So, the principle is, "I like my community" and you demonstrate it by initiating force against peaceful non-violent community members? That is a logical contradiction and cannot possibly be the principle you display.
Words of Wisdom from this Retired Marine Colonel
- Thread starter Sukerkin
- Start date
So, the principle is, "I like my community" and you demonstrate it by initiating force against peaceful non-violent community members? That is a logical contradiction and cannot possibly be the principle you display.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
Its call the rule of law. Im sorry you dont think it applies to you. We call that 10-96 (Crazy person)
Then the principle isn't I like my community because you don't initiate force against people you like. There is a different principle here. You say the law, well that indicates another principle.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
What?
Perhaps the principle is to serve and protect? Is this the principle that government officials act on when they initiate force against peace and nonviolent community members?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
What nonviolent people are you talking about?
Social Contract.
In brief -- people who have agreed to live in a community have agreed to follow the rules of the community. Some of those rules are the unwritten norms and expectations of "proper behavior." Others (which overlap with those) are written into laws and statutes that the members of the community entrust the government to make and enforce. The police (and other law enforcement officers) are those public servants (generally and with some exceptions because there are private police forces like the railroad police or the Aquia Harbor Police in Virginia) who are given the authority and entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the law, and investigating and preventing crime, while seeking to preserve the peace. Part of that authority includes using force on those who break the law, when necessary and appropriate.
Look, this is stuff that you can build entire college courses on. Rory Miller has done a nice job addressing some of the issues regarding police use of force in Force Decisions. There are some minor ways I disagree with him, likely because of the difference in our experiences and focuses of our jobs. Just like ballen & Tgace and I have disagreed at times... But it still covers a lot of why police use force the way they do.
And, yes, of course there are bad cops out there. They're pretty rare, though. And there are incidents where cops make mistakes. Let's just accept that those are aberrations, just like the school teachers who abuse students are aberrations.
In brief -- people who have agreed to live in a community have agreed to follow the rules of the community. Some of those rules are the unwritten norms and expectations of "proper behavior." Others (which overlap with those) are written into laws and statutes that the members of the community entrust the government to make and enforce. The police (and other law enforcement officers) are those public servants (generally and with some exceptions because there are private police forces like the railroad police or the Aquia Harbor Police in Virginia) who are given the authority and entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the law, and investigating and preventing crime, while seeking to preserve the peace. Part of that authority includes using force on those who break the law, when necessary and appropriate.
Look, this is stuff that you can build entire college courses on. Rory Miller has done a nice job addressing some of the issues regarding police use of force in Force Decisions. There are some minor ways I disagree with him, likely because of the difference in our experiences and focuses of our jobs. Just like ballen & Tgace and I have disagreed at times... But it still covers a lot of why police use force the way they do.
And, yes, of course there are bad cops out there. They're pretty rare, though. And there are incidents where cops make mistakes. Let's just accept that those are aberrations, just like the school teachers who abuse students are aberrations.
I think one of the things that we'll discover with this conversation is that the inherit contradictions in morals, actions, and principles makes the concept of the social contract untenable. It's fundamental philosophy is dangerous because the acting principle inside of it is obedience to authority. This authority can demand that force be initiated for ANY actions, even peaceful non-violent actions. Thus, any moral reasoning behind the "social contract" is easily undermined.
This concept is very difficult to understand because humans in general are very confused about philosophy. They don't know how to personalize it, IMO. However, if we work backward from principle and reflect on how our actions meet that principle, we can suddenly zoom out and see the bigger picture.
What does it mean then?
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
It means all of your sources you appear to tap for your worldview are nothing but fodder for the flames that are casting the shadows of what you believe "policing" to be on the cave wall in front of you. Were you to actually exit the cave and work in the real world you would find the reality of policing vastly different. What are you basing your "knowledge" of the realities of law enforcement on?
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Back in the day when the US first invaded Iraq, I was very upset about this because it was obvious the government was lying about the pretenses for the war and I was even more upset that trillions of dollars of taxes, thousands of lives, and trillions in property damage were going to be wasted because of this. So, I decided to protest when President Bush came to my state. I was going to hold a sign when he drove by and make sure I was with a group of people so the media could see that there were at least some people that were against this war.
Previous to this, my wife just birthed our baby boy and we were taking some parenting classes at the local ECFE. During the class we met a nice family who had children the same age as ours. So, we set up play dates at the park and our older kids would get together and play. I started to develop a friendship with the father of the other family and I took him out on my boat to go fishing. The father also happened to be a LEO in our community.
Fast forward to the protest. At that time in my life, I was involved in the Green Party of all things. Yeah, it's kind of weird to think of now considering how much my political views have change. However, they did have an organization in our town where concerned citizens could go and make a statement if we felt the need to do that. This organization was also very good at getting the permits and making sure we followed all of the local statutes regarding protests.
So, I show up at the protest and I'm immediately surprised at how many more people start showing up. Usually, these things are quite some, but there were over a hundred people there when I got there and more were arriving every minute. I wasn't there more than fifteen minutes before a line of cop cars and vans peels across the bridge and deploys dozens armed and armored officers, adding to the huge amount of cops that were already there. I figured that this was because the President was coming and this was the typical over-reaction security measure that was being taken around the country.
I was wrong. Suddenly, the bullhorns came out and we were being ordered away from the pre-planned protest area and we were told that we could assemble around the corner of the building, almost behind it. Of course this is completely out of the view of the road and the rest of the city. It was almost in the alley between the hockey arena and the convention center. The police started to march forward when people didn't immediately move back and then suddenly the whole crowd was moving back. When we were securely inside the "free speech zone" the police that were recently deployed formed a line and stood arrayed with full stormtrooper gear.
Here I am, I'm holding my sign, I'm wearing a pair of blue jeans and a t-shirt and some running shoes. I'm obviously not armed nor intending any other action than standing on the pre-approved sidewalk and holding a sign that voiced my disapproval of the US invasion of Iraq. I look at the cops lined up in front of us and try to see who they actually are...and lo and behold, there is my friend. So, I put my sign down and wave. His eyes flick over me and I know the friendship is over.
We've never spoken to each other since.
I was part of a non-violent and peaceful assembly where I was going to civilly express my view of the War to the President. LEOs in our community moved our whole group with armed and armored cops into a free speech zone out of sight and out of mind.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #134
I can't help but feel that perhaps my friends here are talking about different coins rather than two sides of the same coin? TG and Ballen are speaking of their experiences of what we might term Community Policing, the sort of thing that most of us experience and the world in which I feel safer if I see a policeman walking the beat. Maku is speaking in both a general philosophical sense about the foundational nature of the societal structure and also of the way in which the law enforcement agencies are employed to suppress dissent (or at least herd it out of sight of the media).
These are not the same things for one is the Common Law for ordinary people that we mentioned before and the other is the near-abuse of power by a ruling 'class' that has become isolated from its democratically principled roots. Both are true within their frames of reference but they are not both true at the same time or in the same circumstance.
These are not the same things for one is the Common Law for ordinary people that we mentioned before and the other is the near-abuse of power by a ruling 'class' that has become isolated from its democratically principled roots. Both are true within their frames of reference but they are not both true at the same time or in the same circumstance.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
So he did nothing but look at you and you stopped being his friend? Great story has nothing to do with me. I've NEVER used a bullhorn. All cops are armed and wear body armor so that kinda silly that you keep repeating it over and over like it's wrong that I wear body armor in case I get shot at. I have no idea what really happened I have your version and your obviously bias. I've never stopped anyone from protesting. I've defended the westboro freak shows on two different occasions now including when they protested the funeral of two small boys that were brothers that drown. The older brother tried to save the younger and they both died. I stood between them and the angry people wanting to hurt these protesters. So even when I totally hated everything these fools stood for I put my life on the line for them. That's what we do. We enforce laws even if we disagree with then. Without question I risk my life to protect others and you turn and question my morals.
Couple of things to consider.
Do you know how fast a "peaceable crowd" of 100 or more can become a violent mob? You said many more than expected or typical showed up; is it at all possible that some of them were agitators who may not have been quite as into the peaceable mentality? And that maybe the police knew about that -- though the people like you who weren't of that mindset didn't?
Unarmed? But you had your sign. Depending on the group, those signs are on wooden posts. I've also seen documented instances where the "cardboard tube" holder was slipped around PVC, wood, or other more dangerous material. Again... You may not have been part of that portion of the crowd -- but they may have been there.
Regarding "full stormtrooper gear." Again -- it's frightening how fast a group can flip. When it happens, there's no time to go back and gear up. And my family has every right to expect me to take all reasonable precautions to stay safe -- and wearing appropriate safety gear and armor is reasonable. Maybe a worker on a construction site shouldn't worry about his hard hat or high visibility vest, unless he thinks he's going to be in a position where he'll need it?
There is a little more back story here, like some unanswered phone calls on my part, but it's not important, you asked me about what kind of non-violent people were being aggressed against and I answered. The details of this story aren't as important as the principle involved. So, lets's look at this in terms of principle and cross reference it with the story you shared about the Westboro guys.
The principle at the heart here is obedience to authority. It fits in both cases and it fits in every single example brought up in this thread. This is what has people's spidery sense up as well. The whole concept of the social contract is based off this principle as well. The social contract is imposed through force and those that come after are measured by how well they obey. It's an ancient tool of human organization that has been passed down through the generations so long that's origins have been lost to time.
The obvious flaw concerns the moral nature of the authority. Humans used to have to struggle against some pretty vile monsters in the past and the fix on the system was to create a concept called "natural rights" so that humans could begin the process of defining what authority can and cannot do. The problem with the system is the nature of power itself. It corrupts and is therefore morally negative. This is because the very act of exerting power means that you must initiate the use of force against individuals. This moral flaw at the very heart of the of the philosophy of power is the reason why every attempt to restrain power has failed. Even the vaunted Constitution is failing, as my story illustrates.
In literature, this is why Frodo had to destroy the ring. The Ring was power and it could not be wielded without corrupting the wearer, so into the fire it goes.
I think this is a powerful metaphor that describes what is happening here as well. When you obey those with power, you take on their moral nature. If that moral nature is barely corrupted, you may be allowed to do some good, as the story with the Westboro folks illustrates. However, as those who wield the power become ever more corrupted by it, those who serve that power are changed as well. This is the metaphor of the Nazgul in LOTR. It's also reflective of what happens in reality.
One benchmark that we use to measure immorality in the real world is whether force is being initiated against peaceful people. This is also a benchmark that can be used to measure how corrupted the wielder of power has become. So, when a government official obeys authority and ends up initiating force against peaceful people they meet that benchmark as well.
Of course the way to not meet it is to throw the ring into the fire, but this requires more strength then most Men are capable of. The lies, dissembling, and attraction of power is very hard to ignore. This is why choosing not to obey is so difficult. It's why so many who serve power recoil at the thought. It's why a government official will forswear any oath to the Constitution and help to violate it. It's why government officials kill over growing the wrong plants.
All true, but notice how easy it is to rationalize away my constitutional rights. This is why power cannot be restrained. It always finds the weakness, like an alcoholic looking for a reason to drink.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
Constitution doesn't apply to you remember you didn't agree to it.
