3 ms·

Directly infiltrating one of these groups is easier than the other, depending on your skin colour. And I'm not certain it can be called illegal if it is an agen

Directly infiltrating one of these groups is easier than the other, depending on your skin colour. And I'm not certain it can be called illegal if it is an agent of the law acting under legal authorisation.

hollywood_court 4y ago
A police officer can’t legally commit B&E without a warrant. That’s why he just made sure the photos got into the hands of other members of the Nation. He effectively allowed the problem to solve itself. Edit: I just realized that you may not be from the US or be familiar with how the law works here. You need a warrant to do what my father did to the Nation of Islam. None of the photos his took or any of the other evidence would have been admissible in court. He broke the law when he broke into the church.
- trackflak 4y ago
  I wasn't fully aware of how the US law would apply in that situation. Thanks for the clarity. I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a good thing either. It is a morally ropey area when you're law enforcement engaging with groups that threaten the freedom and stability of wider society. But I suppose that's why warrants and such safeguards exist.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a good thing either. I don't believe this is true if you give even individual representatives of law enforcement the latitude to decide whether religious groups threaten the freedom and stability of wider society (and especially if you think that the Nation of Islam, an inwardly-focused group that I'm not aware of either imprisoning or destabilizing society, meets that bar.) Not only that, but even assuming that they would have the latitude, as individuals, to act against them. Is "not liking white people for outer space reasons" or "being anti-Semitic, but not hurting Jews" enough of a reason for you to actually support improvised state-supported aggression by individual cops? Is that the model case in your mind where the state acting arbitrarily is for the good?

hollywood_court 4y ago

A police officer can’t legally commit B&E without a warrant. That’s why he just made sure the photos got into the hands of other members of the Nation. He effectively allowed the problem to solve itself. Edit: I just realized that you may not be from the US or be familiar with how the law works here. You need a warrant to do what my father did to the Nation of Islam. None of the photos his took or any of the other evidence would have been admissible in court. He broke the law when he broke into the church.

trackflak 4y ago
I wasn't fully aware of how the US law would apply in that situation. Thanks for the clarity. I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a good thing either. It is a morally ropey area when you're law enforcement engaging with groups that threaten the freedom and stability of wider society. But I suppose that's why warrants and such safeguards exist.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > I don't think the ability for the state to act arbitrarily is a good thing either. I don't believe this is true if you give even individual representatives of law enforcement the latitude to decide whether religious groups threaten the freedom and stability of wider society (and especially if you think that the Nation of Islam, an inwardly-focused group that I'm not aware of either imprisoning or destabilizing society, meets that bar.) Not only that, but even assuming that they would have the latitude, as individuals, to act against them. Is "not liking white people for outer space reasons" or "being anti-Semitic, but not hurting Jews" enough of a reason for you to actually support improvised state-supported aggression by individual cops? Is that the model case in your mind where the state acting arbitrarily is for the good?