Yep, that's right.
It appears thay your definition of "civil" is different from mine. I think it is offensive and antagonistic to put a camera phone in between your face and the person you are speaking to. It says, "I don't need to make eye contact with you because you are an object, not a person." It also says, "here is my camera, it's here to catch you slipping and my mission is to document this for future use against you." Try walking into customer service situations looking at the display screen of the camera you're using to record the employee, instead of speaking to the employee like a normal person. Tell me that employee is not taken aback by that.
Hazardous? LOL Washing a kid's mouth out with soap is hazardous now? Wow
A 12 year old (age guess there) has no need, nor does he have the life experience to question an adult four times his age. It's not his place.
Sure it does
Sure it does. They command an additional level of respect that should be given until there is a reason not to give it. Same goes for military personnel or in the case of a child his age, teachers.
The law prescribes? Please show me the penal code section that proscribes a person to whip out their camera phone and question a police officer about his activities. Did the kid break a law? Of course not. Does the law call for him to do that? Of course not. Checks andbalances exist for good reason, I'm with you on that. Our founding fathers certainly did not intend for a 12 year old to be putting the Marshall in check. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you'd NEVER see that happen back when "checks and balances" were written for us.
Apples to oranges. Not even close to comparable.
It boils down to this; An adolescent need not question an authority figure, especially on a petty level such as this. If in fact it is necessary, this is not the way to go about it. In fact, pretty much just subtract the camera and change his wording a bit, and I'd have zero problem with it.
It seems that it boils to down to a bit more than losing the camera and changing phrasing. Unless you other statements are not true: To paraphrase: Cops are beyond reproach b/c their cops and kids have no voice or right to question authority b/c their kids. Although you did insert the a caveat that respect for authority s/b given "until there is a reason not to give it." It seems to me that witnessing authority breaking it's own laws is a fine reason to question it. I would also contend that questioning authority in such circumstances is not a lack of respect for authority but rather a GREATER respect for the law and the authorities that are supposed to uphold it. For every authority that does break the law, is not disrespectful to all those authorities that are truly serving the spirit of the law and the people the serve? And by extension, allowing authorities to break the law without accountabilty is actually fostering disrespect for the authorities that do serve with honor.
As for the definition of "civil", perhaps the camera was over the top. OR perhaps the citizen felt that since the officer seemed to not respect the law that he would also not respect criticism from a citizen, which seems to be the case in the video. Perhaps the kid was aware that the majority of the population would simply discount anything he said/claimed without proof to the contrary, merely because he is a kid. Bottom line, the incident occured in public, on public property and, as we are all painfully aware these days, there are no laws against filiming anything in public. (Although, that is changing as police departments everywhere, ironically, seem to have a MAJOR problem with being filmed while on duty.)
When I said as prescribed by law, I was referring to the fact that citizens do have the right inquire as to an officers badge number in many if not all legitimate legal jurisdictions. The same laws require the officer to provide their badge number upon such inquiry. This shouldn't even need to be a law. Why should an officer need a law to identify themselves? Unless they feel that they cannot explain/defend their behavior. That law is there for a reason. And, as I recall, the officer in the video chose to ignore the request for his badge number. Hmmmmm....?
As another member posted already, if the officer was truly in the right, why not just set the kid straight? Instead of blowing the kid off (which I'm sure instilled a sense of respect in the kid and everyone whose now seen this video...not), he could have addressed the kids concerns/questions, explained his behavior and why he felt he is excepted from the law in question, and he most certainly could have provided his badge number. Handling it in such a way would have set a much better example to the kid and bears a much better chance of instilling respect in the kid so that the next time the kid is more informed and maybe doesn't even feel the need for the camera. Hmmmmm....???
Oh, and as for the soap punishment, sure, it probaby won't hurt most kids, but these days kids have deadly allergies to everything from foods to germs to plants to even the air we breathe. Is it not reasonable to think that liquid soap, a collection of chemicals, might not have a pretty adverse effect on some kids? Ahh...it's beside the point anyway. IMHO, using force and humiliation to "teach" rarely teaches anything other than "whem I'm bigger and stronger, I get to do what I want" and it in the meantime it creates resentment, all the while shifting the focus away from learning the real lessons that one would wish to teach.
Realize that I agree that kids should be respectful of others in all cases. However, respect should also not be interpreted as ignoring/overlooking trangressions simply b/c of who or what the subject may be. Very little is black and white in this world, but for the most part, the laws are for all of us, regardless of who we are or what we do and it's up to ALL of us to take a role in that. We hear all the time that the cops can't do it all by themselves.
In this case, IMHO, the kid was civil and not out of line. I can't say the same for the cop. And the cop had the greater responsibility by FAR to step up as the sworn and paid public servant.