Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the job of law enforcement is to initiate force.
No it isn't and its sad that you think it is.
Quote:
Government agents are the only humans that are believed to have the right to initiate violence, so that's the monopoly on force. It's wrong for citizens to threaten or use force against anyone, but politicians, police, military, etc. are allowed to.
They are not allowed to initiate force. I can tell you all day that I'm going to.kick your butt.
Quote:
Can you delegate a right to someone that you don't have yourself? If citizens don't have the right to do it, how do they delegate that right to government officials?
We have all the same rights outside of being able to detain people.
They are not allowed to initiate force. I can tell you all day that I'm going to.kick your butt.
We have all the same rights outside of being able to detain people.
Let's say I'm in possession of an unapproved plant. I'm not being violent in any way, but they will initiate force against me and arrest me. That goes for any law. If you disobey, even if you aren't initiating force, they will use force against you. If you dance at the Jefferson Memorial and they tell you to stop, they become violent if you keep dancing (True story...video on YouTube). Imagine if a regular citizen tried to tackle another person for dancing and then kidnapped them and locked them up. That's just wrong. Reason > violence.
That's why I ask...if it's wrong for us to do, why isn't it wrong for them? We give them that right? None of us have that right, but we somehow gave that same right to them? Doesn't make rational sense to me.
Let's say I'm in possession of an unapproved plant. I'm not being violent in any way, but they will initiate force against me and arrest me. That goes for any law. If you disobey, even if you aren't initiating force, they will use force against you. If you dance at the Jefferson Memorial and they tell you to stop, they become violent if you keep dancing (True story...video on YouTube). Imagine if a regular citizen tried to do that...
That's why I ask...if it's wrong for us to do, why isn't it wrong for them? We give them that right? We don't have that right, but we somehow gave that same right to them? Doesn't make rational sense to me.
It's not really violence but it is coercive force, and violence is a more extreme form of coercive force. The government has a monopoly on coercive force, with a few insignificant exceptions like citizen's arrest. That's what makes them the government.
This is the issue in Baltimore and other jurisdictions, Police are not being held accountable its a difficult job but there are many that just should not be policemen. There have been over 127 killed by police in the last 2 decades and 102 judgments since 2011 found in favor of the victims, they have a problem.
The OP had it right, I just read that there is a Maryland law where police involved in an incident do not have to make a statement to investigators for 10 days, that is absurd.
Is it violence if you personally carried out the same actions as a police officer arresting someone? That's how I clear up the murkiness...if I did it to another random person, would it be okay? We're conditioned to see it differently when done by government, because if we actually saw it clearly for what it is, it would look pretty uncivilized.
If it's in self-defense, nothing wrong with it at all. Police can defend themselves, and I hope they do. I just have a problem with being the person who brings force into a non-violent or peaceful situation.
Is it violence if you personally carried out the same actions as a police officer arresting someone? That's how I clear up the murkiness...if I did it to another random person, would it be okay? We're conditioned to see it differently when done by government, because if we actually saw it clearly for what it is, it would look pretty uncivilized.
I said the only exception we make for law enforcement is the right to detain someone.
while police do sometimes have to use force to make an arrest, as the arrestee is the one that dictates the necessity of the escalation of force, LEOs do have to measure the amount of force they use to only that needed to affect the arrest. beyond that they need to face disciplinary measures.
what is needed is a citizens review board to look at these cases and make a judgement given the evidence at hand.
I said the only exception we make for law enforcement is the right to detain someone.
Do you think it's okay for them to detain someone, and do you think detaining someone is non-violent? I think you should use reason unless someone else brings force to the table, and then you have the right to use force back. They'd be the one at fault in that situation.
And for kicking someone off your property, you're defending what belongs to you. Obviously you shouldn't jump to violence right away, but if they refuse to leave your property, you wouldn't be acting immorally for using force. I don't think it would need to come down to that in most cases though. (Edit: wanted to clarify...the government has a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force, not just the use of force).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
