You said, It takes a substantially greater “substantiation or proof” to overcome the tribalism, although for some no amount of “substantiation or proof” will breach the wall they’ve built.

This is one of the most intelligent responses that I recall receiving from anybody on this site regarding anything involving tribalism. Thank you. Yes, my original point was “absolutism” and hyperbole. I exaggerated things for dramatic effect. Also, I was as “hot under the collar” as I accused “kneejerk” of being, though my post made more sense than his post did.

With the first link a chain is forged, the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

And one of my favorites..

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
Martin Niemöller

We pay these people to protect and serve and uphold the law. When they trample on our rights and abuse their authority, then we should give the job to someone who can do it better. You’re opinion would be vastly different if you’ve had a nightstick (real or metaphorical) shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.

While I agree with most of what you wrote about “kneejerk”, facts do not stand alone with equal weight, there is a hierarchy to them. Historians struggle with this all the time.

As I’ve noted before, while photography has taken a greater hit since 9/11, I doubt that filming Police in 1995 would have elicited any different response. Filming them is a record that might contradict their reports or at trial, at least the bad ones or the insecure ones, and would thus be a threat. The police are finally reacting to this threat, a threat they can’t control because it is out of their hands.

Your absolutism that people never respond to “substantiation or proof” needs modification: it takes a substantially greater “substantiation or proof” to overcome the tribalism, although for some no amount of “substantiation or proof” will breach the wall they’ve built.

This is what Carlos’ site is all about: to shake that wall to lower its height. To make the 75% who can’t acknowledge that the Police are human to understand these very facts: that some officers should not hold their jobs; and that some, if not most, Departments need to change.

Photography is not a crime, and doing it does not warrant harassment, intimidation, or abuse.

You come across as a troll, but I gather that you aren’t one. You’re simply hot under the collar. Calm down and try to think rationally. No, I’m not claiming that I always meet that standard myself.

1. It’s not about people “screaming about how your rights are being trampled”. It’s about how everybody’s rights are being “trampled”. The officer in question enjoys the same rights. So do you.

2. People fought a war two centuries ago to establish these rights. If these rights are “trampled”, people are certainly going to “scream” about it. If necessary, they will eventually fight for these rights again, and they will die for these rights again. Which “side” will you be on then, “kneejerk” ?

3. You said that people are “quick to ignore the cop’s rights, deciding he should be fired simply because of an extremely biased website that makes claims that have no substantiation or proof”.

First, I’ll note that you personally are likely to call any website that offends you “extremely biased”. Your tone reminds me strongly of Fox News. It’s exactly the same thing as when sex abuser Bill O’Reilly complains about websites that criticize his involvement with events intended to benefit sex abuse victims. He calls the websites in question “Far Left websites”.

“Far Left”, extremely biased, it’s the same thing in your view, right? I’ll remind you of a point that you ought to keep in mind. Reality has a liberal bias. From your perspective, that’s unfortunate. It means that you’ll need to fight an uphill battle, because reality itself is biased against you. It’s not fair, but there’s not much that can be done about it, is there?

Second, I’ll note that no “substantiation or proof” would ever be enough for you. None. “kneejerk”, I’m autistic. Not the high-functioning kind. This makes me both more capable than you and less capable than you. The difference has to do with black and white. When I was young, I was bewildered by the fact that people didn’t respond to “substantiation or proof”. They talked about it, but if anybody offered it, there’d always, and I mean always, be something else that they’d demand. I didn’t understand this. To me, something was a fact, or it wasn’t. You’re not like that. Most people aren’t.

Later in life, I came to understand that people are animals, nothing more or less. If they have a tribe, or a “side” which includes specific people that they identify strongly with, they work backwards from that. They never respond to “substantiation or proof”. So please, with all due respect, don’t make me laugh and cry at the same time.

4. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s entirely possible that the incident discussed here didn’t happen as described. People are reacting to available information. There may be something that we haven’t been told. I’m only stating that based on the tone of your post, you personally are assuming that there must be something that’s been left out. It’s the same thing that I always see, and that I’ve always seen. It’s how your brain is wired.

5. You mentioned “bogus claims about an apology letter”.

Did I miss something? Are you able to present evidence that the “claims” are “bogus” ? Or are you the simple animal that I believe you to be, grazing contentedly on preconceived notions, reacting to things based on instinct and nothing more?

6. You closed with, “You clowns are a disgrace. Call a crack whore the next time you’re in trouble.”

Sigh. “jones” uses the word “clown” as well. I assume that it’s a Bill O’Reilly-ism. I seem to recall that O’Reilly likes the word. “kneejerk”, since you’re interested in O’Reilly and in “crack whores”, ask Pinandpiller to direct you to the audio of O’Reilly pretending to be a crack dealer. If I remember correctly, there’s supposed to be “crack whores” in some of the clips.

If your point is that police are more useful to society than “crack whores”, that’s true, but it doesn’t change anything. “kneejerk”, this isn’t a feudal society. We haven’t traded our rights in exchange for protection from 9/11! TERROR! 9/11! TERROR! or “crack whores”. The police are not allowed to break the law.

You do realize that your entire post is a work of irony given your moniker? This website is one of the fairest on the web regarding police overreach, as fair, I think, as Mansoor’s who was a cop and works as a consultant on police ethics.

Carlos is simply tired of cops that exceed their authority. I don’t believe this deputy should be fired, so I disagree with Carlos, but he should be punished/retrained by the Department. You do realize that a cop who exceeds his authority comes perilously close to criminality and that a cop who breaks the law is a criminal, don’t you?

I hold dear what our Founding Fathers acknowledged and built a country on, that rights are unalienable and not granted by the State but are inherent in the People, and that when a Government or its representatives violate those rights, it is no longer deserving to be called a Government. This leaves all of us with the duty, expressed however large or small, to correct our Government and its representatives. Am I calling for perfection? No. But just as I, a citizen, will suffer punishment for transgressions, so should the Police, who are nothing but citizens given a greater power, and thus greater responsibility to uphold those rights of every citizen. And deserving of equal or greater punishment when they transgress. But then, that would really screw up recruiting wouldn’t it?

Damn, I wish I hadn’t grown up when it was taught that our Founding Fathers, our founding ideas, our grand experiment was a beacon to the world, no matter its transient imperfection. I wish I really could give up my Classical Liberalism, forget about Adams and Jefferson and all those other radicals in the Federalist Papers, and could just go along with the police are always right and every officer should keep his job no matter what. But I can’t, I’m an American. I can’t do it.

OK, pompous rant off.