I was always raised to understand that you do what a police officer tells you to do, when and how they tell you to do it.
It's good advice but....why?
Is it because a cop has absolute authority, either legal or moral? Is it because a directive from a policeman is equivalent to a court order, which is to say it is something which must be followed, and failure to do so is a violation of the law?
No. The reason is much simpler. You should always do what they tell you to do because they carry guns, and clubs, and tasers, and goodness knows what else, and they are trained fighters. Also, while it is not necessarily a violation of the law to follow their orders, it might be under some circumstances. Also, and this is important, in the event that somehow there is a court dispute, they are far, far, more likely to be believe by judge and/or jury than you are. Also, and this is very, very, important.....some of them are not good people. Some of them will be perfectly happy to beat the snot out of you, and then lie and say that you attacked them, and you find that you get the snot beat out of you, and are facing felony charges.
In other words, they have power, and influence, and friends, and if you fight them you will lose, so whether they are right or wrong, it's really a good idea to do what they tell you to do.
A lot of people have forgotten that reason. Sadly, that includes a lot of policemen. We have it drilled into our heads that we should obey the orders of policemen so much that some of us, including some policemen, actually think that non-compliance with their orders gives them a right to assault you.
It is impossible to fairly judge a man based on a few seconds of video footage, but this cop looks like one of the people who has made that mistake, of thinking that failure to follow his instructions was a violation of the law and also an acceptable reason to attack the man. I base that on the fact that he stopped the man for jaywalking, an offense that is just never, ever, charged. Then, he immediately orders the man to remove his hands from his pockets. Then, within seconds, he informs the man that he will take him down to the ground if he doesn't follow orders. Of course there is the assault itself. And then, there is also the question, "Why didn't you comply?" That question strongly suggest that he believes compliance, complete and unquestioning, is mandatory.
A lot of people reading the above will be puzzled because they, too, think that compliance is mandatory, and that failure to comply gives the officer the right to use force to ensure compliance. That is incorrect. There are circumstances where it is true, but it isn't a blanket truth, and a lot of people don't realize that.
I suspect the officer in this video was a bit taken aback at the hubbub surrounding this violent confrontation, and I suspect he was stunned when the Sacramento Chief of Police described his behavior as unacceptable. It wasn't what he expected, because it wasn't what he has been taught.
