5 ms·

> You don't have to accept that cops are less important than civilians. I think your position is wrong and gross, but I concede that there's a discussion to be

> You don't have to accept that cops are less important than civilians. I think your position is wrong and gross, but I concede that there's a discussion to be had about rules of engagement. We could have that, if you were packing for it. There's bad faith arguing and then there's this, you're just rushing to claim a moral high ground you don't have to move the post towards someone having to dismantle the claim that cops are less important than civilians. In my country, Chile, there was a brief flash of time when this attitude was taken, that even if a suspect threatens a cop's life to get away, they should be given that right. People got sick of dead cops quite quickly, and the position was just thrown into the dustbin of history, poof, there, wrong side of history, discredited, shunned, almost forgotten. You don't have rule of law when "civilians" make their own in the street and the State giving up the monopoly of violence.

eropple 3y ago
> You don't have rule of law when "civilians" make their own in the street and the State giving up the monopoly of violence. This is true. This is absolutely true! But that cuts both ways. Can you explain to me how, given that in a liberal society police do not and must not determine guilt or innocence, you can have the rule of law when the police are seizing that role for themselves? Because, when we go down this rabbit hole, the police committing extrajudicial killings is also the state yielding their monopoly on force; the extrajudicial action of an agent of the state, when not ordered by the executive, is seizure of that monopoly for personal ends. You could convince me of a middle ground instituting an automatic venue-changed prosecution of every police killing and letting a jury sort it out--take your chances with that shoot!--but I tend not to think that would go over well with this crowd either.

eropple 3y ago

> You don't have rule of law when "civilians" make their own in the street and the State giving up the monopoly of violence. This is true. This is absolutely true! But that cuts both ways. Can you explain to me how, given that in a liberal society police do not and must not determine guilt or innocence, you can have the rule of law when the police are seizing that role for themselves? Because, when we go down this rabbit hole, the police committing extrajudicial killings is also the state yielding their monopoly on force; the extrajudicial action of an agent of the state, when not ordered by the executive, is seizure of that monopoly for personal ends. You could convince me of a middle ground instituting an automatic venue-changed prosecution of every police killing and letting a jury sort it out--take your chances with that shoot!--but I tend not to think that would go over well with this crowd either.