4 ms·

>a clear and present threat to life Jacob Blake was shot in the back by an officer and it was justified by saying he was walking to his truck and there may hav

>a clear and present threat to life Jacob Blake was shot in the back by an officer and it was justified by saying he was walking to his truck and there may have been a pocketknife in said truck. Charles Kinsey was shot in the chest for no reason other than being on-scene while another mentally disabled person blocked traffic. He stayed to advise officers that the person blocking traffic was holding a toy firetruck, not a weapon. Kinsey asked the officer why he was shot, and the officer replied, "I don't know." >Deadly force is not really the backstop position to a fine It is, though. All of the things you listed as alternatives to force are actually escalations of force, and at the end of the day you either pay the fine or go to jail and when they come to take you to jail you either come along quietly or get beaten and maybe killed. The backstop of all law and order is a state-sanctioned monopoly on violence.

Nursie 1y ago
> at the end of the day you either pay the fine or go to jail This is just not true. It's such a reductionist argument that it's nonsense. You either pay the fine or ... they find a way to get the money outside of direct payment and if they can't because you have no assets or income then most often the fine goes unpaid, sometimes for many years. Jacob Blake and Charles Kinsey were Americans, right? Your society has a violence problem and I don't think ought to be used as any sort of example. If the initial claim was "enforcing any law may cost lives in a broken society in which the police can murder with seeming impunity" that's a very different proposition.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  imagine talking about american society in the comments of an article about an american law meant to enforce american standards of right and wrong in america. perish the entirety of the thought!

Nursie 1y ago

> at the end of the day you either pay the fine or go to jail This is just not true. It's such a reductionist argument that it's nonsense. You either pay the fine or ... they find a way to get the money outside of direct payment and if they can't because you have no assets or income then most often the fine goes unpaid, sometimes for many years. Jacob Blake and Charles Kinsey were Americans, right? Your society has a violence problem and I don't think ought to be used as any sort of example. If the initial claim was "enforcing any law may cost lives in a broken society in which the police can murder with seeming impunity" that's a very different proposition.

reverendsteveii 1y ago
imagine talking about american society in the comments of an article about an american law meant to enforce american standards of right and wrong in america. perish the entirety of the thought!