When is excessive police / govt force authorized?

K

Kiopa_Matt

Banned
May 13, 2011
5,216
52
0
This is something that's been on my mind since the Ferguson riots sprung up. If / when is the use of excessive police / military / govt force authorized against a population? Tough one, because there's no black and white -- almost the entire spectrum of possible answers is grey area. Nobody wants a police state, but nobody wants looters, and nobody wants to be worried when stepping outside of their home. Many people are complaining about the "heavy handed" police response in the Ferguson, but I personally think they're a little naive, because many govts around the world would have given a much heavier response.

I watched the Vice News stream, and seen protesters and cops feet away from each other in the same street / crowd, which left me scratching my head a bit. Many govts simply would not allow their police officers to be in danger like that. Then I think back to the latest round of riots in Bangkok here. Both, red and yellow shirts were in downtown Bangkok, pissed as hell and protesting. If they were allowed to continue, most likely would have collided at some point, and things could have easily turned very bad very quickly. There was even talk about all out civil war.

Instead, military stepped in, conducted a coup, imposed martial law plus a curfew, and boom... everything almost instantly went peaceful. APCs and soldiers stationed around the country at intersections & malls, and everywhere really. They rounded up hundreds or even thousands of people without trial, charges, family notification, nothing. They forced media outlets to only print / air what they wanted them to, and a whole lot more.

Would it have gotten worse if the military hadn't stepped in? More than likely, and possibly MUCH worse.

Did the military use excessive force? WIthout question.

Did it work? Yep, like a charm.

Has it been peaceful since? Yep, completely, and also almost instantly.

So... I don't know. Nobody wants a police state, but nobody wants total anarchy either. So where's the line? Thoughts?
 


There should never be "Excessive force" There should only be "necessary force".

The force that police use should always be based on the given situation and what the find necessary to it. I think the main issue is that cops are allowed to make "Mistakes" even when it cost someone their life.
 
If: Death penalty for parking violations and above
Result: People behave

funny-gif-police-high-five.gif
 
I don't know how to answer the OP's question. Current law enforcement is monopoly-based. A monopoly is always associated with higher prices, a lower level of service, and a smaller breadth of available goods and services than would be the case if there were competitors. That's true whether we're talking about textiles, courts, drugs or prostitution - essentially, any good or service for which there's a demand.

The ingredient missing in law enforcement is competition.

If numerous law enforcement agencies had to compete for customers, their agents would be less inclined to use excessive force while defending their customers. Doing so would not only carry a substantial (and avoidable) cost,* but would lead to the offending law enforcement agency losing customers.** Repeated offenses might lead to that agency losing a majority of its customers, and summarily going out of business.

Would employees of competing law enforcement agencies still use excessive force? Of course. Competition isn't a cure-all for defective personalities. But the owners of those agencies, like any business owner, would benefit from making sure they don't hire such employees. After all, having them on the payroll exposes the owners to costly liability and even bankruptcy.

So when should excessive force be authorized? I dunno. When we're talking about monopoly law enforcement, there is little incentive to avoid using excessive force. It's not like customers can take their business elsewhere.


* Here, we get into private law and the role of insurance. Both are topics that require more time and effort to describe and defend than I'm willing to invest right now.

** Due to higher premiums stemming from judgments made by private - i.e. competing - courts assigning liability.
 
How many citizens are armed in bangkok? In the US the "citizens" way out gun the police/government/military. So a heavy military response in the US could spiral out of control quickly, if the "people" where really pissed and or unified. You would need way more than a few thousand protesters in the street for something like this to happen. The "nation" would need to be truly outraged. Im not even sure that would be possible.

With that said. Military force is illegal in the US so maybe that cant happen? lol ya right. But I think the line is set by the people. They can use as much force as long as it doesnt truly upset the average "citizen". When they go over that line, no amount of force will be enough.

Sorry I know that was a lot of double talk.
 
JakeStratham said:
The ingredient missing in law enforcement is competition.
Click to expand...

Ok, if you're going to drag this shit into it, I want an example. How would multiple private police forces have handled the latest rioting in Ferguson?

Give me a down to earth example here. You have hundreds of businesses and thousands of homes susceptible to looting in a widespread area, not to mention all the public infrastructure that's open to destruction. And everyone is subscribed at a monthly rate to a different protection agency.

Give me a breakdown on how that would work logistically.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Ok, if you're going to drag this shit into it, I want an example. How would multiple private police forces have handled the latest rioting in Ferguson?

Give me a down to earth example here. You have hundreds of businesses and thousands of homes susceptible to looting in a widespread area, not to mention all the public infrastructure that's open to destruction. And everyone is subscribed at a monthly rate to a different protection agency.

Give me a breakdown on how that would work logistically.
Click to expand...

Matt, my previous post asserted that competing law enforcement agencies would be less inclined to use excessive force, and offered a few reasons why that would be the case. That's it. No more and no less. You're now asking me to provide an example of how said agencies would deal with the rioting in Ferguson.

The fact is, I dunno. Competition isn't a plug-n-play application. It's unfair to flip the "competition switch" and tell me, "Go! Tell me how it'd work smart guy." You might as well ask me how private defense agencies would handle the mess in the Afghan theater. Or how dissolving the state would resolve the problems caused by fiat money.

Monopoly force contributed to - and I'd argue even created - the problem. It's unfair to expect a competitive environment to offer a quick and clean resolution.

I was trying to convey in my previous post that competition among law enforcement agencies would go a long way toward discouraging the incidents that triggered the riots in Ferguson.* Those incidents - i.e. aggressive force used by police against the public - arguably started years ago. So any discussion of the role competition might play would need to be retroactive. It would also need to include insurance, private courts, and full private ownership of assets. That's the only way to accurately assign liability.

You're asking me to construct a huge scenario. This is the stuff that makes up research papers and books. Anything I can put in a forum thread would be woefully inadequate. It would also lack the necessary citations for credibility and further research.

It's too much work. I used to spend hours trying to do that and it never amounted to anything. I'd rather watch, read, and post new music I'm listening to. There's little incentive for me to do otherwise.

And frankly, I'm pretty sure that anything I can come up with would be inferior to stuff that Scott, Ice, UG, kingofsp, and others come up with.



* I'm ignorant about the goings-on in Ferguson since I rarely consume news these days.
 
mattseh said:
B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg


lol wat
Click to expand...

If you are talking about an Armageddon situation, I am not so sure those would ever get airborne. Sure you might see a few get up in the air and level a city or 2. You have to remember the military is made up of americans. These guys are not going to run out and bomb their mom and dads house. You would see a split right down the middle with not only the country but the military as well. If the military didnt ground those planes, there are millions of veterans that will. Those bases would be over run in short order.

Now with all that said, I cant come up with a single scenario where any of that happens. I just dont see it. A more likely scenario would be the "trouble makers" would be singled out. The .gov would target these individuals, and either arrest them and or kill them. You would see the .gov offering large rewards for info on these "terrorists". Neighbors and family members would snitch them out for a few bucks. You would see wide scale SWAT type raids removing these "trouble makers/terrorists" from the community.
 
They are trained to use a stair step model based on the situation

Use of force continuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the specific progression of force varies considerably (especially the wide gap between empty hand control and deadly force) among different agencies and jurisdictions, one example of a general model cited in a U.S. government publication on use of force is shown below.[5]

Physical presence --- depending on the totality of the circumstances, a call/situation may require additional officers or an on scene officer may request assistance in order to gain better control of the situation and gain more safety for themself. Depending on the circumstances of the situation: for example, how many people are on scene with the officer - a larger presence may be required. However, if 10 officers arrive at a scene with only a single suspect, the suspect may perceive he is under arrest; as a large police presence can constitute an arrest based on the suspect's perceptions.
Verbal commands
Empty-hand submission techniques, PPCT - Pressure Point Control Techniques
Intermediate Weapons (e.g. baton, pepper spray, Taser, beanbag rounds, Mace (spray), etc.)
Lethal force.
Click to expand...

At least that's what they claim.
 
I have the solution chaps:

Put a 'like' and 'dislike' button on every policeman. Maybe a rep button too. Then we would know who are the violent scoundrels and who are law abiding citizens acting in good faith upholding the law according to common consensus.

1XlHlvR.gif
 
No matter what culture you live in, no matter how many guns people have, & no matter what type of government rules you, paying for someone to shoot at you is not kosher.

The line is drawn way back at paying taxes.
 
microphone head said:
I have the solution chaps:

Put a 'like' and 'dislike' button on every policeman. Maybe a rep button too. Then we would know who are the violent scoundrels and who are law abiding citizens acting in good faith upholding the law according to common consensus.

1XlHlvR.gif
Click to expand...

lol, there we go. Let's QR code our cops, so we can scan them in with our phones, and rate them. :)
 
dmnEPC said:
If you are talking about an Armageddon situation, I am not so sure those would ever get airborne. Sure you might see a few get up in the air and level a city or 2. You have to remember the military is made up of americans. These guys are not going to run out and bomb their mom and dads house. You would see a split right down the middle with not only the country but the military as well. If the military didnt ground those planes, there are millions of veterans that will. Those bases would be over run in short order.

Now with all that said, I cant come up with a single scenario where any of that happens. I just dont see it. A more likely scenario would be the "trouble makers" would be singled out. The .gov would target these individuals, and either arrest them and or kill them. You would see the .gov offering large rewards for info on these "terrorists". Neighbors and family members would snitch them out for a few bucks. You would see wide scale SWAT type raids removing these "trouble makers/terrorists" from the community.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to point out that you writing .gov all the time is getting a bit annoying.
 
Military_equip_to_states Search and Report

Check out the military equipment that your state/town has in it's an arsenal. Got to wonder why a police force (which serves the people) has any reason for a $600k+ mine resistant vehicle and that is just part of one counties kit. If you are in a situation that requires such a machine, the army should take over command anyway.

The police have no reason for equipment like this and shouldn't be wasting their budget on it - but lobbyists obviously pay them off. Until the military budget is shrunk, this surplus will keep getting into police departments, then on to your streets.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Ok, if you're going to drag this shit into it, I want an example. How would multiple private police forces have handled the latest rioting in Ferguson?

Give me a down to earth example here. You have hundreds of businesses and thousands of homes susceptible to looting in a widespread area, not to mention all the public infrastructure that's open to destruction. And everyone is subscribed at a monthly rate to a different protection agency.

Give me a breakdown on how that would work logistically.
Click to expand...

What will cars from competing agencies look like in 20 years? Go back to 1990 and tell me how private competing agencies will handle innovations in mobile communications from 2002-present.

Efficiency, creativity and innovation are driven by competition.

Would you rather have a state mandated "patriot" phone or an unlimited selection of phones to choose from? Would you rather have your choice of transportation or force everyone to drive "freedom" Datsun's?

How do you make money? Do you have competition? Do you not innovate or think creatively? Do you try to serve people or do you extort money through fraud or force?

Competition is good for everybody. Would Windows or OSX be what they are today without having to worry about competition? Android vs. IOS?

Here's a few ideas of what private agencies could do...


They could actually defend people and property. Instead of pointing guns at their customers and shooting grenades full of chemical weapons at them while they're on their own private property, they could actually stand in front of businesses and defend them before they're being looted or set on fire.

Maybe they'd learn that customers get pissed when you shoot and kill them - so they'd come up with less violent ways to neutralize threats and only use guns as a last resort, not as SOP.

Maybe they wouldn't kick in their customer's doors and disfigure their babies by setting fire to their cribs or shooting the family dog (or family) only to learn that their "suspicion" that a person in the home possessed an inanimate object that's none of their business anyway was wrong.

Maybe they'd give customers tools and training to prevent them from being victimized. Maybe special labels with microchips that can be tracked on their inventory. Maybe facial recognition technology in their stores and streets.

Better home security.

Actually "serving and protecting" instead of "stop and frisk", extortion, kidnapping and murder because it's the only way to stay in business when people have a choice to pay you or not.

Maybe they'd be respected and add value to people's lives, instead of relying on fear, aggression and intimidation.

And maybe riots wouldn't happen if people weren't constantly being racially and socioeconomically profiled, harassed, assaulted and subjected to systematic, institutionalized discrimination on a daily basis.

The most conservative estimates put the number of American's murdered by police at over 500 people per year.

Given a choice, would you opt for a defense company who kills on average 1.4 of it's customers per day (and ruined the lives of countless millions of others) or the company who's decided to serve its customers so it could stay in business?

Well, we don't have a choice. We're stuck with the monopolized violence of jackboot murderers that anyone with a rational thought in their head fears and hates.

But giving people a choice in the matter, instead of using coercion to force these thugs upon the people, that'd just be crazy.

If the state had monopolized video games in the late 70's we'd be lucky to have Pong available at this point. That's what the monopolized institution of violence is, an antiquated, barbaric gang of violent thugs who wouldn't last a day in a truly free market.

I can't understand how an entrepreneur could logically come to the conclusion that it's better to force people to accept products and services that *they* think people should want instead of letting entrepreneurs compete, and create products and services that people *DO* want, and don't need to force people to happily purchase without pointing a gun to their head.

Now you tell me, what will my cellphone look like in 15 years? Kind of tough to predict the future, huh? Well there's some ideas for you to think about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sennin436 and IceToEskimos
Kiopa_Matt said:
Ok, if you're going to drag this shit into it, I want an example. How would multiple private police forces have handled the latest rioting in Ferguson?

Give me a down to earth example here. You have hundreds of businesses and thousands of homes susceptible to looting in a widespread area, not to mention all the public infrastructure that's open to destruction. And everyone is subscribed at a monthly rate to a different protection agency.

Give me a breakdown on how that would work logistically.
Click to expand...

Something interesting happens in a situation where you have competiting security agencies regarding what "security" is defined as.

It's entirely possible that in an open security market, walking down the middle of the street would not be considered due cause for investigation by the police/security force, depending on the level of enforcement the customer base was willing to pay for.

I think when people talk about the white cops/black citizens issue, what they are really talking about is much closer to some kind of culture clash/community standards issue.

Simply put, private police forces would only enforce the laws that their customers cared enough about to pay them to enforce, and jaywalking probably isn't on that list in Ferguson, MO.


In that case, there is no reason for an officer to stop MB, he doesn't get shot, and there are no riots. It's also possible that in some places, the customers wouldn't even want their officers to carry deadly weapons at all, which almost completely removes the possibilty of a citizen being killed by an officer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom