Stop Sign...

A local police officer was "sitting" at a stop sign, watched a man roll through the intersection without stopping. The officer pulled the guy over and requested to see the driver's
license and registration.

"But officer, why'd you stop me?" the incredulous fellow asked.

"That's a Stop Sign back there buddy," the officer answered. "You didn't come to a full stop."

"But I DID slow down," replied the driver.

"But you didn't STOP -- it's a stop sign," the officer insisted.

"But I DID slow down," the driver stubbornly argued.

"But it's not a 'slow down' sign ... it's a STOP sign," argued back the officer.

After going back and forth with this several times, the officer became agitated, grabbed the driver by the neck and dragged him out through the open window. He then began to smack him back and forth across the face...

After several solid whacks, the officer politely asked, "So tell me, do you want me to Stop, or do you want me to Slow Down?"

But seriously...

The desire to grant extra power to the police at the expense of our own freedom is yet another symptom of the desire to let others shoulder our responsibility so we can go off and have a good time. The way society operates today, it would be difficult to change things, but here's my take on Cargile's situation above:

The felon above is belligerent with the police officers because he knows that only the police are willing to restrain him if he is caught doing something wrong. If he does not cooperate, right or wrong, he may provoke a reaction from the police which may get him freed without regard to his freedom or innocence. (There are some who struggle simply because they are too stupid to realize when they are outmatched.)

Not long ago, the power of Citizen's Arrest was not just a right, but a responsibility. Only 100 years ago (in England, as well as the U.S., and I presume Europe, as well) it was considered a civic duty to apprehend a criminal if you saw a crime being committed. Calling the police was something you did because they would be of some assistance in subduing the criminal, and they would take the miscreant off your hands once he was subdued. The fact that arresting a criminal intent on escape, who could possibly harm you in the attempt, did not relieve you of your responsibility to bring this person to justice.

Nowadays, the only people who are willing to risk their lives for anything are the police, the fire department, and the military. If you aren't willing to face down the bully, he is free to extort from you whatever he will. Why? Because he knows you will do nothing to stop him.

It's the same with criminals. They do what they do because they know we are divided against them. If they attack one person, no-one is likely to come to that person's aid, and if someone does, they are unlikely to care enough about that particular stranger to risk their own safety for someone else.

--Baloo

PS: That's not my final word on the subject, but it's enough for now.

------------------
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
-- Plato
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

I LIKE that incident-joke. Too bad you can't give a guy an extra ticket just for being an idiot... I could hand those things out all day!

People today not only aren't willing to risk their lives, their not willing to risk their money and livelihood (or society having become as litigous as it has), or even risk inconvenience, or drawing attention to themselves.

Thus, the bad guys are free to run all over us, and they know it, so they do.

I got this lady (using the term very loosely) whose daughter has had 6 library books overdue for two years. She knows it, I've called her house on more than a dozen occasions, and she makes promises, but never brings them back. I even offered to ignore the fine just to get the books back. Nothing. Why? It's not that she can't get there - she has a car and makes it to the post office - right next door, it's not that she can only get there while we're closed - we have a book drop, It's that she doesn't HAVE to. We have no real way to threaten her.
We could call the magistrate on this lady, because she IS violating state law, but that would inconvenience us and cost us money for the magistrate's time.
We won't go into her neighborhood, because.. well, it just isn't the place nice white boys like me go to and come back, at least not unless heavily armed. (plus her address is a Post Office Box.)

OH, for a Library Gestapo, or the authority to act as such... a few dozen broken knees, some busted windows and general intimidation, and I bet return rates would SOAR...

*drool*

What was my point? Oh, yes. The bad guys will do anything they think they can get away with, and without a unified, "this will not be tolerated" front against them, their lifestyle is just that much easier.

Voice: Open up! It's the Library Gestapo! We have you surrounded! We are holding your cat as security [SFX: disconsolate meow]. Bring out "Fox in Sox" now and nobody gets hurt!

--Baloo

(RW: Could you possibly do a Gestapo hat sized for the smileys?)

Robert, you make some very good points. It ties in real well with the "Blame" topic sans Manson.

Many that have read this post probably believe that I think that what I propose is a good idea. I see this solution as extreme, but if we are not careful legislation like this could slip right by us. Would we stop it? I think today, the majority would raise so much as a fuss, due to Baloo's observation above. No one would care.

I read in the paper that in Miami, or there abouts, that a woman suffering a stab wound to the abdoman knocked on doors for help and died because no one wanted to get involved. This was a mother of children and no one wanted to help her. This pisses be off (not drunk but angry). How people can be so cold is frightening.
Freedom is being responcible. If we choose not to be responcible, we shouldn't be surprised when our freedoms are diminished. And we surely shouldn't bitch about it. I see signs claiming "Neighborhood Watch", but I doubt anyone is doing any watching. We have developed a bad attitude that getting involved inconviences us. We will have to make a statement. We'll have to sign paperwork. We might have to testify in court. I don't have time to be a witness. I can't afford to miss work. I got mouths to feed.
But yet: There is too much drugs on the street. Why won't the cops do something? This city needs more cops. Civic duty? Screw that! I'm not working 12 hours a day to feed a family of five and police my neighborhood too!

Maybe we should.
Before it gets any worse.

------

Having reread the thread, I have more to say.
Police need legislative protection from offenders. Communities need less criminals on the street. Society needs to foster more law abiding citizens. Insuring that that happens is the difficult task ahead of us. Do we look to extreme measures, or get to the root of the problem?
The US Constitution is a piece of paper. The document itself welds no real power. The document was written by people, for people. No higher authority grants anyone rights. We decide, or more accurately the majority of us, which rights apply and to whom and how such rights may be forfeited. This means the Constitution, any Constitution created by the people that choose to be governed by it, is tentative, and subject to change, even drastically, if the society changes. That is Democracy. Imperfect and flawed, as is any other social ideology. Years ago the People thought that the Police should be left to enforce the law as the saw fit. Then the People decided that the Police should have some restrictions and that Offenders should be granted rights to protect them. What will the People decide tommorow?

The Race Card.
I thought this needed some explaining, and I am grateful that it didn't get much attention as I feared it would after I wrote it. When I write, I go back and reread. When I reread my scenerio, it looked as if I were targeting a specific group of our society, even though I made no mention of race. I will not deny that the immediate assumption I made was an african-american, black hair, brown eyes. There isn't any race implied in the scenerio. It could be an elderly Jewish woman with an expensive cocaine habit. But I just felt that it pointed the finger at a common minority, and that isn't intentional on my behalf. Furthermore I believe it is weak to blame the criminal element of one race on the treatment from another. I hold the opinion that rasism is the ugliest, and stupidest flaw of the human race. If anyone believes that 'The Man' is making them commit crimes by not offering enough oppertunities, then they themselves are guilty of promoting rasism against themselves by offering the notion that 'The Man' is superior. That is crap. Such an 'oppressed' person needs to pull their head out. There exist no superiority except the superiority we recognize. I recognize no superior race over me, nor any inferior race under me.