Police state? Um, no...
"'The fire department was kind of game-planning what they would do,' Albert said. 'With Natural Resources Police, we will attempt, but we are not going to risk a human life for a deer life, as cruel as that may sound. . . . I'm as sympathetic as the next person on that deer being in the water, but when you weigh the risk to the reward, I would probably decide not to try to rescue that deer.' "
And, no, they were quite explicitly *not* charged with disobeying an officer, even though they could have been:
"'They could have been arrested and taken before a commissioner,' Albert said. 'Our officer erred on the side of the least invasive action that he could take at the time.' "
This all makes perfect sense to me. But then maybe I am just an oppressive statist.
The courageous rescuers (and there is no courage like reckless, ignorance-fueled courage) were fined $90, which is about the lower end of what one is fined for not wearing a seat belt, depending on jurisdictions--it varies. It's probably very low. These guys got a break.
Why target natural resources officers for loathing? Unlike regular cops and the military, they are facing slashed budgets, almost universally. I will even contend that this is not a good thing.
There is a long, stupid, loud minority tradition in the US wherein state resource management and enforcement personnel are treated as the vanguard of state oppression against faux-yeomanlike "free" hunters and fishermen, who should be allowed to do whatever they want, goddammit. Is that the view you are supporting? I am otherwise finding it hard to find your justification of the use of the very strong term "police state" here. Was this some kind of obscure joke?
Now, why is this non-story in the Washington Post?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122001601.html
>
> [WS:] Lock them up and throw away the key! They dared to disobey a direct
> order of a police officer.
>
> Wojtek
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>