Good Morning America. Is The Reality Starting To Sink In Now?

I imagine that I am writing clearly, but obviously not. Let me make one last attempt to clarify. I am less interested in the particulars of the case. It is merely an instance of a class of social / political phenomenon, which is my real focus. Perhaps I took some ideas for granted that are better made explicit.

In political philosophy, a state is defined by its monopoly on violence. Although it can be found in Hobbes (and even in earlier texts), this idea in its modern form, is attributed to the sociologist Max Weber and his famous lecture "Politics as a Vocation". The crucial word here is 'defined'. The notion is not that a state exists and is then granted a power to exercise force on its citizens. It is that an entity that can arrogate for itself a monopoly on the use of violence becomes the state, over the geographic area within which it can exercise such a monopoly. In a democratic state, this monopoly exists as part of a compact i.e. a monopoly on violence legitimized by the consent of the governed and balanced by the rights and protections of citizenship.

More later.

 

Green Card, visa holders must carry document, or else be fined, jailed: USCIS rule - News India Times

 

Continuing from above:
An arrest is where state power meets citizenship, where the rubber hits the road so to speak. The way a citizen is treated and constitutional protections guaranteed tells you a lot about the state of democracy. With that background in mind, here are some points in random order:

(1) Re: handcuffing - this is the norm in the United States, but by no means everywhere. Indian courts have ruled routine handcuffing as barbaric, at least in court, if not during arrest. Just to point out that the matter is not settled. I am less interested in the justification that it’s routine. I am more interested that it be acknowledged as dehumanizing, even if necessary.

(2) Re: 'we only know one side of the story' – sure. Not only do I take this as axiomatic, I would go further and say that we only know one version of one side of the story. On a calmer day, with greater distance from the events, this same woman might have a different perspective. Or maybe the narrator is inherently unreliable. That is not what I was trying to address. I am sure we can all agree that some bad cops give many good ones a bad name, a few violent criminals make everyone suspect. No matter what version, it is merely a point of departure, as in – “we don’t really know, but given such a situation, we might also consider …”.

(3) Re: her behavior – it is certainly maladaptive, but I am trying to understand it, not justify it. It is possible that she is simply excitable or neurotic, or maybe she’s one of those “let me speak to your supervisor” types or perhaps she just had a freak-out during what might have been her first arrest, American-style. Police officers arrest people all the time. This may not be a routine experience for the person being arrested. The police are supposed to be trained in deescalating situations.

(4) Re: ‘polite enough’ – not enough for me, at least not when I’m in normative/prescriptive mode. Re: keeping silent, etc. - That is a safe strategy, but my problem is with the rationale behind it and the way it was expressed – “Keep quiet and do as you are told …”. Such passivity makes it easy for the police to intimidate others. A better option, is to stay silent and ask for a lawyer. In both cases the behavior is the same, but the mindset is different, and it is a crucial difference. This is not just about exercising your rights – it is almost an obligation. When you do this, you make it slightly more difficult for over-zealous authorities to intimidate less informed citizens. This act of citizenship balances the state monopoly on violence.

(5) I was careful not to invoke 'racism' etc. I am less interested in that aspect in this context.

I was trying to extend the discussion, by drawing attention to the dynamic of power and the psychology of humiliation. It was not supposed to be interpreted literally as speculation on whether the cop really said “Ma’am” in a particular way.

I could go on, but I’ll stop here before I bore everyone to death.

 

You are free to ignore it.

 

Isn't it DL is not enough to prove the Id if we r inside the city .. wondering who will carry them always chances of missing crucial document ..does making a digital copy in mobile can solve the issue .

 

Homework:
"Do not resist" - and the crisis of police militarization.
Politics as a Vocation - Max Weber PDF.
Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia
In the U.S., who has the monopoly on force? (Washington Post)

PS: By the way, 'violence' in the discussion above encompasses, but is not limited to bodily harm. It is used in the sense of 'force', including arrest, detention, search and seizure etc.

 

In the light of the morning, I wanted to add that I'm not arguing, but only extending what's been said before + clarifying what I intended to say.

 

Yes just take a digital copy.thats fine

 

An Insider's View: The Dark Rigidity of Fundamentalist Rural America

This essay argues that the "fly over" country could be a dangerous place for the minorities for a long long time to come.... or if a pandemic takes over and wipes the middle of the nation free of hatred, bigotry and racism.

 

‘Indians have no reason to fear under Trump presidency’