Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Original Poster
#1 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 1:12 AM
Default "Don't Taze Me Bro" Pt. II
Interesting article I ran across...

Quote:
Driver Tased For Asking Officer Why He Was Stopped
Man who refused to sign speeding ticket because he did not understand what it was is tased and arrested by officer who then refused to read him his rights


Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007



A man was tased and arrested on a Utah highway after being stopped by an officer and refusing to sign a speeding ticket because he did not understand what offence he had committed or why he had been pulled over.

The encounter, captured on the police car camera on September 14th and released this week, is the latest in a long string of incidents involving the unacceptable use of Tasers by officers on citizens whom the evidence reveals are in no way threatening, acting unlawfully or resisting co-operation.

The video shows the Utah Highway Patrolman pull over Jared Massey and his pregnant wife who also had their baby with them in the car and ask for Mr Massey's license.

Mr Massey tells the officer he does not understand why he has been stopped or what he is being charged with, at which point the officer orders Massey to get out of the car. The officer then puts down his clipboard and immediately takes out his Taser and points it at Mr Massey without any provocation whatsoever, yelling "Turn around and put your hands behind your back" as Massey attempts to point out the speed limit sign and engage the officer in conversation.

A shocked Massey asks "what the hell is wrong with you?" and backs away, turning around as the officer had demanded, at which point the officer unleashes 50,000 volts from the Taser into Massey's body, sending him screaming to the ground instantly and causing his wife to jump out of the car and yell hysterically for help.

Lying face down on the ground a shell shocked, Mr Massey says "officer I don't know what you are doing, I don't know why you are doing what you are doing" to which the officer replies "I am placing you under arrest because you did not obey my instruction."

Mr Massey then once again asks the officer several times why he was stopped and what he is being charged with. He then asks for his rights to be read and points out that the officer cannot arrest him without doing this. Instead of reading Massey his rights the officer then addresses another patrolman who arrives on the scene sardonically commenting "Ohhh he took a ride with the Taser" to which the other officer answers "painful isn't it".

The icing on the cake comes at the end of the video when the officer LIES to his own colleague about the encounter, clearly stating that he verbally warned Massey he was going to tase him, as is the law, when there was no warning whatsoever.

Mr Massey is planning to file a lawsuit against the Utah Highway Patrol. He says he was already slowing down as he approached the 40 mile per hour sign in the construction zone outside of vernal. All charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped.


Rest of the story and commentary here:

http://infowars.net/articles/novemb...211107Tased.htm

Video of the incident here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc

This really is a two part debate.

First, is the officer in the right for tazing the man because he refused to sign the speeding ticket, or is this a case of police brutality?

Second, riding on the first "Don't Taze Me Bro" debate, should the police still be allowed to use tazers, and if so should the rules re: their use be more stringent?
Advertisement
Theorist
#2 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 1:35 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Reindeer911

This really is a two part debate.

First, is the officer in the right for tazing the man because he refused to sign the speeding ticket, or is this a case of police brutality?

Second, riding on the first "Don't Taze Me Bro" debate, should the police still be allowed to use tazers, and if so should the rules re: their use be more stringent?


First, if I accept the article as true, and that the officer never told the man he was being ticketed, and refused to answer the question when asked, then I respectfully say, HELL NO the officer wasn't right. I haven't seen the video, (I have dialup, video is a pain in the ass) and there is a possibility that we aren't getting the entire story, but based on the information you provided, I can see absolutely no possible justification for a tazer being needed. I don't know if the man was beligerent towards the officer, or if he was asking what the ticket was for in a polite manner. Based on the article, I suspect it was probably polite, and the officer was a jackass. Had the officer informed him that he was being ticketed because of speeding, that probably would have satisfied his curiosity about the ticket, and proceeded to sign it. Most people know that they were speeding when they get pulled over, and might entertain a possibility of talking their way out of it, but once the officer creates the ticket, most people accept it, provided the officer explains it. Now, I can say from personal experience, that the ticket should have stated a reason on it. That makes me wonder if the officer even let the man look at the ticket before trying to get him to sign it. I would never sign a ticket before I saw the reason listed...And if the officer would rather taze him than explain that he pulled them over for speeding, clearly, the officer has a power complex, and probably has a history of going above necessary force, and should probably be suspended, if not fired. This was a clear abuse of power, if the information in the article is correct.

As to the second part, yes, tazers should still be used. They are still an effective non-lethal way to take suspects down. But, I would add, that if you are going to abuse the tazer, the video in the police cruiser doesn't lie. The officer will get what is coming to him. If you are going to use a tazer, make sure that the video isn't going to get you in trouble for it. Juries love videos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Forum Resident
#3 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 2:59 AM
You know, if I saw somebody tazering a dog like that for being disobedient, I would probably snap. It's a good thing they only do that to people.

There's a phrase that comes to mind: "... the coarsening of society." From tasers to waterboarding to nuking mecca, it's all of one piece, a society slowly losing its sense of right and wrong and slipping into a collective mindset of barbarism and authoritarianism, receding from the accumulated values of western civilization.

Years ago, something like that would have shocked me more. Now it's like, aw shucks, we saw worse on 24.
Lab Assistant
#4 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 3:26 AM
1) No, that cop should absolutely not have tasered that man. How utterly stupid.

2) No, tasers should absolutely not be used. The police claim that they are non-lethal, yet they have claimed 18 Canadian lives in the past year. This is a huge topic in Canada right now, actually, because of an incident that happened in the Vancouver airport a couple of months ago. A Polish man was moving to Canada for the first time and was supposed to meet his mother at the airport. She waited for 6 hours for him and was told that he was not there and that she should go home and come back later.

However, he was there and was detained in a high-security area for 10 hours. He did not speak English and he became agitated and started throwing things around the area. Airport security called police and four officers responded. On the tape (this entire thing was videotaped) you can hear one officer say "Taser?" and another one nods. This man is cornered by these 4 police officers, he is unarmed and his hands are down by his sides. They taser him five times and jump on him when he falls to the ground. He later died.

I am infuriated and ashamed at this incident. There are so many questions I would like to ask: 1) Why was he detained for so long? (I believe they thought he was a terrorist, but I'm not completely sure) 2) Why did they not get a translator down there so that he could understand what was going on and so that he could explain himself? 3) Why was his mother told that he wasn't in the airport? She could have been a valuable translator. 4) Why did the officers not just handcuff him? 4 fully grown men, probably 200 lbs each, armed to the hilt against 1 man who is scared, confused, frustrated and doesn't speak English isn't exactly a fair fight. 5) Why did nobody resuscitate him when he stopped breathing?

Even though the police claim that their officers are trained, they are obviously not trained in what consistutes improper force. The police also claim that tasers are not lethal, but I would say that 18 deaths in a year would make them a lethal weapon. I am just disgusted. I hope his family takes them to the cleaners.

In all, I do not think that officers should be given tasers. Not all are like this, but I have seen too many cases of trigger-happy officers shooting first, then asking questions later. If you need to subdue a suspect, handcuff them or flash them your gun. That will shut them up.

What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?

"Ma'am, your eyes look red. Have you been drinking?"
"Officer, your eyes look glazed. Have you been eating donuts?"
#5 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 3:48 AM
I watched the video, that article is definitely sided. The man knew exactly why he was being pulled over, the officer told him for speeding. In all honesty the driver was acting like my three year old who gets upset when caught doing something wrong. The man argues with the cop over the existance of a 40 mph speed limit sign that you see plain as day at the beginning of the video.

The officer takes out the taser in plain sight of the man and points it at him telling him to put his hands behind him. The man instead takes some steps back towards his vehicle. He's warned three more times to put his hands behind him when he turns to get in his vehicle. How did the cop know he wasn't going back to his vehicle to get a weapon? The man ignores the officer with a smirk on his face "what the hell is wrong with you." He's being disrespectful to authority and disobeyed the officer. He wouldn't have been tazed if he did what the cop asked.

However, the cop did NOT read him his rights, and that's obviously illegal!
Moderator
retired moderator
#6 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 4:10 AM
The video definitely fills in some blanks in this case. And Im speaking only in terms of US laws when I write the following...

Firstly, signing a citation is not an admission of guilt, it simply means that you understand for what offense the officer is citing you. It is also completely within any police officer's right to place a person under arrest if they refuse to sign a citation. Most people, at least those who arent guilty of something, comply with officer's instruction to sign a citation because, again, it's not an admission of guilt and can be debated in traffic court. Some people may ask for clarification for what offense they are being cited, but in this case the officer clearly states (as can be heard on the video) that the man is being cited for speeding.

Massey asked about another three times in a row what he was being cited for, even after the officer already told him. The officer then asked Massey to sign the citation, at which point Massey refused. This is the correct time for the officer to ask the driver to step out of the car, which Massey was asked to do. The officer then went to arrest Massey for failing to sign the citation by asking him to turn around and place his hands behind his back. The officer pre-maturely (IMO) pulled out his taser and pointed it at Massey, again telling him to turn around and put his hands behind his back. Massey did not cooperate and answered with a "What the heck's wrong with you?" Massey looked extremely "flighty" as he shifted his weight from one foot to the other and took a few steps towards his vehicle. For all the officer knew, Massey was about to jump in his vehicle and speed off! The officer then tased Massey, sending the driver to the ground immediately. Massey's wife then started to scream, jump out of the car, etc. The arrest is made, Massey is put in the back of the police cruiser, and the officer informs Massey's wife why he is being arrested.

Proper deployment standard of tasers is pretty non-specific, so it is hard to say whether or not the officer acted pre-maturely by pulling out his taser and pointing it at Massey immediately after Massey emerged from his vehicle. If the officer felt as though his life was in danger, he has every right to taser Massey because technically Massey was resisting arrest. And it's a far better choice to taser someone as opposed to shooting them or using some other type of lethal action.

As far as Miranda Rights ("You have the right to remain silent, etc...") goes, the officer was completely within his boundaries of not reading Massey his rights. Police officers do not have to read anyone their Miranda Rights (under arrest or not) until the suspect is being questioned about the incident for which they were arrested. Officers can ask someone their information (i.e. name, birthdate, address, etc) before reading them their Miranda Rights, but all other questions asked or answered without the presence of the Miranda Rights being read can be considered admissible in court.

Massey was a pretty dense guy if he couldn't grasp what he was being cited for after being told once by the officer. Plus most people can read, so they would simply look at the citation before signing it, which would also state for what the citation is. The officer did act like somewhat of a jerk to the other officer later in the video, and it certainly doesn't condone his behavior, but what police officer doesn't have a power-trippy moment at least once in his career?

So to answer the questions (LOL - took me a while)...

1. Yes, I believe the officer had the legal right to taser Massey given the specifics of the arrest. Police brutality? No way. Unnecessary? Maybe, but its too hard to say for sure unless you were in the officer's shoes during that traffic stop.

2. Police officers should absolutely be able to use tasers. Since the proper deployment standard of tasers is pretty non-specific, stricter rules may help in the fight against police brutality. Of course, stricter rules mean more complaints, more time spent in court, more money spent, etc, but if its worth it in the big-scheme of things, Im all for it.

Formerly known as boolPropped
Field Researcher
#7 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 5:26 AM
A police officer should never escalate a situation. They should be calm and reasonable even faced with those who are not. This officer wasn't. If this officer couldn't handle this traffic stop he shouldn't be on the job.

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
Firstly, signing a citation is not an admission of guilt, it simply means that you understand for what offense the officer is citing you.


At what point did the police officer say those words to this man? Never. Here was a man who had never received a ticket so he may not know this. The officer would have looked up his record and even if he didn't it should be common for any officer to inform the person of this when the person refuses to sign. I know I was told that and I didn't even refuse to sign.

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
Massey asked about another three times in a row what he was being cited for, even after the officer already told him. The officer then asked Massey to sign the citation, at which point Massey refused. This is the correct time for the officer to ask the driver to step out of the car, which Massey was asked to do.


No he asked once after the ticket was brought to him. He wanted to go look for the sign. Which once again a simple statement that the signature doesn't mean guilt might have changed the whole situation. Did the officer ever tell him the speed he was going? Because that seemed to be part of the problem.

After he pulled the tazer the driver's stress level and adrenaline would be through the roof. He may not have even realized it was a tazer rather than a gun. Any police officer would know this. They deal with it all the time. People get jittery when a weapon is pointed at them. So point a tazer and you'll get the justification to use it if all you're looking for is nerves.

Listen to the officer's description of how the tazering went down at the end of the video then rewatch the actual tazering. They aren't close. Had it happened as the officer said we wouldn't even be discussing the matter.

Officer says he said twice for man to put hands behind his back. Then he says the man is jumping around making him nervous - back here over to there. He says he THEN pulled out the tazer and told him "turn around right now or I'll tazer you."

In reality the officer didn't tell him to turn around and put his hands behind his back until they were at the police car. And then he pulled the taser before the man could do anything. The police officer repeated himself as he pulled and pointed the taser. If you notice the man's back is then to the officer as he is walking away (I would bet nerves as he's moving slowly) and the officer is still telling him to turn around (twice more before tazering). Strangely the officer didn't repeat during those last 2 times to put his hands behind his back or tell the man to stop moving.

Nerves are funny things. My friend had a gun pointed at her during a robbery. She laughed. Couldn't stop. Couldn't do anything else nor does she know what the robber was saying. Afterwards she was calm again. A cop should know how to deal with people and stress. And they should know that the average person will never be in that situation so they may act oddly.

Quote: Originally posted by Shenanigans
The man argues with the cop over the existance of a 40 mph speed limit sign that you see plain as day at the beginning of the video.


The officer said there was another sign further back and the driver said there wasn't. The driver said he slowed at that sign we saw in the video. The cop was in front of that sign and pulled out right after the driver passed that sign to pull him over. How did he know he was speeding?
Theorist
#8 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 5:32 AM
See, this is the kind of stuff I miss by not being patient enough for the video to load because I have crappy dialup. I had to base my opinion based solely on the article, without the video evidence. Perhaps had I looked, my opinion might have changed, might not have. But, unless the guy was physically resisting arrest, using a tazer on a routine traffic violation does seem to be overkill, at least on the surface. Even if the guy was being a jackass and refusing to sign the citation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Moderator
retired moderator
#9 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 6:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Scout
A police officer should never escalate a situation. They should be calm and reasonable even faced with those who are not. This officer wasn't. If this officer couldn't handle this traffic stop he shouldn't be on the job.

This may be true, but look at the doctors who have acted out of stress? Or the engineers or the teachers? There are a lot of professionals who make bad decisions as a result of a stressful situation. Granted there are a lot stories about police officers flying off the handle, but I do think that police officers are generally targeted more often than other's in another occupation because they deal with public safety so much more frequently than most. Police brutality is a disgusting crime, and it sickens me personally to watch it, read about it, etc. But I just dont see this specific case as police brutality. Of course thats just my opinion

Quote: Originally posted by Scout
At what point did the police officer say those words to this man? Never. Here was a man who had never received a ticket so he may not know this. The officer would have looked up his record and even if he didn't it should be common for any officer to inform the person of this when the person refuses to sign. I know I was told that and I didn't even refuse to sign.

The officer never stated this to the driver. Its not a requirement, but it certainly is helpful in any type of traffic stop. I cant argue with you there

Quote: Originally posted by Scout
No he asked once after the ticket was brought to him. He wanted to go look for the sign. Which once again a simple statement that the signature doesn't mean guilt might have changed the whole situation. Did the officer ever tell him the speed he was going? Because that seemed to be part of the problem.

Yes, a simple clarification from the officer may have certainly de-escalated the situation. But my post was focused more on the legality of the situation, not if the officer's actions were ethical or not. Just because this officer may have stressed an already stressful situation does not automatically mean he did something illegal. But same goes for the driver.

Quote: Originally posted by Scout
After he pulled the tazer the driver's stress level and adrenaline would be through the roof. He may not have even realized it was a tazer rather than a gun. Any police officer would know this. They deal with it all the time. People get jittery when a weapon is pointed at them. So point a tazer and you'll get the justification to use it if all you're looking for is nerves.

True. Stress and adrenaline can do some pretty strange things to people, but this same fact can be applied to the officer. Traffic stops are the most dangerous, commonly-occurring situation that police officers deal with, so the officer himself may have been running on adrenaline which forced him to pull out his taser. Yes, I know you stated in your post already that police officers should be able to conduct themselves calmly under stressful situations, but no one is perfect. This may be the first time this officer has ever acted this way, we dont know (or did I overlook something?).

Quote: Originally posted by Scout
Listen to the officer's description of how the tazering went down at the end of the video then rewatch the actual tazering. They aren't close. Had it happened as the officer said we wouldn't even be discussing the matter.

I never stated that the officer's actions were correctly detailed in his colorful rendition to the other police officer at the end of the video. On the contrary, I stated that the officer acted like quite a jerk when reiterating the story. So I definitely agree with you here.

Quote: Originally posted by Scout
In reality the officer didn't tell him to turn around and put his hands behind his back until they were at the police car. And then he pulled the taser before the man could do anything. The police officer repeated himself as he pulled and pointed the taser. If you notice the man's back is then to the officer as he is walking away (I would bet nerves as he's moving slowly) and the officer is still telling him to turn around (twice more before tazering). Strangely the officer didn't repeat during those last 2 times to put his hands behind his back or tell the man to stop moving.

Again, we have to put ourselves in the officer's shoes. In legal boundaries, the officer had the right to pull out his taser the second the driver didnt comply with signing the citation. I agree its a pretty stupid thing to do on the officer's part, and I wouldnt personally chose to go about solving the problem in that way, but it is still legal for the police officer. The deployment and use regulations of tasers is very general from state-to-state, so maybe it would be smart to draft up some stricter laws detailing this for police officers. What do you think?

Quote: Originally posted by Scout
The officer said there was another sign further back and the driver said there wasn't. The driver said he slowed at that sign we saw in the video. The cop was in front of that sign and pulled out right after the driver passed that sign to pull him over. How did he know he was speeding?

Police officers do not have to catch a speeder on their radar in order to cite them for speeding. Officers write something along the lines of "no radar" on the citation if they decide to cite a speeder without having used a radar gun on the speeder's vehicle.

And Scout I didnt mean to pick apart your post to be a pain in the ass. You just had some good points I wanted to respond to

Quote: Originally posted by davious
But, unless the guy was physically resisting arrest, using a tazer on a routine traffic violation does seem to be overkill, at least on the surface. Even if the guy was being a jackass and refusing to sign the citation.

I agree with you here; it was over-the-top for the officer to taser the guy. But I still dont see it as police brutality, as the initial question of this thread proposed. A poor judgment choice, yes. But not police brutality.

Formerly known as boolPropped
Original Poster
#10 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 7:58 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Scout
After he pulled the tazer the driver's stress level and adrenaline would be through the roof. He may not have even realized it was a tazer rather than a gun. Any police officer would know this. They deal with it all the time. People get jittery when a weapon is pointed at them. So point a tazer and you'll get the justification to use it if all you're looking for is nerves.


That's a good point.

Taser



Glock 17

Field Researcher
#11 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 9:48 AM
boolPropped, don't worry about picking apart my post as it's the best way to do it. :D

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
This may be true, but look at the doctors who have acted out of stress? Or the engineers or the teachers?


Everyone is subject to stress. But if your job stresses you out so much that you can't do your job properly you shouldn't have that job. Especially when you are in a position of power. Cops have a hard job. Not everyone can do it. It's why they undergo psychological screening. I know I don't have the personality for it as I would be tazering everyone who parks in the fire lane. Because they are evil. But I digress.

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
But my post was focused more on the legality of the situation, not if the officer's actions were ethical or not.


I can't imagine that it is illegal. Does it violate department policy? I don't know. I would imagine it would but there is a huge grey area usually built into those rules. And since I don't know their policy take that with a grain of salt the size of my inflated head.

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
True. Stress and adrenaline can do some pretty strange things to people, but this same fact can be applied to the officer. Traffic stops are the most dangerous, commonly-occurring situation that police officers deal with, so the officer himself may have been running on adrenaline which forced him to pull out his taser.


He had already run a background check on the driver. He saw his wife and kid in the car. The man was cooperating except for signing but he was explaining that. And the cop was unconcerned enough to walk back to the cruiser with his back to the driver walking behind him. If this cop finds that situation too stressful how does he do his job? Entering into stressful situations is the job. And this one, compared to what else cops deal with, wasn't bad.

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
In legal boundaries, the officer had the right to pull out his taser the second the driver didnt comply with signing the citation.


Legally? I'm sure he did. He could pull his gun for a traffic stop if he wanted or for a jaywalker. Or even just pulled him over and pulled his weapon before talking to him at all. There are no laws about police pulling out their weapon that I know of. He may not have even violated department policy pulling it out either. But it wasn't reasonable. Failure to sign is not reason enough to pull out a tazer. And being arrested isn't reason either.

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
The deployment and use regulations of tasers is very general from state-to-state, so maybe it would be smart to draft up some stricter laws detailing this for police officers. What do you think?


Oh absolutely. I think it would be helpful for the police as well as the public.

Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
Police officers do not have to catch a speeder on their radar in order to cite them for speeding. Officers write something along the lines of "no radar" on the citation if they decide to cite a speeder without having used a radar gun on the speeder's vehicle.


I understand that but the video seems strange to me. The cop car never stopped moving and then pulled out right behind the driver (before the speed limit sign Shenanigans mentioned) and almost immediately pulled them over. So I was just curious as to how he figured out their speed.

I'm avoiding the police brutality question as that phrase has connotations that go with it which I think muddy the issue. I think it is enough to say if he was right or wrong. Or even to say whether it was excessive force. And on those I say it was excessive force and wrong. I'd even go as far to say I think that officer should be either fired or given a desk job.

Reindeer911, wow. If either of those get pointed at me I intend to involuntarily pee myself.
Moderator
retired moderator
#12 Old 23rd Nov 2007 at 7:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Scout
I'd even go as far to say I think that officer should be either fired or given a desk job.

*boolPropped scoffs* (not at you Scout, that scoff was intended towards the Criminal Justice System as a whole) Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies barely ever reprimand their police officers for wrong-doings, which is really wrong. There are so many other jobs where someone would be fired in an instant, yet police officers seem to constantly and consistently simply receive a slap on the wrist or paid leave or something idiotic as opposed to their deserved (albeit harsh) punishment.

I do agree with you, Scout, that some consequences should be dealt to the officer in this video. But I still hold firm that I do not think the officer was using excessive force beyond the limits of the law. He may have behaved unethically and deserves at least another training course on de-escalating a tense situation, but Im only speculating thats the most he will get as a punishment. Yayness for the US Criminal Justice System :hmm:

Formerly known as boolPropped
Field Researcher
#13 Old 24th Nov 2007 at 2:39 AM
boolPropped, you are right about them not getting reprimanded when they need it. It's a shame because there really are many more good cops than bad ones. I think any group that policies (no pun intended) itself is subject to that. I know the medical field is like that too.
Scholar
#14 Old 24th Nov 2007 at 6:03 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Doc Doofus
There's a phrase that comes to mind: "... the coarsening of society." From tasers to waterboarding to nuking mecca, it's all of one piece, a society slowly losing its sense of right and wrong and slipping into a collective mindset of barbarism and authoritarianism, receding from the accumulated values of western civilization.


I sometimes feel the same way, but I think about it--I don't know if we're become coarser necessarily, as a society.

There was a time less than a century ago when it was considered acceptable to find political dissidents (of the pinko variety) and arrest them for seditious speech, when it was acceptable to break out labor strikes with rifles, bullets and bayonets in the hand of thugs disguised as detectives.

A little more recent than that, it was considered acceptable to firebomb entire cities not for strategic or military reasons, but to terrorize their populations in the hope that they would capitulate faster.

A bit more recent than that, it was acceptable to drop more bombs on a single forested small forested nation than in the entire European theater of the Second World War so long as we had "peace with honor".

I wonder if "western values", as vague a notion as that is, were all that great to start with. Some of them definitely weren't, I suppose.

Perhaps that's just me being an optimist though--I tend to paint the past in a very poor light. If I want to go back even farther, I could say there was a time where it was alright to exterminate an entire race simply because our way of life dictated that we continue on a march westward--but at that point, the changes of values become so thorough that they're almost unrecognizable. Probably a good thing too.

That certainly doesn't justify what the officer did, supposing what happened was accurately described there.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Forum Resident
#15 Old 24th Nov 2007 at 5:43 PM
In the Holocaust, the Nazis did some terrible things to Jews. That's barbarism. (I would say it was worse tha even that, because it was state-sponsored barbarism, a category of its own). Did the fact that the Holocaust took place mean that western values failed? I would argue that the values didn't fail, but people failed. The same with other incidents that you have described.

There is a wonderful book, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, that a lot of us read in high school. Or saw a movie version of. The story was ostensibly about a bunch of children (the British version of Boy Scouts) who were shipwrecked on an island, and how they they very quickly reverted to savagery through a step-wise process. The boys who wanted to keep a rescue fire going were slowly abandoned by the boys who wanted to rally around a strong leader and hunt pigs. The real theme of the book was that civilization itself is a fragile thing and that barbarism is only something we all keep at bay. (Yeah, I know, you read it. Some here haven't.)

One of the core premises of western liberalism is the belief in progress. I'm using the word liberalism here in the more abstract 19th century meaning. By that definition, almost all political conservatives and liberals alike are "liberals." Progress, is another word with a more abstract meaning: that human civilization has a direction and that we can and will improve things through history.

I'm a cynic, too. I think progress is an illusion. I go with Golding, that progress and civilization are a thin veneer. But that makes it all the more important for us to man the rescue fires when a bullying leader comes along and berates us for not casting away our clothes and hunting pigs (and each other) in the jungle dark.

Here's something to be optimistic about: We still apologize for what happened to the Indians. The Germans have been fantastically apologetic and unreserved in their acceptance of blame for the Holocaust. We have taken responsibility for the Japanese Internment of WWII. With the passage of time, we gain enough distance to look back at things and say, "Crap, that was just plain WRONG."
Scholar
#16 Old 24th Nov 2007 at 7:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Doc Doofus
Here's something to be optimistic about: We still apologize for what happened to the Indians. The Germans have been fantastically apologetic and unreserved in their acceptance of blame for the Holocaust. We have taken responsibility for the Japanese Internment of WWII. With the passage of time, we gain enough distance to look back at things and say, "Crap, that was just plain WRONG."


While I'd agree with the notions of German society now (though I'm no expert), I wouldn't necessarily say the same thing about the nature of Amerindian Relations--our "apologies" are mostly limited to certain tax, narcotic, and proprietary regulations (how do you apologize for nearly exterminating a race, killing millions of people? Casino licensing, apparently, the same thing we gave to the mob and corporations in Las Vegas).

However, I completely agree with the notion--"Crap, that was just plain WRONG". Our values of changed enormously.

I'm not such a huge follower of "western liberalism", though I do know something or another about it, at least from a historical standpoint. As a school of thought, I maintain it's not the begin-all/end-all. The reason it dominates the world today has a great deal to do with the historical ramifications of centuries of imperialism and war, as much as its own merits as a mindset. I'm more a fan of the anthropological standpoint myself--liberalism is school of thought, with a lot of things I agree with (indeed, I probably live my life in a matter dictated by western liberalism), but it's certainly not the only one by any means.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
 
Back to top