4 ms·

"Why is it a crime if I detain criminals but not a crime if the police do?"

jakelazaroff 6y ago
Except in this case it's being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians, and the only reason there are no consequences is that the people using it are cops.
- CompanionCuuube 6y ago
  In that case, it's a matter of proving to the courts that it was being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    That won’t work; the entity responsible for investigating such a claim is the same one unlawfully attacking peaceful civilians in the first place.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ashtonkem 6y ago
The clause “without justification” in my original comment matters a lot, do not ignore it. Cops might have the legal right to use force, but they must have clear justification for that application. Indiscriminate application of tools designed to injure people by the police should be a crime, but in practice it does not appear to be so.
- CompanionCuuube 6y ago
  In that case be prepared to defend the claim of it being without justification. Which if it truly is as clear cut as you're making it out to be, should not be a problem at all.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    It’s rather disturbing that you expect that the citizens prove that the cops were unjustified in their application of force, rather than expecting cops justify their application of force. Aside from reversing the burden of proof, I can’t prove a negative, such an attitude hands the police a carte Blanche to strip citizens of their rights until the citizens can argue for their rights back. This is not how functioning democracies are supposed to work.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      This is just a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If they are unjustified, then you should be able to prove that. Otherwise what you're talking about is the police having to prove their innocence. Exactly the kind of thing that you would complain about, if you hadn't gotten it all wrong.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        If I shoot my neighbor, it’s not up to my neighbor to prove that they didn’t deserve to be shot. It’s up to me to prove that I was justified in shooting my neighbor. But for some reason the moment the police are involved, that presumption is reversed. Why?
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        >It’s up to me to prove that I was justified in shooting my neighbor When did the tear gas throwers show they were justified in throwing tear gas at the police?
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        What a strange change of subjects and wording. This response feels a bit disingenuous to me, but it’s interesting enough that I’ll bite. Throwing tear gas back (important word) at the police when you feel it’s unjustified is an interesting question. Arguably such an act could be an act of self defense, but that gets very complicated when the police are involved. What right do citizens have to defend themselves against what they feel is unlawful police violence? Against non-state actors, you have the right of self defense, obviously. Against state actors it is obviously complicated, since nominally they have a monopoly on the legal use of force, and we don’t want everyone with a valid warrant to feel justified in shooting at the police. But to assume that there is no force that the state can apply that would not justify self defense is to accept a complete erosion of all civil liberties once the police are involved. Not all wrongs perpetuated by the police are amenable to court restitution; if you lose out on your right to peacefully assemble, then can a court give that back after the fact? What happens if the police apply lethal force without justification; you can’t sue to get your life back. It is obvious that some right to self defense against state action exists, but exactly where the line is seems quite fuzzy to me.
booleandilemma 6y ago
Isn't citizen's arrest a thing? I think you could detain criminals if you wanted to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jascii 6y ago
  While citizen's arrest is a thing, it does not automatically give you the right to detain someone. A use of force (as would be required to detain a subject) is often only legal to stop a direct felony from taking place.

Except in this case it's being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians, and the only reason there are no consequences is that the people using it are cops.

CompanionCuuube 6y ago
In that case, it's a matter of proving to the courts that it was being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  That won’t work; the entity responsible for investigating such a claim is the same one unlawfully attacking peaceful civilians in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ashtonkem 6y ago

The clause “without justification” in my original comment matters a lot, do not ignore it. Cops might have the legal right to use force, but they must have clear justification for that application. Indiscriminate application of tools designed to injure people by the police should be a crime, but in practice it does not appear to be so.

CompanionCuuube 6y ago
In that case be prepared to defend the claim of it being without justification. Which if it truly is as clear cut as you're making it out to be, should not be a problem at all.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It’s rather disturbing that you expect that the citizens prove that the cops were unjustified in their application of force, rather than expecting cops justify their application of force. Aside from reversing the burden of proof, I can’t prove a negative, such an attitude hands the police a carte Blanche to strip citizens of their rights until the citizens can argue for their rights back. This is not how functioning democracies are supposed to work.
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    This is just a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If they are unjustified, then you should be able to prove that. Otherwise what you're talking about is the police having to prove their innocence. Exactly the kind of thing that you would complain about, if you hadn't gotten it all wrong.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      If I shoot my neighbor, it’s not up to my neighbor to prove that they didn’t deserve to be shot. It’s up to me to prove that I was justified in shooting my neighbor. But for some reason the moment the police are involved, that presumption is reversed. Why?
      - yeetawayhn 6y ago
        >It’s up to me to prove that I was justified in shooting my neighbor When did the tear gas throwers show they were justified in throwing tear gas at the police?
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        What a strange change of subjects and wording. This response feels a bit disingenuous to me, but it’s interesting enough that I’ll bite. Throwing tear gas back (important word) at the police when you feel it’s unjustified is an interesting question. Arguably such an act could be an act of self defense, but that gets very complicated when the police are involved. What right do citizens have to defend themselves against what they feel is unlawful police violence? Against non-state actors, you have the right of self defense, obviously. Against state actors it is obviously complicated, since nominally they have a monopoly on the legal use of force, and we don’t want everyone with a valid warrant to feel justified in shooting at the police. But to assume that there is no force that the state can apply that would not justify self defense is to accept a complete erosion of all civil liberties once the police are involved. Not all wrongs perpetuated by the police are amenable to court restitution; if you lose out on your right to peacefully assemble, then can a court give that back after the fact? What happens if the police apply lethal force without justification; you can’t sue to get your life back. It is obvious that some right to self defense against state action exists, but exactly where the line is seems quite fuzzy to me.

booleandilemma 6y ago

Isn't citizen's arrest a thing? I think you could detain criminals if you wanted to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jascii 6y ago
While citizen's arrest is a thing, it does not automatically give you the right to detain someone. A use of force (as would be required to detain a subject) is often only legal to stop a direct felony from taking place.