4 ms·

>Does that mean I don’t need to pay taxes and they should never use violence to coerce me? If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shoul

>Does that mean I don’t need to pay taxes and they should never use violence to coerce me? If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shouldn't(and usually don't) use violence to arrest you and transport you to prison. There is no coercion to pay taxes by beating you up like the mafia. >Does that mean I don’t need to pay rent, because so long as I’m not violent they can’t remove me? Again, you're conflating leading or carrying you out as violence. If the police use the bare minimum necessary physical force to carry out their duty, I don't think that qualifies as violence.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
> If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shouldn't(and usually don't) use violence to arrest you and transport you to prison. There is no coercion to pay taxes by beating you up like the mafia. The key part here is "not resisting". The fact that it needs to be specified is in it self saying that there is a threat of violence. "You don't pay taxes, we will attempt to arrest you. If you don't comply we will, beat you up." All laws are eventually backed up with the threat of violence. If they weren't, you could literally just ignore them without recourse.
- belltaco 5y ago
  No, because beating you up isn't a goal in itself to punish you for your crime. "Resisting arrest" or 'don't comply' are weasel terms. They can range from just refusing to walk or wear handcuffs, to running away to threatening to injure or kill the police or actually doing so. The beating up part normally happens only with trying to escape or threaten the police. And even in those cases, if they only use the minimum physical force necessary to take someone into custody, would you call that violence? If they don't know that, what's the incentive for anyone not to rob, not repay debts, murder and rape as they wish, and then just refuse arrest for the rest of their lives? What do you think the law and police should do in those cases?

xboxnolifes 5y ago

> If you're not violent during the arrest and don't resist, they shouldn't(and usually don't) use violence to arrest you and transport you to prison. There is no coercion to pay taxes by beating you up like the mafia. The key part here is "not resisting". The fact that it needs to be specified is in it self saying that there is a threat of violence. "You don't pay taxes, we will attempt to arrest you. If you don't comply we will, beat you up." All laws are eventually backed up with the threat of violence. If they weren't, you could literally just ignore them without recourse.

belltaco 5y ago
No, because beating you up isn't a goal in itself to punish you for your crime. "Resisting arrest" or 'don't comply' are weasel terms. They can range from just refusing to walk or wear handcuffs, to running away to threatening to injure or kill the police or actually doing so. The beating up part normally happens only with trying to escape or threaten the police. And even in those cases, if they only use the minimum physical force necessary to take someone into custody, would you call that violence? If they don't know that, what's the incentive for anyone not to rob, not repay debts, murder and rape as they wish, and then just refuse arrest for the rest of their lives? What do you think the law and police should do in those cases?