5 ms·

One could argue that the state, by allowing private entities to conduct raids without the ability of appeal, by enforcing laws so one-sidedly, has lost the legi

One could argue that the state, by allowing private entities to conduct raids without the ability of appeal, by enforcing laws so one-sidedly, has lost the legitimacy of its monopoly on violence, so violent retribution is fully legitimate. Or maybe not. Maybe those responsible will be held accountable, and face jail-time for effectively holding someone prisoner, breaking into their home, and stealing their belongings, albeit with the dubious stamp of approval of a judge. I wouldn't hold my breath.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> so violent retribution is fully legitimate. Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself, your family, or your home. So far as I (as a fairly well-educated citizen) know, this is only voided when the invader is an officer of the police. And there are stiff laws prohibiting the impersonation of a police officer. If someone other than a police officer attempted to force their way into my home and attempted to take myself, my wife, and my son prisoner, I don't think I would believe them if they claimed to have some kind of civil search warrant. Now I know that "Anton Piller orders" are a thing that exists, but I still have my doubts.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself If Person A violently attacks Person B, then Person B has a right to defend themselves on the legal theory that Person A instigated the violence. "Credible threat" clauses muddy the line, but continue to rest on the pedestal of reaction versus action [1]. Here a court gave a company the right to instigate violence against the defendant. At least to this American, that's absurd. [1] http://cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/actionversusreaction.pdf http://cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/actionversusreaction.p...
  - beached_whale 9y ago
    Maybe I am misunderstanding, but doesn't a bail bondsman do something similar in how extreme it is in the US too?
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    Yes, and to this American, I assume I'm person B and in my rights to resist if they instigate and are not carrying a badge.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Retribution and self defense are distinct motives. The former is about justice and the latter is about protection.
- derefr 9y ago
  Note that self-defence is a defense, not a justification. It doesn't stop you from being taken to court, because you still were involved in something the law considers a crime. Your actions being self-defence just mean that the judge will likely find that there is reasonable doubt whether you were, in fact, committing murder. You might still have been committing murder! You might have set the other guy up to attack you so you could kill him, like with the old custom of professional "hired gun" duelists. But, since the other guy did attacked you first, it's (usually) impossible to prove that that's why you did it, rather than it just being because you were, in fact, trying to save your own life. (Unless you left written documentation of your nefarious plots somewhere.) Fun fact: this is also true of "Fair Use" in copyright suits—it's also a defence, not a justification. If you put a 30-second sample of someone else's song in your song, they can still sue you, and waste your time and money in court! They just probably won't win, in the end. But if they have a lot more money than you, you might plea anyway.
bitJericho 9y ago
There is a reason for the second amendment.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- am1988 9y ago
  Yes there is, to ensure a well regulated militia is possible.
  - derefr 9y ago
    I don't know much about America (not from there): do you guys actually have those? I know you have a National Guard, but that's state-run, right? Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist? Odd thought: would private paramilitary security contractors technically be a "well-regulated militia" in this sense? If the US were attacked in a land war (somehow), would employees of Academi et al be expected to come out to defend their local areas?
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist? "The Southern Poverty Law Center identified 334 militia groups at their peak in 2011. It identified 276 in 2015, up from 202 in 2014" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States#Active_militia_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_U...
      - am1988 9y ago
        Are those the same, or indexed because they have a high probability to cause trouble?
    - snerbles 9y ago
      The Unorganized Militia as defined in 10 U.S. Code Section 311 is effectively all able-bodied fighting-age male citizens: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are-- the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-311.html http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sec...
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Yeah, because righteous revenge works so well for maintaining a civil society.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  I'm not saying it would work well, I'm saying it would be justified. And I wouldn't call what happened here 'civil' - at best, the civility was one-sided: they get to raid his home, hold him captive, and force him to answer, but he doesn't get to do anything.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

> so violent retribution is fully legitimate. Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself, your family, or your home. So far as I (as a fairly well-educated citizen) know, this is only voided when the invader is an officer of the police. And there are stiff laws prohibiting the impersonation of a police officer. If someone other than a police officer attempted to force their way into my home and attempted to take myself, my wife, and my son prisoner, I don't think I would believe them if they claimed to have some kind of civil search warrant. Now I know that "Anton Piller orders" are a thing that exists, but I still have my doubts.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself If Person A violently attacks Person B, then Person B has a right to defend themselves on the legal theory that Person A instigated the violence. "Credible threat" clauses muddy the line, but continue to rest on the pedestal of reaction versus action [1]. Here a court gave a company the right to instigate violence against the defendant. At least to this American, that's absurd. [1] http://cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/actionversusreaction.pdf http://cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/actionversusreaction.p...
- beached_whale 9y ago
  Maybe I am misunderstanding, but doesn't a bail bondsman do something similar in how extreme it is in the US too?
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Yes, and to this American, I assume I'm person B and in my rights to resist if they instigate and are not carrying a badge.
weberc2 9y ago
Retribution and self defense are distinct motives. The former is about justice and the latter is about protection.
derefr 9y ago
Note that self-defence is a defense, not a justification. It doesn't stop you from being taken to court, because you still were involved in something the law considers a crime. Your actions being self-defence just mean that the judge will likely find that there is reasonable doubt whether you were, in fact, committing murder. You might still have been committing murder! You might have set the other guy up to attack you so you could kill him, like with the old custom of professional "hired gun" duelists. But, since the other guy did attacked you first, it's (usually) impossible to prove that that's why you did it, rather than it just being because you were, in fact, trying to save your own life. (Unless you left written documentation of your nefarious plots somewhere.) Fun fact: this is also true of "Fair Use" in copyright suits—it's also a defence, not a justification. If you put a 30-second sample of someone else's song in your song, they can still sue you, and waste your time and money in court! They just probably won't win, in the end. But if they have a lot more money than you, you might plea anyway.

bitJericho 9y ago

There is a reason for the second amendment.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
am1988 9y ago
Yes there is, to ensure a well regulated militia is possible.
- derefr 9y ago
  I don't know much about America (not from there): do you guys actually have those? I know you have a National Guard, but that's state-run, right? Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist? Odd thought: would private paramilitary security contractors technically be a "well-regulated militia" in this sense? If the US were attacked in a land war (somehow), would employees of Academi et al be expected to come out to defend their local areas?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist? "The Southern Poverty Law Center identified 334 militia groups at their peak in 2011. It identified 276 in 2015, up from 202 in 2014" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States#Active_militia_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_U...
    - am1988 9y ago
      Are those the same, or indexed because they have a high probability to cause trouble?
  - snerbles 9y ago
    The Unorganized Militia as defined in 10 U.S. Code Section 311 is effectively all able-bodied fighting-age male citizens: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are-- the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-311.html http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sec...

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

Yeah, because righteous revenge works so well for maintaining a civil society.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
I'm not saying it would work well, I'm saying it would be justified. And I wouldn't call what happened here 'civil' - at best, the civility was one-sided: they get to raid his home, hold him captive, and force him to answer, but he doesn't get to do anything.