Then the cops come back with more cops, or find a different route. And film it all, as always.
You see how this hypo is crashing and burning, right? In the end, you are just asking for a kinder, gentler arrest policy, but putting this behemoth system on top of it.
I don’t think you understand what the words “violent” or “force” mean.
Maybe. I’m certainly not sold on it.
How do you know when a “non-violent” offense may turn suddenly violent? ‘Minor’ traffic offenses may actually be done by those just leaving incredibly violent crimes.
I understand the thought behind the thread but it doesn’t solve the base problem. The base problem is the refusal of arrest. It doesn’t matter what it’s for.
We lost 2 police officers because they stood down in an attempt to defuse a situation. They were mowed down with complete indifference. Not so oddly there were no protestors with signs that said “officers matter”.
There ARE problems that can be fixed. Better arresting techniques. Better training.
we had 2 incidences in my state that involved the police responding to reports of someone waving around a gun. One was a guy in a Walmart and the other was a kid in a park. The decision process for both of these situations left a lot to be desired.
There remains a large amount of force used by the police in your proposed responses to the non-compliance of the non-violent offenders. Seizing property and forcing their way into the home/business of the non-compliant criminals are both uses of force that, at the least, rival that used in an arrest.
Just curious, what incident are you referring to? Or is this something personal?
You are on the right track. It is immoral, in my formulation, to use force unprovoked. What you are basically doing is revoking the right of police to act in a way that is contrary to the way the rest of society is expected to act. This is close to how advocates of competition in protection services describe how they think their system would behave, with one key difference. You have the police/government imposing sanctions on nonviolent offenders. In a free society, these sanctions would be voluntary. They would also be subject to contracts. For example, if Joe lives in an apartment building where prostitutes are banned, but he enlists prostitutes, he would be in violation of his contract. This would be a voluntary alternative to govt sanctions. If you contracted with a bank as a drug dealer, the bank could hold the right to sanction your account for these actions and others.
Also I could see another disagreement we might have. I assume there are some instances in which I see violence against property while you see nonviolence. If someone is wailing on Rob’s new boat with a sledgehammer, although nobody is in harms way, I would consider it ok for the police/protective service to subdue this person. You may too, but I’m not sure. In any case, this would be a point in which I would advocate for competition in the court system. The prevailing attitude in this case would manifest itself in the courts in the market.
So you believe it wiser to subdue every person who commits minor traffic offenses in order to catch a hypothetical violent offender. What you have done in using violence to subdue everyone is made violent offenders out of hundreds of police officers, and escalated hundreds of situations because “there was a chance”. Not seeing the logic if the idea is to reduce violence overall. I do see the logic if the idea is to hold a majority nonviolent society in deference to govt force.
One thing to take into account is that physical arrest is not a necessary element in investigating or prosecuting every crime. There are plenty of instances in which police do not arrest. They simply issue a charge and submit the matter to the prosecutor’s office to determine whether criminal action will be pursued.
In a huge number of such cases, there is no arrest or custodial component until after conviction and sentencing. So, as a matter of practicality, there’s nothing groundbreaking about the OP’s suggestion. It simply would alter a matter of police discretion to arrest in the case of minor crimes to a matter of mandatory non-arrest.
Arrest should only be used when it is necessary to take that person off the streets and into custody for some immediate and serious reason.
If judgement has been rendered that property you have in your possession is in fact not your property, but the plaintiff’s, the plaintiff may use any means to acquire the property. If you hold someone’s property without permission you are committing a coercive act, which validates a coercive act in response. If the plaintiff uses overly punitive means, he could be sanctioned by society. For example, his employer may not want that kind of publicity.
it was 2 separate events years apart. One was an officer responding to a guy who took a shot at his girl friend. They chased him down and it ended in a standoff. The officer put down her gun as a show of faith and he shot her. She died a year or so later after many operations. The other was a sheriff investigating shots fired at a mobile home park and she was taking pictures of foot prints in the area. The shooter opened a door and shot her.
in 20/20 hindsight they both pretty much walked into it with a misplaced degree of trust.
But the hypo adds needless steps.
Arrest policy under the hypo:
- Commit non-violent crime.
- Police get arrest warrant and approach you.
- Refuse arrest.
- Police get civil forfeiture warrant to take cash from your home.
- You refuse to allow it.
- Police use reasonable force to subdue you to allow forfeiture, and now your arrest.
Current policy:
- Commit non-violent crime.
- Police get arrest warrant and approach you.
- You refuse to allow it.
- Police use reasonable force to subdue you to effectuate arrest.
There are fewer steps in the current policy and the new policy has an administrative boondoggle on top of it where people are flaunting the law openly. Also people without assets to seize will slip through the cracks.
It seems as if the only difference is the use of force allowed. We could argue the merits of that without imposing the situations mentioned in this thread that would allow open drug sales, non-taxed purchases, and prostitution to continue in elementary school parking lots to continue unabashed.
I think we’re talking about situations in which there is no warrant. Arrest warrants are issued when there is a specific reason for a person to be taken into custody. They are not mandatory in charging someone with a crime.
To paraphrase Jaws “You’re going to need a much bigger police force.”
The inability to use force to detain me under reasonable suspicion of committing a crime could hamper the initial on the spot investigation. They also couldn’t force me to submit to a search for officer safety at that point. The arrest that allows a search, based on probable cause is also out the window even if I would be released from custody at the end of it.
Nobody’s saying officers don’t matter, but its easy to see why one would garner a large protest movement and the other doesn’t. There’s more of us than there are officers, and many people of a particular race and/or socioeconomic group rightly fear being harmed unjustly by officers. With cops themselves, their deaths are usually not due to people treating them unfairly (that can be fixed), but because they failed to take the necessary precautions. One is controllable by the person themselves, one is not.
I’d consider it with some caveats. First is that police retain authority to detain and identify people accused of the low level non-violent crime. This will necessitate some level of force, and in some cases significant force, if the accused refuses to accept detainment or refuses to ID themselves.
Second is that disobeying subsequent court orders is an arrestable offense. Perhaps the methodology is to require the suspect, during their initial non-arrest citation, to sign an agreement to abide by the court order or be subject to forceful arrest.
I’d see this law working by designating a wide swath of non-violent crimes as “non-arrest”, giving tools and procedures to LEOs for them to deal with these crimes. Give a citation and court order to appear on XX date, rather than arresting. I’d prefer that to having cops attempt a ‘non-violent’ arrest.
Yes you are right. To adopt the OP’s suggestion while maintaining our current wishy-washy interpretations of property rights would be ineffectual, and there are other issues to be addressed such as the classification of certain voluntary exchanges as crimes.