Tahlequah Fire & Police break window to remove sovereign citizen for tra...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgMudF7JM4A&fbclid=IwAR2RRtXqscu4faEO0WWOsjQN9UF_oqzRg5TvfYroIrYhts9xPIbnPLyYNIE

The police like to be obeyed. They demand it however irrational the reason or trivial the offence. The situation invisibly shifts from the initial reason for the interaction to a psychological one, in which self perceptions of roles and abilities clash. It becomes a stand-off between two individuals, the one asserting his or her autonomy and right not to be ordered to do things by another without just reason; and the other uniformed and weaponised individual who has been conditioned to think he is justified in doing precisely that. 

This is particularly the province of the road and the motor vehicle. The patrolman sees himself as the king of the highway, the captain of the status vehicle with all its accessories. Drivers are all there to be shepherded and cajoled where necessary for which absolute obedience is required. 

Bad boys may be lurking in the travelling metal boxes but by and large they are just average joes driving from A to B for a variety of reasons. They are also sitting ducks with so many infringements available to the officer if he so desires, not wearing a seat belt being just one of thousands to choose from. 

From the moment the motorist is stopped everything turns on attitude of both parties. The officer is looking for two things: compliance and respect. If either are challenged he falls back on status and force and things turn nasty - well even nastier than they would have been if the victim was prepared to accept humiliation, subservience and a ticket. 

Is there any solution to this endemic problem? 

Confrontation of ego is bad in any situation. Good manners help in any situation. Aggression breeds aggression and opposition. Unnecessary authoritarianism creates resentment and non-compliance. 

Policing philosophy comes from the top. Increasingly, in Britain at least, traffic cops are seen as tax collectors and are incentivised so to be, rather than fulfilling their proper role of fighting real crime. If policemen set out on their daily round, knowing they are despised or hated, they are more likely to return the favour at the first opportunity that presents itself, however trivial the infraction. 

We need as a society, to break this vicious circle. The police need to get back on side and be seen to be doing it. Letting a non-seat belt wearer off with a caution and a little victory might not be a bad way to start.

However in this particular instance, this officer appears to have acted fairly and courteously and was faced with an unreasonably obstructive individual. It is hard to see how the officer could have acted differently or better once he had engaged, given the circumstances. 

The justification for making not wearing a seat belt a criminal offence, when only the individual concerned could be harmed by not doing so, is another philosophical and legal matter entirely.