3 ms·

Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, whi

by bhupy 6y ago

Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, which is the topic of the current tweet/post in question. That's hardly ambiguous.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, If it is objective unreasonable (which disproportionate force is) in the circumstances, use of police force is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment; that's the holding of the Supreme Court case I cited.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Yeah there's no precedent for the argument that "use of police force against vandalism is objectively unreasonable". If the "war on drugs" can be considered a legal/reasonable use of force (even though I personally disagree with it), you can make the same conclusion re: the war on defacement of public/private property. My point is that policing vandalism is not unreasonable, by any measure, and this is hardly ambiguous at all.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Yeah there's no precedent for the argument that "use of police force against vandalism is objectively unreasonable". Yes, pretty much every lawsuit that has been won (as many have been) with police use of force in protests has involved (1) the argument by police that the use of force was justified by the need to prevent an imminent threat of injuries to persons and property by arson, vandalism, etc., and (2) the determination by the court involved that the use of force involved was objectively unreasonable in the concrete circumstances that actually existed because it was disproportionate to the thrat that existed. I mean, since Graham v. Connor that's literally the standard that has to be met, and it has a number of times, so there is certainly precedent. > My point is that policing vandalism is not unreasonable “policing vandalism” may be reasonable, that doesn't make the particular use of force in any particular incident automatically reasonable just because vandalism is threatened or occurring. Disproportionate use of force is specifically what is generally the source of a finding that force is objectively unreasonable.

by bhupy 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, If it is objective unreasonable (which disproportionate force is) in the circumstances, use of police force is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment; that's the holding of the Supreme Court case I cited.

bhupy 6y ago
Yeah there's no precedent for the argument that "use of police force against vandalism is objectively unreasonable". If the "war on drugs" can be considered a legal/reasonable use of force (even though I personally disagree with it), you can make the same conclusion re: the war on defacement of public/private property. My point is that policing vandalism is not unreasonable, by any measure, and this is hardly ambiguous at all.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Yeah there's no precedent for the argument that "use of police force against vandalism is objectively unreasonable". Yes, pretty much every lawsuit that has been won (as many have been) with police use of force in protests has involved (1) the argument by police that the use of force was justified by the need to prevent an imminent threat of injuries to persons and property by arson, vandalism, etc., and (2) the determination by the court involved that the use of force involved was objectively unreasonable in the concrete circumstances that actually existed because it was disproportionate to the thrat that existed. I mean, since Graham v. Connor that's literally the standard that has to be met, and it has a number of times, so there is certainly precedent. > My point is that policing vandalism is not unreasonable “policing vandalism” may be reasonable, that doesn't make the particular use of force in any particular incident automatically reasonable just because vandalism is threatened or occurring. Disproportionate use of force is specifically what is generally the source of a finding that force is objectively unreasonable.