Tweet
Let's remember to take discussion down to Off Topic...
One of the most dismaying things about seeing the official response to protests against police violence, a response that all too often translates to “just obey the law and you won’t find yourself in a position where you’ll get hurt” is that this ignores what laws are actually for, why they are necessary to any civilized society, and why the lawlessness is on the other side of this issue as much as the one they insist is the problem.
To explain.
There was a time, not that long ago, when those in authority – royalty, the landed wealthy, aristocrats and their carefully selected officials – could pick up anyone and incarcerate them for as long as they desired without recourse to trial, charges, or reasonable cause. They could do whatever they liked to the citizenry, who were expected to simply bear those actions, and who had no recourse against them. No penalties were assessed for cruelty, murder, or other savageries.
When revolutions against that status quo erupted in France, North America and elsewhere, those tasked with designing new constitutions knew that these emerging nations had to be governments of laws, and that these laws were not simply for the purpose of punishing the guilty, but – and this is the part too often neglected in the current discourse – they were about protecting the innocent and restricting the over-reach of the state.
To wit:
Before the government could arrest anyone for anything, it first had to determine what was, in fact, illegal. They not only had to decide it, they had to codify it, in writing, so everyone could see it and nobody could be ambushed by a law springing up at the last moment or after the fact just for someone’s convenience. If it wasn’t codified as illegal…it wasn’t illegal.
If someone was arrested, the state would have to publically announce which of these laws was violated, by whom, and how. It would only have a limited time in which to do this, and they would have to actually prove that these laws were broken. It couldn’t just be their word against the accused. They would have to present evidence that was compelling and beyond a reasonable doubt, and there would be strict limitations regulating how that evidence could be gathered, and what could be legally introduced.
To make the process even more difficult, the state would have to make its case to members of the accused’s own community. After all that, if the state finally prevailed in this process, the penalties would also have to be publicly codified and specified before anyone was ever brought to trial.
These birthing governments chose to handcuff themselves, to make it more difficult, not simpler, to arrest its citizens. It was a remarkable achievement, potentially the most remarkable in human history. Such power had never been given away before.
That’s what it means to be a government based on laws…not just the prosecution of the guilty, but the protection of the innocent.
In recent months, we have seen a radical upswing in innocent or unarmed citizens gunned down, tasered, submitted to lethal chokeholds and beatings, generally without any kind of recourse or penalty against those responsible. This is a return to the kind of savagery associated with the abuses committed by aristocracy. It is clear and unambiguous evidence of a rogue police force no longer answerable to their community, but only to the state, whose orders trump the rights of its citizens.
It is, in short, the very sort of lawlessness that officials are accusing the protestors of facilitating.
“Just obey the law,” they say.
But the protests are not about lawlessness…if anything, they are about enforcing the rule of law, the principle that the innocent can go about their lives without fear of assault or abuse, and that citizens cannot simply be murdered without recourse, principles that were at the very core of the desire to found this country as a nation of laws.
The protests are not about dismantling the laws, but rather seeing them respected as they were originally meant to be respected, applied as they were meant to be applied, not just against civilians, but against abuses by the state.
If those charged with *enforcing* the laws do not themselves *abide* by the laws, the system crumbles.
And that is what these protests are about.
Somebody said that there's nothing anybody can do 'but whine'.
See posts, photos and more on Facebook.
Originally posted by Fans of J. Michael Straczynski
One of the most dismaying things about seeing the official response to protests against police violence, a response that all too often translates to “just obey the law and you won’t find yourself in a position where you’ll get hurt” is that this ignores what laws are actually for, why they are necessary to any civilized society, and why the lawlessness is on the other side of this issue as much as the one they insist is the problem.
To explain.
There was a time, not that long ago, when those in authority – royalty, the landed wealthy, aristocrats and their carefully selected officials – could pick up anyone and incarcerate them for as long as they desired without recourse to trial, charges, or reasonable cause. They could do whatever they liked to the citizenry, who were expected to simply bear those actions, and who had no recourse against them. No penalties were assessed for cruelty, murder, or other savageries.
When revolutions against that status quo erupted in France, North America and elsewhere, those tasked with designing new constitutions knew that these emerging nations had to be governments of laws, and that these laws were not simply for the purpose of punishing the guilty, but – and this is the part too often neglected in the current discourse – they were about protecting the innocent and restricting the over-reach of the state.
To wit:
Before the government could arrest anyone for anything, it first had to determine what was, in fact, illegal. They not only had to decide it, they had to codify it, in writing, so everyone could see it and nobody could be ambushed by a law springing up at the last moment or after the fact just for someone’s convenience. If it wasn’t codified as illegal…it wasn’t illegal.
If someone was arrested, the state would have to publically announce which of these laws was violated, by whom, and how. It would only have a limited time in which to do this, and they would have to actually prove that these laws were broken. It couldn’t just be their word against the accused. They would have to present evidence that was compelling and beyond a reasonable doubt, and there would be strict limitations regulating how that evidence could be gathered, and what could be legally introduced.
To make the process even more difficult, the state would have to make its case to members of the accused’s own community. After all that, if the state finally prevailed in this process, the penalties would also have to be publicly codified and specified before anyone was ever brought to trial.
These birthing governments chose to handcuff themselves, to make it more difficult, not simpler, to arrest its citizens. It was a remarkable achievement, potentially the most remarkable in human history. Such power had never been given away before.
That’s what it means to be a government based on laws…not just the prosecution of the guilty, but the protection of the innocent.
In recent months, we have seen a radical upswing in innocent or unarmed citizens gunned down, tasered, submitted to lethal chokeholds and beatings, generally without any kind of recourse or penalty against those responsible. This is a return to the kind of savagery associated with the abuses committed by aristocracy. It is clear and unambiguous evidence of a rogue police force no longer answerable to their community, but only to the state, whose orders trump the rights of its citizens.
It is, in short, the very sort of lawlessness that officials are accusing the protestors of facilitating.
“Just obey the law,” they say.
But the protests are not about lawlessness…if anything, they are about enforcing the rule of law, the principle that the innocent can go about their lives without fear of assault or abuse, and that citizens cannot simply be murdered without recourse, principles that were at the very core of the desire to found this country as a nation of laws.
The protests are not about dismantling the laws, but rather seeing them respected as they were originally meant to be respected, applied as they were meant to be applied, not just against civilians, but against abuses by the state.
If those charged with *enforcing* the laws do not themselves *abide* by the laws, the system crumbles.
And that is what these protests are about.
Originally posted by Fans of J. Michael Straczynski
That's the other danger of militarizing the police. Local officers from the community are answerable to that community; an invading army with tanks and assault rifles and APVs and immunity from prosecution is answerable only to itself.
Comment