If You Don’t Want Your Kids to Be ‘Assaulted’ by the Cops, Teach Them to Respect Authority

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,715
If You Don’t Want Your Kids to Be ‘Assaulted’ by the Cops, Teach Them to Respect Authority

Just following the script...


If You Don’t Want Your Kids to Be ‘Assaulted’ by the Cops, Teach Them to Respect Authority

http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...-by-the-cops-teach-them-to-respect-authority/

Oct. 27, 2015 4:29pm

Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.

Let’s take a look at the latest bit of evidence presented by the left to prove that law enforcement in America is nothing more than a racist conspiracy against black folks. The video went viral last night under the hashtag #AssaultAtSpringValleyHigh (also the title of the next Jason Statham movie), and it shows, according to the Black Lives Matter camp, a bigoted white cop launching an unprovoked attack against a black high school student — an “innocent child,” as they put it — by slamming her to the floor and “throwing her across the room.” The officer, Ben Fields, has been placed on leave and is now being investigated by the feds for Civil Rights abuses.

As we’ve seen a hundred times by now, as far as the race mongers on the left are concerned, no other details related to this incident matter.

Cop: bad. Student: good. White people: racist.

That’s all we need to know, they say. As insightful as that reasoning may be, I still believe it’s worth going back and looking at the full story, because I think it’s instructive (and because I’m a bigot, obviously).

According to the police department and eye witnesses, the student was disobeying school rules and disrupting class by using her phone. The teacher reasonably and justifiably asked her to hand it over. The student, of course, refused.

How dare this teacher tell her to do things? Respect authority? Listen to adults? Do as you’re told? These are not concepts taught in many households in America these days.

The teacher, now officially in a no-win scenario, informed the student that, if she wouldn’t obey the rules in the classroom, she’d have to leave and go to the office. Again, reasonable. The student refused. Again, unreasonable. Next, an administrator was called. The administrator asked her to leave and come to the office. She refused. Again.

Finally, having exhausted their limited options in dealing with an enormously defiant student, the school resource officer, Ben Fields, was summonsed. He asked her to get up and come with him. She refused. He asked again. She refused. He asked her, “Are you going to come with me, or am I going to have to make you?” She chose the latter. She was asked nicely by three different authority figures and given several chances to comply with their instructions. She refused, she refused, she refused, she refused, she refused. It was at that point that the officer took her to the floor, dragged her out of the chair and across the ground, and cuffed her. That’s the whole picture, according to reports.

For the record, I think the cop could have perhaps been more gentle. But only a little more gentle. After all, this girl was given a simple, fair instruction by her teacher. Once she brazenly disrespected the teacher’s authority and declined to comply with those instructions, she had to be removed from the room, one way or another. A teacher cannot be backed down by a kid who says, “Nope, I won’t listen to you.” A school cannot tolerate students who think the rules are optional. This appears to be what folks on the race-mongering left expect, but it would surely lead to anarchy in the classroom (well, more anarchy, anyway).

Once the student ignored orders to leave the class, the teacher had to call the administrator. Once the student ignored the teacher and the administrator, that’s when the school resource officer had to step in. There’s a clear process of escalation here, and all of it, to this point, is 100 percent the fault of the student. Then, when she ignored the resource officer’s command to get up and come with him, he had no choice but to physically remove her. It’s either that or keep pleading for another 45 minutes, or give up and let her stay, or try to coax her out of the class with toys and lollipops. All of those options seem insufficient to me. But it appears the Black Lives Matter crew think pleading, coaxing, asking, begging, bargaining, negotiating and bribing should be the only tools in a school’s — or even a police officer’s — arsenal.

Physically removing a non-compliant person from the premises is guaranteed to look “rough” and “violent” no matter how you go about it. Did it have to look that rough and violent? I don’t know. I’ve never had to do it. Could he have lifted her out of the chair rather than flipping the chair back and dragging her out? Maybe, I guess, I don’t know. But would that have looked any better on camera? Maybe, I guess, I don’t know. Did he actually “throw her across the room”? Not across the room, no. Did he throw her at all? It looks like he might have.

So fine, whatever, investigate the cop. Not for civil rights crimes, but just internally inside the department to analyze how he dealt with the problem. It would be nice, though, if someone on the “cops are always wrong” side of the equation would for once explain how they think it should be handled, specifically. Amidst all the hand wringing over this police officer’s actions, nobody has attempted to describe what, exactly, could have been done differently. As usual, there’s a lot of “oh, she’s a child!” and “he’s twice her size!” and “no child deserves to be treated this way!” and “how dare a cop assault a girl just for going to school!” and so on, but no sober discussion of the actual realities of the situation.

It’s irrelevant that she’s a “child,” and it’s irrelevant that he’s an adult (most cops are, I’m told), and it’s ridiculous to claim she was “assaulted” just for being in school. The being-in-school part isn’t the issue. The being-an-absurdly-defiant-disrespectful-and-selfish-student-who-takes-great-pains-to-disrupt-the-class-and-provoke-an-altercation-with-authority-figures part, however, is. So what should he have done? Should she have been allowed to stay in the class? Allowed to use her phone just because she wanted to? Allowed to do whatever she felt like doing?

If not, physical removal was the last resort, and it was a last resort made necessary by the student. How, then, do you physically remove a non-compliant human being without it looking “aggressive” and “violent”? How, exactly? Any thoughts? Anything? Anyone? Hello? OK, he shouldn’t have tipped the chair back and “thrown her,” fine, but in all honesty, is there any way in which this white cop could have forcefully extracted this black teenage girl from the room that wouldn’t be called racist by Black Lives Matter? No, obviously. And that’s why Black Lives Matter isn’t respected or taken seriously by anyone outside of the far left. Everything, to them, is literally black and white. The black person is right, the white person is wrong, the end. Goodnight. That’s all.

Leftist race mongers never, ever hold the other side even a little bit accountable. They made a martyr out of Mike Brown even though he was a violent thief who, it’s now been proven, violently assaulted a police officer. They made a martyr out of Eric Garner even though he was a lifelong crook who seemed to seek out trouble with law enforcement at every turn. They made a martyr out of Freddie Gray even though he was a drug dealer with a lengthy rap sheet. Even if these deaths were “unjustified” — and Mike Brown’s was without a doubt completely justified — it’s absurd to treat the actions and choices of the perpetrator as irrelevant. Moreover, if the goal is to minimize violent interactions between cops and black people, we should be putting the onus on both sides to avoid such interactions. For cops, that means using violence only when necessary — a message I think everyone agrees with, including most cops — and for black people (and all people, but the leftist race mongers don’t care about white people killed or “assaulted” by cops) it means refraining from committing crimes, resisting arrest and defying lawful instructions. I really don’t think that’s too much to ask, is it?

You don’t want black girls to be dragged out of classrooms in public schools? Good, neither do I. Nobody wants to see that. But, leftist race mongers, that means you have to stop ignoring the fact that these incidents don’t happen out of nowhere. That cop didn’t just barge into the room and randomly pull the nearest black student out of her chair. He was asked to respond after the student couldn’t be bothered to obey a rule or listen to her teacher or listen to an administrator.

And yes, a lot of us have gotten in trouble in school, acted out, been sent to the principle’s office, etc. I was no angel myself. But I never would have dreamed of refusing to leave the classroom even after a teacher, an administrator and a cop told me to. For God’s sake, that’s not just a little minor youthful indiscretion. That’s a dramatic and severe statement of total defiance and disrespect for every authority figure in the school. I can tell you this for sure: If I’d treated my teacher and administrator and a cop like garbage, refused to listen to them even after they pleaded with me, then been dragged out of the classroom like a sack of potatoes, my parents would have definitely been very angry. At me. Completely, totally, solely at me. I’m sure of it.

This doesn’t have to be an either/or. You can accuse the cop of going from zero to 100 too quickly, you can make that case and describe in specific terms what could have been done differently, and also hold the kid accountable for her totally inexcusable actions. If you’re going to do the former, you have to do the latter, otherwise you’re yet again absolving the party that caused the whole situation in the first place. And if that’s what you’re doing — and that’s exactly what Black Lives Matter always does — the rest of us can’t be expected to respect your point of view. How could we? How could we respect a belief system that says the people who enforce the rules and the laws are always wrong, and the people who break the rules and the laws are always right, so long as the former are white and the latter are black? I couldn’t lend any credence to that opinion even if I wanted to.

Therefore, if the Black Lives Matter mob wanted to be taken seriously by non-leftist radicals, they’d make their criticisms of the police, then they’d move on to urging black teens to respect authority. They’d look at this case from yesterday and ask what in the world went wrong in this kid’s home that she turned into the type of person who has to be physically ejected from her classroom? They’d hold parents responsible to teach their kids to obey the rules, listen to their elders and demonstrate at least a modicum of consideration for, and deference to, teachers and law enforcement officers. They’d send the message loud and clear that, whether you think cops are too aggressive or not, the best way to avoid being on the wrong end of their aggression is to simply follow the rules. It’s not hard. It really isn’t.

“Don’t use your phone in class” is, by the way, a pretty basic regulation. And getting your phone confiscated if you disobey it is a pretty basic follow-up. And getting sent to the office if you refuse to listen to your teacher is the pretty basic next step. Millions of kids go to school every day and cooperate with this system. Many others break the rules but at least comply when they’re told to leave. Some still refuse but would certainly perk up and listen when a cop shows up. Only a small minority would demonstrate total disregard every step of the way, even up to the point of law enforcement involvement.

Maybe, then, we need to do more than quibble with the way the authorities handle these extreme troublemakers and start talking about why they’re like that to begin with. The answer is going to be partly their own choice, their own free will, and partly an utter dereliction of duty by the parents (or probably parent, singular). If Black Lives Matter, and they surely do, we would be having this conversation. We would stop blaming the cops for everything all the time and start passing some of the blame over to the people who show no concern for the rules or the law.

But Black Lives Matter folks won’t let us have that conversation because, when it comes down to it, black lives don’t really matter to Black Lives Matter.
 
http://madamenoire.com/595891/armed...im-a-black-man-wearing-a-hoodie-and-strapped/

An Arizona man’s Facebook post about his interaction with two cops during a traffic stop went viral this week. According to the man, whose name is Steven Hildreth Jr., he was armed when two officers with the Tucson Police Department pulled him over for a broken taillight.

Due to the fact that he was carrying a weapon, which was licensed, the officers had to disarm him before anything else. Read his full account of the experience below.

So, I’m driving to my office to turn in my weekly paperwork. A headlight is out. I see a Tucson Police Department squad vehicle turn around and follow me. I’m already preparing for the stop.

The lights go on, and I pull over. The officer asks me how I’m doing, and then asks if I have any weapons.

“Yes, sir. I’m a concealed carry permit holder, and my weapon is located on my right hip. My wallet is in my back-right pocket

The officer explains for his safety and mine, he needs to disarm me for the stop. I understand, and I unlock the vehicle. I explain that I’m running a 7TS ALS holster but from the angle, the second officer can’t unholster it. Lead officer asks me to step out, and I do so slowly. Officer relieves me of my Glock and compliments the X300U I’m running on it. He also sees my military ID and I tell him I’m with the National Guard.

Lead officer points out my registration card is out of date but he knows my registration is up to date. He goes back to run my license. I know he’s got me on at least two infractions. I’m thinking of how to pay them.

Officers return with my Glock in an evidence back, locked and cleared. “Because you were cool with us and didn’t give us grief, I’m just going to leave it at a verbal warning. Get that headlight fixed as soon as possible.”

I smile. “Thank you, sir.”

I’m a black man wearing a hoodie and strapped. According to certain social movements, I shouldn’t be alive right now because the police are allegedly out to kill minorities.

Maybe…just maybe…that notion is bunk.

Maybe if you treat police officers with respect, they will do the same to you.

Police officers are people, too. By far and large, most are good people, and they’re not out to get you.

I’d like to thank those two officers and TPD in general for another professional contact.

We talk so much about the bad apples who shouldn’t be wearing a badge. I’d like to spread the word about an example of men who earned their badges and exemplify what that badge stands for.

#BlueLivesMatter #AllLivesMatter

[EDIT: In my rush to post, I accidentally omitted that my wallet was in the back-right pocket, near my firearm. This was the primary motivation for temporary disarmament. The post has been modified to reflect that.

Again, I’d like to thank the TPD and their officers for their consistent professionalism, courtesy, and the good work that they do, both in this particular contact and every day.]

I’m sorry, what? Yes, there are certainly good cops, just as there are bad cops, but to act as if police killings of Black men and women are somehow justified because the victims did not show the officers respect is absolutely ridiculous. The penance for “disrespect” is not death


 
Last edited:
So fine, whatever, investigate the cop. Not for civil rights crimes, but just internally inside the department to analyze how he dealt with the problem. It would be nice, though, if someone on the “cops are always wrong” side of the equation would for once explain how they think it should be handled, specifically. Amidst all the hand wringing over this police officer’s actions, nobody has attempted to describe what, exactly, could have been done differently. As usual, there’s a lot of “oh, she’s a child!” and “he’s twice her size!” and “no child deserves to be treated this way!” and “how dare a cop assault a girl just for going to school!” and so on, but no sober discussion of the actual realities of the situation.

The problem is kops in schools, they don't belong there as enforcers.

If teachers can't or won't control the kids either fire the teacher or boot the kid.

There's no excuse to permit armed government employees of known limited intellect to prowl the halls of schools.
 
Nobody in this country really owns property - they're just renting it from their county.
The rents on the property they will never own go to fund these schools.
If you stop paying your rent, they take the property back and kick you to the curb, ruin your credit, and probably still find a way to get the rent money.
The public schools teach just enough English and math and science to get you to a college where you can get real career training, but those public schools will tell you it's ok to get a degree in psychology or classics despite the fact that you'd be better off working for those four years (richer and in a better job position)...
And everything else they teach is either abject bullshit, or it's designed to teach you not to question authority....

...so I don't really see the cop being in the school as the problem.
 
The problem is kops in schools, they don't belong there as enforcers.

If teachers can't or won't control the kids either fire the teacher or boot the kid.

There's no excuse to permit armed government employees of known limited intellect to prowl the halls of schools.

Teachers cannot legally grab a child to discipline him or her. Children quickly figure out that they can get their teacher in trouble merely by an allegation that the teacher grabbed him or her.

The problem is the administration, the applicable laws, and America's sue-happy climate. You have the kids whose parents desire a decent education and the kids whose parents/grandparents just want a glorified babysitter between 7:30 and 4:00. When you're a kid and you pick up on the fact that your ignorant parents don't care about your education, you learn not to care about it either and you disrupt because you're there to be entertained, not educated.
 
The problem is public schools exist.

The Rev. John Cotton founded Boston Latin School (the first American public school) in 1635. Time to ask Mr. Peabody to turn on the Wayback Machine........
 
The Rev. John Cotton founded Boston Latin School (the first American public school) in 1635. Time to ask Mr. Peabody to turn on the Wayback Machine........

Ah, but attendance was not compulsory until 1852

The American Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the first state to pass a compulsory education law which occurred in 1852. These laws continued to spread to other states until finally, in 1918, Mississippi was the last state to enact a compulsory attendance law. In 1852, the Massachusetts General Court passed a law requiring every town to create and operate a grammar school. Fines were imposed on parents who did not send their children to school and the government took the power to take children away from their parents and apprentice them to others if government officials decided that the parents were "unfit to have the children educated properly"
 
The officer explains for his safety and mine, he needs to disarm me for the stop.

Indeed, safety first. If they hadn't disarmed him prior, the Officers would have had no choice but to shoot him, if he went for his wallet.
 
Teachers cannot legally grab a child to discipline him or her. Children quickly figure out that they can get their teacher in trouble merely by an allegation that the teacher grabbed him or her.

The problem is the administration, the applicable laws, and America's sue-happy climate. You have the kids whose parents desire a decent education and the kids whose parents/grandparents just want a glorified babysitter between 7:30 and 4:00. When you're a kid and you pick up on the fact that your ignorant parents don't care about your education, you learn not to care about it either and you disrupt because you're there to be entertained, not educated.

Maybe in some areas, kids here still get paddled when they fuck up.

They don't sit in chairs piddling with their cell phones either.
 
"Yes sir", "Thank you sir", "I appreciate everything you do sir" can go a long way to having an amicable interaction.

Its also very helpful, on keeping the interaction pleasant, to say "Yes sir, you may search my trunk sir", "yes, you may have my blood sample sir", "yes sir, you may stick your hand up my vagina to search for contraband" etc.

Being polite goes a long way.
 
"Yes sir", "Thank you sir", "I appreciate everything you do sir" can go a long way to having an amicable interaction.

Its also very helpful, on keeping the interaction pleasant, to say "Yes sir, you may search my trunk sir", "yes, you may have my blood sample sir", "yes sir, you may stick your hand up my vagina to search for contraband" etc.

Being polite goes a long way.

I'm kinda torn. I took the oath. Does it still apply?

Code of Conduct for Members of the United States Armed Forces[3][4][5]
I. I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
III. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause
VI. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
 
Maybe in some areas, kids here still get paddled when they fuck up.

They don't sit in chairs piddling with their cell phones either.

I am not aware of any state that permits *teachers* to administer corporal punishment. Principals have that authority in Texas.
 
I think public schools in general do a pretty good job of teaching this already, but maybe a course like this needs to be a mandatory part of homeschooling curriculum?
 
The Chain of Command and the Executioner in the Classroom

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-chain-of-command-and-executioner-in.html

“We are all bound to the throne of the Supreme Being by a flexible chain which restrains without enslaving us,” purred 18th Century arch-reactionary Joseph de Maistre in the opening lines of his essay Considerations on France. “ The most wonderful aspect of the universal scheme of things is the action of free beings under divine guidance. Freely slaves, they act at once of their own will and under necessity: they actually do what they wish without being able to disrupt general plans.”

In this scheme, each “slave” is found “at the center of a sphere of activity whose diameter varies according to the decision of the eternal geometry, which can extend, restrict, check, or direct the will without altering its nature,” Maistre pontificates. But that flexibility is enjoyed only by those enlightened few who understand the “eternal geometry,” and have been appointed thereby to preside over the rest of us.

On occasion, of course, one who is “freely” enslaved decides not to remain within the compass of his or her assigned role in the “eternal geometry.” It is at that point that the “flexible chain” becomes the “chain of command” as the expression was defined by Jayne – a scourge employed to beat the uppity slave into compliant submission. This is when the “flexible” nature of that chain is made apparent: While the chains that bind the common run of humanity are unyielding, those who are supposedly nearer to “the throne of the Supreme Being” find their restraints sufficiently supple to accommodate any act of violence necessary to enforce conformity – including summary homicide.

Maistre’s obsession with hierarchy might reflect his lengthy involvement in oath-bound secret societies, rather than his devotion to Catholicism (see pages 3-4 in this edition of “Considerations”). Be that as it may, his authoritarian perspective largely defines modern conservatism. He insisted that “all greatness, all power, all social order depends on the executioner.” The figure in whom the State’s capacity for lethal violence is made tangible is both “the terror of human society” and the “tie that holds it together,” Maistre observed. “Take away this incontrovertible force from the world, and at that very moment order is superseded by chaos, thrones fall, society disappears."

The “resource officers” who prowl the hallways of government-operated schools throughout the soyuz aren’t present to enhance the security of the inmates, but to be “authority figures” – that is, people who can inflict injury or death in order to force others to submit to their will. In principle, an SRO carries out the function of Maistre’s Executioner. That is certainly how many perceive themselves.

“You should be walking around in schools every day in complete tactical equipment, with semi-automatic weapons,” ranted self-styled counter-terrorism “expert” John Giduck in his keynote address to the 2007 National Association of School Resources Conference. “You can no longer afford to think of yourselves as peace officers.... You must think of yourself [sic] as soldiers in a war because we're going to ask you to act like soldiers."

A more honest description would be that SROs are commissioned to act like prison guards with unlimited discretion to discipline misbehaving inmates.


When former Deputy Ben Fields placed hands on a girl who had refused a teacher’s instruction to put away her cell phone or leave the room, he was acting as Maistre’s Executioner ex officio, empowered to use any force he deemed appropriate to compel her submission.

When the student, in a reflexive reaction to being seized by a much larger, armed aggressor, flailed pitifully at Fields, she supposedly committed an “assault upon an officer,” which – according to the disciples of Maistre – left Fields fully justified in doing anything he saw fit. Indeed, the teenager should be grateful that she was merely thrown to the floor, dragged across the room, hog-tied, and left with injuries requiring hospitalization, given that the punishment for her impudence should have been more severe.

“She was asked nicely by three different authority figures and given several chances to comply with their instructions,” lectured Matt Walsh of The Blaze. “She refused, she refused, she refused, she refused, she refused. It was at that point that the officer took her to the floor, dragged her out of the chair and across the ground….”

“Once she had brazenly disrespected the teacher’s authority and declined to comply with those instructions, she had to be removed from the room, one way or another,” Walsh continues, not ruling out the possibility that “another” could include being removed in a body bag. “A teacher cannot be backed down by a kid who says, `Nope, I won’t listen to you.’ A school cannot tolerate students who think the rules are optional.” At that “very moment order is superseded by chaos, thrones fall, society disappears” – or, in Walsh’s dumbed-down rendering of Maistre’s warning, “it would surely lead to anarchy in the classroom.”

Take away the discretionary “authority” of “a school resource officer” to inflict summary punishment on a sullen, uncooperative 16-year-old female student, and the terrorists will win, or something to that effect.

“Some might even say that Fields is the actual victim here,” contends an essay published in The New American magazine. “If you’re going to have police in schools, you have to expect police action in schools; the deputy was simply doing his job.”

This is an interesting, and entirely unintended, admission. The advertised job of school resource officers is to protect schoolchildren from serial killers and sexual predators. Their actual job, as this episode illustrates, is to impose punishment for misbehavior that does not involve criminal conduct. Witness the fact that Deputy Fields not only arrested the still-unnamed primary victim, but another student named Niya Kenny whose only “offense” was to urge her schoolmates to record the attack.

Significantly, Kenny – unlike the primary victim – faces criminal charges. The first girl was released into the custody of her foster parents. Kenny was threatened with physical harm, handcuffed, detained for several hours, released on bond, then suspended from school. Her “crime” was to undermine the officer’s “authority” by insisting that he should be held accountable for his actions.

“It should have been an adult” who intervened, Kenny told The State newspaper. “One of the adults should have said, `Whoa, whoa, whoa – that’s not how you do this.’ But instead, it had to be a student in the classroom to stand up and say, `This is not right.’” Like others sentenced to attend Spring Valley High School, Kenny was aware of Fields’ reputation, which had reportedly earned him the sobriquet “Officer Slam.” Accordingly, she urged other students to record the confrontation. More than one of the students acted on that suggestion, which suggests that their capacity for critical thinking had not yet been extirpated.

Even if we were to assume, contrary to the actual law, that classroom insolence is a criminal offense, there was nothing about Kenny’s behavior that warrants such a description. She didn’t “disrupt” an already-ruined learning environment; she was protesting the abusive behavior of a public official. Conservative media outlets routinely depict government-run schools as re-education centers devoted to subverting all that is good, true, and beautiful. Why aren’t they applauding Miss Kenny for her principled individualism, and her insistence that the rules should apply to everyone?

It is tempting, perhaps irresistibly so, to conclude that this reflects a conservative variant on identity politics. Fields, a member of the sanctified Blue Tribe, has been sacrificed to placate the apparently omnipotent Black Lives Matter movement, which has been – in all apparent seriousness – compared to ISIS. Criticizing Fields for arresting Niya Kenny without just cause would complicate the preferred narrative, and could prompt troublesome second thoughts about the propriety of the deputy’s behavior during the entire episode.

Wherever an altar and an executioner are found, "civilization" exists.

Ironically, if predictably, there was no outpouring of outrage in the conservative media over the protests of Spring Valley students who walked out of class – in defiance of “rules” and authority” – as a purported gesture of solidarity with Fields. As someone not too told to remember High School I suspect that the demonstrations weren’t inspired by devotion to the deputy, but by an understandable desire to relieve the unremitting tedium of the classroom.

None of the protesters was thrown to the floor, handcuffed, or even threatened with a suspension, despite the fact their behavior was immeasurably more disruptive than that of an individual student who refuses to put away her phone. Rule-breaking in defense of state-licensed Executioners is obviously more palatable for those who subscribe to Maistre’s doctrine.
 
Back
Top