3 ms·

Yes, but it requires people to know their legal rights, and engage with them Had the police been called most likely the police would have said "this is a civil

Yes, but it requires people to know their legal rights, and engage with them Had the police been called most likely the police would have said "this is a civil matter" not done nothing, at most taken a report for a detective to investigate the alleged theft. Also had the homeowner just said "leave my property", and then the police called, the private militia would then be trespassing and the police would remove them. Here however the homeowner basically consented to the actions, the search, and the seizure while under threat of additional legal action they still consented. Know your rights.

mindslight 3y ago
That is a good description of what is, but not what ought to be. It's very easy to discuss this after the fact, detached from the situation with a calm head, and be confident that this victim would have been legally in the clear. But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. The legal dynamic in the US has basically evolved to justify shakedown behavior, where it's technically possible to "stand up" for your rights if you know the exact song and dance at the right time, but practically most people don't and can't. Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless I am expecting someone. Even for package delivery I have a table for them to leave the package on. >>Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. Examples of laws where this happens would be great. >>And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder. Examples please.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    > That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless Sure. "Standing policy" implies that you've spent a bunch of time thinking it out, presumably thinking about the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial. That's all work and preparation that you're taking for granted, that frankly most people don't have time for. It would be akin to me railing against people for using GMail, as I run my own mail server. The world is too big to micromanage everything. If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal. > Examples of laws where this happens would be great. The point is that we're sorely lacking those laws, or at least enforcement of them. This particular situation should result in charges of armed robbery, but I doubt it will. But even my saying that is wrong, as it buys into this high stakes paradigm. Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it? > Examples please I feel bad for coming back to this example so often, but I don't stay up on the latest unjustified murder of the week and its details are beyond reproach - Breonna Taylor. That was perpetrated by "police" rather than corporate thugs, but it's exactly the dynamic of someone acting exactly as the legal system implies they should to preserve their rights, ending up with their girlfriend being murdered, and still no justice being served.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      >> the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), That would imply they have a warrant which most likely means they have already busted down the door negating my policy in the first place. >>and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial Such as? I have been doing this avoidance for 20 years in multiple locations, never been an issue so far. >> If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal. I dont think I asserted anything of the sort, pretty sure I implicitly said "I have a policy" not that others do or should. That said outsourcing your personal security is the path to becoming a victim, when seconds count the police are minutes away >Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it? I am not sure what your antigun stance has to do with this story? There is no indication that the persons were armed, brandished any firearms or threaten the use of violence at all. They knocked on the door, said there were there to collect stolen property and if the home owner did not comply they would alert the police which could result in the homeowner being arrested. That threat of using state violence violence is a problem, but nothing you have stated here would prevent that. Nor am I clear how your proposes law would even be enforced, or is applicable to this situation. It is clear you just anti-gun and likely anti-self defense in general and instead believes only the state should have that power... which is ironic as you likely are anti-police and pro "defund the police" >>Breonna Taylor. I was betting it was going to be that or Rittenhouse. Both of which have soo much disinformation spread about the cases that is hard to have a rational conversation about those events online. The real solution to Breonna Taylor type situations is reform warrant policies and require the police to use the least confrontational means to effect the warrant, instead today police purposefully make the situations more dangerous IMO as a form a "street justice" but again that is not relevant to this situation as nothing even remotely like the events in Breonna Taylor happened here
- digging 3y ago
  > Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. Agreed, but good luck. The police, the "actual" enforcement arm of the legal system, can pick you up without evidence, steal your money, lie to you until you're tricked into confessing to something you didn't do, and call it a successful mission. The legal system is not intended to protect innocent people, it is only designed to provide enough protections so that more privileged people feel like it is, and don't side with the victims in trying to destroy/reform it.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    The "intent" of the legal system was to enable distributed dispensing of the King's justice, at least from what I understand. In the modern day and age, we can say that there are many types of mal-intents behind various laws, but the legal system itself is what we make it. And describing a problem is the first step towards fixing it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

mindslight 3y ago

That is a good description of what is, but not what ought to be. It's very easy to discuss this after the fact, detached from the situation with a calm head, and be confident that this victim would have been legally in the clear. But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. The legal dynamic in the US has basically evolved to justify shakedown behavior, where it's technically possible to "stand up" for your rights if you know the exact song and dance at the right time, but practically most people don't and can't. Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows up at your door demanding something and threatening more violence if you don't comply. That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless I am expecting someone. Even for package delivery I have a table for them to leave the package on. >>Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. Examples of laws where this happens would be great. >>And that's not even touching the dynamic where various types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid getting charged with second degree murder. Examples please.
- mindslight 3y ago
  > That is why my standing policy is to never answer the door unless Sure. "Standing policy" implies that you've spent a bunch of time thinking it out, presumably thinking about the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial. That's all work and preparation that you're taking for granted, that frankly most people don't have time for. It would be akin to me railing against people for using GMail, as I run my own mail server. The world is too big to micromanage everything. If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal. > Examples of laws where this happens would be great. The point is that we're sorely lacking those laws, or at least enforcement of them. This particular situation should result in charges of armed robbery, but I doubt it will. But even my saying that is wrong, as it buys into this high stakes paradigm. Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it? > Examples please I feel bad for coming back to this example so often, but I don't stay up on the latest unjustified murder of the week and its details are beyond reproach - Breonna Taylor. That was perpetrated by "police" rather than corporate thugs, but it's exactly the dynamic of someone acting exactly as the legal system implies they should to preserve their rights, ending up with their girlfriend being murdered, and still no justice being served.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >> the corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving), That would imply they have a warrant which most likely means they have already busted down the door negating my policy in the first place. >>and also concluding that you're willing to forgo answering the door in times it would have been beneficial Such as? I have been doing this avoidance for 20 years in multiple locations, never been an issue so far. >> If physical security is one of your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal. I dont think I asserted anything of the sort, pretty sure I implicitly said "I have a policy" not that others do or should. That said outsourcing your personal security is the path to becoming a victim, when seconds count the police are minutes away >Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it? I am not sure what your antigun stance has to do with this story? There is no indication that the persons were armed, brandished any firearms or threaten the use of violence at all. They knocked on the door, said there were there to collect stolen property and if the home owner did not comply they would alert the police which could result in the homeowner being arrested. That threat of using state violence violence is a problem, but nothing you have stated here would prevent that. Nor am I clear how your proposes law would even be enforced, or is applicable to this situation. It is clear you just anti-gun and likely anti-self defense in general and instead believes only the state should have that power... which is ironic as you likely are anti-police and pro "defund the police" >>Breonna Taylor. I was betting it was going to be that or Rittenhouse. Both of which have soo much disinformation spread about the cases that is hard to have a rational conversation about those events online. The real solution to Breonna Taylor type situations is reform warrant policies and require the police to use the least confrontational means to effect the warrant, instead today police purposefully make the situations more dangerous IMO as a form a "street justice" but again that is not relevant to this situation as nothing even remotely like the events in Breonna Taylor happened here
digging 3y ago
> Whereas what really needs to happen is for various aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using coercion to begin with. Agreed, but good luck. The police, the "actual" enforcement arm of the legal system, can pick you up without evidence, steal your money, lie to you until you're tricked into confessing to something you didn't do, and call it a successful mission. The legal system is not intended to protect innocent people, it is only designed to provide enough protections so that more privileged people feel like it is, and don't side with the victims in trying to destroy/reform it.
- mindslight 3y ago
  The "intent" of the legal system was to enable distributed dispensing of the King's justice, at least from what I understand. In the modern day and age, we can say that there are many types of mal-intents behind various laws, but the legal system itself is what we make it. And describing a problem is the first step towards fixing it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]