posted
If the marchers would have just dispersed when they were ordered to, Bull Connor wouldn't have needed to turn the fire hoses on them. After all, it's just water, and they WERE violating police orders. Totally justified.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Right, Capax, its called "civil disobedience." Obstructing the actions of the police in a controlled, non-violent manner, in order to make their job harder, and cause them, and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff.
I see your arguments circles back to the issue of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience isn’t an argument to fall back on when protesting results in consequences you don’t like. It doesn’t grant you carte blache to break any law you deem necessary to advance your cause. Just because you "cause [the police], and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff" doesn't mean they will agree with you in the .
No, civil disobedience does not give you carte Blanche. However, it *does* afford you the right not to be abused unduly by the police. It forces the police to arrest you, and forces the justice system to either charge you, or endure your continued arrests and disruptions. Civil disobedience is a very important part of the traditions of civil rights protests. It does not require that the police agree with you, but it *forces* the police to deal with you, in a most inconvenient way. The police have no right to punish this behavior. They can only make arrests. This inexplicable idea of yours that somehow pepper spraying non aggressive people is just part of the play book is ridiculous, and you should drop it. You are wrong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cap: I still don't understand why the police could not simply start pulling people off the path, and say taking them into custody if they had orders to clear the path? Heck they could even tell the protestors whose orders they were obeying before doing so.
They didn't start removing them and then after being resisted use pepper spray, they pulled out their cans and just sprayed everybody, then peeled them off and arrested them. Why is that sequence necessary?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Orincoro: The crime(s) they committed went beyond simply “blocking” the road:
Unlawful assembly (on the road, not the presence on the quad.) Violating a rule or regulation of the institution - disruptive activities, failing to leave when ordered. Failure to stop at the command of a law enforcement officer. Interfering with an arresting officer. Resisting arrest.
Bingo!
Fundamentally, I agree with you that a cop pepper spraying people committing crimes who aren't specifically attacking him is actually perfectly fine. That's sort of the point pepper spray. If someone is attacking him or someone else with anything more deadly than a potato peeler, I'd really prefer he shoot them.
However!
I think your list of "crimes" includes maybe one crime that I don't think is pretty much morally indefensible on its face. We criminalize so much in this society, and it does nothing to better us. Soooo in light of that I sort of think the cop did a terrible thing, but I'm not really surprised because he is steeped in a job where your listed items seem like legitimate crimes.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the point of pepper spray is *not* that it be used against "people committing crimes". It is a weapon to be used against violent assailants as self defense, or in defense of a victim. It is not to be used casually against people who are simply breaking the law as an act of organized disobedience. Most *especially* not an act of civil disobedience and non aggressive non compliance.
Not only would that set a *horrible* precedent were it ever actually offered as a reasonable defense in this case, but that would also go dead against the established practices f law enforcement across America.
Incidentally, IANAL, however, I do know that these acts have *not* been established as criminal acts, and are more likely in fact breaches of university codes and civil infractions, making these people *not* criminals. In addition, not one has been convicted of a crime in a court of law. Nor are any likely to be.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fundamentally, I agree with you that a cop pepper spraying people committing crimes who aren't specifically attacking him is actually perfectly fine. That's sort of the point pepper spray. If someone is attacking him or someone else with anything more deadly than a potato peeler, I'd really prefer he shoot them.
I think you're leaving out a pretty important piece of information here: 'against people who are not themselves violent, or threatening violence'. Pepper spray is a couple of steps up the policeman's toolbox of responses to instructions, to infractions, etc. There's no good reason why that one had to be jumped to.
Pointing out that they were warned isn't valid-the point is that it's wrong to do so at all, not that it's only wrong to do so by surprise. Noting that they were resisting arrest is also an omission, because the question at hand is, "Were they violent, threatening violence, or likely to become violent?" Noting that they were violating some university rule is also irrelevant to the point being made here, since no one is saying the protestors weren't doing anything illegal or against code.
Conservatives are supposed to sit up and take notice when government uses violence against citizens. Conservatives in general-not speaking to you particularly here, though this does go for capax-damned well take note when the government takes money from the citizenry. Makes `em pretty angry, too. Only grudgingly is this ever tolerated.
Public nonviolent disagreement with the government, though...well. That's when the government needs to use violence against its citizens. And not just grudgingly, either-it's a good thing, apparently! No matter that no one was in danger, thatr we're supposed to have a tradition in this country going back much further than the Civil Rights Movement of public, nonviolent dispute with the government being regarded with care.
To me, this is such a blunt dissonance that I'm forced to conclude that it's rather like the 'small government' outcry of American conservatives. It's not something that's actually believed in-except when liberals and Democrats are in office.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm much more uncharitable, I credit the conservative movement with having *no* beliefs. That's why when OWS comes along and stands for a broad set of beliefs that are naturally difficult to quantify and express completely in 3 sentences, you know, like *real* beliefs are, the conservatives jump on them for not being on message. Because on message, to them, means standing for something. It doesn't matter so much *what* they stand for... but they stand for it, by golly.
And when the idea of a "belief" in smaller government gets in the way of desperately wanting the government to keep spending lots and lots of money on stuff you like, you just change the message, and the "belief" becomes in a "strong" America, and a "force for democracy," and changing the world. Then when you're out of power, it's time to believe in small government again. Yes, conservatives like to believe things.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for instance, an assembly might be considered less than "peaceable" if it obstructed some necessary function of government or intentionally posed a public nuisance. That's where civil disobedience comes in- intentionally imposing on some entity, such as a campus or government, in manner which demands a dialogue about the purpose of the protest- because protests that pose no public nuisance at all are not necessarily effective, if the entity being protested is large enough, or uncaring enough to ignore them.
Causing yourself to be dealt with by the authorities is making a statement that is difficult to ignore. It would be a stretch to say that this kind of speech is constitutionally protected, however, the myriad other personal rights that protestors have are still in effect- this the efficacy of such tactics. A person may be trespassing and posing a public nuisance, making his form of speech unprotected, but they *still* have the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process, and the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
That last would be the business of a jury, and likely an appellate court, to decide. I'm willing to bet good money it never gets that far, but if it did, I would be willing to bet the protestors would win. Just because you're breaking the law, doesn't mean you don't have rights.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Fundamentally, I agree with you that a cop pepper spraying people committing crimes who aren't specifically attacking him is actually perfectly fine. That's sort of the point pepper spray. If someone is attacking him or someone else with anything more deadly than a potato peeler, I'd really prefer he shoot them.
How do you reconcile this position with your libertarian beliefs?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been involved with Occupy Wall Street myself and have donated heavily to it.
I think it's an interesting movement which epitomizes the frustration people feel with the government. I think that beyond its political role (which is very vague and fragmented; what does Occupy Wall Street really want?) it is providing a needed outlet for the energies of the US people.
Occupy Wall Street is a way for the energies of the unemployed and dissatisfied to be released mostly harmlessly.
In the Middle East, in Europe and elsewhere, there are similar protest movements that have resulted in much more violence, chaos and instability.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting to the point where I feel like a little violence and instability might actually get something done.
It's great that in our democracy we have a healthy way to release our political frustrations and anger harmlessly, but because it is so benign, it's effortless to ignore.
I only blame half of this on politicians though. Things will only change if we change them, and we keep electing the same people over and over. The fundamental problem you get to, at some point, is the complete lack of choices we have. The primary process in this country needs to be totally overhauled and given increased prominence. I think that would drastically cut down on incumbency rates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The primary process in this country needs to be totally overhauled and given increased prominence. I think that would drastically cut down on incumbency rates.
The problems with American democracy go far beyond the primary process. We need to rework it from the ground up. Our electoral process is corrupted by money, corrupted by gerrymandering, and corrupted by partisan rules. It needs a radical overhaul but the people in power owe their power to this corrupt process so there is little chance they will ever reform it.
We talk about promoting democracy in the developing world and yet we don't even have a democratic election for our own President. It's embarrassing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, but I think if you look at the roots of the process, the primary process is where you start. Certainly they are all interrelated.
The two-party system has it fixed so their two chosen candidates will almost always win the primary and become the two candidates for office. So right off we start with only two choices, two sets of conflicting beliefs, and very little in the way of satisfactory choice for people.
Once they get there, the system is so corrupted by money that so long as they agree to be the chosen lackeys of particular special interests, they will have all the funding they need to return to Congress again and again, unless the mood of the country changes to swap in another lackey who is just as beholden.
Several states have bi-partisan or non-partisan commissions that draw district lines across the state and take the power to do so away from the state legislature. California is one of them. It's an excellent model for what every state should do.
More choice in our primaries, especially if we involve public funding so lesser known candidates can actually have a chance in their districts, where a small number of people really can be met and handshaked to a point of relevancy, would drastically change elections in this country, and would open us up to more parties, which would naturally force ad hoc alliances on a variety of issues that wouldn't just have the two parties bickering with each other.
Neither party wants ANY of that, because it forces them to give up a lot of traditional power, but it's the right way to go for a healthy democracy.
And, as many are so fond of saying, it's what (some) of the Founders wanted.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our electoral process is corrupted by money, corrupted by gerrymandering, and corrupted by partisan rules. It needs a radical overhaul but the people in power owe their power to this corrupt process so there is little chance they will ever reform it.
The problem I always have with this sort of thinking is that it seems to want to have it both ways.
That is, the putative problem is that the wrong people are getting into office and holding power. There are structural issues that come into play here, but at the end of the day, people are not forced to vote for someone. The fundamental problem with our system is the voters.
For example, non-bribe money is valuable mostly because voters usually vote for the person who spent the most money. If people were using better criteria on who to vote for, the power of large campaign contributes would shrink drastically.
Our fundamental problem is that voters choose poorly/irresponsibly. This is not going to go away if you break down the current corrupt structure.
If our democracy is a joke, populism is the problem, not the solution.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would our voters be the "fundamental" problem? They are misinformed, by people spending billions of dollars to work against their interests and misinform them.
There *is* no "fundamental" problem, leastwise a fundamental problem that begins with either the people or the government. There is a *systemic* problem. An infection, a sign of age, a deterioration. There is no fundamental basis for such a problem beyond the same fundamental basis of the institutions, and the cultures and populations at play. All systems have fundamental weaknesses, and those weaknesses express over time as systemic failures.
It's not helpful to look at it as the responsibility, ultimately, of anyone that our country has reached this impasse. There is simply a need for reform- and the only way you achieve that is working across the board. Get your hands around the problem, speak up, speak out, generate dialogue, and look for solutions. That's it. It matters not who exactly you appeal to. Everything needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed all at the same time.
You are right- a significant problem in America is that the people *and* the government want reform without actually changing anything. We essentially want to go on with our lives just as they are, or slightly better, and fix things. The idea of making sacrifices, or of radically changing the way we work in order to ensure our future is unthinkable, because to Americans, the future is supposed to be just like today, only better. Nobody wants the future to actually be any different, even if it has to be. Which is an attitude our nation adopted a long time ago, when we were, and it seemed that we would continue for a long time to be, the untouchable world leader in everything.
In fact, we still are. But we are coming closer to some system issues that threaten our stability, and we are simply not used, either as a government or a people, to admitting that we need to change directions and do things differently.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are misinformed, by people spending billions of dollars to work against their interests and misinform them.
If this were the problem, then the solution would be to provide clear resources by which people could both confidently inform themselves and determine the trustworthiness of other sources. And then you'd have a well-informed populace both electing better people and also ceasing to use the sources of bad information.
Except that people have put a lot of resources into doing exactly those things and it hasn't really made much of an impact.
The American people have the potential to wield near the most personal political power of any populace in the history of the world. They certainly have access to the most extensive amount of information of anyone ever. If the problem with our political system is that they are disenfranchised and misinformed, I think that you can reasonably say that the fundamental problem is with them, because the potential for them not to be exists, but they (for whatever reason) largely don't exercise this potential.
---
edit: I realize that this can come off as mostly about blaming people, but that's not really my intent. Rather, I'm trying to point out that any attempt at populist reform that doesn't include significant changes in the character of the American populace is at best a half-measure that is going to see its accomplishments degrade pretty quickly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hurk, I think I failed utterly in my attempt to communicate.
Orincoro, Rakeesh, Rabbit, not going to quote because I want to respond to all of you together!
So, to clarify... I was, in fact, disagreeing with capax. Vigorously. Strenuously, even! Except it didn't look like it because I posted very half-assedly in the middle of doing other things.
I'm going to reiterate both of the points I was trying to make. I think I muddled them both together so much that they became difficult to recognize.
First!
What I was trying to say is that, in the case of a violent assault I'm not necessarily sure pepper spray is the best weapon for a cop to use. Sometimes, depending on the level of violence, but I really strongly reject most (or at least most in my state of CA) definitions of "reasonable force." If someone is trying to kill me with a knife, and I kill him with a gun, I didn't use unreasonable force. If I chose to pepper spray him in that situation, fine, but to imply that I (or a cop) had a moral obligation to pepper spray him is, in my opinion, totally untenable. Every nonlethal technology we have today is strictly less effective than a good old fashioned Roscoe. To say that someone has a moral imperative to use one of these methods is to draw a level of moral equivalence between perpetrator and victim/protector that I am totally unwilling to do.
Okay, that said... when do I think it's okay to pepper spray someone?
When they are committing a crime that is not explicitly violent, but when their behavior or the situation could conceivably turn violent in the course of trying to get them to stop. Especially if they resist your initial request that they stop. So, someone who is, say, vandalizing the front of your building, and flips you the bird when you shout at them from inside? Pepper spray is fine! Someone jacked a purse and is running past you? Pepper spray to your heart's content... though tripping them might work just as well. Or, and this one might strike a little too close to home... someone is squatting in your private property, and when you tell them to leave they tell you to go to hell. At that point, you're damn right you should be allowed to pepper spray them!
So now it sounds like I'm agreeing with Capax... But wait, there's more!
If someone is assembled on public property, we're in a whole different ballgame. Uncle Sam doesn't have the same rights as people. And likewise, when a cop is protecting your rights he has a lot more leeway than then he is protecting Uncle Sam's "rights."
If the OWS doofuses had been committing actual crimes, then I'd have no problem with them getting pepper sprayed. The thing is, Capax's list of "crimes" is a joke.
Unlawful assembly? On public property? Uh, no, try again. Some Tea Partiers have written letters to various city legislatures demanding that OWS have to pay the same thousands of dollars in permits they had to pay to use the same space... but screw that. Refund the Tea Partiers, yes. But I don't see any value in trying to push government into being more stringent at enforcing it's ridiculous bulls*** laws. Yes there is a double standard, nobody likes conservative protesters, boohoohoo, suck it up, be the adult/better man/whatever.
And the rest of the "crimes" are just as dumb. Violating a rule of the institution? The public tax-funded institution? Again, let's try that one again, please.
As for the last crimes on his list... interfering with an arrest, resisting arrest, etc... these are all semi-legit crimes... but not by themselves. The fact that a cop can try to detain someone for no goddamn reason and then slap "resisting arrest" on them when they resist a totally unjustified infringement of their rights is insane. The same way that if a cop breaks down the wrong door (or, hell, even the right door) during a "no-knock" drug raid and the person inside shoots at these armed and angry intruders... the guy defending his home is the one who can go to jail.
Fundamentally, I think it's really wrong when we criminalize behavior and then use that as an excuse to treat people like criminals. It blurs the lines. I have no problem with police or private citizens using force against criminals, but I have a very serious and deep disagreement about who should be considered a criminal.
Whew! Okay. Is that clearer? Do my comments make a little more sense in this context? The TL;DR would be that I think pepper spraying the protesters was fundamentally wrong, but sadly unsurprising given that we as a society really like to criminalize behaviors that we shouldn't.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are misinformed, by people spending billions of dollars to work against their interests and misinform them.
If this were the problem, then the solution would be to provide clear resources by which people could both confidently inform themselves and determine the trustworthiness of other sources. And then you'd have a well-informed populace both electing better people and also ceasing to use the sources of bad information.
Who provides it? Who decides it's trustworthy, and makes sure it stays that way? Who decides what content will be presented, and in what order? Who will convince people to read it? how will you stop private interests from slandering and libeling the organization in Oder to discredit it in favor of their own lies?
See, your looking for someone to blame, and you won't find anyone. And not because "both sides" or "everyone" is to blame or some other stupid crap, but because sometimes systems cease to function rationally, and the actors within those systems have to stop and try to change them.
So I agree with you that people have to change. But the national character is not one thing while the politics are another. That's naive, to say the least.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yes, and he should therefore reconsider.
"You object? Oh no, no n n no no, You *strenuously* object, well, that's different. I keep forgetting you were sick the day they taught LAW at LAWSCHOOL!!!"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who provides it? Who decides it's trustworthy, and makes sure it stays that way? Who decides what content will be presented, and in what order? Who will convince people to read it? how will you stop private interests from slandering and libeling the organization in Oder to discredit it in favor of their own lies?
Those are all good questions to consider, if your goal is actually to combat misinformation. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you're not bringing them up for that reason, though. If you believe that the public's problem is that they are misinformed, shouldn't that be a major goal in reforming the system?
Incidentally, I believe that at least two organizations have more or less successfully answered those questions in the political sphere, so if you really want to see how it's done, FactCheck and PolitiFact do actually exist. They're just not that effective.
---
edit: I restate what I said before. The political system grants the American people tremendous power. The oppression/suppression that exists is mostly soft. If enough people have the will to change the system, it will be changed.
Yes, there are large, powerful entities out there that are corrupting it. That's sort of my point too. If you change the structure to block a specific point of corruption, they'll just switch to another. And this will work, because they wield enormous soft power.
Without the American populace making different choices 1) the large players will always find ways to introduce massive corruption 2) giving the public want they want is generally going to be a bad thing anyway.
Again, the thing that sustains the power of large campaign contributions largely isn't the money itself, but rather that the public is swayed by the sort of things that this money pays for. Get rid of this and the problem of big money leading to huge influence will greatly weaken.
If it's not the reasons why people make choices that is the prime mover here, then wouldn't dedicating one or more channels of information for candidates for office to put their information out there with low requirements for access be what we should be focusing on? Because if people really wanted to vote for people like that and not for the sound bite candidates that we currently foster, wouldn't they?
Continued political power comes down to who people vote for. The candidates and tactics that are used now are there because they win. They or something very much like them will continue to work unless people start voting using different criteria than they currently do.
posted
My only point is to defeat the notion that there exists a fundamental problem with the electorate. You havent established that as the case, and it's an argument of a magnitude much too great for pithy observations to support. That is really my only point. I agree that the solution *does* take the form of free information, and a fundamental restructuring of government service to combat corruption, and eliminate perverse incentives for legislators. And I agree that this solution begins with a change in the way the electorate acts and responds to government. I just don't think that you can blame the American populace as some sort of fundamental problem- the problem is manifold, and it is built into the growth of a republic and an international political entity. It's nobody's *fault* in the sense that if people had simply been better at being citizens, this would not eventually have happened. We are not born whole into a world that fits us, and our nation wasn't either. Our roles as citizens change, and sometimes they don't change quickly enough. That is a problem that extends beyond a closed loop, where Americans simply don't do their duty- their duties and their understanding of those duties are affected by outside forces.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My only point is to defeat the notion that there exists a fundamental problem with the electorate.
I don't see how that statement can exist in conjunction with the idea that there is a major problem with big money campaign donations. The second seems to me to necessarily include that the public is swayed to vote for people based on the things that the money pays for and that these are not good reasons to vote.
Where do you disagree with this?
---
edit: The primary thing I'm looking at here is how to fix the system and keep it fixed (or alternatively if expecting positive populist government is foolish*). I think that who is to blame for the current state of affairs impacts on this, so I can't say that it isn't important, but I'm not concerned with it outside of this context of how to fix it.
---
* - that is, types of governments carry both positive and negative benefits. The positive is what it allows and the negative is what it prevents (sort of like freedom to and freedom from). There are obviously negative benefits to populist governments with our populace. There are putative positive ones, but I'm not convinced that many of the ones that people espouse are reasonable given our population's character.
Which, again, calls for a transformation in the public.
quote: What I was trying to say is that, in the case of a violent assault I'm not necessarily sure pepper spray is the best weapon for a cop to use. Sometimes, depending on the level of violence, but I really strongly reject most (or at least most in my state of CA) definitions of "reasonable force." If someone is trying to kill me with a knife, and I kill him with a gun, I didn't use unreasonable force. If I chose to pepper spray him in that situation, fine, but to imply that I (or a cop) had a moral obligation to pepper spray him is, in my opinion, totally untenable. Every nonlethal technology we have today is strictly less effective than a good old fashioned Roscoe. To say that someone has a moral imperative to use one of these methods is to draw a level of moral equivalence between perpetrator and victim/protector that I am totally unwilling to do.
What if the non-lethal methods were equally effective? Would you then say the victim has a moral obligation to use non-lethal self defense?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if the non-lethal methods were equally effective? Would you then say the victim has a moral obligation to use non-lethal self defense?
I don't think so. Once someone has broken the social contract about not murdering people, I don't think they have a right to its protection. Choosing non-lethal methods in that case may be more admirable, but there is no duty to do so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are, according to the terms you have used, wrong. A person who has committed murder *does* have the right not to be murdered. He does not necessarily have the right not to be *killed.* But you can't murder him. If you have a choice, you can't kill him.
Though rarely is it a clear cut choice, I'll acknowledge. Nevertheless, killing someone when you know it not to be necessary to apprehend him or to stop a crime in progress is murder. What can be proven in court is another matter entirely.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nevertheless, killing someone when you know it not to be necessary to apprehend him or to stop a crime in progress is murder.
Why? I've stated my argument. There is a social contract about not murdering people. If someone violates that (as attempting to murder you would do), they are no longer under its protection and you don't have a duty to not kill them. Note, I'm not saying that you should kill them, just that you are not under a moral obligation not to.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nevertheless, killing someone when you know it not to be necessary to apprehend him or to stop a crime in progress is murder.
Why? I've stated my argument. There is a social contract about not murdering people. If someone violates that (as attempting to murder you would do), they are no longer under its protection and you don't have a duty to not kill them. Note, I'm not saying that you should kill them, just that you are not under a moral obligation not to.
Really?
Let's say your assailant has already been subdued by non-lethal means. Are you still under no moral obligation not to kill the guy? He did still break the social contract. That hasn't changed.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's say your assailant has already been subdued by non-lethal means.
It depends. Are you in a society that has relegated the punishment of crimes to some official body? Then you have a duty to society to follow that.
But even if you're in such a society, you still have no obligation not to kill him in the first place? Is that your position?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to point out that it is easy to criticize the police for everything that happens.
I've seen protesters sticking their fingers in the face of police and screaming at them from just a few inches away, and the police have kept their cool. They know that if they make one wrong step there will be 20 people around taking pictures of it just to throw everyone into an uproar.
Luckily we have had no problems whatsoever here in Las Vegas. The people here at Occupy Vegas have been MORE than willing to work with the police. The police have asked them to move, they simply do it. They don't argue, cry, or scream at them. They have their beliefs and make them known, but they are doing it in a mature way that doesn't cause harm to anyone.
Compare that to Oakland where people are firing off shots or the other protest (I think New York?) where they broke into Bank of America and vandalized it. Why on EARTH would I want to hear what someone who does that has to say?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I'm finding this position hard to make sense of.
Assume in all of these examples that we do live in a society where murderers go to trial.
You have your phaser, which can be set to stun or kill and is equally effective at putting someone down either way. Someone comes at you with a knife. Which of the following acts is morally impermissible? (the way I'm using the word, impermissible=you're obligated not to do it)
(1) Setting your phaser to kill and killing him.
(2) Shooting him with two phasers, one set on stun and one on kill, simultaneously.
(3) Setting your phaser to what you think is the kill setting and blasting him. Then you realize, oops, you had it set on stun and now he's unconscious. You reset it to kill and kill him.
(4) Setting it to stun and stunning him, then changing your mind an instant later and killing him, less than a second after he's stunned.
(5) Setting it to stun and stunning him, then walking up to him a minute later and killing him.
It seems patently obvious to me that if (1) is morally permissible, (2) should be; if (2) is, (3) should be; and so on down the list. Do you really disagree with that?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that 3 follows from 2. Dealing with someone attacking you versus someone who is subdued are two distinct contexts.
To me it is obvious that the obligation to society doesn't apply when you are actively dealing with someone attacking you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I think that's an extremely strange way to interpret the examples. But let me give you another one (which I think applies even when you're not in a society that practices incarceration).
Someone comes at you with a knife. You know for a fact that he's temporarily insane and will be back to normal if you can get him to a doctor.
As before, he's broken the social contract by attempting to kill you.
Case 1: you have a disruptor, which only has a kill setting. Obviously it's not wrong to defend your own life by killing him.
Case 2: you have a phaser with both stun and kill setting. It seems equally obvious to me that you're obligated to stun him and take him to a mental hospital.
I think these examples point toward the fact that it's not his breach of the social contract that gives you the right to kill him in self-defense. It's the fact that you have no other way of protecting your own life.
Here's another example to illustrate.
A Bantu-speaking bushman approaches you. You know from talking to his doctor that he carries a 100% lethal virus that will kill you if he gets within 10 feet of you. You're walled off and can't run. The guy has no English and doesn't understand your gestures.
Obviously, if you have a disruptor it's OK to kill him -- even though he hasn't broken the social contract and in fact means you no harm.
And again, obviously, if you have a phaser it's not OK to kill him when you could instead stun him.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So I saw the video and holy shit. You don't use pepper spraw on sitting and non violent protesters with what could be mistaken for industrial strength bug spray. They were just sitting down and the dude just walked up and down the line calmly spraying them, shaking the bottle and then spraying them again.
IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously, if you have a disruptor it's OK to kill him -- even though he hasn't broken the social contract and in fact means you no harm.
I'm not so sure this is obvious actually. I would probably do it, but I don't see it as a given that any society would be okay with that action.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both of those cases involve the right to self-defense superseding the social contract against murder.
In the first, you're presenting an insane person who cannot be held accountable for his actions. Such a person can neither enter into nor break contracts.
In the second, you are correct, the social contract doesn't enter into it.
However, someone breaking the social contract is not the end-all, be-all of whether it is permissible to kill them. In both cases, the right to self-defense would, in cases where there were no other option, make it permissible.
Introducing another option - in these cases, the stunner - allows you to protect yourself without killing them, so it is no longer permissible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dest, Let's say that you are in a society that doesn't have a judicial system or police force but does have a social contract against murder. Someone earnestly and willfully tries to kill you and, for whatever reason, doesn't succeed. Is it morally impermissible to kill them now that they don't pose an immediate threat to you?
If so, where does this moral obligation not to kill them come from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Why? I've stated my argument. There is a social contract about not murdering people. If someone violates that (as attempting to murder you would do), they are no longer under its protection and you don't have a duty to not kill them. Note, I'm not saying that you should kill them, just that you are not under a moral obligation not to.
How do you determine whether or not someone is attempting to murder you?
If someone points a gun at you, they might be simply attempting to scare you. Maybe there aren't any bullets in the gun. Maybe it isn't actually a gun, it's a wallet. Maybe its a rubber knife in his hand.
Is it OK to kill someone just because you are scared that they will try to kill you? If so that's a pretty low standard.
You can never really know someones intentions. No one can predict with absolute certainty what another person's going to do. You could be wrong. When tensions are high and the adrenaline is rushing you are likely to be wrong. That's why there is a moral obligation to use the minimum force necessary to subdue an assailant. It is NOT OK to kill someone simply because you are scared.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I'm not sure why the social contract is really necessary at all. You grant that self-defense is justified for reasons of self-preservation even when someone hasn't broken the contract. So why should we bother with the contract in the first place? Doesn't it make more sense to say that the only justification for self-defense killing is self-preservation?
Then you wouldn't have to say that there's a moral difference between (2) and (3), which seems pretty weird to me.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dest, Let's say that you are in a society that doesn't have a judicial system or police force but does have a social contract against murder. Someone earnestly and willfully tries to kill you and, for whatever reason, doesn't succeed. Is it morally impermissible to kill them now that they don't pose an immediate threat to you?
If so, where does this moral obligation not to kill them come from?
Depends. If you can safely subdue them and then maroon them on a desert island or something where they'll never be a threat again, I'd say you're obligated not to kill them. If there's no easy way to protect yourself aside from killing them now, I'd say you're permitted to kill them.
The obligation comes from the fact that they have a right to life. Sometimes their right to life can come in conflict with your own right to life, in which case you're allowed to choose your own life over theirs (by killing them in self-defense, or in other cases by saving your own life and thereby allowing them to die). But they don't automatically lose their right to life just because they tried to infringe someone else's rights.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you have a non-lethal weapon on hand, there's no conflict. You can protect both your own right to life and your assailant's, by stunning them.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The obligation comes from the fact that they have a right to life.
There are people who are dying right now that you could save. Do you not respect their right to life?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one might take the view that the right to life is limited to the right not to be actively killed. Then I'd have no obligation to save those people. That position would still make a lot more sense than the one you've staked out.
I prefer to conclude that we're all really bad people who either don't understand or can't fully internalize the extent of our moral obligations to others.
But that's a separate issue from the one we're discussing. Why don't we assume for the sake of argument that my view is the first one: we're obligated not to kill people, unless there's no other way to save lives.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wherever moral principles come from. It's a tough question! But we're both assuming that there are moral principles, so why question that assumption all of a sudden?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I know where my moral principles come from. And I don't accept this one.
If you're saying that it is so because you choose to believe it, that's fine, but that seem to me to be a pretty nonsensical foundation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
