Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Police Militarization / Use of Force

Rate this topic


Dormin111
 Share

Recommended Posts

Says who? The Second Amendment is based in the principle that it's not. Objectivism is also very clear on the point that people have the right to self defense. Even in the most progressive European countries, people have that right. Even the most anti-gun countries issue special gun licenses to private security and privileged individuals with political connections.

Defensive isn't different than self-defense, so the worst Kate did is misspeak since she explicitly said self-defense is okay. If you are posting yourself in order to specifically take control over ALL aspects of defense, something is wrong there. It's not "self-defense" as much as it is taking force into your own hands to control a situation, even retaliatory force. But the point of a police force is that individuals do not do retaliatory force save for the heat of the moment. The police would do that - the government has a monopoly on retaliatory/defensive (is there a difference?) force. In fact, it is even smarter to do nothing on your part and let the police do it. That is, if they're trained police...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defensive isn't different than self-defense, so the worst Kate did is misspeak since she explicitly said self-defense is okay.

She also explicitly said that it's stupid. So which is it? Maybe if she didn't "mis-speak" about the basic concepts, she would be able to figure it out.

 

If you are posting yourself in order to specifically take control over ALL aspects of defense, something is wrong there. It's not "self-defense" as much as it is taking force into your own hands to control a situation, even retaliatory force.

Defense is retaliatory now? I guess you're just "mis-speaking" too. Either that, or you're both confused about the difference.

Just to remind you both: the conversation is about people defending their stores. Not going out rounding up looters, but standing on their property, defending it. Calling that "retaliatory force" isn't "mis-speaking", it's confused nonsense.

That is, if they're trained police...

When I asked what these, not trained to your satisfaction, cops were doing wrong before, I got no reply. I'll try again: what are Police in Ferguson doing wrong? Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And willing to do that job, which was not the case in Ferguson.

Well, the one guy who did do the job was suspended, and is likely facing criminal charges for shooting a robber who assaulted him. Another one is suspended without pay for pointing his gun at the armed rioters, and threatening to shoot. I guess the rest are a little shy about doing the same thing now, so they do their best without using deadly force.

Obviously, faced with armed assailants, that's not going to work very well. But I'm not sure what more you would like them to do, short of shooting the looters.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to remind you both: the conversation is about people defending their stores. Not going out rounding up looters, but standing on their property, defending it. Calling that "retaliatory force" isn't "mis-speaking", it's confused nonsense.

What's stupid is doing it yourself. Standing on your property defending is not itself retaliatory, but it is intended to be retaliatory if necessary. That isn't self-defense in thee heat of the moment, and seems to be exactly the job for government to monopolize. That the police are unable to do this job in Ferguson is part of the problem.

 

When I asked what these, not trained to your satisfaction, cops were doing wrong before, I got no reply. I'll try again: what are Police in Ferguson doing wrong?

I thought I said how. They've failed to control a situation, not because it was above their expectation, but because they're apparently incompetent. It follows then they are using their weapons poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol, I don't see logic of "intended to be retaliatory." Defending property is not retaliatory, as I understand it. Could you elaborate?

Nicky, you appear to have identified an area of poor training (or worse). This speaks to the point I made in response to Eiuol, but it also addresses some questions you had of others. You asked them if they could identify a place were police were poorly trained or acted improperly. Sitting idly by while rioters loot stores could be seen as a failure of training or policy. It could also simply be the type of rare emergency that, from time to time, overwhelms rational training and policy. Either way, the owners are justified in defending themselves - especially if the police can't or won't.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the police are unable to do this job in Ferguson is part of the problem.

I thought I said how. They've failed to control a situation, not because it was above their expectation, but because they're apparently incompetent. It follows then they are using their weapons poorly.

Endlessly repeating "they failed, they're incompetent" without listing a single specific error they made, or a single action within their power they failed to take, is just mindless babble.

Nicky, you appear to have identified an area of poor training (or worse).

What do you mean? We are talking about a department consisting of 53 officers, facing hundreds of rioting gang members. Their fleet of patrol cars was burned on the first night of riots.

What possible training could they have received that would've allowed them to stop the looting without opening fire on the rioters (which is something they shouldn't do, not to protect property alone)?

I think the looting, early on, once local "leaders" decided to instigate it, was unavoidable. There is nothing a local Police force can do, or be expected to do, against an overwhelming number of coordinated rioters.

Within 24 or 48 hours, however, in a nation ruled by reason, the media would've identified the scale of the problem, public opinion would've been turned overwhelmingly against the looters and their instigators, and the authorities would've been able to converge on Ferguson and respond harshly enough to discourage any further attempts at violence.

Instead, the media was blatantly lying about the incident that sparked the riots, refused to inform people about the extent of the looting and violence on the part of the "protesters" (and chose instead to broadcast carefully framed, out of context snapshots of the Police response), and failed to identify the instigators. This caused state authorities to thread carefully (knowing that they would lose their jobs if they didn't cater to the media driven public backlash against Police action).

I don't see that as either a failure in Police training or policy. I see it as a failure of American culture.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Endlessly repeating "they failed, they're incompetent" without listing a single specific error they made, or a single action within their power they failed to take, is just mindless babble.

It's more what they didn't do. If someone fails to do their job, it's only a matter of finding out their incompetency. You haven't disputed that, so I'm suggesting the tear gas and rubber bullets were a large part of what the police did wrong. If these things worked, the riots would've stopped. If 53 officers can't handle it, then they should step down and leave it up to people who are better equipped and able.

 

Eiuol, I don't see logic of "intended to be retaliatory." Defending property is not retaliatory, as I understand it. Could you elaborate?

I guess it depends on how we use the word "defend". Defense can be something passive like walls, no force at all. Or defense can be active, where someone breaking into your house is shot. It could go further than that, where you are posted and awaiting the use of force, just as soon as you see imminent initiation of force different from immediate danger. As far as I've seen, the first two are fine for individuals. The last one is the domain of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more what they didn't do. If someone fails to do their job, it's only a matter of finding out their incompetency.

Go ahead, find it. So far, you've just been repeating that they're incompetent.

I'm suggesting the tear gas and rubber bullets were a large part of what the police did wrong.

What should've they used instead?

I guess it depends on how we use the word "defend".

Yes, it depends on whether you use the word defend correctly or not. Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or defense can be active, where someone breaking into your house is shot. It could go further than that, where you are posted and awaiting the use of force, just as soon as you see imminent initiation of force different from immediate danger. As far as I've seen, the first two are fine for individuals. The last one is the domain of government.

I'd challenge this last point. I believe I have the right to protect the product of my labor. But I'll table the moral question for a moment and look at our current laws. Something we learned in the Martin/Zimmerman case, and something we continue to learn in similar cases, is this; whether or not you are engaging in lawful activity often determines whether your involvement in subsequent violence is legal or illegal. Protecting your store (and arming yourself appropriately) are lawful (and moral) activities. If you want to persuade me to the contrary I'll have to know exactly when my action becomes immoral or unlawful. Can a violent aggressor change the moral status of my actions, or are my choices and actions my own responsibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Grand jury decision is in. No indictment, obviously.

As the overwhelming evidence confirming the cop's innocence was being released (including testimony from the people who originally talked to the media, squarely contradicting statements the media has accepted unquestioningly and presented as facts), the new round of riots looted and burned down the same businesses that were rebuilt and restocked after being destroyed three months ago.

This time, everyone knew exactly what was coming, authorities on all levels had weeks to prepare, and actually had the luxury to choose the time the riots would start. And yet, they still chose not to respond with the level of force necessary to protect private property. Once again, they allowed it to happen, and only arrested a small portion of the many hundreds of people involved in the looting and violence.

And that makes sense, of course, in a democracy. As long as the voices demanding restraint in the fact of lawlessness are louder than the voices demanding the use of proportional force, unchecked lawlessness is what you're going to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the cops are really in an impossible situation. Tabloid news (CNN) is running a constant drum-beat about how the cops let the rioters run wild. I figure they're hoping to pressure the cops into a curfew like last time, so that they can complain about that, or perhaps they can pressure the cops into injuring some rioters so that they have a new story. And, a couple of days ago they were complaining that all the pre-verdict preparation should not be done because it is provocative!

 

At the end of the day, the folks who live in Ferguson are hurt by all this rioting. When the dust dies down and the tabloid news-trucks leave, it is they who are left with fewer stores and lower home-prices. And, more broadly, the average black person doing his best to show that he does not fit the stereotype has to work a little bit harder, and a wee bit less successfully.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the cops are really in an impossible situation. Tabloid news (CNN) is running a constant drum-beat about how the cops let the rioters run wild.

I haven't been following the MSM. In my last post I was going to say, "And if the cops don't do enough they may be criticized for that, too. Blamed for everything either way." But then I thought it was speculative. CNN has no shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This woman lost her shop because of bad philosophy. From the initial misdirection concerning police militarization, the lying witnesses, those who believed the lying witnesses, the news organizations who pronounced blame on the police after having reported what the lying witnesses said, the community organizing whores who tried to capitalize off of the incident regardless of the facts, a president and attorney general who insert themselves for their own gain, the faces of Anonymous in the crowds at Ferguson, MO, those who loot and destroy others' values rather than create their own--it all results from bad philosophy. We now know that Michael Brown won the Darwin Award the old fashioned way--he earned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The Political Insider

Black Sheriff SLAMS Al Sharpton, DESTROYS Ferguson Race Rioters (VIDEO)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HMQCFqgAGyM

 

"These bold, conservative statements from a tough talking Sheriff are what America needs to hear. This is not the 1950s, and Ferguson is not the Jim Crow south. Instead, this was an isolated incident of a young street thug robbing a store who started an altercation with a police officer. Then, race hustlers used the optics of this story to incite riots and profit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky, either the cop who "did his job" followed his training or he didn't. If he didn't, he was mistrained. If he did, the rest were mistrained... So try to square that.

 

I take the officer at his word that he followed his training, and the judgement of the Grand Jury appears to square with that.  My concern goes to the training, and what appears to be a problem (to me) that an officer waiting for backup, confronts a suspect who has yet to produce a gun, gets off 11 rounds resulting only in grazing the suspect's thumb, and then drops him with a shot to the head while he is still 8 to 10 feet away*.  Training that leads to the killing of an unarmed suspect and the subsequent resignation and relocation of an officer doing his duty leaves something to be desired; particularily when the media can be counted on exacerbate every marketable story it gets.

 

I can only hope for the sake of that officer's family and his future coworkers that the media doesn't (or isn't allowed to) reveal where he relocates.  In the mean time I'm looking for some answers to this training issue.

 

* http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/curtis-kalin/10-key-facts-ferguson-grand-jury-discovered

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training that leads to the killing of an unarmed suspect and the subsequent resignation and relocation of an officer doing his duty leaves something to be desired;

His training didn't lead to his resignation, the rioting and the threats did. Blaming his training would be the exact logical equivalent of blaming the education Salman Rushdie received at Cambridge for having to go into hiding after The Satanic Verses was published.

As for Wilson using deadly force to defend himself from an assailant who, as per the evidence presented to the grand jury, was threatening his life, that's exactly what police officers should be trained to do. His training worked like a charm. Both him and his training officers should be getting a raise for a job well done.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

As for Wilson using deadly force to defend himself from an assailant who, as per the evidence presented to the grand jury, was threatening his life, that's exactly what police officers should be trained to do. His training worked like a charm. Both him and his training officers should be getting a raise for a job well done.

 

His training led to 12 shots being fired, 1 superficial and a 2nd lethal, with the remaining 10 apparently fired just for effect.  Measure off 8ft (the short guess), extend your arm (-3' ?), and tell me that a well trained officer can only get off a head shot at an unarmed linebacker heading in his direction at 5ft.  That after the suspect punched him twice, fled, then turned, "stutter stepped" before charging the officer from a greater distance; the officer by then "backpeddling" away to gain some distance.  No taser?  No knee shot?? No keeping his distance until backup arrived???

 

If that's to be expected from a job well done, I'd hate to witness the worst case scenario for apprehending a cigarette thief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern relates to the training of Michael Brown. What brought him to the point of robbing a store and assaulting the store clerk? When confronted by the police officer, who trained him that it's okay to lean into the offiicer's car, beat him and try to grab his gun? What training is involved to charge an officer who has ordered you to stop and has his gun drawn? Michael Brown's was the philosophy of death. His training was antisocial. His supporters shut their eyes to his evil, making themselves equally culpable. The police officer exercised the same right we all have to self defense. But, how do we re-train all of the Michael Brown's of this world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...