darxus | (no subject)

(no subject)

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

'Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?”'

But it couldn't happen here?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

"if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person."

That's just flat-out wrong. It's wrong and the essay is wrong in so many bad ways that it obscures what might be important points that it might be trying to make.

I don't know. There seem to be people doing bad things in the name of the law and getting away with it. What is the solution? How many people have tried to work within the system to correct that problem and failed? How long does that need to continue before force is appropriate?

Wex, I think you are *exactly* the sort who the author is talking about when he says, "...makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions."

What do you suggest we (or anyone) do about routine, institutionalized violations of our rights by those using the cover of law?

Oh, please. Even you have to admit that there is such a concept as proportion and appropriateness. I may be allowed to do something, but to suggest that someone who prevents me doing it gives me the right to use unbounded force in retaliation is flat-out absurd.

I may be allowed to walk down the street. Someone blocks my way - should I be permitted to slit his throat in response? If you honestly think the answer is "yes" or even "maybe" then we don't have even a shred of a basis for conversation.

If you accept that there is proportionality of response, then the question is what determines proportionality. That system, more or less since Hammurabi, is called "laws". Part of the system of laws is the delegation of some or all responsibility for enforcing them. Nowadays we call the entity to which we delegate that responsibility "police".

If you're still with me in conceptual structure then we are in agreement and the essayist is wrong. If you fell off the progression somewhere then you are describing something other than a modern society and we're likely not sufficiently close in concept.

And if you think any of this is "knee-jerk conniptions" well then I don't know what to say to you.

It's a good question to which I suspect there is no single answer. People have always done bad things in the name of the law. Is the situation worse now than it was when local law 'enforcement' openly supported or participated in lynching black people? Is it worse now than it was in the days when some cops in NYC worked as enforcers for the mafia? Is it worse in America than it is in Mexico?

Let's suppose that we asserted force was appropriate. Then what? You have a dead cop on your floor, what do you do now? Locally, and globally - as I mentioned in my response to milktree part of the social contract of laws is that we cede the enforcement of those laws to entities we generally call "police". You've now broken that social contract - no matter how much you were justified, how do your neighbors know that? How does the shopkeeper know you will not now decide to use lethal force if you feel you were unfairly charged? Why should a doctor treat you, if that doctor fears you might use lethal force in response to malpractice? How impeded in your life would you be if you believed that any aggrieved motorist would use lethal force because you (in his mind) stopped him from doing what he felt entitled to do? Or any landowner might use lethal force against you as an accidental hiking trespasser. Of course, these things might happen anyway, but they are rare, so rare as to be thought unusual and noteworthy because they contravene the general social contract.

We don't, as the essayist implies, cede the use of force because we are weak. We cede it because it makes the operation of a large complex society of interdependent people operate more smoothly. The development and training of a professional police force is no small matter, as any dysfunctional third-world country amply demonstrates. That we invest in such a thing, and that all successful societies invest more heavily in such things, shows that it promotes such societies. I'm quite confident that if you graphed your favorite benefit (average income, longevity, child mortality rate, etc) by country it would correlate very strongly with the presence of professional police forces. That doesn't show that ceding the use of lethal force causes those benefits, but it does show that ceding them is not a hindrance to getting those benefits.

Would it have been wrong for black men to use force to defend themselves from police participating in lynching?

Would it have been wrong for people to defend themselves from NYC cops working as enforcers for the mafia?

I would agree with everything you have said if it could be assumed that if a police officer violated that all important social contract, that he would at least be removed from the police force, and preferably put in jail.

I would also say that if a police officer broke the social contract first, that defending myself from him does not involve breaking that social contract, and therefore the shopkeeper and doctor would not have a reason not to do business with me. Lack of evidence could be a problem, sure, but I'm not talking about cases lacking evidence.

Unfair charging, malpractice, aggravated motorists, and accidental trespassing are not violations of the scale I'm talking about. I'm talking about one human being killing another human being without just cause, and getting away with it because he is a police officer.

The benefits of civilization correlate to the "presence of professional police forces"? What does the term "police state" mean to you?

I know it's a difficult line to draw. I certainly don't expect you and I to work it out in detail. But I would appreciate it very much if you could give me an example where you feel it would be appropriate, moral, to use force against those claiming legitimate authority. Make it as ridiculous as you like. Tell me it could never happen in America if it makes you more comfortable.

It would make me very happy if everyone could just recognize that extensive atrocities have been committed in the name of recognized authority in this world, throughout history, and that it could happen here, however unlikely. And maybe even take a moment to think about where that line might be.

Would it have been wrong for black men to use force to defend themselves from police participating in lynching?

I don't know. People I respect have argued both sides. But in the larger analysis it's a false question, along the lines of "would you use torture to get information about a bomb that's about to go off?" By the fact that you're in that situation you've demonstrated a larger-scale failure has taken place and the solution to the larger-scale fail is not to make morally questionable micro-choices. As you note, the police officer who violates the law, his training, social norms, acceptable behavior, etc need to be disciplined (fired, prosecuted, fined, jailed) but all within the purview of a public and accountable system.

The fact that the system is imperfect doesn't mean you chuck it out and substitute every individual asshole's judgment. YOU might think that lesser offenses do not call for unbounded violence in response, but that's not what the essayist advocated. And because I can't be sure that other random citizens will believe as you do I prefer to put the power of enforcement in a designated organization, even though it's filled with fallible, corruptible, and sometimes actively evil individuals.

What does the term "police state" mean to you?

A police state is one in which the enforcement arm is insufficiently independent of political entities that are overly entrenched and in which the entrenched political entities (parties, dictators, etc) use the police while at the same time exempting themselves from it.

I would appreciate it very much if you could give me an example where you feel it would be appropriate, moral, to use force against those claiming legitimate authority.

It's easier if you let me separate the notion of "necessary" from "moral" or "right." I believe there are actions that are necessary that may not be moral or right. In your example of a man facing a lynching mob I don't distinguish those wearing badges in the mob from any other - if the victim uses force to prevent himself from being killed then that is likely necessary, but I would never say killing another person(*) was a moral act.

Likewise, I'm reasonably certain that, given the chance, I would use excessive force against someone who attacked my children. I don't think it matters if the attacker wears a badge or not.

And finally, yes, i agree that people ought not to be so blase about the degree to which authorities in America are given free passes to violate the laws they ought to be upholding. Watching the police actions against #Occupy is more than enough reminder that things haven't changed as much as we'd like. But that's what I meant in my original comment when I said that the essay you linked to had valid points, but the valid points get drowned out by all the wrong.

(*) Assisted suicide is a tricky idea here. I'm in favor of that - every person should get to choose his death - but I believe it's not relevant to this discussion.

Good enough for me, thanks.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

Major fail

Re: Major fail

Re: Major fail

Re: Major fail

Re: Major fail

Re: Major fail

Re: Major fail

Re: Major fail