I'm personally no fan of police. I'd much rather prefer maximized self-defence capabilities. The riots could never have taken place if people weren't completely disarmed and helpless, having to rely on the police who abandoned and betrayed them.
But sure, clear laws would be great, but there are 2 issues: Cases are often nuanced, sometimes complex - there can be many factors in play, and you want to judge people individually based on what they did. And the 2nd issue is that legislators, lawyers, courts all thrive from complexity in the law system. The harder it gets to be understood, the more people have to rely on lawyers, and the higher the scope of judge's sentences.
Police are a necessary part of the equation. We don’t live in a society of unlimited freedom. We impose our collective will on everyone through laws, and must have the ability to enforce compliance, or some wouldn’t comply.
The fact we’ve allowed non-compliance to become the rule, not the exception, is the problem. No criminal’s life is important enough that the cop should have to risk their life or injury to arrest you. It’s not worth a paper cut. You’d be surprised how quickly the resisting, running, etc would stop if they knew there would be no warnings, no tasers, no chase.
It's not non-compliance that is the core at the problem. It's Marxism and Socialism and the subversive process that progresses towards them. People become degenerate, commit more crime, become more violent, or just generally get a lot of societal support for their bad behaviors.
No criminal’s life is important enough that
But the police doesn't know who is criminal or not. Knowing that with certainty is a luxury many do not have. There are also plenty of instances where people are treated unlawfully, are innocent, were just pranked or where cops are actually corrupt or intentionally abusive. Power corrupts, and that is true on ALL levels in society.
What you describe sounds almost like a Soviet Union type police state nightmare, where 100% obedience is demanded by default to the police and all authorities, even if they exert unconstitutional or unlawful actions. Resistance - be it passive or active - is an important concept, and also the reason why the 2A exists in the first place. The Democrat controlled states are TYRANNICAL right now. If you are part of their little group (BLM, Democrat, Antifa), you can do whatever you want. If you resist, you get persecuted. The police are ordered to stand back and let the Bolsheviks do whatever they want.
Police don’t need to prove their case for an arrest. That’s for the courts. They only need probable cause. You don’t get to “opt out” and decide when arresting YOU, they have to have a jury there ready to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
a handful of states have laws that allow citizens to use reasonable proportional force to resist an unlawful arrest.
But in reality, the usefulness of that law would be primarily as an affirmative defense. If the officer doesn't believe that her arrest is unlawful any such law granting citizens the right to resist an unlawful arrest doesn't grant the Defendant a magical shield of nonarrestability.
The Defendant is still potentially deceased with the cold comfort of a civil suit to provide future financial support for his family.
Cops exist so that the law is more than just words on paper.
A civilian shooting another civilian because they say their rights were being violated by the other is just an argument. With guns.
When you get to a judge and they say that "yeah that guy is right", it means nothing if the judge just refers to the civilian to "take them away".
Make no mistake. Cops are the pointy end of the law. It's their job to implement consequences. It's the people's job to take tyrants off the seat of power.
I am not saying the police should be abolished or is redundant. I am merely saying that an increase of power to the police as silvershibe suggested is not the right solution - letting people arm themselves however is (or rather stopping to disarm them so vehemently). Self-defence and deterrence are two major factors than can solve crimes before and when they occur.
I really won't want to deal with police who can just conveniently shoot me if I run away from them. What if I have a morally good reason or if it's amoral to persecute me for something they want to? And what if they just lie about me running away? Power corrupts.
"There is nothing to fear if you are innocent" is very naive, and is exactly what lead tens of millions of people in the Soviet Union and China to be arrested by some type of police and inevitably get shipped to gulags. They even arrested innocent people in hand's reach because they had to fulfill arrest quotas. And the arrest -> incarceration rate was 100%.
I am all for executing criminal scum - even thieves. But NOT by empowering the hand of the government.
I'm personally no fan of police. I'd much rather prefer maximized self-defence capabilities. The riots could never have taken place if people weren't completely disarmed and helpless, having to rely on the police who abandoned and betrayed them.
But sure, clear laws would be great, but there are 2 issues: Cases are often nuanced, sometimes complex - there can be many factors in play, and you want to judge people individually based on what they did. And the 2nd issue is that legislators, lawyers, courts all thrive from complexity in the law system. The harder it gets to be understood, the more people have to rely on lawyers, and the higher the scope of judge's sentences.
Police are a necessary part of the equation. We don’t live in a society of unlimited freedom. We impose our collective will on everyone through laws, and must have the ability to enforce compliance, or some wouldn’t comply.
The fact we’ve allowed non-compliance to become the rule, not the exception, is the problem. No criminal’s life is important enough that the cop should have to risk their life or injury to arrest you. It’s not worth a paper cut. You’d be surprised how quickly the resisting, running, etc would stop if they knew there would be no warnings, no tasers, no chase.
It's not non-compliance that is the core at the problem. It's Marxism and Socialism and the subversive process that progresses towards them. People become degenerate, commit more crime, become more violent, or just generally get a lot of societal support for their bad behaviors.
But the police doesn't know who is criminal or not. Knowing that with certainty is a luxury many do not have. There are also plenty of instances where people are treated unlawfully, are innocent, were just pranked or where cops are actually corrupt or intentionally abusive. Power corrupts, and that is true on ALL levels in society.
What you describe sounds almost like a Soviet Union type police state nightmare, where 100% obedience is demanded by default to the police and all authorities, even if they exert unconstitutional or unlawful actions. Resistance - be it passive or active - is an important concept, and also the reason why the 2A exists in the first place. The Democrat controlled states are TYRANNICAL right now. If you are part of their little group (BLM, Democrat, Antifa), you can do whatever you want. If you resist, you get persecuted. The police are ordered to stand back and let the Bolsheviks do whatever they want.
Police don’t need to prove their case for an arrest. That’s for the courts. They only need probable cause. You don’t get to “opt out” and decide when arresting YOU, they have to have a jury there ready to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
a handful of states have laws that allow citizens to use reasonable proportional force to resist an unlawful arrest.
But in reality, the usefulness of that law would be primarily as an affirmative defense. If the officer doesn't believe that her arrest is unlawful any such law granting citizens the right to resist an unlawful arrest doesn't grant the Defendant a magical shield of nonarrestability.
The Defendant is still potentially deceased with the cold comfort of a civil suit to provide future financial support for his family.
Cops exist so that the law is more than just words on paper.
A civilian shooting another civilian because they say their rights were being violated by the other is just an argument. With guns.
When you get to a judge and they say that "yeah that guy is right", it means nothing if the judge just refers to the civilian to "take them away".
Make no mistake. Cops are the pointy end of the law. It's their job to implement consequences. It's the people's job to take tyrants off the seat of power.
I am not saying the police should be abolished or is redundant. I am merely saying that an increase of power to the police as silvershibe suggested is not the right solution - letting people arm themselves however is (or rather stopping to disarm them so vehemently). Self-defence and deterrence are two major factors than can solve crimes before and when they occur.
I really won't want to deal with police who can just conveniently shoot me if I run away from them. What if I have a morally good reason or if it's amoral to persecute me for something they want to? And what if they just lie about me running away? Power corrupts.
"There is nothing to fear if you are innocent" is very naive, and is exactly what lead tens of millions of people in the Soviet Union and China to be arrested by some type of police and inevitably get shipped to gulags. They even arrested innocent people in hand's reach because they had to fulfill arrest quotas. And the arrest -> incarceration rate was 100%.
I am all for executing criminal scum - even thieves. But NOT by empowering the hand of the government.