Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dadmonson

What is the Objectivist Answer to Police Brutality?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I agree with you Don. I only said "I guess" to replace the snarky response I had typed out. I do in fact rationally expect a cop to be procedural and just about the procedure. But it doesn't seem like the system in place is any good for what we want. I'd rather there be an imaginative restructuring of law enforcement. I'm not really pro-cop per se (i.e. the system as it exists makes me wary of all cops), but I am pro-law enforcement in principle.

DW, can you rephrase your question? I am just thinking about any positive change (I suggested a few things)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not really pro-cop per se (i.e. the system as it exists makes me wary of all cops), but I am pro-law enforcement in principle.

Your stating things in terms like these makes me want to reply in kind. I am not "pro-cop" at all (though I believe I've encountered many "pro-cop" folks on this board), no more than I am "pro-criminal," "pro-worker" or "pro-businessman." I am pro-individual and pro-individual rights. I believe that no individual has the right to initiate the use of force against any other -- and I extend that to police officers, who I do believe are yet "individuals."

Am I pro-law enforcement in principle? No, not as such. There was law enforcement in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany -- plenty of it -- but I don't consider myself a fan. I am pro-moral law, pro-objective law, and where there is moral and objective law, then I am in favor of enforcement (in an objective, structured, procedural manner). Where the law is immoral and in-objective, I'd rather that law remain unenforced.

The system as it exists, within the culture as it exists, makes me wary of all prominent actors. Objectivists remain on the fringe for a reason: our devotion(s) to reason, reality, egoism, and liberty are not widely shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

DW, can you rephrase your question? I am just thinking about any positive change (I suggested a few things)

Yes, I am quite capable of rephrasing my question.

Why do you think the jury acquitted Jeronimo Yanez?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Why do you think the jury acquitted Jeronimo Yanez?

I don't think there is a rational reason. I suspect they were trying to follow the "letter of the law" without regard for intent of the law, or without regard for how a jury can say "not guilty" even in spite of the law. This is besides wondering about possible irrational biases of jurors...

Nicky was saying Yanez was an idiot but said that 10+ years in jail is ridiculous as punishment here. I suspect jurors with Nicky's mentality were sought after, as there are no rational reasons underlying this statement, when no justification is there besides intuition. I don't mean that as a sleight at Nicky - rather, I'm saying that to illustrate how jurors in this manner may be unwilling to present their basis. So then a decision is made with minimal deliberation, or checking for biases.

From the video, it is sufficient to say Yanez made a grave error and he is at fault to go as far as he did. The issue I think is too few people introspect on what they think cops are supposed to do, and instead defer to the law as it is. Or perhaps an error like this is seen on the level of an engineer getting numbers wrong and a piece of expensive machinery blows up as a result - stupid, maybe worthy of a lawsuit, but not criminal. But that wouldn't make sense, as the damage here is to human life.

I don't think people take seriously that the system of law enforcement we have is prone to life-threatening errors and fails to recognize the psychological fortitude required to use force properly. Perhaps this wasn't known 50 years ago. But now it is known.

By the way, Don, I mean pro-law enforcement in principle as in I think it is a system required for any society to function at a high level. My normative standard is there still, so illegitmate use of force is still possible, and some are more illegitmate than others.

But yeah, I'm wary as you. My default is "don't trust law enforcement", as even a small risk (say, 5-10%) is too much for me. In another era, it might be different.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think there is a rational reason. I suspect they were trying to follow the "letter of the law" without regard for intent of the law, or without regard for how a jury can say "not guilty" even in spite of the law. This is besides wondering about possible irrational biases of jurors.

That would be less laughable if it was just this one jury you disagreed with. But this decision isn't an outlier, it's typical. Case after case, juries refuse to hold cops to the silly "standard" you want to hold them to.

And yet, you (along with a small minority of leftist and anarchist leaning loud mouths) seem convinced that you understand American law, and American juries keep delivering the "wrong" verdict one after another because they just can't match your intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The issue I think is too few people introspect on what they think cops are supposed to do

You might want to look into what introspect means. Until you do, just keep it simple: the appropriate verb to use there is think. Better to keep it basic and right than be pretentious and wrong.

And no, the issue isn't that people don't think about what cops are supposed to do. The issue is that people have empathy for cops: they don't just think about what the cop was supposed to do in theory, they also think about how difficult it is to be a cop. The reason why this jury didn't find the cop guilty is because they had a long time to think about every aspect of not just the case, but of the dangers and stress a cop is subjected to on a daily bases, and concluded that they themselves might not have handled the job any better either.

Couple that with the justified contempt the average American feels for the militant left behind all the protests and anti-cop, anti-white propaganda, and it's easy to see why a thoughtful jury will never deliver a guilty verdict in a case like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Nicky said:

But this decision isn't an outlier, it's typical. Case after case, juries refuse to hold cops to the silly "standard" you want to hold them to.

I didn't say it was an outlier even. You also know as well as I do that juries are not always rational, or that what usually happens means that the usual is okay.

" juries refuse to hold cops to the silly "standard" you want to hold them to. "

What is my standard (I want to know if you got it right) and why is it silly?

10 minutes ago, Nicky said:

but of the dangers and stress a cop is subjected to on a daily bases, and concluded that they themselves might not have handled the job any better either.

 You can't know their reasoning unless you were a juror or you talked to them after. Besides why do you say then that the standard of cop is actually good enough? I asked about your reasoning as to why Yanez had acted properly. I already granted he was perhaps was acting lawfully. That's what led to me to say that the standards are no good.

If the standards are good, make a case for it. But:

12 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Until you do, just keep it simple: the appropriate verb to use there is think. Better to keep it basic and right than be pretentious and wrong.

This is not how to have a discussion, Nicky. Really, this sentence is unnecessary. If you think it's that stupid what I write, don't respond. I wrote this out so DW would respond perhaps, but also that you might respond with something useful rather than a put down. 

I did mean the word "introspect". As in, thinking and reflecting on one's internal states (knowledge being a state). The verb "question" would have been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×