It's troubling; the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again on this stuff- since the Vietnam era, I think- and it still happens all of the time. Not only do civilians not need to show any particular deference to law enforcement, but they can actively criticize them, even sometimes to an extent that an exchange might be considered fighting words if it were said between civilians. The police are expected to be able to cope with a little extra provocation before they throw a punch. We have a lot of arguments about this in my house. My husband thinks all of the calls for police reform are too hard on the police; I belong to the school of "who guards the guardians" and if they won't police themselves- as in this case where the department pretends the victim committed a crime- then we have to find a way to do it for them.
Hello Irene, interesting phrase “who guards the guardians".
If chose, take the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F it will take you to an article titled Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? You may find the origins of the phrase are not what you think. If you dare, follow the links. Who knows what you may find, perhaps a different way to think,
This reporter was not treated as he should have been. He should charge the officers and if officers are found at fault. They need to be punished and this placed in their permanent record. That is what would happen to me as a Veterinarian and .most other professions. Review by the state Board of Veterinary Medicine which includes both honorable members of the profession and public.
Policing is very honorable and necessary profession but needs to be policed to remain that way.
Dr. Roger G. Ellis, Granville, NY.
With thanks and respect to our Law Enforcement Community!!!
Thanks to technology, (cell phones, body cams) the question of whether police abuse their authority has been settled. The question now is, how long before something is done about it? And, for the record, I consider every officer who stood by and did nothing culpable.
Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.. I wish most people understood that unprovoked and unlawful violence by armed individuals is criminal, no matter who does it.
Thank you, thank you, THANK GOODNESS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS…!!!! You have ALWAYS been a voice of reason and understanding (except for your Yankees 🙃) and seriously, I hope you never stop.
Police are trained to lie. There is a thread here continuing from your last post about “free speech.” Police by the nature of their job do not have free speech rights while on the job in the same way as ordinary citizens, but they aren’t trained to be constrained, rather they are trained to abuse their status. They are trained to lie. The lie is meant to entrap “perps,” to cause a psychological conflict in them so they reveal some form of criminality.
Because the aggressor wore a uniform the victim was abused, arrested, charged. Then the report was written in a way to misrepresent the truth of the situation. The Thin Blue Lie.
Training people to inflict cognitive dissonance on themselves - to abuse free speech - is a recipe for some of them to inflict violence on others. The defense mechanism is the Thin Blue Lie.
Hey Mike, it’s that little Nordic creature again. The one that looks and behaves exactly like a human being, but it’s not! Rarely helpful to humans, it drifts into the dreams of their children, sowing night terrors that would paralyze grownups with fright. Mike. One of us is a bit confused?
First, I believe your confusing the police with lawyers. Second, one of the functions of an officer’s is to deescalate a tense situation, the use of their 1St Amendment right, freedom of speech, would in most cases only serve to escalate the situations. I don’t think they lose it; they have the right; they just may choose not to use it for a variety of reasons. It’s in the military that the standard First Amendment protections do not apply to the same extent.
When you write the “thin blue lie” you’re commingling two different concepts. When you write “written in a way to misrepresent the truth”. that’s the “blue wall of silence”. When you write “some of them to inflict violence on others”. That is the “thin blue line” that’s the line that protects the “some of” from the “others”. Are you implying that both concepts are a lie?
What hooked me was your “Training people to inflict cognitive dissonance on themselves” First, I don’t see how it could be done? Second, why would they want it to be done? Gaslighting would a more useful tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting Gaslighting is a tactic for manipulating someone in a way that makes them question their own reality. While you’re in Wikipedia search for “cognitive dissonance”.
Cops are just human, if I prick you, do you not bleed? Not everyone one who wants to go into law enforcement and carry a gun should. Some just don’t have the temperament for the job. Body cam video of Saratoga Springs officer-involved shooting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8RWNLFEWrU listen to the cop who’s caring a gun. What do you hear? I hear fear! The same fear I hear in the voices from the bystanders after all the gunfire stops. Fear clouds the mind and once the hammer drops there is no pulling that bullet back!
Well, you said it, one of us is a bit confused. Seems like it’s you. Think for a while on how training to lie might influence every action or reaction thereafter. Training is used to influence reactions. Training is a means of damping thought in order to create consistency in reaction.
Hey Will, does that soap box you’re on, have wheels, wings, and a heated air, reaction engine,……… in other words, a jet. If not, how is it you were there?
Do you have a link to an uncut video in which the exchanges of words can be heard, I’m think probably not, So, what video did you watch? The following are ones I watched. The first 2 are more about reports telling me what to think, it’s the last one that’s most comprehensive. Even in that one it’s hard to hear the verbal exchange.
The column doesn’t say what was said but what was done. One man shoved the other. Two cops grabbed the man who was shoved and frog marched him out then took him down to the ground. If you’re seeing something else you have the wrong event
Will are talking to yourself or is your comment here meant for me?
You write “The column doesn’t say what was said but what was done.” But here in your column at the very end, you quote what Lambert seemingly said. “But an officer with the National Guard took umbrage with the way Lambert followed their request that he stop talking. Apparently, he was not quite deferential enough and had the gall to say something like “I am allowed to be here.””.
So, are you writing about your column or someone else’s column when you write “The column doesn’t say what was said but what was done.”?
In the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQMLxBpiSu8 after time maker 1:45 one can hear Lambert say “I am allowed to be here.” to a woman although at this point it is unclear what her athorty is. At time maker 1:56 it can be seen she is wearing a shirt with a star on it. Although I don’t believe she’s an officer with the National Guard as you seem to imply in your column.
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bimpDd_q5SU after time marker 6:46 someone who I believe is Lambert’s cameraman attempts to explain the situation. At time marker 7:20 the cameraman says “He’s committed to doing his live show (or live shot I’m not sure) he’s got people talking to him.” Note that the cameraman is pointing with both hands to his own ears as he says “he’s got people talking to him”, This leads me to believe that lambert has ear buds in both ears and is speaking more loudly than normal so he can hear himself speak. It would be inserting to know what the people in lambert ears said to him.
If words matter, will ever know the full story? After the Guardsman shoved Lambert, Lambert could have seen an opportunity to create a whole new story much more interesting than the one he was covering.
It's troubling; the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again on this stuff- since the Vietnam era, I think- and it still happens all of the time. Not only do civilians not need to show any particular deference to law enforcement, but they can actively criticize them, even sometimes to an extent that an exchange might be considered fighting words if it were said between civilians. The police are expected to be able to cope with a little extra provocation before they throw a punch. We have a lot of arguments about this in my house. My husband thinks all of the calls for police reform are too hard on the police; I belong to the school of "who guards the guardians" and if they won't police themselves- as in this case where the department pretends the victim committed a crime- then we have to find a way to do it for them.
Hello Irene, interesting phrase “who guards the guardians".
If chose, take the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F it will take you to an article titled Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? You may find the origins of the phrase are not what you think. If you dare, follow the links. Who knows what you may find, perhaps a different way to think,
Well said Will. Thank you!
This reporter was not treated as he should have been. He should charge the officers and if officers are found at fault. They need to be punished and this placed in their permanent record. That is what would happen to me as a Veterinarian and .most other professions. Review by the state Board of Veterinary Medicine which includes both honorable members of the profession and public.
Policing is very honorable and necessary profession but needs to be policed to remain that way.
Dr. Roger G. Ellis, Granville, NY.
With thanks and respect to our Law Enforcement Community!!!
Thanks to technology, (cell phones, body cams) the question of whether police abuse their authority has been settled. The question now is, how long before something is done about it? And, for the record, I consider every officer who stood by and did nothing culpable.
Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.. I wish most people understood that unprovoked and unlawful violence by armed individuals is criminal, no matter who does it.
Ken:
Thank you, thank you, THANK GOODNESS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS…!!!! You have ALWAYS been a voice of reason and understanding (except for your Yankees 🙃) and seriously, I hope you never stop.
Bob Schnebly
EKU 1980
The Thin Blue Lie.
Police are trained to lie. There is a thread here continuing from your last post about “free speech.” Police by the nature of their job do not have free speech rights while on the job in the same way as ordinary citizens, but they aren’t trained to be constrained, rather they are trained to abuse their status. They are trained to lie. The lie is meant to entrap “perps,” to cause a psychological conflict in them so they reveal some form of criminality.
Because the aggressor wore a uniform the victim was abused, arrested, charged. Then the report was written in a way to misrepresent the truth of the situation. The Thin Blue Lie.
Training people to inflict cognitive dissonance on themselves - to abuse free speech - is a recipe for some of them to inflict violence on others. The defense mechanism is the Thin Blue Lie.
Hey Mike, it’s that little Nordic creature again. The one that looks and behaves exactly like a human being, but it’s not! Rarely helpful to humans, it drifts into the dreams of their children, sowing night terrors that would paralyze grownups with fright. Mike. One of us is a bit confused?
First, I believe your confusing the police with lawyers. Second, one of the functions of an officer’s is to deescalate a tense situation, the use of their 1St Amendment right, freedom of speech, would in most cases only serve to escalate the situations. I don’t think they lose it; they have the right; they just may choose not to use it for a variety of reasons. It’s in the military that the standard First Amendment protections do not apply to the same extent.
When you write the “thin blue lie” you’re commingling two different concepts. When you write “written in a way to misrepresent the truth”. that’s the “blue wall of silence”. When you write “some of them to inflict violence on others”. That is the “thin blue line” that’s the line that protects the “some of” from the “others”. Are you implying that both concepts are a lie?
What hooked me was your “Training people to inflict cognitive dissonance on themselves” First, I don’t see how it could be done? Second, why would they want it to be done? Gaslighting would a more useful tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting Gaslighting is a tactic for manipulating someone in a way that makes them question their own reality. While you’re in Wikipedia search for “cognitive dissonance”.
Cops are just human, if I prick you, do you not bleed? Not everyone one who wants to go into law enforcement and carry a gun should. Some just don’t have the temperament for the job. Body cam video of Saratoga Springs officer-involved shooting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8RWNLFEWrU listen to the cop who’s caring a gun. What do you hear? I hear fear! The same fear I hear in the voices from the bystanders after all the gunfire stops. Fear clouds the mind and once the hammer drops there is no pulling that bullet back!
Well, you said it, one of us is a bit confused. Seems like it’s you. Think for a while on how training to lie might influence every action or reaction thereafter. Training is used to influence reactions. Training is a means of damping thought in order to create consistency in reaction.
You are right. The system needs to be changed because some officers would not have acted that way.
Hey Will, does that soap box you’re on, have wheels, wings, and a heated air, reaction engine,……… in other words, a jet. If not, how is it you were there?
Do you have a link to an uncut video in which the exchanges of words can be heard, I’m think probably not, So, what video did you watch? The following are ones I watched. The first 2 are more about reports telling me what to think, it’s the last one that’s most comprehensive. Even in that one it’s hard to hear the verbal exchange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uitj0SMaoB0 Bodycam footage released from NewsNation reporter’s arrest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeDbmVIfKcM NewsNation Reporter Arrested During Live Broadcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bimpDd_q5SU Bodycam Shows Cops Manhandling NewsNation Reporter During Heated Confrontation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQMLxBpiSu8 OSHP body camera video shows arrest of NewsNation reporter during East Palestine news briefing
I don't see what you see, so what did I miss?
The column doesn’t say what was said but what was done. One man shoved the other. Two cops grabbed the man who was shoved and frog marched him out then took him down to the ground. If you’re seeing something else you have the wrong event
Will are talking to yourself or is your comment here meant for me?
You write “The column doesn’t say what was said but what was done.” But here in your column at the very end, you quote what Lambert seemingly said. “But an officer with the National Guard took umbrage with the way Lambert followed their request that he stop talking. Apparently, he was not quite deferential enough and had the gall to say something like “I am allowed to be here.””.
So, are you writing about your column or someone else’s column when you write “The column doesn’t say what was said but what was done.”?
In the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQMLxBpiSu8 after time maker 1:45 one can hear Lambert say “I am allowed to be here.” to a woman although at this point it is unclear what her athorty is. At time maker 1:56 it can be seen she is wearing a shirt with a star on it. Although I don’t believe she’s an officer with the National Guard as you seem to imply in your column.
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bimpDd_q5SU after time marker 6:46 someone who I believe is Lambert’s cameraman attempts to explain the situation. At time marker 7:20 the cameraman says “He’s committed to doing his live show (or live shot I’m not sure) he’s got people talking to him.” Note that the cameraman is pointing with both hands to his own ears as he says “he’s got people talking to him”, This leads me to believe that lambert has ear buds in both ears and is speaking more loudly than normal so he can hear himself speak. It would be inserting to know what the people in lambert ears said to him.
If words matter, will ever know the full story? After the Guardsman shoved Lambert, Lambert could have seen an opportunity to create a whole new story much more interesting than the one he was covering.