Propaganda Fail

All tactics have rules, determined simply by what works, and propaganda is no exception. Clearly, as in this case, if you can get your target to stand still in front of a camera, you want to goad him/her into blurting the line you’re looking for. In that matter our unidentified activist succeeds, in that she gets her soundbite: “If you scare me, your rights don’t matter.” That’s not something you normally like to hear from somebody charged with enforcing the law (and – in theory – the rights of the innocent,) but frankly when coupled with the proviso “if you scare me” it’s not the most outrageous thing I’ve ever heard a cop say. To be honest, if you scare me I’m not gonna give much of a shit about your rights either.

But the idea is to get your target talking. Then stand back and let him hang himself for the camera. This lady is already in full rant mode before she gets her quote, and just can’t bring herself to shut up afterward. The emotional reaction I take away from the clip isn’t aimed at the cop, but at her: “Lady, shut the &^%$ up!”

And for all that he does misguidedly supply the quote, the cop wins the round. She finally runs down. He allows a significant silence to ensue. Then: “Are we done?”

“Yeah. We’re done.”

And so we are. He looks like a patient, harassed guy with a camera in his face, and she looks like a harridan who won’t shut the hell up and let him do his job. I’m pretty sure that’s not how that was supposed to go.

H/T to The Grey Lady.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Propaganda Fail

  1. Anonymous says:

    I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment but I have to tell you the cop was right. If you take a swing at me I’m gonna hit you. If you draw a gun and I have a gun I’m gonna shoot you (or you shoot me). The point is if you are aggressive and pushy I’m going to be on notice that you are threatening me. If I’m able to I will leave the area but consider a policeman who cannot leave the area and has the responsibility to protect people and property. Not saying this person cannot “carry” but carrying AND being verbally aggressive and refusing to listen equals DANGER. At that point I would be thinking self defense not constitution. Wouldn’t you?

  2. Joel says:

    No, I can’t agree with all that. Assuming, as the clip implies, that the lady with the camera was wearing a gun, she never did anything that would have frightened a reasonable person. Annoyed the shit out of one, yeah, but there’s a big difference. Cops are presumably trained to know the difference between someone making political points and someone who might become physically aggressive and thus dangerous.

    Of course these days they seldom bother with such distinctions, but that’s the whole problem.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I view this whole open carry in California thing to be a huge bear trap issue. It’s getting a shit ton of negative press and the highlights are always on people like her. Never on guys who know the laws and press their rights correctly. The only reason the ban on OC keeps getting and will likely continue to be shot down is that would make a more affirmative case for shall issue. And the overlords here can’t have that. I OC’d every day when I lived in Phoenix. I used to open carry here occasionally. I even open carry loaded when on my own property or one I am contracted to manage. But I haven’t OC’d elsewhere lately.
    The whole idea of carry of an unloaded handgun quit making sense as suddenly as it started. I have Nevada and Utah cards for statses that they have reciprocity with. I know, I groveled for permission to exercise my rights. Sue me. I can’t live in a free state right now and I’m too old and broken to wrestle with 200# 20 year old meth using Sureños. The problem is I never meet those kind anywhere but where my cards are not valid…..shit.

    Buck.

  4. Matt says:

    I do understand the woman’s point in the video but was extremely annoyed by the way she was trying to make it. You don’t get favorable press by being rude to strangers or trying to set them up to make statements you can bugger them for later on. The fact that it is a tactic use by the LSM should be enough reason not to do it like that.

    The officer was nicely restrained, I would of been sorely tempted to have a taser accident and let her film that.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I must have missed the part where she took a swing and drew her gun. A middle aged woman scared the police person so I guess she should have been tasered at the least.

    I think the point she was trying to make was more than a little correct. I sure didn’t see her as a harridan.

  6. Wherever the line actually lies (and it’s of course different for all of us), there’s nothing more painful than having to say “Dude[tte], please, stop agreeing with me, okay? It’s embarrassing!”

    The flip side of that, of course (and applicable in multiple ways here), is that inelegance of exercise does not change the underlying fundamentals.

    For the cops: inelegant exercise of rights does not–does not, motherfucker, no matter what you might say–invalidate them. You chose the job (we on the other hand do not get to choose when you accost us), and “bein’ ascairt” is not a legitimate excuse to neglect your duty to keep the peace, which is most effectively done by not being the one to violate it. (Note: “enforcing the law” is not a legitimate profession in the first place; “keeping the peace” at least has a chance at legitimacy.)

    For us: Joel had it right to begin with – “propaganda fail” it was, but that has no bearing on the legitimacy of the point she was trying to make. If that stands on its own, it stands on its own.

    (And I apologize for all the inelegant exercise I’ve subjected others to, over my own years. Especially early on, some of it was pretty bad. Human, you know, and slow to learn. 🙂

  7. Tam says:

    Joel,

    Cops are presumably trained to know the difference between someone making political points and someone who might become physically aggressive and thus dangerous.

    I think it should be noted that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

  8. Anonymous says:

    But you are in denial of the facts. The point is not does she have a constitutional right to carry. The point is does she have a right to carry to a private event? The ONLY way to make that determination would be for the security (the cop) to ask some questions. She over reacted to the questions and became “dangerous” just as anyone who over reacts to normal events. She is waving red flags for the purpose of attracting attention. She would scare me. She may even need medication or have issues even medication won’t help. She does NOT sound “normal”.

  9. Anonymous says:

    That’s a crock of shit. Private event? How is that? It was at a public place and was open invitation. There have been numerous people OC’ing at Tea Party events. Unless someone in the organizational structure of that particular event says “Leave ye rights in the car” the guns are assumed welcome.
    BTW, sounds normal by who’s standards? Normal as in typical sheep like Callifornian twit at the mall normal or knows what natural and common rights is normal? Knows the difference between mal in se and mala prohibita normal? Or Nordstroms is having a sale normal? Seriously, you sound abnormal to me and I feel intimidated. In light of that you shouldn’t, by your own definition, be allowed to post offensive things like that on a private blog.

    Buck.

To the stake with the heretic!