4 ms·
> To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated
by clarkmoody 4y ago
> To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.)
The police are always at the disposal of the political apparatus and often ignore the rights of unpopular groups and sometimes actively terrorize them. This is a feature of democracy, in which the majority holds power over the minority. Vigilante justice is a natural result of overly-political police, and I would argue something that would be very popular in many areas of the American Empire.
- JackAndJack 4y ago[flagged]
- sacnoradhq 4y agoIt is in movies and other forms of mass media. Unfortunately, far left jurisdictions frown on anyone using force, including defending themselves. Triumphal, might-make-right exceptionalism shouldn't be a core value. Patience, letting most things slide, and choosing not to use force where rights allow should be celebrated heroic virtues.
- lazide 4y agoThat’s all well and good until someone has a tool critical for their survival stolen, and are told to ‘turn the other cheek’. In most of the US, a car is as critical to survival as a horse used to be.
- sacnoradhq 4y ago"Survival" means "lacking will cause death." Stealing someone's vehicle doesn't kill them. OTOH, stealing a portable ECMO would.
- lazide 4y agoIf someone lives out in a remote area with bad weather, stealing their vehicle definitely can kill them. I’ve run across some folks near death from losing a vehicle, in fact, when out in remote areas. It’s why folks stop to check if they see someone on the side of the road out in the boonies. But there isn’t always someone there. Additionally, many people who live out in the sticks will lose their jobs without a vehicle very quickly (sometimes even a day or two), and that can make them homeless pretty quick. And when you look at the stats, that kills a lot of people too. God knows what the actual circumstances are here. It could be someone worked up and angry and unjustified, or the equivalent of stealing someone’s jacket in a blizzard. Justice system, etc.
- sacnoradhq 4y agoBS. That's what emergency services are for. No cause of death has been "lack of car caused a stroke". It's also the fault/responsibility of someone living too far from major medical. Personal responsibility and backup plans. Someone steals your car, you make arrangements.
- lazide 4y agoClearly you’ve never actually lived outside a city. I’ve lived places where the fastest response to a felony in progress was an hour, and the county sheriff’s vehicles (4wd SUV) couldn’t get into at all for 4-5 months out of the year. I imagine if the weather behaved (it often doesn’t) and they were really motivated, they could get a helicopter from another agency out there sooner. But I never saw it happen. The desert can work a lot faster.
- kaba0 4y agoSo you think it is in any world fair to shoot someone who has stolen a car?!
- molotovh 4y agoDo you think it is in any world fair to steal a car from someone who has done nothing to you?
- kaba0 4y agoFair? No. Grounds for executing someone? Absolutely not.
- nickthegreek 4y agoIf you go to that car, and the person who stole it attacks you, yes.
- kaba0 4y ago> in which the majority holds power over the minority That’s absolutely not how it supposed to be, it’s a very cynical take. They are the executive pillar of democracy, and actively terrorizing anyone is not a benefit of any society. Their whole purpose (should be) is to uphold the law created by the democratically elected government.