They demand your receipt, dig through your possessions, block you from leaving, grab your cart, etc.

But they don’t have any legal standing to force the issue, I’ve certainly be assaulted by Walmart receipt checkers.

And my experience (and the people I’ve worked with in store security) don’t consider the exit alarms going off to be actionable evidence of anything.

I’m not fond of the behaviors of the police, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t run into someone being just as much of a power mad jerk as they are.

I recommend loudly announcing that they have no right to search your possessions, the local Walmart thinks my wife is a lawyer just because she defends her rights.

So, how far can Walmart go? Do we really think letting the TSA do this is a good thing, or letting every store in the country get in the habit of doing this?

Sorry Mike, but Andy of Mayberry was just fiction. In real life, a southern sheriff of the 1950s would probably have worked hand in glove with the KKK, or would have looked the other way when they terrorized anyone who wasn’t a good WASP. That’s why private groups like the Deacons for Defense rose up to defend blacks and civil rights workers.

Look, American law enforcement has been shaky since day one. I acknowledge that as a former Criminal Justic major, and a potential police recruit, even though it is painful. As a society, we need to understand how organized police agencies came into existence, where they have gone wrong, and how policing can be done in the future. I would urge Agitator readers to read “The Idea of Police” by the late U of Delaware Prof. Carl Klockars for a brief introduction to the evolution of British and American policing. I was introduced to Klockars’ ideas in college, and finally got around to reading this book recently. It is a reasonably frank and unsentimental book that shows how the current system is an improvement over some old systems (ie. the Tything system, The Watch and Ward, “Thief Takers,” etc.), but still has obvious, troubling flaws.

Unfortunately I wasn’t trying to be funny. People have been arrested for video taping police before. The article I found said the police ran around confiscating several people’s phones and cameras and she only got away because the train finally took off before they could snatch hers.

I suspect she will be intimidated and harrassed by the cops, just like the woman whose home security system filmed the cop shooting her dog while no one was home. The only thing that might protect her is that she got it out to the news. It will be interesting to see if there is any future hassle for this woman.

That’s really funny until you realize that that woman is almost certain to be harrassed by officers. Radley might it be interesting to follow up with that young woman to see what, if any, experiences or run-ins she has had with the police since she bravely put her face on tv and the internet in defiance of police misconduct?

I wonder if the young woman will now face charges for illegally video-taping police during a murder.

I believe there was a previous mention in a response which prompted another entry as well.

And yes, it is horrifying. Also sad that the anger that residents felt was improperly directed–the cops in that town should be terrified of the citizens, but instead the citizens terrorized each other.

Go Google that name. I just tipped to this story yesterday.

Is it that I don’t know how to search this place, or has nobody here heard of this thing yet?

It’s fucking horrifying.

They are just hauling-off and killing us, now.

They’ll Taze you until your brain boils.

Then, toss you in a cell to make friends with the “Booty Bandit”.

Making known the identity of government enforcers – their name and, if taken, a photograph – is the only way that most people will come to know who they are – possibly even discover that one or more are people they actually know. With this information others who disagree with the actions of these agents, or simply that they are government enforcers at all, can socially preference against them.

Having large numbers of people refuse to voluntarily interact with them, is highly likely to result in many of these government enforcers questioning the worth of retaining the jobs they have chosen – ones in which they initiate physical harm on others, whether on their own calling or when “following orders”. (If the harmer is not a “law enforcement officer”, then s/he could be more easily dealt with by other “2nd class” citizens.) In addition, I can’t imagine that very many of the legislators/executives/judges would go out into the country and enforce any of the laws/regulations/decrees they have legislated/signed/decreed. These depend on people who are willing to do the enforcing – the enforcers are the key.

Negative social preferencing is a powerful tool (as is positive for beneficial actions), but requires the identity of the person – government enforcers in this case – being known, not a difficult task in this Internet age.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational – http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project – http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

If you need sensitivity training to know not to shove a toilet plunger up someone’s ass against their will then maybe your just too fucked up to be a cop in the first place.

(Paraphrase)

If that cop was seriously afraid he was being attacked by a 71 year-old man, he has not business being a cop. Laws are not a substitute for common sense.

‘…just because any of these irrational cop haters would shit bricks and fight back if ANYONE (but especially a cop) put their hands on them doesn’t mean the cop has any right to defend his person.’

I’m not irrational! I’m just against govt thugs assaulting citizens, driving our taxes up, and shooting our dogs. When they treat citizens with respect and leave the dogs alone, I actually almost like some of them.

These stories are not good community PR! That is for sure!

“laying hands could have left him liable for battery and false imprisonment.”

(Hums the losing tune from the price is right).

Aww, sorry Frank, that actually DOESN’T leave someone liable for battery and false imprisonment. That’s not the way the, uh, oh what’s it called? Oh right – the LAW works.

Wow, come to think of it your post was way off on all fronts. Can you explain how you equated touching with “detaining?” Can you explain where you derived that the standard relevant in this situation is Probable Cause (here’s a hint: that’s the same standard required to make an arrest. Here’s another hint: you’re wrong on that one too).

I suppose the only thing your argument makes clear and is correct upon, is that you agree that what the officer did was clearly a battery (you also apparently think it wad false imprisonment, but you are wrong there) in terms of civil liability. Standing over an old man in a menacing fashion is also an assault in terms of civil liability, but you knew that, Matlock!

Final question: Can you explain how ticky-tack civil liability (which I will now grant you for the sake of argument though you are still 100% incorrect on this issue) can justify a response of actual violence?

So many questions, and there you are, unlilkely (read: incapable) to respond.