How much respect for liberty is required to not tolerate the state trampling over it on the absurd justification that to do otherwise would constitute "hand-holding"?
I told you I wouldn't play the blame-the-victim game.
It's one thing to fuss over whether the citizenry are engaged enough with their rights in a general context, but to do so in the context of specific violation of rights is another thing altogether.
It does seem to me there may be a bit of is/ought going on here; I agree that folks really need to be prepared to assert their rights. You'll never convince me, however, that being unassertive ought to be sufficient justification for the state to deprive one of right.
Really, now? "The State" is depriving these folks of their rights? Or would it be more accurate and appropriate to say that The State agrees that when you fail to assert your right, or even worse give up your right for the sake of convenience and to "avoid confrontation" you get the logical consequences? It's been a lloong time since Sir Robert Peele and his Nine Principles were the guiding lights of police work. We (yes, you, me, and all the rest of us) have purposely and intentionally turned the police into a paranoid force that would rather support the existence of "the thin blue line" than pass laws criminalizing the sorts of things you are complaining about. Right now it's not against the law* to violate someone's rights - it's merely a civil tort that can be corrected by having the courts make the taxpayers (as opposed to the offending officers and their supervisors) pay off a blood feud.
We're not talking about what people do for themselves, where it might be worthwhile to bloviate on personal responsibility. We're talking about what the state does to people, and I for one won't forget that niggling detail.
To put it another way: what you describe as "hand-holding", I describe as tactically acquiescing government overreach on the basis that the weak and ignorant deserve it anyway.
Were I to dignify that with a response, I would choose cream pies at six feet.
No, you see, you have to be assertive for that. And then they just slap you with a brandishing charge.
Yes, they did. And as much emotional and financial pain as I went through I was prepared to see that at least the offenders themselves were made aware that doing so was clearly a violation of an established right. That's where I can be distinguished from those others you are so concerned about. They are not willing to ensure, so much as they are able, that their right is not lost for failing to object to its violation when and where the violation occurs. It does not make me a hero. It does, however, suggest that they are something less. And if someone wants me to stand up for their rights - theirs, not mine; I can see to my own by myself thank you very much - when they will not do it for themself then they need to be prepared to pay me for performing that service. If standing up for my rights has the serendipitous effect of protecting the next guy to come down the road then that's just gravy, isn't it?
You want the existing dynamic to change because it should, without making the survival of the existing dynamic a personally costly endeavor.
stay safe.
* - presently it is a violation of 18 USC 242
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 ".... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." I cannot find an analogous Virginia statute.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC18020000010000000000000