Very, very debate provoking thread over at Hot Air right now.

Subject - A minor traffic stop in the state of Utah that devolves into a tasing incident in under three minutes.

In the course of the 500+ (at this writing) comments, tis item demonstrates a distinct divide in the audience. Note, this is an audience at a fairly ‘conservative’ website, and this is a perfect example of degrees of separation, even amongst folk that can tend to broadly agree.

There are two camps - those that see the actions of the police officer as totally justified, and those who believe the officer’s actions were ultimately inappropriate. Staunch law and order conservatives (including more than a couple of law enforcement affiliated commenters) versus participants with a more libertarian inclination.

Not very surprising (after viewing the video), hardly anyone thinks the motorist that got tased acted like anything short of being a total jackass, and contributed significantly to having 10,000 volts of electricity teach him how to dance.

Regardless, I’m of the opinion the officer handled the situation very, very badly. Primarily, by setting the stage, then by letting the situation escalate to the point where he had limited his options to only one - using force to subdue the man. Fortunately for the motorist, the officer had the choice of an intermediate level short of his sidearm.

The primary lesson here - and I think it’s one that Rick may agree with, given his recent mis-adventure, is that the State is not your friend, and has the ability to exercise power, through its agents, rightly or wrongly, to curtail your immediate liberties in very, very short order. And as such, it behooves anyone in such a situation, to remember that it is always in the individual’s best interests to very, very carefully appraise the situation, keep their cool, and that their best ultimate defense is to act with as much civility as possible. Particularly in a situation where, like it or not, the deck is almost completely stacked against the individual citizen, and disregarding the appearance of a modicum of respect, decency, and civility in the ‘heat of the moment’ will almost certainly lead to nothing but a bad, bad outcome.

Because reasonable people, removed by degrees from that ‘heat of the moment’ may and quite likely will disagree when the number of contributing variables of wrongness is more than one. And in such instances, like the one presented at Hot Air, to an extent, it doesn’t matter how badly the agent of the state handled things, if that agent is interacting with a total jackass. They’ll get ‘the benefit of the doubt’, by default.

Having a video of the event, however, removes that doubt for me. Despite the apprehended motorist acting like a petulant, spoiled child, and actually because of it. The guy is obviously a moron (that doesn’t realize he is actually a moron) - functionally, about the level of a 10 year old. So, in effect, as many people seem to be overly comfortable with these days, this would place the officer in the role of the adult. And viewed in this context, it is more than apparent that the officer certainly did not have control of the situation, and as such painted himself into the corner of having to use violent action to actually gain that control.

Thus the secondary lesson, which relates oh so closely to the first - when granted extraordinary powers to interfere with their fellow citizens lives, agents of the state most certainly can be counted on, on a fairly common basis, to use those powers. And if one way of handling a situation is more time consuming, or has a higher degree of difficulty to execute - well, three guesses as to which path is likely to be chosen. Even if the situation does ultimately resemble an adult reduced to interacting with a child by smacking them across the mouth because they lack the skills or patience to deal with them without violence. Not that we have any idea about how people react, generally, to that sort of situation.

And the final lesson, which, in a stable, civil society is probably the most reliable weapon the average citizen carries around with them on a daily basis, with no need of permission, permit, or restriction - civility itself. In the case study presented, the motorist himself could have avoided the eventual outcome altogether - by simply not acting like a jackass, and presenting back to the agent of the state the opportunity to make the limited choices his poor performance to that point created. In other words, the jackass gave the jerk the opportunity to taze him.

But what about the righteous indignation of being hassled by the man!?!? Burp, and get over it. The intrusion of the state into your life is a necessary side effect of living in, and enjoying the benefits of a complex, modern day western society. And as much as such a compromise may rankle at the intellectual level as smacking of ’submission’ - it isn’t, in fact. The expression of that indignation, at the wrong place and at the wrong time, is much closer to actually disarming yourself, thus surrendering the one true weapon anyone possesses. Which is a very, very poor move, indeed.

But then, we saw the video on that one.

The take away on this belongs to Winston Churchill - “When You have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”

Seems to be pretty applicable for situations short of that, as well.