4 ms·

> I don't think resisting arrest qualifies This pull quote isn't related to your main point, but to digress a bit on it... The state, having a presumed monopo

by ci5er 9y ago

> I don't think resisting arrest qualifies This pull quote isn't related to your main point, but to digress a bit on it... The state, having a presumed monopoly on the legitimate use of pre-emptive force, reacts this way to application of laws, no? For example - there is a law that says that I can't plant pink flowers or sell looseys or whatever. I violate that law. The progression of consequences subsequently goes like this: o I get a fine. I don't pay it o I get a fine on that fine. And a stern warning. I don't pay it. o They send a note or an armed-or-not person to invite me to go spend a few days in a metal box. I do not go. o They send armed persons to forcibly retrieve me to put me in that metal box. I resist. o They apply overwhelming force to ... well, force me. I resist more. o They kill me. It does NOT matter what the law is (chewing bubble gum, paying taxes, open container, lemonade stand licensure, drinking a beer outside of 7-11), the sequence of escalation is largely the same. How can we NOT expect cops to kill us? That's what the state is - that's what it does - that's its function when faced with non-compliance with whatever set of rules our elected representatives have put into place.

pron 9y ago
> How can we NOT expect cops to kill us? That's what the state is - that's what it does That's not what happens in most countries, though, so clearly it's not a problem with "the state", but with American law enforcement. Police can overpower one unarmed person, regardless of how strongly he resists, without killing him. Not only they can, but that's what they do in most places: you resist -- they take you by force, but they don't kill you. Also, using violence to enforce the laws long predates the state (what we call "the state" today was largely created only in the 17th century). The role of the state is to reduce the number of people who can employ violence when enforcing the law (and, of course, to centralize the law itself), from your local lord and his soldiers, the church and its inquisitors, your local robber-baron and his Pinkertons, to those whose training and licensing is, at least hopefully, supervised and sanctioned by the general public.
- ci5er 9y ago
  > That's not what happens in most countries ... with American ... Fair point. In the process of resisting, USians are a risk of shooting back. But I can't say whether I agree or disagree with your election of the qualifier "most" In my small (I say) set of adversarial encounters with law enforcement in Japan, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, there were more than one person on the law-enforcement side of the encounter that appeared more than willing to do terminal violence, should there be any sort of excuse to do so. And those are "nice" places! I don't know what I would have found if I'd actually gone somewhere rough...
scotty79 9y ago
If force is overwhelming then you are overwhelmed and put in the metal box. There's no posdibility for you to meaningfully resist so there's no reason to kill you. The killing is only possible by mistake at any stage of this process. Even on the first one. They collected a fine from you and you have no money to buy yourself life saving medicine and you die. They killed you by taking away you last money at the moment your life depended on it. Probability of killing you obviously increases as escalation progresses but never reaches 100%
- ci5er 9y ago
  > They collected a fine from you and you have no money to buy yourself life saving medicine and you die. They killed you by taking away you last money at the moment your life depended on it. I am probably more aware of this than most. In addition to the clinical example, it actually occurs (in the US) in family law a fair amount more than I see admitted in the public discourse. > Probability of killing you obviously increases as escalation progresses but never reaches 100% Well, yes. But uncertainty abounds on both sides. Neither of the counter-parties to the violent transaction know each other well enough to prevent a certain non-linear ratchety-ness to the escalation. I am not for cop's killing civians ... but I don't see any other outcome to the environment (cultural context, and situational uncertainty) that we have (collectively) created. I will admit that we might be wise to hire calmer officers of the law, but, on average, when they have come to "get me", I've found them pretty calm. (Some nicer and more accomodating than others - but usually mostly professional). EDIT: Comments in this thread may make me appear as if I am some sort of bad-man or out-law. I tend to not think of myself that way - I don't rob, break-in, assault, rape, kidnap or murder. Or even take stuff that isn't mine. Or break or paint on other people's property. The US regulatory system is complex and one might get caught up in any number of ways. The other thing, though, is that I am curious, and often wonder: What would they do if a non-violent offender just says "no"? The direct consequenses are usually not very harsh, but there are some knock-on effects that do impair one's life. "Civil disobediance" (whatever that means) can be costly over time. (Maybe that's the point of it? IDK)

by ci5er 9y ago

pron 9y ago

> How can we NOT expect cops to kill us? That's what the state is - that's what it does That's not what happens in most countries, though, so clearly it's not a problem with "the state", but with American law enforcement. Police can overpower one unarmed person, regardless of how strongly he resists, without killing him. Not only they can, but that's what they do in most places: you resist -- they take you by force, but they don't kill you. Also, using violence to enforce the laws long predates the state (what we call "the state" today was largely created only in the 17th century). The role of the state is to reduce the number of people who can employ violence when enforcing the law (and, of course, to centralize the law itself), from your local lord and his soldiers, the church and its inquisitors, your local robber-baron and his Pinkertons, to those whose training and licensing is, at least hopefully, supervised and sanctioned by the general public.

ci5er 9y ago
> That's not what happens in most countries ... with American ... Fair point. In the process of resisting, USians are a risk of shooting back. But I can't say whether I agree or disagree with your election of the qualifier "most" In my small (I say) set of adversarial encounters with law enforcement in Japan, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, there were more than one person on the law-enforcement side of the encounter that appeared more than willing to do terminal violence, should there be any sort of excuse to do so. And those are "nice" places! I don't know what I would have found if I'd actually gone somewhere rough...

scotty79 9y ago

If force is overwhelming then you are overwhelmed and put in the metal box. There's no posdibility for you to meaningfully resist so there's no reason to kill you. The killing is only possible by mistake at any stage of this process. Even on the first one. They collected a fine from you and you have no money to buy yourself life saving medicine and you die. They killed you by taking away you last money at the moment your life depended on it. Probability of killing you obviously increases as escalation progresses but never reaches 100%

ci5er 9y ago
> They collected a fine from you and you have no money to buy yourself life saving medicine and you die. They killed you by taking away you last money at the moment your life depended on it. I am probably more aware of this than most. In addition to the clinical example, it actually occurs (in the US) in family law a fair amount more than I see admitted in the public discourse. > Probability of killing you obviously increases as escalation progresses but never reaches 100% Well, yes. But uncertainty abounds on both sides. Neither of the counter-parties to the violent transaction know each other well enough to prevent a certain non-linear ratchety-ness to the escalation. I am not for cop's killing civians ... but I don't see any other outcome to the environment (cultural context, and situational uncertainty) that we have (collectively) created. I will admit that we might be wise to hire calmer officers of the law, but, on average, when they have come to "get me", I've found them pretty calm. (Some nicer and more accomodating than others - but usually mostly professional). EDIT: Comments in this thread may make me appear as if I am some sort of bad-man or out-law. I tend to not think of myself that way - I don't rob, break-in, assault, rape, kidnap or murder. Or even take stuff that isn't mine. Or break or paint on other people's property. The US regulatory system is complex and one might get caught up in any number of ways. The other thing, though, is that I am curious, and often wonder: What would they do if a non-violent offender just says "no"? The direct consequenses are usually not very harsh, but there are some knock-on effects that do impair one's life. "Civil disobediance" (whatever that means) can be costly over time. (Maybe that's the point of it? IDK)