The US has long been a police state - you’re just blind to it because you don’t see it. Most people living in the USSR didn’t see a police state either; it was only the dissidents, the marginals, the troublemakers. Just because there are worse places doesn’t mean you’re not already a long way down that road.
7 Likes
Okay, there was a curfew in effect. He broke the law. He was arrested for it. The arrest happened rather suddenly and violently.
What’s wrong with that?
-
Curfew: Curfews are things that dictatorships impose to stay in power. They shouldn’t happen in civilized countries. And any nation where there was a curfew for an entire major city within the last decade has forfeited any right to refer to itself as “the land of the free”.
-
Broke the law: Nothing wrong here, that law was meant to be broken. Though I’d prefer to see 100 peaceful protesters chained to something like a lamppost just before the curfew takes effect.
-
Arrested: Break the law, and expect to be punished for it. Nothing wrong here, either. Here’s how it should happen: A pair of police officers would have walked up to the guy, politely asked him to identify himself, fined him up to 50 dollars and asked him to go home. If he doesn’t pay on the spot, he’ll get a letter from the police station within a few days. Only if he refuses/is unable to credibly identify himself, then he is arrested.
-
How to arrest someone who is nonviolently breaking the law: One of the police officers says, “You are hereby under arrest. Please come with us.” If he seems to comply, there is no need to cuff him.
-
Oh, so he talked to his lawyer at 2.30 PM the next day. By that time, his identity and address should have been confirmed by the police, so THERE IS NO REASON TO HOLD HIM any more.
I challenge you to re-examine your assumption that handcuffs are a necessary part of an arrest. But you are right, what you described would be mostly acceptable.
11 Likes
Canada
What about the situation that prompts the protest that prompts the curfew?
If a sizeable number of people believe that now is the time for corrective civil unrest, does your curfew mean they’re wrong? Or that their civil unrest becomes inappropriate no matter what prompted it, if said unrest is displayed after curfew?
Also, what exit on the holocaust highway should these people take? Because I’ve never seen that map. Every map published was outdated on the date it is issued. And every government that went too far down that road insisted they were not on it all the while.
Besides which, though all such repression could legitimately be said to be on that road, why the hell is the possibility of another holocaust the new standard for tolerance of systemic repression?
It’s like you were never here, they’ll say.
3 Likes
Unfortunately we are in a steep decline up here. Still preferable to the US IMO, but things are going downhill.
At least there is a chance of a sea change with every election up here. I’ve got high hopes for the next one, hoping that Canadians will do what they’ve done before & turf the current government with such force it takes them many years to recover.
(non-canuck history folk, look up how these people up here historically treat a political party that has displeased them. They can go from majority to nothing overnight & that’s the way it should be)
Right! How dare he say that the media should also disperse, because, “the curfew was not about us (the media)”, it was about those people over there!
1 Like
And ‘identify yourself’ means stating name, address, date of birth, perhaps a few pieces of additional information if needed to disambiguate. Not “your papers please, citizen.”
1 Like
your two statements do not jibe with each other
there’s a huge lovely world out there full of places to go.
If you are sick and tired of reading about the misdeeds of our police, feel free to explore. I recommend not reading the paper or paying any attention to police activity wherever you go.
It seems that you really should pay attention to police activity elsewhere in the world: you might discover that US police are far from the best of their kind and while not the worst, they’re pretty low down the scale.
3 Likes
Yes, the police have broken the law. Particularly with Freddie Gray, there’s just no situation that could justify what the police did, either morally or legally. That does not make this arrest “kidnap.”
Exactly, that was partially my point. Compared to many parts of the world, the US police system is quite well run.
Within a couple minutes it was clarified by the police tot he media that they didn’t have to disperse,
I agree that the second amendment has been interpreted too broadly, but that doesn’t really have bearing on whether the government can put limits on the time for an assembly.
They didn’t hit him or taser him or shoot him. That kind of force requires resistance or some clear threat. Making you move from point A to point B just requires probable cause to arrest. I think you, and many others here, have a fairly idealized vision of what an arrest is. They don’t need to read you your rights, and often don’t.
I think that kind of hyperbole is disrespectful to people who have actually lived in police states.
“actually suffered at the hands of police states”
I FTFY.
Consider that all those who are now in your opinion disrespected by the hyperbole here would have much preferred to have the hyperbole, if that’s what it is.
As well, the US absolutely is a police state, particularly for young black men, but for all by extension.
3 Likes
I didn’t say that anyone was wrong to protest or even to violate the curfew. Civil unrest is probably needed right now. But that doesn’t make the arrest here “kidnap.”
This isn’t even on the road to the Holocaust. A temporary curfew in a single city in response to a riot is not going to lead to mass repression or murder. If the curfew lasted more than a couple days, we might be on that road, but I don’t see that happening.
Also, I didn’t use the Holocaust as a standard. The person I was replying to did, making the huge jump from allowing police to enforce lawful orders to the Holocaust.
First of all, your arguments are only standing because you’re demanding them on a detail of codified law outside the greater context. That’s why you’re bumping heads.
Secondly, all human activity is on a road that unless exited or altered leads to extremities of collective behaviour.
Thirdly, it is not a huge jump, not a jump at all in fact because their point was that the Holocaust was lawful behaviour to those committing it.
1 Like
If the OP had said, in effect, these cops arrested this peaceful protester and shouldn’t have, even if they technically could have, I wouldn’t be arguing. But by alleging that an apparently lawful arrest was “kidnap”, the OP went well beyond moral arguments. Lawful arrest doesn’t become kidnap because of the greater context.
That’s an extremely pessimistic view of humanity that I simply do not share.
It is a huge jump, because the lawful orders he’s referring to were morally repugnant and against all standards of human decency. Enforcing this curfew is not remotely the same.
None so blind as will not see. Ask the people living in the ghettos of Baltimore or Ferguson whether they feel like they live in a police state. Just because you are comfortable and feel safe does not mean that all do. Where is the bar before you will fess up and declare a police state?
2 Likes
You’re very keen on “lawful orders” aren’t you?
Burke was wrong: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” should read “… is for good men to do what they’re told.”
3 Likes
