"It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law."
When an individual resists arrest and engages in combative behavior, what alternatives are there for law enforcement officers? Do they institute a policy that says, once an offender resists, you simply walk away for fear that things may escalate?
There are several issues here, which I may discuss in more detail in a separate post. But for now:
i) We need to begin with a presuppositional question of what's the proper role of gov't? What should laws be for?
Is the point of laws to empower police to protect harmless citizens from harm by harmful citizens? Or is the point of laws to empower police to harm harmless citizens? If a citizen is engaged in a harmless activity, why should that be illegal in the first place? Why do we arm police? To authorize them to harm those who would do us harm? Or to harm citizens who aren't a threat to anyone else–but simply broke a law banning innocuous activity that shouldn't even be illegal?
ii) We can't just issue police depts. a blank check on what police are allowed to do to citizens? We need some statutory guiltiness. In a democratic republic, where the consent of the governed is the lead principle, guidelines need to be set by the people's elected representatives, and not by police depts (or judges).
Unconditional submission to the state is not a civic virtue in the American system of gov't. Keep in mind that in this country we have a tradition of peaceful civil disobedience. Does that give police a license to kill?
What is resisting arrest? Is talking back to the police resisting arrest?
iii) "Resisting arrest" ranges along a continuum. There's an elementary difference between someone who's violently uncooperative and someone who's nonviolently uncooperative. Is refusing to lie face down on the ground equivalent to hitting officers?
iv) Likewise, the underlying "crime" ought to make a difference in the amount of force that's permissible. Do you really think that by "resisting arrest," regardless of the offense or infraction, a citizen instantly forfeits his life?
Say the police shoot a fleeing suspect in the back who mugged an elderly woman to swipe her purse. Assuming that's justifiable, is it equally justifiable to shoot a "graffiti artist" in the back who's eluding arrest?
BTW, there's a reason he's called a "suspect" in the first place. Innocent men and women can be suspected of a crime they didn't commit.
Consider the difference between someone who nonviolently resists arrest for a nonviolent "crime" and someone who violently resists arrest for a violent crime. Should deadly force be applicable in both cases?
v) The irony is that nowadays police frequently play it safe by picking on penny-ante offenders. In the meantime they don't protect the public from real crime.
Take the rioters in Ferguson. The obvious reason the police sat back and let thugs loot and burn businesses is that, to prevent that or stop that, you have to be prepared to shoot (and kill) looters and arsonists. And that means shooting black looters and arsonists. Which the police weren't about to do.
Not only don't they protect businessmen from thugs, but they protect thugs from businessmen:
"Is the point of laws to empower police to protect harmless citizens from harm by harmful citizens? Or is the point of laws to empower police to harm harmless citizens? If a citizen is engaged in a harmless activity, why should that be illegal in the first place? Why do we arm police? To authorize them to harm those who would do us harm? Or to harm citizens who aren't a threat to anyone else–but simply broke a law banning innocuous activity that shouldn't even be illegal?"
Are you referring strictly to physical harm, or do you mean any type of harm, such as being victimized by Bernie Madoff?
"Unconditional submission to the state is not a civic virtue in the American system of gov't. "
I agree, but those who blatantly violate the law should be punished, no?
"What is resisting arrest? Is talking back to the police resisting arrest? "
I am referring to an individual that refuses to be placed in handcuffs when told he is under arrest and engages the officer physically.
"Do you really think that by "resisting arrest," regardless of the offense or infraction, a citizen instantly forfeits his life?"
I think that engaging in violent, physical behavior with a police officer may result in unintended consequences for the individual regardless of what the original offense was.
"Say the police shoot a fleeing suspect in the back who mugged an elderly woman to swipe her purse. Assuming that's justifiable, is it equally justifiable to shoot a "graffiti artist" in the back who's eluding arrest?"
Once again, I am referring to instances in which an individual engages in violent, combative behavior with an officer. Not simply someone that is alluding arrest.
"BTW, there's a reason he's called a "suspect" in the first place. Innocent men and women can be suspected of a crime they didn't commit. "
Agreed, which is why an officer has to have probable cause in order to arrest someone. Being arrested does not mean that they have been proven guilty. That is a separate issue from whether or not one resists being put under arrest and causes the officer's life to be placed in jeopardy.
"I agree, but those who blatantly violate the law should be punished, no?"
I don't think the state has a right to punish citizens for sin taxes.
"I am referring to an individual that refuses to be placed in handcuffs when told he is under arrest and engages the officer physically."
Was Garner actually told he was under arrest? "Engaging the officer physically" is euphemistically vague. He didn't behave threateningly towards the officers.
"I think that engaging in violent, physical behavior with a police officer may result in unintended consequences for the individual regardless of what the original offense was."
That's applicable to the Michael Brown case, not the Eric Garner case.
"Once again, I am referring to instances in which an individual engages in violent, combative behavior with an officer. Not simply someone that is alluding arrest."
i) I agree, but you seem to have in mind a Michael Brown type situation rather than an Eric Garner situation.
ii) It also depends on what you mean by "combative." Do you mean verbally combative or physically combative? The latter justifies a forceful response, but not the former.
"That is a separate issue from whether or not one resists being put under arrest and causes the officer's life to be placed in jeopardy."
True, but the Garner case is precisely the opposite. He didn't put the officer's life in jeopardy; rather, the officer put his life in jeopardy.
"To begin with, I don't think it's legal for police to use lethal force for property crimes."
I think that is where we may be talking past each other a bit. I am not saying that an officer is justified in killing an individual for merely committing property crimes. Rather, when such an individual is apprehended for such crime, and then behaves in such a way that causes the officer to legitimately believe his life is in danger, then deadly force may be utilized.
My understanding is that he was "hurting" local businesses by selling cigarettes illegally. Besides, law enforcement officers don't consider whether or not someone is being harmed when they seek to arrest them. The issue at hand is whether the law is being broken. They are sworn to uphold and enforce the law even if they don't necessarily agree with a particular law.
"I don't think the state has a right to punish citizens for sin taxes. "
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the state does not have the right to punish citizens for not paying sin taxes?
"I agree, but you seem to have in mind a Michael Brown type situation rather than an Eric Garner situation."
The main difference that I see between the 2 situations is that in the Brown case, the officer intended to kill Brown once he struck him, went for his gun, and rushed him. Whereas in the Garner case, it was not the intent of the officer to kill him. Rather, he and others were trying to subdue him while he resisted. I am not arguing for a justified killing in the Garner case. It was accidental.
"Rather, when such an individual is apprehended for such crime, and then behaves in such a way that causes the officer to legitimately believe his life is in danger, then deadly force may be utilized."
True, but that has no bearing on the Garner case.
"My understanding is that he was 'hurting' local businesses by selling cigarettes illegally."
i) That horribly trivializes the concept of harming others. Given, moreover, such an attenuated definition of harm, I don't see any check on totalitarian gov't.
ii) Furthermore, sin taxes are a cash cow for the state, so the real reason that the state cracks down on this sort of black market commerce is not because it harms local business, but because it cuts into the profit margin of the avaricious state.
"Besides, law enforcement officers don't consider whether or not someone is being harmed when they seek to arrest them. The issue at hand is whether the law is being broken."
The issue at hand is whether police are harming harmless citizens rather than protecting harmless citizens from harmful offenders.
"They are sworn to uphold and enforce the law even if they don't necessarily agree with a particular law."
i) So you're advancing the Nuremberg Defense? They were just following orders?
Will you also defend them when they arrest Christian florists, bakers, and photographers who refuse to service homosexual weddings?
ii) BTW, police aren't voiceless regarding laws. They have powerful unions that sometimes protest proposed legislation.
"Are you saying that the state does not have the right to punish citizens for not paying sin taxes?"
The state has a general duty to protect human life, not endanger human life by petty, frivolous, or unjust laws whose enforcement puts us at gratuitous risk of harm.
"The main difference that I see between the 2 situations is that in the Brown case, the officer intended to kill Brown once he struck him, went for his gun, and rushed him. Whereas in the Garner case, it was not the intent of the officer to kill him. Rather, he and others were trying to subdue him while he resisted. I am not arguing for a justified killing in the Garner case. It was accidental."
I see many basic differences. For instance:
i) Brown committed a violent offense whereas Garner committed a nonviolent offense.
ii) Brown violently resisted arrest whereas Garner nonviolently resisted arrest.
iii) Brown was a physically formidable adversary whereas Garner was a pushover.
iv) Wilson had no backup whereas Pantaleo had tons of backup.
"That horribly trivializes the concept of harming others. Given, moreover, such an attenuated definition of harm, I don't see any check on totalitarian gov't."
I disagree. I would liken it to the landscaper in my neighborhood that hires undocumented workers, and therefore can undercut the competition because he is not paying fair wages or the appropriate taxes. Such a person is harming law abiding businesses and their ability to eke out a living.
"Furthermore, sin taxes are a cash cow for the state, so the real reason that the state cracks down on this sort of black market commerce is not because it harms local business, but because it cuts into the profit margin of the avaricious state."
I agree that they are cash cows for the state. However, I think that the local business that is playing by the rules should not be at a competitive disadvantage to the one that is not. Therefore, I think it is a good thing to crack down on such behavior.
"So you're advancing the Nuremberg Defense? They were just following orders?"
No. As a christian, I have the obligation to obey the law of Christ rather than man when they are in conflict with one another. In both the Garner case and Ferguson case, I don't believe the officers violated the law of Christ.
"BTW, police aren't voiceless regarding laws. They have powerful unions that sometimes protest proposed legislation."
That may be true, however once proposed legislation is passed, they are sworn to uphold the law.
"Brown committed a violent offense whereas Garner committed a nonviolent offense."
"I disagree. I would liken it to the landscaper in my neighborhood that hires undocumented workers, and therefore can undercut the competition because he is not paying fair wages or the appropriate taxes. Such a person is harming law abiding businesses and their ability to eke out a living."
Now you're using a different example. As far as that goes, a landscaper could afford to pay his employees more if he didn't have to withhold payroll taxes to fund Society Security, which is just a pyramid scheme in reality.
Likewise, businesses would be more profitable if they didn't have to pay /small business/corporate taxes, which is just a disguised sale's tax, since that's passed onto the consumer.
"However, I think that the local business that is playing by the rules should not be at a competitive disadvantage to the one that is not."
What if *nobody* should have to play by those particular rules? What if the rules are the problem? Not all rules, but rules like sin taxes.
"Therefore, I think it is a good thing to crack down on such behavior."
But we must consider the tradeoffs. Something can be good in one respect but deleterious in another.
For instance, the sin tax in NYC creates crime by creating a demand for a black market. That's a predictable, inevitable outcome of that particular law. That doesn't reduce crime. That creates a new crime which require additional policing.
What about the basic right to be let alone (Louis Brandeis)?
"Not so sure about that. He looked like a pretty big dude to me."
There's a difference between big and strong (Brown) v. big and fat (Garner).
"It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law."
ReplyDeleteWhen an individual resists arrest and engages in combative behavior, what alternatives are there for law enforcement officers? Do they institute a policy that says, once an offender resists, you simply walk away for fear that things may escalate?
There are several issues here, which I may discuss in more detail in a separate post. But for now:
Deletei) We need to begin with a presuppositional question of what's the proper role of gov't? What should laws be for?
Is the point of laws to empower police to protect harmless citizens from harm by harmful citizens? Or is the point of laws to empower police to harm harmless citizens? If a citizen is engaged in a harmless activity, why should that be illegal in the first place? Why do we arm police? To authorize them to harm those who would do us harm? Or to harm citizens who aren't a threat to anyone else–but simply broke a law banning innocuous activity that shouldn't even be illegal?
ii) We can't just issue police depts. a blank check on what police are allowed to do to citizens? We need some statutory guiltiness. In a democratic republic, where the consent of the governed is the lead principle, guidelines need to be set by the people's elected representatives, and not by police depts (or judges).
Unconditional submission to the state is not a civic virtue in the American system of gov't. Keep in mind that in this country we have a tradition of peaceful civil disobedience. Does that give police a license to kill?
What is resisting arrest? Is talking back to the police resisting arrest?
iii) "Resisting arrest" ranges along a continuum. There's an elementary difference between someone who's violently uncooperative and someone who's nonviolently uncooperative. Is refusing to lie face down on the ground equivalent to hitting officers?
iv) Likewise, the underlying "crime" ought to make a difference in the amount of force that's permissible. Do you really think that by "resisting arrest," regardless of the offense or infraction, a citizen instantly forfeits his life?
Say the police shoot a fleeing suspect in the back who mugged an elderly woman to swipe her purse. Assuming that's justifiable, is it equally justifiable to shoot a "graffiti artist" in the back who's eluding arrest?
BTW, there's a reason he's called a "suspect" in the first place. Innocent men and women can be suspected of a crime they didn't commit.
Consider the difference between someone who nonviolently resists arrest for a nonviolent "crime" and someone who violently resists arrest for a violent crime. Should deadly force be applicable in both cases?
v) The irony is that nowadays police frequently play it safe by picking on penny-ante offenders. In the meantime they don't protect the public from real crime.
Take the rioters in Ferguson. The obvious reason the police sat back and let thugs loot and burn businesses is that, to prevent that or stop that, you have to be prepared to shoot (and kill) looters and arsonists. And that means shooting black looters and arsonists. Which the police weren't about to do.
Not only don't they protect businessmen from thugs, but they protect thugs from businessmen:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/393729/defense-antigovernment-militias-charles-c-w-cooke
"Is the point of laws to empower police to protect harmless citizens from harm by harmful citizens? Or is the point of laws to empower police to harm harmless citizens? If a citizen is engaged in a harmless activity, why should that be illegal in the first place? Why do we arm police? To authorize them to harm those who would do us harm? Or to harm citizens who aren't a threat to anyone else–but simply broke a law banning innocuous activity that shouldn't even be illegal?"
DeleteAre you referring strictly to physical harm, or do you mean any type of harm, such as being victimized by Bernie Madoff?
"Unconditional submission to the state is not a civic virtue in the American system of gov't. "
I agree, but those who blatantly violate the law should be punished, no?
"What is resisting arrest? Is talking back to the police resisting arrest? "
I am referring to an individual that refuses to be placed in handcuffs when told he is under arrest and engages the officer physically.
"Do you really think that by "resisting arrest," regardless of the offense or infraction, a citizen instantly forfeits his life?"
I think that engaging in violent, physical behavior with a police officer may result in unintended consequences for the individual regardless of what the original offense was.
"Say the police shoot a fleeing suspect in the back who mugged an elderly woman to swipe her purse. Assuming that's justifiable, is it equally justifiable to shoot a "graffiti artist" in the back who's eluding arrest?"
Once again, I am referring to instances in which an individual engages in violent, combative behavior with an officer. Not simply someone that is alluding arrest.
"BTW, there's a reason he's called a "suspect" in the first place. Innocent men and women can be suspected of a crime they didn't commit. "
Agreed, which is why an officer has to have probable cause in order to arrest someone. Being arrested does not mean that they have been proven guilty. That is a separate issue from whether or not one resists being put under arrest and causes the officer's life to be placed in jeopardy.
"Are you referring strictly to physical harm, or do you mean any type of harm, such as being victimized by Bernie Madoff?"
Deletei) To begin with, I don't think it's legal for police to use lethal force for property crimes.
ii) Moreover, Garner wasn't hurting anyone, unlike Madoff.
"I agree, but those who blatantly violate the law should be punished, no?"
I don't think the state has a right to punish citizens for sin taxes.
"I am referring to an individual that refuses to be placed in handcuffs when told he is under arrest and engages the officer physically."
Was Garner actually told he was under arrest? "Engaging the officer physically" is euphemistically vague. He didn't behave threateningly towards the officers.
"I think that engaging in violent, physical behavior with a police officer may result in unintended consequences for the individual regardless of what the original offense was."
That's applicable to the Michael Brown case, not the Eric Garner case.
"Once again, I am referring to instances in which an individual engages in violent, combative behavior with an officer. Not simply someone that is alluding arrest."
i) I agree, but you seem to have in mind a Michael Brown type situation rather than an Eric Garner situation.
ii) It also depends on what you mean by "combative." Do you mean verbally combative or physically combative? The latter justifies a forceful response, but not the former.
"That is a separate issue from whether or not one resists being put under arrest and causes the officer's life to be placed in jeopardy."
True, but the Garner case is precisely the opposite. He didn't put the officer's life in jeopardy; rather, the officer put his life in jeopardy.
"To begin with, I don't think it's legal for police to use lethal force for property crimes."
DeleteI think that is where we may be talking past each other a bit. I am not saying that an officer is justified in killing an individual for merely committing property crimes. Rather, when such an individual is apprehended for such crime, and then behaves in such a way that causes the officer to legitimately believe his life is in danger, then deadly force may be utilized.
"Moreover, Garner wasn't hurting anyone, unlike Madoff."
My understanding is that he was "hurting" local businesses by selling cigarettes illegally. Besides, law enforcement officers don't consider whether or not someone is being harmed when they seek to arrest them. The issue at hand is whether the law is being broken. They are sworn to uphold and enforce the law even if they don't necessarily agree with a particular law.
"I don't think the state has a right to punish citizens for sin taxes. "
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the state does not have the right to punish citizens for not paying sin taxes?
"I agree, but you seem to have in mind a Michael Brown type situation rather than an Eric Garner situation."
The main difference that I see between the 2 situations is that in the Brown case, the officer intended to kill Brown once he struck him, went for his gun, and rushed him. Whereas in the Garner case, it was not the intent of the officer to kill him. Rather, he and others were trying to subdue him while he resisted. I am not arguing for a justified killing in the Garner case. It was accidental.
"Rather, when such an individual is apprehended for such crime, and then behaves in such a way that causes the officer to legitimately believe his life is in danger, then deadly force may be utilized."
DeleteTrue, but that has no bearing on the Garner case.
"My understanding is that he was 'hurting' local businesses by selling cigarettes illegally."
i) That horribly trivializes the concept of harming others. Given, moreover, such an attenuated definition of harm, I don't see any check on totalitarian gov't.
ii) Furthermore, sin taxes are a cash cow for the state, so the real reason that the state cracks down on this sort of black market commerce is not because it harms local business, but because it cuts into the profit margin of the avaricious state.
"Besides, law enforcement officers don't consider whether or not someone is being harmed when they seek to arrest them. The issue at hand is whether the law is being broken."
The issue at hand is whether police are harming harmless citizens rather than protecting harmless citizens from harmful offenders.
"They are sworn to uphold and enforce the law even if they don't necessarily agree with a particular law."
i) So you're advancing the Nuremberg Defense? They were just following orders?
Will you also defend them when they arrest Christian florists, bakers, and photographers who refuse to service homosexual weddings?
ii) BTW, police aren't voiceless regarding laws. They have powerful unions that sometimes protest proposed legislation.
"Are you saying that the state does not have the right to punish citizens for not paying sin taxes?"
The state has a general duty to protect human life, not endanger human life by petty, frivolous, or unjust laws whose enforcement puts us at gratuitous risk of harm.
"The main difference that I see between the 2 situations is that in the Brown case, the officer intended to kill Brown once he struck him, went for his gun, and rushed him. Whereas in the Garner case, it was not the intent of the officer to kill him. Rather, he and others were trying to subdue him while he resisted. I am not arguing for a justified killing in the Garner case. It was accidental."
I see many basic differences. For instance:
i) Brown committed a violent offense whereas Garner committed a nonviolent offense.
ii) Brown violently resisted arrest whereas Garner nonviolently resisted arrest.
iii) Brown was a physically formidable adversary whereas Garner was a pushover.
iv) Wilson had no backup whereas Pantaleo had tons of backup.
"That horribly trivializes the concept of harming others. Given, moreover, such an attenuated definition of harm, I don't see any check on totalitarian gov't."
DeleteI disagree. I would liken it to the landscaper in my neighborhood that hires undocumented workers, and therefore can undercut the competition because he is not paying fair wages or the appropriate taxes. Such a person is harming law abiding businesses and their ability to eke out a living.
"Furthermore, sin taxes are a cash cow for the state, so the real reason that the state cracks down on this sort of black market commerce is not because it harms local business, but because it cuts into the profit margin of the avaricious state."
I agree that they are cash cows for the state. However, I think that the local business that is playing by the rules should not be at a competitive disadvantage to the one that is not. Therefore, I think it is a good thing to crack down on such behavior.
"So you're advancing the Nuremberg Defense? They were just following orders?"
No. As a christian, I have the obligation to obey the law of Christ rather than man when they are in conflict with one another. In both the Garner case and Ferguson case, I don't believe the officers violated the law of Christ.
"BTW, police aren't voiceless regarding laws. They have powerful unions that sometimes protest proposed legislation."
That may be true, however once proposed legislation is passed, they are sworn to uphold the law.
"Brown committed a violent offense whereas Garner committed a nonviolent offense."
I agree
"Brown violently resisted arrest whereas Garner nonviolently resisted arrest."
I agree
"Brown was a physically formidable adversary whereas Garner was a pushover."
Not so sure about that. He looked like a pretty big dude to me
"Wilson had no backup whereas Pantaleo had tons of backup."
I agree.
"I disagree. I would liken it to the landscaper in my neighborhood that hires undocumented workers, and therefore can undercut the competition because he is not paying fair wages or the appropriate taxes. Such a person is harming law abiding businesses and their ability to eke out a living."
DeleteNow you're using a different example. As far as that goes, a landscaper could afford to pay his employees more if he didn't have to withhold payroll taxes to fund Society Security, which is just a pyramid scheme in reality.
Likewise, businesses would be more profitable if they didn't have to pay /small business/corporate taxes, which is just a disguised sale's tax, since that's passed onto the consumer.
"However, I think that the local business that is playing by the rules should not be at a competitive disadvantage to the one that is not."
What if *nobody* should have to play by those particular rules? What if the rules are the problem? Not all rules, but rules like sin taxes.
"Therefore, I think it is a good thing to crack down on such behavior."
But we must consider the tradeoffs. Something can be good in one respect but deleterious in another.
For instance, the sin tax in NYC creates crime by creating a demand for a black market. That's a predictable, inevitable outcome of that particular law. That doesn't reduce crime. That creates a new crime which require additional policing.
What about the basic right to be let alone (Louis Brandeis)?
"Not so sure about that. He looked like a pretty big dude to me."
There's a difference between big and strong (Brown) v. big and fat (Garner).