Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Use of Excessive Force Laws?  (Read 25842 times)

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2002, 01:10:49 pm »

IMO, the state should never file charges against people.  Only the victim of a crime should bring charges (or his wife or insurance company or whatever).

what would happen to a serial killer who went around killing only people with no next of kin? (no insurance to pay out).

also...

if a man steals your laptop. you shoot at him and miss/injure him. he shoots you back believing his life to be in danger. he kills you.

would he be in the right? remember: he only stole your possessions, whilst you made an attempt on his life.
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2002, 01:20:11 pm »


If he's threatening you in that way, though, I don't think there's any way you can trust that he would leave peacefully.  In a case like that, I don't think anyone could be blamed for using lethal force against the aggressor.


For sake of argument, can't we make the assumption that you know him to be telling the truth:  that if you just let him go, nobody will get hurt?

Charles
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2002, 01:29:11 pm »


IMO, the state should never file charges against people.  Only the victim of a crime should bring charges (or his wife or insurance company or whatever).

what would happen to a serial killer who went around killing only people with no next of kin? (no insurance to pay out).


You are making the argument that the taxpayers should involuntarily pay for this "public" service?  I can think of two alternatives: (1) voluntary charity that pays for charges to be filed in cases of the murder of homeless people or whatever, (2) a person can take out an insurance policy that will pay for the investigation/prosecution in the event that he is murdered.  The policy could state what is to be done with any monetary damages collected.

Another option could be that perhaps companies could prosecute in such cases and somehow collect a fee for themselves out of collected damages.  I'd have to think this through though.

The problem with the state bringing charges is that it opens the door to the state prosecuting on behalf of the state (in other words, nobody).  Also, it requires that other people be taxed or otherwise charged to pay for this "free" service.

Quote

if a man steals your laptop. you shoot at him and miss/injure him. he shoots you back believing his life to be in danger. he kills you.

would he be in the right? remember: he only stole your possessions, whilst you made an attempt on his life.


Why do you say "only"?  As though theft is irrelevant.  I'd say he is certainly not in the right.  He created the situation by robbing you.  He is guilty of theft and murder.

Charles
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2002, 03:35:16 pm »

Quote
You are making the argument that the taxpayers should involuntarily pay for this "public" service?  I can think of two alternatives: (1) voluntary charity that pays for charges to be filed in cases of the murder of homeless people or whatever, (2) a person can take out an insurance policy that will pay for the investigation/prosecution in the event that he is murdered.  The policy could state what is to be done with any monetary damages collected.

Another option could be that perhaps companies could prosecute in such cases and somehow collect a fee for themselves out of collected damages.  I'd have to think this through though.


Justice cannot be privatized.  Private justice would be abused and would lead to anarchy followed by Warlords, Feudal lords, and Dictators of other sorts who could 'afford' a more powerful justice.  For a state to remain within the rule of law, the offenders of the law must be prosecuted even if the plaintiff is not able to prosecute it.  If this is not the case then we are not providing equal protection under the law, which is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution.

(edited due to my inability to handle quotes)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 03:40:26 pm by maestro »
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2002, 05:17:34 pm »


Justice cannot be privatized.  Private justice would be abused and would lead to anarchy followed by Warlords, Feudal lords, and Dictators of other sorts who could 'afford' a more powerful justice.  For a state to remain within the rule of law, the offenders of the law must be prosecuted even if the plaintiff is not able to prosecute it.  If this is not the case then we are not providing equal protection under the law, which is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution.


I'm not saying the courts should be privatized, simply that investigations and prosecutions should not be taxpayer funded.  I don't see why this is equivalent to anarchy.  The state is still the only entity allowed to initiate force (warrants and arrests) or to punish/fine/imprison people.  This is a far cry from anarchy, under which private courts can implement their own versions of justice.

Also remember that court and lawyer fees are paid by the loser in court cases, so if you have a solid case, a lawyer would likely take it without fee, knowing that he'd get paid after the case was settled.

Regarding the constitution, are we debating what the constitution says, or how it ought to be?  Besides, do you really think the framers of the constitution would intend for thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to be spent to investigate the murder of a homeless guy?  (I'm asking)

Charles
Logged

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2002, 05:35:21 pm »

Why do you say "only"?  As though theft is irrelevant.  I'd say he is certainly not in the right.  He created the situation by robbing you.  He is guilty of theft and murder.

I'm not saying that it is irrelevant. But there is no way you could class theft in the same class as murder.

If you hadn't shot at him he wouldn't have killed you. He was acting in self defence. Would you expect him to stand by and get shot?
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2002, 06:00:40 pm »



Regarding the constitution, are we debating what the constitution says, or how it ought to be?  Besides, do you really think the framers of the constitution would intend for thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to be spent to investigate the murder of a homeless guy?  (I'm asking)

Charles


Ok.  perhaps I was barking up the wrong tree here.  

I still think that thousands of taxpayer money spent on investigating the murder of a homeless guy is well spent.  Unless the murderer is a serial killer who only hunts homeless guys, removing a criminal is always in our best interest.  As such, if the law (and its investigators) protect _any_ person, then they must protect all equally.  This is merely another form of defense of the individual undertaken by the state against assault by others, which is the one form of law that we _have_ agreed (I think) is a valid one.
Logged

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2002, 06:01:44 pm »


Quote
author=5pectre
If you hadn't shot at him he wouldn't have killed you. He was acting in self defence. Would you expect him to stand by and get shot?


So the robber killed me in self defense? Now theres an interesting twist for ya. ;D

Actually I would say I was in the wrong, but for entirely different reasons. I should have spent more time on the range, and less time typing. 8)


On this issue, you and I are in total agreement. All ready on the firing range. Ready on the left, ready on the right. You may commence firing!
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

catsRus

  • Guest
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2002, 06:30:20 pm »


Quote
author=catsRus
I think lethal force is legal in Texas for property crimes in some instances, might want to compare their stats with a state that doesnt.


I've seen similar stats listed on some pro-gun sites. Thing is, its a given that most criminals would prefer unarmed victims, and in the absence of that, victims that can't legally shoot them.

I strongly suspect that, if such were to know that they stood a fair chance of being shot for ripping folks off, they would prefer to locate somewhere with different laws.


Totally agree, no better deterrant than having to wonder if your victim is armed and knowing the state is not anti self defence.

The line form the eastwood movie sounds appropriate here

"Ask youre self,do I feel lucky today?"  8)
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2002, 10:12:02 pm »


Why do you say "only"?  As though theft is irrelevant.  I'd say he is certainly not in the right.  He created the situation by robbing you.  He is guilty of theft and murder.

I'm not saying that it is irrelevant. But there is no way you could class theft in the same class as murder.

If you hadn't shot at him he wouldn't have killed you. He was acting in self defence. Would you expect him to stand by and get shot?


Let me get this straight:  he robs me and when I try to stop him, he kills me in self defense?  I don't buy it.  Would you agree that I am at least justified to shoot the guy in the leg to stop him?  If so, then I am doing something within my rights and he is beyond his rights to shoot me back, much less kill me.

Charles
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2002, 10:20:21 pm »


I still think that thousands of taxpayer money spent on investigating the murder of a homeless guy is well spent.  Unless the murderer is a serial killer who only hunts homeless guys, removing a criminal is always in our best interest.  As such, if the law (and its investigators) protect _any_ person, then they must protect all equally.  This is merely another form of defense of the individual undertaken by the state against assault by others, which is the one form of law that we _have_ agreed (I think) is a valid one.


I thought that all libertarians agreed that the goal is to have no coercion.  How can you justify taxing me to pay for criminal investigations for others?  Your argument about the investigation being in my best interest is applied by enemies of liberty all the time to advocate public health programs, public education, welfare, you name it.  It should be up to me to decide whether it is in my best interest to chase after a criminal that harmed somebody else.

Actually there is a huge ancap movement that doesn't agree that the government should provide defense for individuals.  I'm not in that camp, but I am opposed to coercive taxation.

Charles
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2002, 12:29:46 am »



I still think that thousands of taxpayer money spent on investigating the murder of a homeless guy is well spent.  Unless the murderer is a serial killer who only hunts homeless guys, removing a criminal is always in our best interest.  As such, if the law (and its investigators) protect _any_ person, then they must protect all equally.  This is merely another form of defense of the individual undertaken by the state against assault by others, which is the one form of law that we _have_ agreed (I think) is a valid one.


I thought that all libertarians agreed that the goal is to have no coercion.  How can you justify taxing me to pay for criminal investigations for others?  Your argument about the investigation being in my best interest is applied by enemies of liberty all the time to advocate public health programs, public education, welfare, you name it.  It should be up to me to decide whether it is in my best interest to chase after a criminal that harmed somebody else.

Actually there is a huge ancap movement that doesn't agree that the government should provide defense for individuals.  I'm not in that camp, but I am opposed to coercive taxation.

Charles


You are not being taxed to pay for the criminal investigation _for_ others.  You are paying to remove a direct threat to _your_ life and property.  It just _happens_ that he struck the someone else before you.  After all, it does the dead man no good for the criminal to be hunted down.  It helps only those who still live near the criminal.  If there is _no_ police investigation then the physically weak and quaky of hand have _no_ defense.  While it should be every person's right to defend themselves, we should not remove the defense of those who are not capable of defending themselves.  If we do so, then we have removed the rule of law and and will be ruled by the man with the biggest fist or the quickest draw.

The existence of police investigation of crime and a justice system to punish and deter that crime is critical to the maintenance of a civil and just society.  

To answer a previous question, I do not speak of the constitution as it should be but only as it is, because I believe the constitution to be the most complete and effective governmental document ever created.  Many ammendments have led the government astray, but the original constitution describes what appears to be as perfect a form of government as we are capable of creating.  I am willing to acknowledge a better form of government if you can show me one that does not falter due to human nature.  Indeed, the government in the constitution falls similarly, as we see now, but only with great effort and significant time does it fall.
Logged

5pectre

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 322
  • terrorism is the symptom not the disease -1.5/-7.7
    • home
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2002, 01:40:26 am »

Let me get this straight:  he robs me and when I try to stop him, he kills me in self defense?  I don't buy it.  Would you agree that I am at least justified to shoot the guy in the leg to stop him?  If so, then I am doing something within my rights and he is beyond his rights to shoot me back, much less kill me.

I would agree with you that you are in the right to shoot him to retrieve your stuff (i.e. shot in the leg to stop him running away). he would have no legal recourse on this. I would not agree that you have a right to kill him (with a missed shot or deliberate shot). If it was a missed shot then you should as they say have spent more time at the range :)

If someone shot at you and you had a gun, would you shoot back? And would that shot be in self defense?

If so then why, if he is being shot at, why should his shots not be in self defense?
Logged

Cliff

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
  • What are you looking at?
    • Unlimited Freedom of Speech
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2002, 10:50:30 am »


I believe the constitution to be the most complete and effective governmental document ever created.  Many ammendments have led the government astray, but the original constitution describes what appears to be as perfect a form of government as we are capable of creating.  I am willing to acknowledge a better form of government if you can show me one that does not falter due to human nature.  Indeed, the government in the constitution falls similarly, as we see now, but only with great effort and significant time does it fall.


The US Constitution is pretty good, but it has some built-in weak spots such as allowing taxation and the regulating of the economy. Those powers, perhaps more than anything else, have led to the corruption we see today.

As to excessive force laws: Each case needs to be judged individually, based on the principle of non-initiation of force, the right of self-defense, and the question of what is necessary force for a given situation. I often lean toward anarchism, but it seems we'll still need judges, juries, and lawyers of some kind.

Cliff
Logged
http://freespeech.org/unlimitedfreedom/

"A free society, in the long run, will only prove as strong as the principles that underly it." - Robert Hawes

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Use of Excessive Force Laws?
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2002, 10:58:47 am »


You are not being taxed to pay for the criminal investigation _for_ others.  You are paying to remove a direct threat to _your_ life and property.  It just _happens_ that he struck the someone else before you.  


On this basis, you could justify public funding of healthcare expenses, right?  You don't want a bunch of diseased people infecting you later.  I think this is a total "slippery slope".  If you allow the state to tax me for things that are "in my best interest", there is no end to it.

Quote
After all, it does the dead man no good for the criminal to be hunted down.  It helps only those who still live near the criminal.  If there is _no_ police investigation then the physically weak and quaky of hand have _no_ defense.  While it should be every person's right to defend themselves, we should not remove the defense of those who are not capable of defending themselves.  If we do so, then we have removed the rule of law and and will be ruled by the man with the biggest fist or the quickest draw.


You are flopping back and forth.  Do you want to tax me because it's in my best interest, or because you feel sorry for the poor person who got shot?  As you say, it does the poor dead person no good to investigate and prosecute.  If you are supposedly doing it "for me", why can't I decide for myself?  If you are doing it because you feel bad for the poor, you need to explain why you have this arbitrary stopping point.  Why is being protected from criminals more important than being fed when you are starving, or clothed when you are freezing?

I'm not exactly following your last few sentences: "While it should be every person's right to defend themselves, we should not remove the defense of those who are not capable of defending themselves.  If we do so, then we have removed the rule of law and and will be ruled by the man with the biggest fist or the quickest draw."

There would still be rule of law, same as now.  I'm only suggesting that criminal investigations and prosecutions not be taxpayer funded.  I certainly am not advocating that everyone personally provide for their own defense by carrying an UZI everywhere they go.  You can hire private security and insurance services.  The "problem" you are raising concern about is that for some reason people might decide to go kill homeless people because they know they can't afford these services.  

Of course, in reality, I doubt the police currently spend any real time trying to solve murders involving homeless people.

Quote

The existence of police investigation of crime and a justice system to punish and deter that crime is critical to the maintenance of a civil and just society.  


You are asserting this, but it's not obvious to me.

Charles
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up