What if a Police Officer is Wrong...

[Archivist]

Over the 4th of July weekend members of the Outdoor Co-Ed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society--a group of women who sunbath topless in public--were sunbathing in New York City's Battery Park. The group was approached by two female police officers who ordered them to put their tops on. The members of the group refused, and asked that the officers call headquarters because under New York state law women may go topless anyplace that men can go topless. The police women placed a call and eventually two male police officers were dispatched to the park. The male police officers corrected their female counterparts and told the topless women that they were correct and to let them know if anyone harrassed them for being topless.

The members of the Society later posted the following on their website: "Now, ignorance isn’t a crime. Not even ignorance of the law. Not even if you’re a police officer whose job is to enforce the law. And to these officers’ credit, they behaved politely throughout, if grimly, and when proven wrong, they conceded. Their sidearms stayed in their holsters throughout. But we shouldn’t have had to negotiate rights we already have with armed agents of the government. We really shouldn’t."

My question: Much has been said about some police officers overstepping their legal authority. If the law is on your side, if the officer is in the wrong as was the case here, are you required to follow orders from a police officer?

 

[Mudinyeri]

It seems that the women (Members of a co-ed society?) handled the situation appropriately. The officers were, perhaps, ignorant/unaware of the law. The not-so-co-ed members of the TPFAS informed the officers and asked them to verify. The officers did so and the situation, as was pointed out, was resolved peacefully.

In short, no, you are not required to follow unlawful orders from a police officer. However, the law is a massive and complex thing. You may, in your best interest, want to temporarily submit yourself to a police officer's unlawful instructions while working through some of the complexities of the law.

 

[MWood]

You are to always to follow the policeman's directions at all times. These matters are to be settled at the police station, or in court. It keeps you from being arrested, charged with resisting arrest, man handled, beaten, or shot. Depending on the situation.

 

[Archivist]

You are to always to follow the policeman's directions at all times. These matters are to be settled at the police station, or in court. It keeps you from being arrested, charged with resisting arrest, man handled, beaten, or shot. Depending on the situation.

But isn't a police officer's authority limited to that which is specifically granted to him/her under law?

Any officer who would manhandle or shoot someone when that person is in the right frankly has no business being a police officer.

 

[Circle Christ]

Over the 4th of July weekend members of the Outdoor Co-Ed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society--a group of women who sunbath topless in public--were sunbathing in New York City's Battery Park. The group was approached by two female police officers who ordered them to put their tops on. The members of the group refused, and asked that the officers call headquarters because under New York state law women may go topless anyplace that men can go topless. The police women placed a call and eventually two male police officers were dispatched to the park. The male police officers corrected their female counterparts and told the topless women that they were correct and to let them know if anyone harrassed them for being topless.

The members of the Society later posted the following on their website: "Now, ignorance isn’t a crime. Not even ignorance of the law. Not even if you’re a police officer whose job is to enforce the law. And to these officers’ credit, they behaved politely throughout, if grimly, and when proven wrong, they conceded. Their sidearms stayed in their holsters throughout. But we shouldn’t have had to negotiate rights we already have with armed agents of the government. We really shouldn’t."

My question: Much has been said about some police officers overstepping their legal authority. If the law is on your side, if the officer is in the wrong as was the case here, are you required to follow orders from a police officer?

The cops have the advantage and for a number of reasons. If the cops are wrong the proof will prove it. Best to go along so as to show in the lawsuit your compliance without resistance to unlawful authority being exercised over you than to resist and suffer the consequences.

 

[Archivist]

The cops have the advantage and for a number of reasons. If the cops are wrong the proof will prove it. Best to go along so as to show in the lawsuit your compliance without resistance to unlawful authority being exercised over you than to resist and suffer the consequences.

Is taht what our Founding fathers wanted? It was Dr. Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Circle Christ]

Is taht what our Founding fathers wanted? It was Dr. Benjamin Franklin who said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I guess you didn't read my remarks. OK.

 

[Archivist]

I guess you didn't read my remarks. OK.

I did read your remarks. You said that it was "best to go along." I don't think Franklin would have agreed.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

If I'm being told something unlawful by a police officer, I'm going to do what I'm told at the moment, document everything, and fight it in court later. That is not rolling over and playing dead. That is simply delaying the fight until it's more effective.

 

[Archivist]

If I'm being told something unlawful by a police officer, I'm going to do what I'm told at the moment, document everything, and fight it in court later. That is not rolling over and playing dead. That is simply delaying the fight until it's more effective.

But, again, is that what our Founders would have wanted us to do? Have we become a police state if the rule is to just follow orders, maybe you can sue later?

I suspect that these ladies would not have pulled their shirts on if that had been wrongly threatened with arrest, nor should these cops have expected them to.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Did our Founders write the Bible, sir?

I'm more concerned with what the Lord says than what Benjamin Franklin says. Romans 13:1-2. Anyone who has authority was given it by God. He doesn't want them to misuse it. Jesus had harsh words for the leaders of His day. But He did give them authority, as He told Pilate--and then He submitted to that authority and allowed Himself to die.

 

[Archivist]

Did our Founders write the Bible, sir?

I'm more concerned with what the Lord says than what Benjamin Franklin says. Romans 13:1-2. Anyone who has authority was given it by God. He doesn't want them to misuse it. Jesus had harsh words for the leaders of His day. But He did give them authority, as He told Pilate--and then He submitted to that authority and allowed Himself to die.

And police have authority, but only the authority that us delegated to them under the law. They cannot enforce laws that don't exist.

And for the record, Pilate only has what authority had been given to him by Rome.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

True, police can't enforce laws that don't exist. That's why they are also under authority. They work for higher-ups, and ultimately for the people. We don't like a law, we can petition to get it changed. Until then we're bound by it. I don't think anyone is arguing that police never make mistakes. They're only human, and their authority is not unlimited.

Pilate's authority came only from Rome? That's not what Jesus said. John 19:11.

 

[Archivist]

True, police can't enforce laws that don't exist. That's why they are also under authority. They work for higher-ups, and ultimately for the people. We don't like a law, we can petition to get it changed. Until then we're bound by it. I don't think anyone is arguing that police never make mistakes. They're only human, and their authority is not unlimited.

But this thread is not about changing laws, it is about whether we are obligated to obey police who exceed their authority.

Pilate's authority came only from Rome? That's not what Jesus said. John 19:11.

Sure He did. The said Pilate would not have authority if it were not given to him from above. Yes, authority ultimately comes from God, but God didn't draw lines and say "Pilate you govern here, but you have no authority over there because that's under Herod's administration."

BTW, are you saying that God drew the line between NY and NJ and said "ok women you can go topless in NY but not on the other side of the river."

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

God gives the authority. Whoever has it, whatever they do with it, it came from Him. It's not His fault if people misuse what comes from Him. That's *all* I'm saying. That doesn't make the authority figures always right. In fact, there are those who use their God-given authority for downright evil. That's wrong, yes it is. But He still gave them the authority they're overstepping.

Are we obligated to obey police officers when they are wrong? Maybe not, but in most situations, I sure am going to. If the police officer turns out to be wrong, there are channels for dealing with that. In fact, these ladies did so, recommending that the officers in question confer with their higher-ups. That's what the higher-ups are for. They didn't try to argue the law under *only* their own power. They had the means to back up what they said.

What's that they say in the military? "If you can't respect the person, respect the rank."

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

In fact what I think I would do in that situation is what the ladies did. First ask the officers to call their superiors. If they refuse, and if they make any threats of arrest, I would put on a top, take their names and badge numbers, and then go directly to headquarters myself to discuss the situation.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

But, again, is that what our Founders would have wanted us to do?

Yes. Taking complaints through the proper channels is hardly giving up "essential liberty".

Have we become a police state if the rule is to just follow orders, maybe you can sue later?

No. What do you think a police state means?

Point being that if you think that a police officer is wrong, there is a right and a wrong way to go about addressing that.

 

[Archivist]

Yes. Taking complaints through the proper channels is hardly giving up "essential liberty". No. What do you think a police state means? Point being that if you think that a police officer is wrong, there is a right and a wrong way to go about addressing that.

So just let them have their way. Give in. They win.

Based on what the members of the Society posted on their website, they wouldn't have given in. They would have refused to put their tops on and faced arrest by to cops who were exceeding their authority and so really don't belong on the force.

 

[miamited]

Hi archivist,

Well, most police officers work for a fairly large organization. Especially the officers of large cities. Just as in any business or social or fraternal organization, some know more than others about what they do. Some doctors are better than others. Some secretaries are better than others. Some CEO's are better than others. The same applies to police organizations. Some are a bit more familiar with the laws that they are given to uphold. Some interpret them differently, also.

So, everyone in every organization has the potential to be wrong about something. In the case of a brain surgeon it could be a life or death matter, but the potential is still there.

The issue of being wrong as it relates to police officers is that you aren't really playing on a level playing field. The police officer has the authority and power to do whatever he chooses to do about any given situation and can use deadly force if he feels that it's warranted. We must accept that as the truth, whether we agree or like it or not. In many of these recent police shootings it seems abundantly clear that the police officer was wrong in choosing to use deadly force. Sadly, that doesn't make the victim any less dead.

We need to understand and operate and interact with police officers with that understanding. Generally speaking, if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. After you have done it, then you can question their authority and, such as the case brought up here, you may prevail. Disagreeing with and being cantankerous with a police officer can cause a lot of problems, up to and including your death.

Being a police officer can be very dangerous work. Life or death decisions must often be made in less time than it takes to blink your eye. So, don't be too surprised that many get it wrong when we sit back after the fact to 'armchair quarterback' the situation. It's easy for you or I to talk about and discuss a particular situation and then sit back and ask ourselves, "hmmmm, would I have pulled my firearm in such a situation?" The police officer generally doesn't have that luxury. He sees something happening and he may or may not understand correctly what is actually happening, but if he feels threatened then he knows that he only has milliseconds to decide what he's going to do. That's a dangerous and scary place to be.

However, as seems to be the case with these two recent incidences in Milwaukee and New Orleans, the officers seem to have not been thinking particularly clearly or carefully. Maybe they had a rough night the night before. In a lot of instances I've caught myself on the job thinking about something I just did and saying to myself, "well, that wasn't very bright. Why did I do that?" Of course with my job it means, at worst, that I crossed up someone's wires (telephone repair). With a police officer it could mean that someone's dead.

I certainly don't excuse or intend for these thoughts to be excuses for mistakes or bad behavior. But, I know human nature and just because someone is a doctor or police officer or line worker in a factory, they all share that thing called human nature. That not every day is a perfect day and that we do make mistakes. Doctors have nurses and other in attendance when they perform delicate surgeries which hopefully catch a lot of mistakes or about to be mistakes before they become deadly. Police officers are often alone. All alone to make the decisions that need to be made without anyone by their side to offer assistance or prevent or correct mistakes.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

So just let them have their way. Give in. They win.

Take the dispute up in court where it belongs.

Based on what the members of the Society posted on their website, they wouldn't have given in. They would have refused to put their tops on and faced arrest by to cops who were exceeding their authority and so really don't belong on the force.

Who does or doesn't belong on the police force is not the Society's decision.