> 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 t

> 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.