1. Burn Loot & Murder can riot all they want but a mom can’t sit outside at a school to watch her kid plat football.

   Of course they can. They wear masks. Sure, it’s to conceal their identities and not to “stop the spread”, but a mask is a mask, amirite? [/sarcasm]

   And thanks for pointing out that all laws and mandates, great and small, are ultimately enforced with violence. This should be a wake-up call for those who think more laws and more government mandates are the answer to all of society’s problems.

   “There oughta be a law!” is easy to say, until enforcement of that law requires men trained in the professional use of violence to come ’round.

2. And it’s for exactly that reason that my younger son’s response to “there oughta be a law” is “Is it worth killing people over?” Because, when you make a law, that is the ultimate result of enforcement. Think about it. Then consider reading “Three Felonies a Day,” and adjusting your politics accordingly.

   1

   1. There are very few laws that people are killed over. That’s what we call “capital punishment”. People are killed when they do stupid things like resisting arrest. No one is killed “for breaking the law”. The vast majority of laws are enforced without violence. If we’re going to pretend that ANY law could CONCEIVABLY result in violence and death, there are almost no laws that a person could justify because of it, and I don’t think anyone but a rabid libertarian or anarchist wants to live in a society where there are no laws other than ones that prevent people from actually killing each other. I LIKE the fact that my neighbors cannot hold loud block parties all night when I’m trying to sleep. I don’t want my neighbors to be able to build lawn sheds on the sidewalks, or to walk away with my weedwhacker when they want to use it. “Is it worth killing someone over a weedwhacker?” Oh, no, so I guess personal property is out the window, because someone might get hurt or killed if we ban theft and the police try to enforce the law. Maybe we could justify laws against drunk driving, and actual assault and battery, rape, child abuse. But everything else would be pretty much “anything goes”. Unless we get more realistic about the value of life and say “yeah, it could theoretically cost a life, but there are 7,000,000,000 people on the planet, and a theoretical life is a fair trade for stability and security”. Which is pretty much where we are now. And I’m okay with that, seeing as how 99.9% of people who are killed by law enforcement are not killed just because they stole someone’s weedwhacker, but because they chose to refuse arrest and to place themselves above the law when enforcement came to do its job.

3. Every other person in that section of the stadium should have removed their masks and dared the cop to arrest them all.

4. “But, officer, I *IDENTIFY* as presently wearing a mask! How dare you assume my gender!”

   1

5. My sense of honesty compels me to point out that she was not tased and arrested for not wearing a mask. She was arrested for refusing to obey law enforcement’s orders, and tased because she resisted arrest. I am no fan of the mask orders, but legally they are generally valid, because our present law grants the executive – President, Governor, or Mayor – legal authority to make “all needful rules and regulations for the public safety in time of emergency”. I think this amounts to a built-in “revert to tyranny” loophole, but it’s the law. The police aren’t going around arresting people for not wearing masks, generally. He asked her to leave the stadium, and she refused. An officer cannot enforce a law (or order) unless they have the authority to arrest the offender. If this is what the department is ordered to do, I cannot blame the officers for doing their job. This is not the time to turn on the police for doing their job. I agree the individual officer has the right to refuse to enforce any law, but I don’t demand they do it, and once she refused his order, he had no real option but to arrest her. Once she resisted, he had no real option but to tase her. What is he supposed to do, stop and say “well, okay, if you REALLY don’t want to be arrested, never mind then, carry on”? Officers MUST complete an arrest once it is initiated (barring extraordinary circumstances, such as clear evidence that a mistake has been made…and I mean CLEAR evidence, not just bystanders complaining). If officers were to start giving up on arresting people just because they fought back, it just encourages others to do the same thing, and that’s how people end up getting hurt or killed. If you feel it’s improper, the place to fight it is in court. Often the case will be dropped if it’s not clear cut. But resisting arrest will never work, and I don’t blame the officer for using all means at his disposal to carry out the arrest. I don’t buy “you can’t taze a female!” It’s sexist crap, and it’s not much easier for a single man to restrain a resisting woman than another man. In fact, the only way to do it otherwise is to use actual force, with a much higher likelihood of the arrestee or the officer getting injured.
   So I don’t agree with mask “laws”, but I don’t blame the officer. He was no doubt ordered specifically to enforce the mask orders in the stadium, and everything he did was correct police procedure. Women don’t qualify for special treatment because they are women.

   1. So what you’re saying is, the cop was just following orders…

      1

   2. And a cop can’t arrest you for a non-crime. And the can’t arrest you for “resisting arrest.”

      So the cop was trying to enforce a non-existent law, was told to go away, and from there decided the right thing to do was arrest the woman, then tase her for resisting an unlawful arrest.

      And this is how we get people that want to get rid of cops. The COP should be in jail over this. And should be paying her for damages, lawyer fees and a strong penalty.

Comments are closed.