Grunt

I fully support their fight against tyranny. What I see here is people willing to sacrifice liberty. I'm not.

Just detained. To be fair, I believe he was detained because he refused to identify himself. I read that in one report, and if true that would give the police reason to detain. This goes to my earlier point of escalation based on a false belief on behalf of the officer.

Be tired all you'd like. You should be more tired of misrepresenting what I said. I was quite clear, and your inability to understand, or intentionally misrepresenting it, doesn't make it OK to call me a liar. Odd to see a staff member here do that. The escalation is unnecessary and uncalled for. It's insulting. I very clearly, and intentionally, said you MAY think that is OK. I can't pretend to know what you think. AND I DID quote where I believe you said that. Here, I'll do it again. You very plainly said that you believe this is how the system should work. The carried implication is that you think these "small" transgressions are acceptable provided they are investigated and the officer trained. Again, I very plainly said you MAY think that is OK. You certainly seem to suggest it is. I also very plainly stated I disagree with you. I don't think that is OK. So it is YOU who is either deliberately misrepresenting what I plainly typed or are having trouble understanding what is written, I don't believe you to be an ignorant person, so I'm leaning towards dishonest. I'll wait for that apology you mentioned, or hope that you hold fast to leaving the conversation.

Sure. If they are suspected of committing a crime. In THIS case there wasn't even a crime committed to suspect someone of. You can't randomly detain people and go fishing. I don't believe it's possible. I also don't believe you randomly start depriving people of liberty to research the law. If you know, then do it. If you don't, keep walking. PARTICULARLY when the suspected crime was playing catch with your daughter. Yep. Because of you can't do your job without violating my civil liberties then you aren't qualified to do your job, period.

It's absolutely an example of our law enforcement system. There are some things that are just facts: 1. The citizen was deprived of liberty. 2. The citizen was in no way violating the law. Those two things should never exist together. What if the citizen had fought his kidnapper? What if bodily injury had resulted? The citizen was in the right this time. The only reason this didn't escalate was because the citizen allowed his rights to be violated under threat of violence. You may think that is OK, although I don't, but it doesn't change it from being fact.

Spot on. The issue lies with "reasonable suspicion you committed a crime". There was no reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. The detention appears to be due to the officer's inadequate understanding of the law. This should NEVER be the case. The error should always be on the side of individual liberty. Particularly in cases such as this.

Well, we capture them and export them to Florida.

I've served with them. I know what you mean. An 18 year old private isn't the same thing as a 22 year old trained police officer.

No difference, only I'm full time. Well, no difference except that isn't my job. National Guard does domestic and foreign operations. Most Soldiers are part time until units get activated for both. Then there are full-time units like Civil Support Teams, Counter-drug units, Recruiting & Retention, Unit Support Personnel, etc.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I think it would be equally individual, dependent on the leader. On the one had, too, National Guard Soldiers are mostly part time. They're more in touch with their civilian side than military. Stepping back from my role, I think it would really depend on how they were called up. Many are very patriotic and if there were a "civil war" it would be interesting to see where they fell. They tend to have closer ties to community than other branches. That usually isn't how it happens, though. It's usually the frog in the pot scenario, where the temperature gets turned up slowly and suddenly you look around and see how bad things are. The number of leaders that take the Constitution seriously might surprise you. That said, Soldiers aren't cops. Different training. Different ROE. I think the biggest fear would be the violation of your rights without them even knowing they were doing it. Who knows. It's speculation. I've never seen them deployed in a manner that would really give them the opportunity to test it out,.

Military and police analogies aren't accurate, in my opinion, War isn't a group coming together and deciding that we should have rules and then hiring people to come together and enforce them. It's the exact absence of that. The rules are different. The recognition of rights is historically different, though that's changing. The tacit support of subjects and the belief that this makes them targetable is different. etc, etc.

Adults aren't children. Parents aren't cops. My job is to raise and educate my children. The State's job isn't to raise or educate me. This is one of the dumbest analogies I've ever seen, and I've heard privates say some pretty silly things.

Because it was the individual officer that chose to move outside of his authority. Punishing a department that just reaches into the taxpayer's pockets isn't a punishment that will change behavior. Each individual officer should think about the authority they are about to exercise and what the ramifications of that might be.

I quit.

It's clear you need to at least familiarize yourself with the case, You're arguing on emotion, not facts. FIRST, who cares about the stay-at-home order? Have you even bothered to read it? He wasn't violating it. Second, HIS DEPARTMENT said he overreached. The mental gymnastics you engage in to defend bad behavior is exhausting.

I didn't say "arrest", either. Officers are allowed to deprive liberty without an arrest. Nothing to say what he did was wrong? Are you familiar with the case? Some things are facts: The citizen was following the rules which were posted at the park and designed to protect citizens through social distancing (whether those rules are constitutional is another issue) The authorities approached him, without ANY PPE which they claim the department requires during this pandemic, putting him and his family at risk. Most of the event was videoed by a former city councilor. The police department apologized and stated it is evident that it was overreach by the officers involved. ETA: This means they assumed authority they didn't have, yet the citizen was required to obey under threat of violence and/or death. There is no question, except maybe you, that they did something wrong. NOBODY gave the "order" to deprive someone of liberty who was. following the rules. Even the department admits that.

I never said they committed a crime. Unfortunately, it's typically not considered a crime for an officer to deprive an innocent civilian of liberty.

I can't help what you do or don't believe. I can only comment on what is reported to be factual, which appears to be substantiated by the fact that the department apologized, the citizen was released without charge, and the allegations weren't denied.

That's not an equal example. In this case, an American citizen was minding his own business in complete compliance with the law. Police officers didn't like that, didn't read the sign right there that STATED the citizen was in compliance, didn't follow their OWN rules, and not only deprived him of liberty but violated the very rules they claimed to be enforcing, WITHOUT PPE, and put the citizen and his family at risk.

Feelings aren't reasons for authority to deprive someone of liberty. You are either violating a consitutional law or you are not.

This argument makes no sense to me. Only one person was minding their own business when their liberty was deprived.

There isn't a "higher standard " because the average citizen has no legal authority to remove liberty at their discretion.

Does to me. With great power comes great responsibility.

I think you either don't understand what the BLM movement is or what my position is.

Once is too much. If you can't do your job without violating my civil liberties, you can't do that job.