Ok, I'm bringing the UCLA tasering debate in here, because it's making me really upset

[rockymountaindem]

and because this is probably the last place on DU where we can talk about it in a civil manner. Oh, and because I respect your opinions. Hopeful that ego massage will get some replies (if nothing else does) ;)

As you may or may not be aware, the UCLA taser incident has been sparking a lot of threads and debate in GD today. I got into it quite heavily in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2759521

Some individuals are bemoaning the supposed lack of spine/guts/balls in the youth of today, who evidently are fascist-enabling sheep cowed by "the man". This is as opposed to the protest heroes of the '60s, who never would have stood for this and would have diffused the situation with "civil disobedience", which in their minds evidently means violence against the cops in this case. I come here to plead that it is completely unreasonable to expect a college student to confront the authorities with violence or anything that may be thus perceived, on the spur of the moment just like that. The reasoning behind this has nothing to do with the physical consequences, but with long-term legal and societal implications which should be on the mind of any bright college student at all times in every situation.

As posited in the linked thread, having a criminal record will negatively effect one's employment prospects in the short and long terms. I can tell you this from personal experience, as some people I knew in high school had a dickens of a time getting a minimum wage job as a result of a misdemeanor arrest. In the UCLA incident's case, this risk is accentuated because had anybody intervened physically it would be against law enforcement officers. Now, our society really dislikes people who hurt police officers. Lots of people freely bandy about the notion of an automatic death penalty for anyone who kills a police officer. "Assaulting an officer" is a charge that hardly anybody would overlook. I'm not saying whether or not this is a fair position. Indeed, respect for the law and those who represent and enforce it is very important in society. The point is that our society is not a forgiving society in general, and particularly not toward those who hurt the police.

Getting into a physical confrontation with the police in this situation could have had devastating long-term consequences for anyone who chose to do so. Firstly, they would most certainly be arrested. Secondly, they would likely be charged with assaulting an officer, and maybe incitement to riot of "the man" was feeling especially ornery. This would result in a trial, and if convicted a likely prison sentence. Now, I don't know about you, but hardly anybody is willing to go to one of those hell holes just to prove a point. There have been several recent threads noting our country's proclivity for locking people up. Now, even if you got off with probation, or some lesser punishment, that assault charge will follow you for the *rest of your life*. This means you can say goodbye to student loans, merit scholarships, and any employment with government agencies, the military etc. Since so many employers do background checks these days, it will also put you at a big disadvantage for any job, particularly if your competitors don't have such a stigma following them around. Saying "that cop had it coming" at the interview is not likely to get you far.

To review the risks:
Getting punched, getting hit with a taser, being arrested, being charged, being convicted, being imprisoned (with the myriad risks associated with imprisonment), and having a serious blemish on your permanent record that could keep you from ever getting a good job.

Now, why would I think about these things? It's because they really happen. These days, in my humble, most liberal opinion, anybody who thinks society will give them a second chance unless their last name is "Bush" is deluding themselves. This is the society that has created "sex offender databases" for 19 year olds who sleep with their 17 year old girlfriends. Doing your time, or paying a fine, is no longer the end of anybody's punishment. You can't split town and go where nobody knows you to start over. I don't know how many of you have ever googled your own name...

So what we have here is a bunch of older generation protesters looking down their nose at us supposed lightweights of the 21st century. They evidently really expect kids who probably had an important assignment or test due the next day, to start punching cops at 11 at night at a moment's notice. They expect us to think about Kent State, when all we're thinking about is how to get ahead in this increasingly competitive world (did you hear about the kid who included letters of recommendation from every member of his city's government in his Harvard application?). You're asking these college kids to risk their futures, those of their potential families and their ability to care for their parents in old age, over a situation that arose at a moment's notice and which few people could probably comprehend as it unfolded.

What's more, these 60s social movement veterans are shocked... shocked I tell you... at the products their own society has created. Today's society has been largely built by the Boomers (who are the college presidents, District attorneys of today). It is the Boomers who have, for better or worse, created the society that forces the youth of today to think about all the things I have mentioned above. It is their generation which passes judgment on us, just as we will pass judgment on our own children's' generation. And yet, they take no responsibility for any of that. They expect us to act like they brag about, back in days that were much more about forgiveness and didn't have surveillance cameras all over the place.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a little nuts?