "Hey, you aren't allowed to ride your bike on the sidewalk. Where are you going?" I get off my bike all the while I'm still talking on the phone and I say, "this stupid pig just pulled me over while I'm on my bicycle, man I hate pigs, can't stand them." The officer then says, "I was going to just give you a warning but now I'm writing you a ticket. Give my your license and hang the phone up." I hand the officer my license but I stay on the phone. Is the officer's order for me to hang up the phone a legal and lawful order?
I handed him my license, he can do his duties and write me a ticket, there is no threat to him, so do I have to hang up the phone? No, I don't. However, because in his mind he gave me a "lawful order" and I refused that order he now has the authority to physically compel me to get off the phone??? He now has the right to beat me and taser me because i did not follow this so-called "lawful order"???
So we are in this weird circular argument. Police must follow the Constitution however when they are in the midst of doing their duties then "whatever" they deem reasonable is now something the citizenry must adhere to even if that thing is contrary to the Constitutional rights of said citizen (like freedom of speech).
Watch "Did LAPD Officers Overreact To Woman Putting Feet On Subway Seat?" on YouTube
I remember seeing that video a while back and I agree with the officer's handling of that situation...
Here is the problem as I see it with all of this. The carte blanche power of the State to police officers in regards to "Obeying a lawful order" is something that police can't help but abuse. Why? Well, because it is just way too broad and it is a self defining thing-- a "lawful order" is ANYTHING an officer says.
Then there is the problem of proportionality. The big problem is that if you commit the tiniest of misdemeanors and you refuse the tiniest of lawful orders, the police now have the authority and power to beat you to within an inch of your life.
This is insane. The logic that unless the police have this ability they will be unable to do their jobs is not true. Other civilized countries manage just fine without police beating or shooting their citizens for non compliance.
I'm not saying that people should obey obviously unlawful orders (no one should consent to a full cavity search over a parking ticket for example).
Yes, yes you are. That is exactly what you are saying. That is exactly what the problem is.
You strike me as a reasonable guy. When the State gives you this nearly godlike power over the citizenry you aren't going to abuse it. It will work as intended.
however, when the State gives someone like this that same power
then you have problems. ANd the problems only worsen when said officer abuses that power and the State and System swing into gear to protect him...
You say "Obviously unlawful orders" and that happens all the time. It is OBVIOUSLY UNLAWFUL to order citizens not to record with their cell phones. But police do that all the time, every single day. If I had a nickel for every time some officer tries to obstruct justice (that is exactly what it is) by ordering and/or threatening a citizen that is recording I'd have a lot of nickels...
you should give them the benefit of the doubt the vast majority of the time. Yes, that includes citations and crimes that you may consider "no big deal".
As a citizen, the impetus is not on me to give police the benefit of the doubt. Citations and crimes that are "no big deal" should never ever ever be a life threatening situation for said citizen. But too often that is not the case. That is my problem. The system is seriously asymmetric when it comes to police authority vs citizen rights vs the actual offense in question.
All of this feeds into the "mindset" that enables runaway violence against the citizenry by police. It is a weird sorta Catch-22.
