Avoiding police

[godsblackestcrow]

The force is strong with this demon…

"Force"(bullying) can take many forms, and doesn't need to involve the use of physical objects when concepts and ideas are sufficient in their own right.

Right, but what’s right, in its own right?

Methinks ye might be right: a demon might possess another’s mind, and whisper words to bend a brain to fight with force against its skull and skin. But whose might makes it so, in its own right? In our imaginary exercise, assuming we can’t exorcise a rite, who exercises the right of might, levying armed force against the sovereign self within?

the other way to skin this proverbial cat

A mute brute can skin a cat with sticks and a sharp enough stone, but while words can spell a task, even the sharpest silver tongue can’t cut quite to bone all on its own.

[Seriati]

You guys seem to be losing track of where you were going with this.  Why does it matter again?  Laws exist to provide a set of rules of conduct and to decide certain issues, which in this case, includes what constitutes a lawful arrest and the consequences to both the officer and the arrested individual.  It also settles what the reaction under the laws will be of resisting that arrest or defending one self.

It's absolutely true that an arrested individual may be acting in defense of self when they resist arrest but that doesn't change the consequences of that act under the laws.  So what's the relevance?  Are you just attempting to claim an ethical or moral high ground that is disputable within a country governed by laws?

[TheDeamon]

You guys seem to be losing track of where you were going with this.  Why does it matter again?  Laws exist to provide a set of rules of conduct and to decide certain issues, which in this case, includes what constitutes a lawful arrest and the consequences to both the officer and the arrested individual.  It also settles what the reaction under the laws will be of resisting that arrest or defending one self.

It's absolutely true that an arrested individual may be acting in defense of self when they resist arrest but that doesn't change the consequences of that act under the laws.  So what's the relevance?  Are you just attempting to claim an ethical or moral high ground that is disputable within a country governed by laws?

More broadly, it is to disabuse people of the notion that the use of laws to achieve an end is not a use of force.

Nobody is disputing that laws are useful, in particular when it comes to commerce.

Much like currency is likewise a useful tool to employ when engaging in commerce as a strict barter economy is awkward at best.

(Written) Laws provide clear guidance as to what the expectations are, and what consequences are likely to be enforced should somebody fail to comply with the expectations set forth in law.

But it still doesn't change the matter that the use of law to achieve an end is an exercise in the use of force, be it katana, a nerf bat, or a wet (and limp) noodle.

[godsblackestcrow]

So what's the relevance?  Are you just attempting to claim an ethical or moral high ground that is disputable within a country governed by laws?

No. The claims made herein simply dispute the pretense of an ethical high ground held by those that make and uphold laws.
 
The crow isn't bound to high ground: uniformed people fight for their right to hold a plot at a perceived height, a blackbird simply descends to bend its beak in the carrion of those who are fallen below.

[Pete at Home]

So what's the relevance?  Are you just attempting to claim an ethical or moral high ground that is disputable within a country governed by laws?

No. The claims made herein simply dispute the pretense of an ethical high ground held by those that make and uphold laws.
 
The crow isn't bound to high ground: uniformed people fight for their right to hold a plot at a perceived height, a blackbird simply descends to bend its beak in the carrion of those who are fallen below.

Your new incarnation is as morbid as I was at my drunkest.  You Ok?

Anyway, if you're going all anarchist on us, may I suggest piracy?  China's tearing up millennia of coral reefs in the South China sea, with no one but Greenpeace to annoy them.

[Fenring]

It's absolutely true that an arrested individual may be acting in defense of self when they resist arrest but that doesn't change the consequences of that act under the laws.  So what's the relevance?  Are you just attempting to claim an ethical or moral high ground that is disputable within a country governed by laws?

The relevance to me is that a "lawful arrest" is only lawful if the arrest is lawful. That sounds tautological but in fact what I mean is that while defending oneself from a lawful is arrest is self-defence it nevertheless isn't a right anyone has. But the defence magically does become a right the moment the arrest is no longer lawful, which therefore makes it important to distinguish between the two cases (which can be close to each other in practice). The distinction between them isn't that a person is defending himself, but rather that the officer doing the arresting ought to be damn sure the arrest is lawful before potentially violating a person's right to defend himself. If defying a police officer, even when an arrest is not lawful, is met with brutality or deadly force, then there is a problem, because that means that not only was the arrest unwarranted but the person's rights were violated, on top potentially of the person being assaulted with deadly weapons for exercising his rights.

I think the onus on the police needs to be a lot stronger than it is right now in terms of how they come to the decision that a person can be detained or arrested. The same goes for cases when they decide it's ok to employ force when in fact no threat to them is being presented other than a person declining to do what they say. That's my point, at any rate. I can't speak for the others.

Your new incarnation is as morbid as I was at my drunkest.  You Ok?

You know, I thought it was SP come back, but I couldn't be 100% sure. But who am I kidding; welcome back SP

[Seriati]

So what's the relevance?  Are you just attempting to claim an ethical or moral high ground that is disputable within a country governed by laws?

No. The claims made herein simply dispute the pretense of an ethical high ground held by those that make and uphold laws.

So to be clear, you're not "claiming an ethical high ground" you are disputing someone else's "claiming an ethical high ground."  Honestly, there is a difference, but it's marginal.

I think the true high ground has to be either to dispute the legal positions are themselves ethical, or to dispute the actions of the officers were consistent with the legal requirements.  Both arguments are certainly plausible, but if the legal positions are ethical and the officers followed them they do have the moral and ethical high ground.

[Seriati]

More broadly, it is to disabuse people of the notion that the use of laws to achieve an end is not a use of force.

Of course its a use of force, was anyone disputing that?  That is part of the point of forming a government and establishing laws in the first place, to contain, limit and legitimize the use of force and to thereby limit the need and right of individuals to resort to force.

[Seriati]

The relevance to me is that a "lawful arrest" is only lawful if the arrest is lawful. That sounds tautological but in fact what I mean is that while defending oneself from a lawful is arrest is self-defence it nevertheless isn't a right anyone has. But the defence magically does become a right the moment the arrest is no longer lawful, which therefore makes it important to distinguish between the two cases (which can be close to each other in practice).

I almost wrote about that, but the laws on resisting unlawful arrest (mostly case law by the way) are difficult to rely on, fraught with peril, and in many cases possibly not even good law anymore.  Certainly though, they do not include the right to violently resist all improper or unlawful arrests.   Physical defense against an unlawful arrest is going to require a real risk of harm present in the arrest or by the arresting officers, and it has to be that risk that is unlawful, not just that officers pursuing what they believe is a valid arrest may use force.   In other words the officers have to be out to hurt you, not just arrest you.

The distinction between them isn't that a person is defending himself, but rather that the officer doing the arresting ought to be damn sure the arrest is lawful before potentially violating a person's right to defend himself. If defying a police officer, even when an arrest is not lawful, is met with brutality or deadly force, then there is a problem, because that means that not only was the arrest unwarranted but the person's rights were violated, on top potentially of the person being assaulted with deadly weapons for exercising his rights.

The issue is whether adequate recourse exists after an arrest, not whether the arrest itself is unlawful.  The courts view themselves as adequate recourse to correct the injustice of an unlawful arrest, and accordingly you do not have the right to physically resist an arrest just because its unlawful.

I think the onus on the police needs to be a lot stronger than it is right now in terms of how they come to the decision that a person can be detained or arrested. The same goes for cases when they decide it's ok to employ force when in fact no threat to them is being presented other than a person declining to do what they say. That's my point, at any rate. I can't speak for the others.

I don't think I can agree.  What needs to change is the way the courts back bad arrests routinely.  Officers, even acting in error, should not be resisted in making an arrest.  Using deadly force without cause should put them in jail, making unwarranted or unlawful arrests should get them suspended, fired or jailed.

[Fenring]

To avoid lack of clarity on my part, I'm not advocating for physical resistance to arrest. What I'm saying is that citizens are in the position of sometimes facing violent arrest and having no physical recourse. If the arrest is civil, meaning polite, that's one thing. When force is threatened when all a person is doing is basically arguing with the officer or asking questions, that's another matter.

In practice we can't have people physically defending themselves from police. But because of that we have the peculiar situation where a person must not even react when he's being assaulted for no particular reason (example: "you're resisting!" *baton hits*).

I agree with you that the courts ought to be a way to deal with this when internal police investigations won't delve into these matters.

[Gaoics79]

'

...about a lot, no doubt. But don't my plethora of errors dissuade you from specifying. 

Just the standard greeting for all newcomers here.

[TheDeamon]

More broadly, it is to disabuse people of the notion that the use of laws to achieve an end is not a use of force.

Of course its a use of force, was anyone disputing that?  That is part of the point of forming a government and establishing laws in the first place, to contain, limit and legitimize the use of force and to thereby limit the need and right of individuals to resort to force.

And instead push for laws to be passed to enforce their preferred way of doing things upon others, so they can pat themselves on the back about how civilized they are.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Pete at Home]

Your new incarnation is as morbid as I was at my drunkest.  You Ok?

You know, I thought it was SP come back, but I couldn't be 100% sure. But who am I kidding; welcome back SP

I get the prize, since I welcomed him back from pure recognition of his logic, *before* he took the mask off and started his signature alliteration. 

[scifibum]

I didn't post it, but I got it from the username.

[Pete at Home]

I didn't post it, but I got it from the username.

That too.  I take it that our friend is no longer seeking Prometheus, but has found him, and gorging on him.

[Fenring]

I didn't post it, but I got it from the username.

That too.  I take it that our friend is no longer seeking Prometheus, but has found him, and gorging on him.

I didn't get that reference until just now either. Good job.

[godsblackestcrow]

So to be clear, you're not "claiming an ethical high ground" you are disputing someone else's "claiming an ethical high ground."  Honestly, there is a difference, but it's marginal.

To my mind, most of meaning is marginalia--and you might be missing most of mine, mind:

...the true high ground...

Like, the superlatively constructivest of constructive fictions? By all means, if we mean to make mores of monumentally mythical mendacity, let’s build the bestest tower of truest babble that our barter of blather can buy--we’re all down to reach purchase of our very own piece of that pie at the height of the sky!

...the laws on resisting unlawful arrest... do not include the right to violently resist all improper or unlawful arrests.

So reads what is written in civil irony. Natural law, red in beak and claw, objects. In spite of any unwritten right, the survival of harms can require a fight, and note that no matter how the sophisticate might bill a civil right, the basest ape is born bearing arms.

...Physical defense against an unlawful arrest is going to require a real risk of harm present in the arrest or by the arresting officers...the officers have to be out to hurt you, not just arrest you.

You seem to have lost track of where we were going with this. Surely we can cut to the chase and say that in every case where a cop has killed a constituent, said dead’s prior possession of a reasonable reason for fear of his killer’s use of hurtful force isn’t really in question, it’s already been tagged, bagged, and logged into evidence.

it has to be that risk that is unlawful, not just that officers pursuing what they believe is a valid arrest may use force.

What insolence of office! The only opinion that matters by this logic is what the violence-initiating oppressor believes...

It's astounding the absence of grounding upon which we're founding our "highest" ideals.

The courts view themselves as adequate recourse to correct the injustice of an unlawful arrest

Simple logic should suffice to refute such a simplistic view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

In “truth,” judgment in epitaph does no justice to the dead, it just haunts the grieving head: the courts can provide no recourse to the corpse.

Fenring: I think the onus on the police needs to be a lot stronger than it is right now

Seriati: I don't think I can agree.  What needs to change is the way the courts back bad arrests routinely.

So, you believe the current bar leads to the court’s legitimization of what is actually illegitimate force, as par for the routine course, but you nonetheless also think: "Nah, modifying the burden that must be met to get away with murder is simply something on which we can't agree?"

What can we say, seriesly? Way to stick to the convictions of your morality?

[Pete at Home]

between nips of Prometheus, could you give me examples of what you regard as legitimate force?

[TheDeamon]

between nips of Prometheus, could you give me examples of what you regard as legitimate force?

That depends on who is forcing whom.

[Seriati]

...Physical defense against an unlawful arrest is going to require a real risk of harm present in the arrest or by the arresting officers...the officers have to be out to hurt you, not just arrest you.

You seem to have lost track of where we were going with this. Surely we can cut to the chase and say that in every case where a cop has killed a constituent, said dead’s prior possession of a reasonable reason for fear of his killer’s use of hurtful force isn’t really in question, it’s already been tagged, bagged, and logged into evidence.

[/quote]

When we're talking about a right to resist arrest, the answer is no.  The fact that you end up dead as a consequence of physically arresting a valid arrest is not remotely evidence that it was reasonable to fear death if you didn't resist the arrest.  Or one could look at the millions of non-fatal arrests as evidence that it is certainly possible to be arrested and not end up dead.

The courts view themselves as adequate recourse to correct the injustice of an unlawful arrest

Simple logic should suffice to refute such a simplistic view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

In “truth,” judgment in epitaph does no justice to the dead, it just haunts the grieving head: the courts can provide no recourse to the corpse.

How does your "simple logic" refute that the courts see themselves as adequate recourse?  It doesn't of course, you're disputing that they are correct, not that it is what they believe.  The courts have actually written that belief into opinion after opinion on topics related to self help in all manner of fields.

Fenring: I think the onus on the police needs to be a lot stronger than it is right now

Seriati: I don't think I can agree.  What needs to change is the way the courts back bad arrests routinely.

So, you believe the current bar leads to the court’s legitimization of what is actually illegitimate force, as par for the routine course, but you nonetheless also think: "Nah, modifying the burden that must be met to get away with murder is simply something on which we can't agree?"

I think your truncation of the quoted passage is misleading, it certainly presents what I disagree with in a false light.  But even, more my comment was in response to the whole point Fenring was making not just the quoted passage.  Your attempt to restate what you think I meant is just inaccurate. 

The court's lack of serious rigor on whether arrests and the violence used were appropriate, and the overwhelming preference they give to officer testimony over that of victims and witnesses, leads directly to the appearance and/or reality of legitimizing abuse by officers.  That certainly needs to change.  I disagreed with Fenring's apparent desire to interfere with and rethink how officers act in the legitimate performance of their duties.

[Fenring]

I disagreed with Fenring's apparent desire to interfere with and rethink how officers act in the legitimate performance of their duties.

I've read plenty of accounts of police officers who also think there is something wrong with how new recruits are being trained, and are appalled at the ultraviolence employed at the drop of a hat now. I guess it's just a matter of opinion at this point.

[Seriati]

I must  be unclear, I've talked on that exact point several times.  I don't agree that ultra-violence represents the legitimate performance of their duties.  That is exactly the kind of behavior that the courts need to punish.

[Fenring]

I must  be unclear, I've talked on that exact point several times.  I don't agree that ultra-violence represents the legitimate performance of their duties.  That is exactly the kind of behavior that the courts need to punish.

I took "legitimate" to mean you were implying their actual behavior is legitimate. Now that that's cleared up, what makes you think I'd want anyone interfering with legitimate police action? I was speaking above about the fine line between legitimate and illegitimate action, and how it's perverse for someone to be disallowed by what is effectively law to defend themselves when being assaulted if the person beating them up is a police officer. That's not the same as saying civilians should interfere.

However, there is one video I saw of an entire group of civilians stepping in when an officer was harassing and threatening violence against someone. They simply told the officer that conduct was not acceptable and he'd have to go through all of them first, and after a bit of a standoff he backed down. Strictly speaking I wouldn't advocate mobs overruling police doing their work, but in this case one couldn't help but admire human beings standing up for their fellow man being mistreated.

[Seriati]

I think the issue is about responding with force to the police.  The police using excessive force is always unacceptable.  However, the onus is on the citizens involved not to escalate matters with the police, even if the police are wrong about the arrest itself.  In other words, you don't have a right to violently resist an arrest just because the police have the wrong guy.  They are legitimately going to arrest the wrong person from time to time.  Resisting the police with violence has got to be tied to the police themselves instigating improper and excessive violence.

It seemed to me, that there was a line being drawn that was focusing on whether the arrest was correct, not on whether there was excessive force being used.  They are two different questions.

[NobleHunter]

the onus is on the citizens involved not to escalate matters with the police,

I think I get what you're saying but that phrasing could use some work. I think it's better to place the onus on the ones who have been empowered to use force, though I recognize citizens have a responsibility to not to respond to misconduct with violence or hazardous disobedience.

[Pete at Home]

I think the issue is about responding with force to the police.  The police using excessive force is always unacceptable.  However, the onus is on the citizens involved not to escalate matters with the police, even if the police are wrong about the arrest itself.  In other words, you don't have a right to violently resist an arrest just because the police have the wrong guy.  They are legitimately going to arrest the wrong person from time to time.  Resisting the police with violence has got to be tied to the police themselves instigating improper and excessive violence.

It seemed to me, that there was a line being drawn that was focusing on whether the arrest was correct, not on whether there was excessive force being used.  They are two different questions.

If they can prove that he resisted police with violence, with evidence OTHER than testimony by the cops themselves, such as body cams, I'd be comfy with that.  But criminal judges are elected largely on the say-so of the police union, so they tend to just rubber-stamp anything the cops say.  I've even seen a judge coach cops how to lie better ("The officer could just testify that ...."), right from the stand, when a cross-examination showed an inconsistency in the cop's testimony. 

[Seriati]

Think of this as a policy matter.  There has to be a clear policy about whether, and under what circumstances a resist can lawfully be resisted, and whether that resistance can use force.   What's the policy you are advocating?

The current rule is simple.  You don't have a right to resist an arrest with force simply because you disagree with the basis for the arrest.  Seriously think through what a change to that policy would mean.  You'd be inviting anyone who believes they are in the right to physically prevent the police from arresting them.  You think the violence is bad now, that's a crazy policy to go forward with.

Whether you agree with the courts or not, the fact is that with a non-violent arrest, they should be capable of providing an adequate remedy after the fact.

[Fenring]

Think of this as a policy matter.  There has to be a clear policy about whether, and under what circumstances a resist can lawfully be resisted, and whether that resistance can use force.   What's the policy you are advocating?

This is hardly even the issue at hand. I've seen many, many videos of police either shooting or beating people (sometimes justified, sometimes not), but rarely if ever is the 'perp' ever offering legit resistance. Most people, especially those who've been in the system, know better than to dance with the law if they want to come out in one piece.

Much more often what happened in these cases is someone offered nominal verbal 'resistance' (meaning talking back) to an officer and this is escalated by the officer to an arrest or to violent action. It may not be smart to talk back to the police, but there's a real disconnect when "refusing a command by an officer" (including refusing to agree with what an officer is doing) automatically makes you a criminal. There is an unofficial policy in many departments, which they sometimes state on the scene is actually the law (it isn't), that it's illegal to disobey a police officer. They take this as licence to up the ante when someone does that.

Then we could get into the issue of the whole "You're resisting! Stop resisting!" scandal, which has still not been properly squashed. This is a claim made by an officer on the scene meant to later justify a use of force when he knows none is legitimate, and where he can later (in a fake internal investigation) refer back to such comments as "proof" that the perp was resisting. As Pete has mentioned from time to time, without body cam evidence these claims cannot be taken seriously.

[Seriati]

I've already addressed that separate issue several times Fenring.  Not sure why you think I disagree with you on it.

I feel like I'm in the middle of a massive failure to communicate effectively.

[Fenring]

I've already addressed that separate issue several times Fenring.  Not sure why you think I disagree with you on it.

I feel like I'm in the middle of a massive failure to communicate effectively.

You just said above:

I think the issue is about responding with force to the police.  The police using excessive force is always unacceptable.  However, the onus is on the citizens involved not to escalate matters with the police, even if the police are wrong about the arrest itself.

It sounded like this comment was directed at those of us speaking about escalation by the police. I don't know that anyone here is advocating using force against the police. So for you to think "the issue" is about resisting violently, I must surmise that you disagree about something being said. Maybe I was wrong about what that was. My comments in my last two posts were about the second clause here, about whether it's actually plausible to suggest that citizens do in fact escalate matters when the police are wrong. If you mean "violently escalate" then I don't think that happens very often and the point would therefore be moot. My issue is when the police take talking back to be an 'escalation'.

[Seriati]

I don't know that anyone here is advocating using force against the police.

Would you re-read godsblackestcrow's responses to me.  Maybe I misinterpreted him, he seems to go to some lengths to try and make that easy, but I took his references to the right of self defense even in arrests to mean exactly that.

Methinks ye might be right: a demon might possess another’s mind, and whisper words to bend a brain to fight with force against its skull and skin. But whose might makes it so, in its own right? In our imaginary exercise, assuming we can’t exorcise a rite, who exercises the right of might, levying armed force against the sovereign self within?

So reads what is written in civil irony. Natural law, red in beak and claw, objects. In spite of any unwritten right, the survival of harms can require a fight, and note that no matter how the sophisticate might bill a civil right, the basest ape is born bearing arms.

You seem to have lost track of where we were going with this. Surely we can cut to the chase and say that in every case where a cop has killed a constituent, said dead’s prior possession of a reasonable reason for fear of his killer’s use of hurtful force isn’t really in question, it’s already been tagged, bagged, and logged into evidence.

What insolence of office! The only opinion that matters by this logic is what the violence-initiating oppressor believes...

It's astounding the absence of grounding upon which we're founding our "highest" ideals.

It sounded like this comment was directed at those of us speaking about escalation by the police.

My original comment to you translates, very roughly, as don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  The police need to have certainty that when they act to arrest they won't be attacked by the arrestee, or that if they are attached they are authorized and justified in responding with force to the situation.  They are in no way responsible for harms caused by the arrestee's own escalation. 

Nothing I've ever posted has been intended to grant them any kind of free rein to escalate themselves, while that will sometimes be justifiable, it should be very closely monitored.

My issue is when the police take talking back to be an 'escalation'.

And I've posted on that specific point multiple times.  It's completely unacceptable, and there are any number of fake charges officers will assert after they've arrested someone for talking back to them, like disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and loitering, all of which should require video proof as their abuse has been so ignored.

[Fenring]

Ok, seems like we're on the same page then.

[godsblackestcrow]

The courts view themselves as adequate recourse to correct the injustice of an unlawful arrest"

Simple logic should suffice to refute such a simplistic view: “Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”

How does your "simple logic" refute that the courts see themselves as adequate recourse?  It doesn't of course, you're disputing that they are correct, not that it is what they believe.

Yeah--that's what was implied by my use of the word “view” as a noun, rather than a verb...

My point was that an argument amounting only to an appeal to its author’s own authority can be dismissed with the simple contradiction indicated in the Dude’s dictum.

(I also pointed out the reality that, regardless of rhetoric, the courts can really provide neither recourse nor justice to a corpse--but this was actually unnecessary in refuting the force of an idea fully founded in an argument from authority fallacy, so we might be warranted in holding such a superfluous argument as evidence in contempt of the court…)

I think your truncation of the quoted passage is misleading, it certainly presents what I disagree with in a false light.  But even, more my comment was in response to the whole point Fenring was making not just the quoted passage.  Your attempt to restate what you think I meant is just inaccurate. 

The court's lack of serious rigor on whether arrests and the violence used were appropriate, and the overwhelming preference they give to officer testimony over that of victims and witnesses, leads directly to the appearance and/or reality of legitimizing abuse by officers.  That certainly needs to change.  I disagreed with Fenring's apparent desire to interfere with and rethink how officers act in the legitimate performance of their duties.

I’m glad you acknowledge the mockery of justice that the courts have been making of the issue, but I think my understanding of your argument against “rethink(ing) how officers act” is still a bit twisted. Regardless of the apparent contentiousness of the claim that “black lives matter” in the present cultural narrative, I presume that the assumption that “all (human) lives matter” isn’t currently in dispute. I likewise assume that no one is contending the fact that the execution of contemporary police policy results in the de facto trial-less execution of hundreds of civilians per year. So...do you not see the problem with standing pat at a component of the status quo civil code which is connected to a civilian body count? Because I don't see a valid argument being presented in defense of the present police force policy--simply a groundless insistence that the powers-that-be hold what you believe is moral high ground a priori (presumably founded in some social contract which is liable to carry nary a signature of any single signatory...).

Would you re-read godsblackestcrow's responses to me.  Maybe I misinterpreted him, he seems to go to some lengths to try and make that easy,

Let this go to your head: this seems to me to be the strongest line of argument you've stitched into this thread.

Fenring: I don't know that anyone here is advocating using force against the police

Seriati: I took his references to the right of self defense even in arrests to mean exactly that.

...this knot of logic looks less taut. You believe that a defense of the right to use force in self-defense is "exactly" the same as advocacy for the use of force?