|
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
i asked about what's beneficial to the individual in question, not to everyone involved (who are 'everyone' in this context anyway? the suspect and the authority figures?), and also, as i said - we are diverting slightly off topic with this, meaning this isn't about whether rights are being infringed or not; you might as well just take it as granted that the individual is being questioned for doing something which is indeed illegal in your country.
my point is, if you do not agree with a local law, after having done anything within your legal rights to prevent it or avoid it and failing, you can only comply or resist. declaring that compliance is the only beneficial option is ignorant (mind you, i'm not accusing you of saying that, you still have to clarify your standing on that).
and lastly, two extreme examples to drive the point home: the jews during the holocaust complying with the nazis to take on various jobs against other jews; the lower rank officers complying with the higher rank orders of extermination (not only with nazis, but with any slaughter).
legal authority is not the highest power a man needs to respect/fear (and no, i'm not referring to god). |
Ahh, okay, I did misunderstand you. Apologies. It appears you are taking this to its logical end, to which admittedly I haven't even thought that far out about this. In your extreme examples, I would have to agree with you. The same could also be said of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and so on - all noncompliant (albeit more peacefully). So yes, in such extreme instances I would agree.
I think the difference between those extreme instances and everyday arrests that might be considered questionable or abusive are the end result of the courts. Were there courts ultimately for the Jews to plead their cases of mass genocide at the time (of course there were later)? Parallel that to the instance of this individual or any individual wrongly accused or even abused at arrest (provided it was on tape or witnesses were present to rightly defend the suspect). The belief here is that the courts will ultimately hear his side and the evidence that supports his side versus the abusive or unlawful arrest by the law enforcer.
In the former case, or even if we take the case of MLK or Ghandi, they certainly felt they had no choice to rebel since they believed such injustices were not being enforced in any manner. The latter, however, theoretically has the courts to fall back towards to hopefully plead their case of innocence or injustice.
The caveat, of course, is this isn't perfect - it's certainly not perfect here in the States and its hella far from perfect in various other places globally. But theoretically I believe that is a distinct difference.
Was that any better, or am I still missing here?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|