One of the differences you will see when you move to the US is that the deference to authority is only so deep. We normally will accept authority when it makes sense, with some measure for the gray areas, but we will not normally put up with excess or nonsensical authority. Some deference to authority is necessary for society to function, but the US was born out of questioning authority and many of us will never forget that rpinciple.israel67 wrote:The big problem is that most of us are deferential to authority, because that's the way we've been brought up. You only need to look at the way most encounters with LEOs by CHL holders are recounted.
Generally, what you will here us say in the US is to not resist being arrested as a matter of tactics, not as a matter of right. When one officer tries to abuse your rights, we have a system set up to report and correct the problem, from effective internal affairs inside the police departments to court cases. But, when you fight the cop on the street, you are generally going to lose the fight. He will be able to call on immediate backup over the radio that will take his side. When they arrive and see you fighting, you will be assumed by them to be wrong. Do you have the backup availabel and the radio system to call them? Thus, tactically, fighting them is a bad option.I take a zero tolerance (and probably quite radical) view of abuse of power by those in authority. I'm always amazed that the advice to those wrongfully arrested is: don't resist. Why should I not resist? Why should I allow someone who has no legal right to imprison me, to do so? I believe that if I'm being wrongfully deprived of my liberty, I have the G-d-given right to resist, even if it involves the use of lethal force. Whether the person trying to imprison me is wearing a badge or not, should make no difference.
The good news on this side is that our laws (well, at least in Texas) specifically allow for force to be used to resist arrest in certain case, especially when the officer uses excessive force to begin with. That will be a much harder fight to win in court, but it can be done.I live in a police state. A Bordeaux appeal court ruling of (IIRC) 1997 ruled that even when police officers are acting outwith their lawful authority, 'rebellion' (no I'm not kidding: that's the word the law uses) is an offence. In other words, you can be walking along the street with your wife and children and a policeman starts beating up on you, and you cannot resist.
As you will see when you get here, there is only four times you must identify yourself to the police in Texas. You must identify yourself when you are placed under arrest. You must identify yourself when you are stopped while operating a motor vehicle (which has been decided to be legally an arrest anyway), you must identify yourself when hunting or fishing, and you must identify yourself when you are asked for ID by a peace officer IF you are carrying a weapon AND have a CHL. This last one has not yet been tested to my knowledge for what would happen if the officer does not have the legal authority at the time to demand ID.There is a law here in France (Article 78-2 of the Code of Penal Procedure) which defines the four situations in which an officer can ask you for your identity. Tellingly, the word is 'contrôle d'identité'. Appropriate, isn't it? 'Contrôle'. Anyway, that law is disregarded on a daily basis, and if a cop asks you for your ID, even if he has no legal right to do so, you'd better comply or you're going downtown for a kickin'.
The rest of the time, you do not have to answer any questions to the police, including who you are. You can not lie about your name if you are a suspect or a witness to a crime, but you do not have to answer at all. And if you are just walking down the street and not a witness to a crime or a suspect in one, you can even lie then about who you are. Of course,t his is Texas law and each state sets its own rules. Some states do require you to identify under more circumstances, such as being stopped by an officer for being in a disturbance. But, in no state that I am aware of can a police officer stop you while you are just walking down the street and ask for ID and arrest you if you do not answer. You are not even required to own ID in the US, though it is getting more and more common to see it as a side requirement for something else.
I think this is one difference between the US and most of Europe. In The US, there will be a large group of people who will resist this act. In the states where it has happened, such as California trying to ban "assault" rifles, many people disobeyed the law, hiding or shipping out of state their rifles. As a police officer, I do not see many people in Texas complying with a confiscation order or many officers trying to enforce it. I can think of no quicker way to start another armed combat revolution in the US than a general confiscation order of firearms. We will resist. That is why they are trying to backdoor it in one small step at a time.You'll tell me things are different in the US and I believe you, and every day that passes, my impatience to get over there, grows. But we're sheep. All of us. If the day comes when the federal government starts to confiscate guns, then most of us will acquiesce, because of that deference to authority. And that's wrong, in my humble opinion.
While I have no problem with the point you are making, we are not yet, in the US, at the point where deadly force is necessary to protect our rights. I am convinced we are headed that way, but we still have some time to hope for political solutions. The ballot box is still our primary means of letting the government know how we feel about issues. We are getting the bullet box ready though.What should happen, is that the state should be relegated to its rightful position, i.e. as the servant of the people and not the reverse. The state should be left in no doubt that if it seeks to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens by any means, then its agents will be met with deadly force. And when the shooting stops, the agents of the state still alive who tried to violate our rights, will be spending a long, very long time behind bars.
And that is as it should be. If most of Europe had felt that way a few decades ago, I do not think it would be as bad as it is now. If a significant portion of the US does not feel that way, we are going to head down hill just as fast.Sorry, I get very worked up when my rights are trampled upon.
