Unfortunately, these sorts of things seem to be happening way too often, which brings up the question of where is the line of people no longer being willing to accept this. Frankly, it isn't just this, but also things like cops refusing to let the truck drivers on the capitol beltway enter DC proper, and yes there is video of an encounter that gets into the "let" portion. There are things like the Covid enforcers. Let's not get started on "gun control", especially when it applies to the places we call People's Republics. When is it too much? Segueing into the next concept ... here is another post you made that I would like use as the starting point of a topic.
To this I have two responses / rhetorical-ish questions.
One, is this what we want as a society? Do we want the State even having this sort of power over people? Remember that it wasn't always this way and it certainly wasn't the way things worked back in the days of the writing of the constitution. If we look at the text of the 4th-A, especially through a strict lens, one could make the argument that the store owner was not just "seized (historical side note - the term cop / copper likely harkens back to the older English word "cop" meaning to grab (seize), as in cop a feel), but assaulted. I am confident that one can point to a number of "court" edicts and gyrations to claim that the police behavior is "legal" and I will attribute that to continuous tyrant creepage - which brings us back to the concept of "is this what people want?"
The second point is where you say, "They don't know the full circumstances, they don't know the people, they don't know the emotional state of everybody, and a ton of other things.", the fact of the matter is that the same can be said about them, but somehow they are by default given a pass or at least the assumption, but yet here we are time and time again where they assault and even wrongfully kill people - and do we really want them going around, armed, and violently enforcing the crown's edicts (which seems to be a clear 4A violation in principle).
I guess in a way it all comes down to the loss of legitimacy of the political - legal system and with that loss of legitimacy goes the loss of any sort of authority which by natural extension turns the cops into hired thugs.
@CL2ALVR - You mention, "Police are tasked with upholding the Rule of Law NOT picking and choosing which, when, and who to enforce it on" - as I alluded to above, read the 4th-A and keep in mind the founders view of standing armies, which is effectively what the police are (and back in their days, the soldiers were the law enforcement) - and ask yourself if you believe modern policing is in line with the original principles?
It is important for people on both sides of the equation to understand this:
The role of law enforcement is supposed to be a TEMPORARY one with respect to active law enforcement actions.
By this, I mean that law enforcement should ONLY actively interact when the situation specifically calls for it. Once that situation is resolved, their role is finished and they move on. If LEO is called to the scene of an assault, they have a duty to show up, investigate, and take whatever actions are required based on the applicable laws and the evidence before them. When they're done...they're done.
Whether people realize it or not, law enforcement is one of those "necessary evils" which allow societies to exist and function under a common set of rules. Because it's literally the enforcement arm of the government ("necessary evil"), it, too, must be constrained somewhat in order to ensure maximum liberty for the people. But not so constrained as to excessively interfere with the purpose, which is to enforce that "common set of rules" for society.
In the case of a robbery, when law enforcement gets involved they need to take control of the scene, ensure the overall safety of "the people" is established/maintained, investigate the circumstances, make any arrests required, make any charges required, and then they clear out because their continued involvement in that scenario is effectively at an end. (Granted, there is a lot more to do, like follow up investigations, witness interviews, gathering of other evidence, processing people for incarceration, etc.)
When the police are called for a robbery, they will not know all the circumstances until they arrive...at that point, they need to take in a lot of details, make a lot of decisions, take a lot of actions. Priorities say that securing the scene comes before everything else. Evidence must be preserved. If weapons are involved, control of the scene necessarily means ensuring the potential use of said weapons is somehow inhibited. Injured people need tending to. It's all a form of triage. No officer would be expected to casually go about interviewing witnesses in a crowd without first securing the area for both safety and preservation of evidence. Not outside of Mayberry, anyway.
While the boundary line may shift between personal rights and other factors for a variety of reasons, there is a difference between willingly giving them up (like "sheep"), temporary obstructions based on prudent circumstances (like restraining individuals in a brawl until things are figured out safely), temporary securing of weapons including personal firearms (to remove potential sources of weapons in an otherwise potentially violent circumstance, or even as evidence), and outright trampling of rights "just because" (abuse of power).
When LEO arrives at the scene of an assault, for example, they work to separate the individuals involved, remove any weapons, and perhaps cuff or otherwise physically restrain the individuals involved. Once under control, they work to figure out as much about the scenario as they can...if it turns out that one was plainly the victim in an attack based on what evidence is available, then perhaps that person would be released and things continue from there.
However, I would not expect officers to act as if the scene of a brawl
automatically entitled them to wade in and start bashing heads, maiming people, and using deadly force. Disparity of force is a very REAL thing and deliberately working to seriously injure or kill someone else when the circumstances clearly do not call for that level of force is an abuse of power by the State.
