FeatherFall

I think this issue bears focusing with greater resolution. There was a system of race-based oppression and, yeah, there are multi-generational effects. But who really benefited from the past oppression? The labor market of poor white people was negatively effected by black slave labor. This primarily benefited those whites who were *slave owners* not all whites. Sure, poor whites were far better off than black slaves (and afterward "free" blacks in the Jim Crow era). But how many people actually reaped the rewards of these atrocities? This website says that the highest rates of slave ownership

I want to thank the OP and everyone else. This discussion has lead me to be more interested in the history of policing. This article is written with some heavy bias, but it nevertheless makes some good points. Among other things, it traces modern police forces back to a convergence between occupied Northern Ireland and southern US slave patrols. People interested in researching occurrences of police misconduct more thoroughly may want to start with the Cato Institute's police misconduct website.

Nicky, you've had a lot of questions directed toward you. I understand the difficulty in responding fully to everyone. I'm sorry I couldn't be more brief with my own response. I'm sorry, I misstated my point. Police have access to the evidence against them prior to providing a statement. I don't know what the objectivity of juries has to do with this issue. If you'd like to explain further, please do. Perhaps pointing us toward the studies in question will help to illuminate your thoughts on the matter. Based on what you've said (and omitted) about the system, it appears y

Edit: Actually, from what I can tell this is not being dealt with. It's just on our radar. :Edit http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

I think that most people who commit moral wrongs tend to think of themselves as good people and rationalize their actions. So there is certainly a continuum of cooperation. Evil "Collusion" would be on one end, like the Wisconsin John Doe investigations. On the other end you'd have prosecutors giving cops the benefit of the doubt, refusing to investigate beyond a cursory glance (like what I suspect would have happened with Walter Scott were there no video). Now, keep in mind that last parenthesized bit is on the extreme end of the spectrum. A cursory investigation may be forgivable if a prosec

I assume Nicky was responding to me, in part. If not, I'll at least own up to making the claim. I'm actually extremely surprised that anyone would balk at the notion of prosecutor/judicial/LEO collusion. I suppose that's why we have these discussions. Nicky, we've heard Don Athos's alternate interpretation of the stats you mentioned. Ultimately I couldn't say for sure, but I have a third interpretation. I'll start by conceding a lower conviction rate could indicate overzealous prosecutors who target police. But only in some jurisdictions. So that in and of itself does not dispel "Blue Cultur

I haven't seen evidence that police are targeting people by race. There is evidence that they are targeting poor people in black communities, but race doesn't appear to me to be a primary factor. I think the real issue is what I'll call, "Blue Culture." It involves an incestuous relationship between prosecutors, judges and police departments. It encourages police to get involved where they don't belong, in many cases simply to generate revenue, and to protect their own at the cost of public safety and the rule of law. Here are some examples of "Blue Culture" causing the death of white people:

While the moral premise of private charity can come from the same premise that justifies socialism, the crucial element of force is still important enough to draw a meaningful distinction. Not to mention the fact that private charity can come from a different premise. You can see that premise at play when some charities vet their beneficiaries. Systematic benevolence actually sounds pretty great when we keep in mind the idea that duty-based "benevolence" is really not benevolence at all.

Crow, I don't know what you're referring to when you wrote "evasion" in your last post. You're going to need to spend a little bit more effort explaining your position if you want me to understand. Are you saying that benevolence can't be combined with the non-initiation of force? That believing as much is an evasion?

Yes, I disagree in part. For one, I'm not immediately sure where to being parsing out the morality of the horseplay example. The other examples conflate a legal and possibly ethical use of force with a use of force that is neither legal nor remotely ethical. Remember that an apples-to-apples comparison to the Garner case involves a situation where your average Joe is legally justified in using force. There is also some relevant context dropped from your example, such as the lack of an attempt to choke the victim to unconsciousness, unforeseen health concerns, etc. We've gone over that stuff to

I still don't know how you'd square this with the notion that, as it seems to me, your average Joe can use a temporary chokehold without it being considered deadly force. It seems to me that you're trying to find a loophole to hang this cop for something that isn't a crime. Ex post facto, indeed. Cops may be held to different standards than your average person. But I submit there are more just punishments for failing those standards to which other people are not held; jettisoning them from the police force, or docking pay, or demotion. I object to double standards for police, but let's not rea

As long as we're having them to commit to something that won't happen, why don't we have them get rid of the false alternative entirely and combine benevolence with the non-initiation of force?

To which article do you refer? It seems to me that shelters, socialized or not, will bar their doors to the homeless when at capacity. The poor guy had alcohol issues and apparently lost access to housing after someone secured it for him. This isn't a free-market/socialized care issue, this is a personal health/growth issue. Some people aren't going to make it in any system. Whether this particular guy's problem was due to early childhood experience, a genetic predisposition, or something else I don't know. But sooner or later the doors to any shelter will close, even when they aren't being

Prohibition by law is different from prohibition by policy. The choke hold appears to be prohibited by policy but not by law. This implies that any citizen may legally use such a choke hold under certain circumstances. Earlier I wrote, "appears," because it isn't clear if the duration is a factor, if this officer will face departmental repercussions or if he is protected by the kind of undue veneration you mentioned. I have some more thoughts, but it's getting very late.

The medical examiner seemed to lay blame in equal parts to the choke hold and to the act of pinning Garner to the ground. Presumably you don't think the second act should be prohibited. Until I see evidence that the medical examiner drew further distinction between those two actions, I can only conclude that they are of similar severity; that is, reasonable arrest measures that unpredictably triggered a prior health condition. I am not aware of any further info on the matter, which is regrettable. But it is my understanding based on available information that Garner, while handcuffed, was stil