4 ms·

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

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.
    - LurkerAtTheGate 6y ago
      >But for some reason the moment the police are involved, that presumption is reversed. Why? Because the testimony by police is treated as a proof more reliable than nearly any contrary evidence, short of very clear video.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    IANAL, but I think you're misapplying presumption of innocence here. Essentially, there are two claims: 1. that the police used force at all 2. that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it For claim 1, the police absolutely have the presumption of innocence. But once they concede that they did use force, the burden of proof flips around. Otherwise, you're placing a presumption of guilt on the civilian by asking them to prove that they weren't threatening a cop. This is essentially an affirmative defense [0]: it concedes the unlawful action (e.g. police use of force) but alleges a specific set of circumstances that would shield the person from repercussions. The burden of proof lies with the one using the affirmative defense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      Exactly. There is no claim that they did not throw the tear gas back, but in order for it to be self-defense they have to show that the police did something to justify it, as you laid out in #2.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You have it backwards. The police must show that they were justified in throwing the tear gas in the first place. The burden of proof lies on them to prove that force was justified.
        yeetawayhn 6y ago
        You just said that self-defense must show justification for the use of force. Are you going back on that now? > that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it When was that proven like you demanded? > I never said anything about self–defense. If it isn't self-defense, then they just illegally assaulted one or more officers and deserve to be punished.
        jakelazaroff 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.
  - LurkerAtTheGate 6y ago
    >But for some reason the moment the police are involved, that presumption is reversed. Why? Because the testimony by police is treated as a proof more reliable than nearly any contrary evidence, short of very clear video.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  IANAL, but I think you're misapplying presumption of innocence here. Essentially, there are two claims: 1. that the police used force at all 2. that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it For claim 1, the police absolutely have the presumption of innocence. But once they concede that they did use force, the burden of proof flips around. Otherwise, you're placing a presumption of guilt on the civilian by asking them to prove that they weren't threatening a cop. This is essentially an affirmative defense [0]: it concedes the unlawful action (e.g. police use of force) but alleges a specific set of circumstances that would shield the person from repercussions. The burden of proof lies with the one using the affirmative defense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    Exactly. There is no claim that they did not throw the tear gas back, but in order for it to be self-defense they have to show that the police did something to justify it, as you laid out in #2.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      You have it backwards. The police must show that they were justified in throwing the tear gas in the first place. The burden of proof lies on them to prove that force was justified.
      - yeetawayhn 6y ago
        You just said that self-defense must show justification for the use of force. Are you going back on that now? > that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it When was that proven like you demanded? > I never said anything about self–defense. If it isn't self-defense, then they just illegally assaulted one or more officers and deserve to be punished.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago