If you see the officer as doing something wrong in the video below, you may have absorbed a politically selective, anti-government ideology. If instead you ask why the woman is refusing to obey lawful commands, then you are asking the right question. Public safety depends on mutual responsibility—officers must act within the law, and civilians must comply with lawful orders.
A public service reminder: You do not have a right to resist a lawful arrest. If you believe an arrest is unlawful, the proper place to challenge it is in court, not in the moment. Civilians do not have the authority to unilaterally decide whether an arrest is legitimate. Were that the standard, resistance would become routine, and encounters between police and civilians would be even more dangerous. This is precisely why resisting arrest often results in additional charges such as obstruction, resisting, or even felony assault on an officer.
If you resist arrest, any injuries you sustain are self-inflicted consequences of that decision. Officers are authorized to use necessary and proportionate force to carry out an arrest—and to defend themselves if attacked. Violence begets violence in this case. When a suspect resists, an officer’s use of force is both lawful and, in many cases, unavoidable.
The deeper issue—amplified by modern antiracist doctrine—is the growing belief that police authority is inherently illegitimate or racially motivated (or both). This ideology teaches civilians that resistance to law enforcement is justified. It is a dangerous and destructive belief.
This mindset drives the public’s divided reactions to incidents like this. America increasingly splits along two lines: those who believe that public safety requires respect for law enforcement, and those who reject the legitimacy of both law enforcement and the rule of law itself. The first position supports the principles of a democratic republic; the second reflects an insurrectionist impulse that undermines civil order.
You see this same sentiment in opposition to ICE and other agencies carrying out lawful duties. The issue is not that progressives reject the use of state power altogether—they simply wish it directed only against their political adversaries. Hence the double standard: pro-police when the subject is a political opponent, anti-police when the subject is an ideological ally.
This hypocrisy is visible in the celebration of legal actions against Trump and his supporters, contrasted with outrage when similar accountability is applied to those on the left—whether for obstruction, false statements, or other federal offenses. The same selective outrage will surface again when the next high-profile indictment emerges.
Ultimately, it is not the existence of law enforcement that signals authoritarianism—but the selective politicization of it. When one side weaponizes justice and delegitimizes the rule of law itself, that is the hallmark of authoritarianism.
freedom and reason 