[kordless]

> And why shouldn't they?

This is a leading question, which is to say it's not a question that can be answered in a rational way. If one desires removal of choice in the conversation, they may answer it irrationally.

> Look at the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago.

The use of a separate case of an individual having choice removed, or individuals in a group removing choice for an individual, applied to the officers involved in this video (and conversation here) is illogical. Just because someone of the group "law enforcement" acts irrationally one place does not mean all will act that way everywhere else.

> Being annoying or insulting to government employees isn't a crime.

When Alex Jones presents his words as truths it is also not a crime. However, while holding the separate goal of being "controversial" and "in your face", the dissonance that is created by such actions is palatable, and akin to a crime of logic or truth. If one attempts to disrupt the arrival of a truth in a given situation, they seek to create additional work for the aggregate to determine truth.

In this case, the officer wanted to know why someone was shining a flashlight (changing colors no less) around in the general vicinity of the stop. The reply was along the lines of "no concern of yours", when in fact it WAS a concern of the officer. In essence, the individuals filming were actively removing choice from the officer to be concerned, speaking for his actions (by implying he was or was going to run plates) and in general acting in a way that would encourage the future event of confrontation. In other words, they are acting in an irrational way to cause further irrationality to occur, when none existed.

I've been kicking around a framework for detecting and describing these types of logical "arguments" which are all verbally spoken or written. In the case of comments on HackerNews, I regularly point out the dissonance in the argument, and attempt to show how these arguments can spread if the irrationality is intended to disrupt, as is done with leading questions that blame using biased arguments.

[athenot]

Even if that behavior is questionable, there is at least merit in raising the argument of parity. If it is unreasonable for this man to behave like that, then why is it reasonable for men vested with the authority to enforce the law for the peace of society?

If we can succeed in proving that this man's behavior is contradictory with what we want for society, then it should follow that the same applies to the police force.

[joshuamorton]

You answer your own question: society vests them with the authority.

As a similar thought: why do we only allow police to give citations for crimes, instead of allowing anyone to cite anyone for a crime?

[kordless]

Chris acted irrationally and had the right to do so. However, by his intent to spread irrationality by removing the officer's choice, the officers were eventually baited into acting irrationally which then led to the arrest. If they knew more about these types of removal of choice, and how they may spread by their very presence, it may have had a different and more desirable outcome for all involved.

Detecting trolls is important, in other words.

Stating it is reasonable that an individual has a right to choose irrationality removes the leading portion of your question which itself is a removal of choice by those who attempt to answer it. Applying rational thinking to answering it reveals an important question to ask ourselves:

> Why is it reasonable for men vested with the authority to enforce the law for the peace of society?

I think it is somewhat rational for individuals of a group to elect a sub-group to make choice for the individuals. In the case of law, which is suppose to be a rational instantiation of future choice for the group, it is the peacekeepers that are responsible for making choice of who is removing choice from other individuals or the group, as a whole.

However, irrational laws and expectations do creep into the group from time to time. Benjamin Franklin once spoke to this by stating, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

A corollary to this insight would be: "Those who would give up temporary Rationality, to purchase a little temporary Liberty, deserve neither Rationality nor Liberty."

Edit: Safety equated to Rationality.

[ithought]

Great post. If only such logical formalities were applied to law enforcement and the courts, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Cops routinely exceed their authority and misrepresent the law. I can only provide you hundreds of examples and case studies to substantiate that this group of people routinely act irrationally. Or as I would say, illegally.

[gwright]

Seems like 'provocative' and 'provocateur' are reasonable descriptions of this behavior and this person.

[nsxwolf]

If these people didn't antagonize and harass the police, they'd rarely obtain any interesting footage. That says a lot.

These people have an agenda. They need to show the police in the worst light possible, and they don't have time to sit around waiting for news to happen. They have to make the news.