Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

www.americanthinker.com

When the documentary TV show “COPS” first debuted in 1989, it took watching no more than a couple of episodes for most people to grasp the concept (if they didn’t already know it) that resisting the police, sheriff’s department, or any law enforcement agency is a losing proposition, a course of action that always ends badly.

And the 37 years of watching “COPS” is now reinforced by hundreds, if not more, of online dashcam, bodycam and cellphone videos of motorists being told “This is a lawful stop, and if you fail to comply we will break your window, drag you out of your vehicle and take you to jail in handcuffs,” or some variation of those words, followed by the authorities taking precisely that action.

Image created using AI.

And yet, despite the clear lesson inherent in those videos, there apparently remains a significant percentage of the population that still chooses to act out being an “internet lawyer” and telling the cops what rights cops and citizens have or don’t have in such interactions. Somehow, a great many people have gotten precisely the wrong message from all those videos, or somehow believe that their experience will be the exception.

Just what is it that keeps people from learning what should be learned from watching those videos? In most cases, the cops show great patience and restraint, giving the subjects multiple opportunities to comply, and sometimes even informing them, “If you’ll just follow instructions, you’ll likely be issued a warning citation, and you’ll be on your way.”

But Nooo-ooo-ooo! These numbnuts still think they’re gonna outsmart the cops. Now, not all cops are Mensa-types, and some of the folks they’ve pulled over or are otherwise “interviewing” may indeed possess a higher IQ than the average LEO.

But the cops know how to perform their jobs, backwards and forwards and inside-out and under all conditions, and they’ve trained for such scenarios, over and over. And they know what responses are called for, and when such responses have been deemed appropriate and upheld by the courts, even the U.S. Supreme Court.

And the folks who think they can outsmart the cops come up lacking in one critical area, and that is street smarts, which brings us back to the original premise, which is that you don’t fight the cops on the street, where you absolutely cannot win.

Here in the United States of America, interactions between citizens and law enforcement are predicated on the presumption of regularity. That is a legal principle which presumes that officials perform their duties lawfully and correctly, unless and until proven otherwise. In other words, when the cops tell you to do something, you do it!

If you believe the cops are in the wrong, it is prudent for you to comply anyway, even if it means getting arrested. And then you can fight them in court, where you actually have a chance. Most attorneys would probably tell you that there is a pretty good chance that the cops have made some procedural error that can be used to weaken their case against you. But if you choose to fight the cops by the side of the road, that obviates any advantage you might have in court.

There’s really no excuse for people not knowing this, not grasping this concept. And yet they will continue to defy lawful orders. If they do so passively, refusing to roll down their window, refusing to identify themselves or to produce their documents, or refusing to exit the vehicle, they risk suffering the consequences of broken windows and being roughly handled, restrained, and incarcerated.

But if they resist actively, putting the vehicle in gear and attempting to flee or, even worse, using the vehicle to intimidate or even to attack, they do so at their own peril, and risk suffering far more serious consequences, which may prove permanent, irreversible, and even fatal.

This should not be that hard to understand.

Stu Tarlowe has been arrested and incarcerated on several occasions, but has never been convicted of a felony and has never been shot by the police. He has contributed to American Thinker since 2010; most of his work for AT can be viewed here. He also posts on Stu’s Stack o’ Stuff, where the content is not exclusively political and where subscriptions are currently free.