Anti-police violence

By -
Here.

American police are way too quick to resort to violence. The figures on the number of people killed by police in the US versus the rest of the developed world are startling. We need real reform here.

But demonizing the police as "thugs," "pigs," and so on is no path to reform. It is the path to low-level warfare between the police and those most alienated from our current system. The more hostility towards the police is promoted, the more reason the police will have to fear being killed when dealing with such hostile people, and the more quickly they will resort to violence. And in this struggle, there is no doubt who will come out ahead: The police have resources that those prompted to violence against them simply lack.

Comments

  1. Ken B10:44 PM

    Bravo. +1 doesn't quite do it. Civilization is a thin veneer. Persistent howling amped up rhetoric endangers it.

    I don't say any Rothbardian hoped for this, because none did. But it seems to be a logical consequence of what they advocate. This shooter had a grievance. There being no authority under whose aegis grievances can be ranked, the Rothbardians cannot deny its legitimacy. He submitted his grievance to himself, judged, and took action. Again, under what authority can Rothbardians deny him this? None. Under their scheme there is no authority. And we can easily imagine that there was a separate complaint and judge at the local bar anyway, who decided all this. Three angry drunks following every step of the private law playbook. Their prescription is -- private defence. The cops could have hired protection! Usually their codswallop just amuses. Sometimes it doesn't. Today it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown7:12 AM

    Or, the police may simple not respond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B9:25 AM

      "Or, the police may simple not respond."

      To emergency calls in black neighborhoods?

      Delete
  3. Samson Corwell5:26 PM

    I'm someone who, in general, supports laws that allow civilians to reasonably resist the unlawful actions of cops. Would those kinds of laws be a bad idea, in your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah5:44 PM

      Resist in what sense? And resist what sort of actions?

      Delete
  4. Gorilla Bananas7:01 AM

    There is a technical fix that might dramatically reduce unlawful violence from either party when the police confront a suspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B9:28 AM

      Yes indeed. And equally importantly cops have to respect the fact that it is legal for others to record them.

      In general it should be legal to record with "one party consent". In other words, I can legally record my dealings with you without needing your consent.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more