Don’t support laws you are not willing to kill to enforce

[Wilikon]

[...]
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

[1714725514]

1714725514

[1714725514]

1714725514

[1714725514]

1714725514

[1714725514]

1714725514

[exoton]

I disagree with this ideology. There are plenty of laws that are not appropriate to kill to enforce. One prime example are the laws regarding speeding on the highways and roads. It is certainly not appropriate to give a speeder the death penalty (or to kill them if they do not stop their crime), however it is appropriate to ticket them and to cite them for breaking the law as doing so is a deterrent to others who will potentially speed, which can potentially put other lives at risk

[ObscureBean]

That's a tough stance considering there is no such thing as a perfect law. Also, I find it interesting that you seem to omit a natural(?) implication of your proposition. If you're willing to kill to enforce a law, shouldn't you also be willing to die to protect it?
On a side note, I know this cannot apply to human societies but I believe a law can only be perfect if it is self-enforcing and unapprehensible.

[Wilikon]

I disagree with this ideology. There are plenty of laws that are not appropriate to kill to enforce. One prime example are the laws regarding speeding on the highways and roads. It is certainly not appropriate to give a speeder the death penalty (or to kill them if they do not stop their crime), however it is appropriate to ticket them and to cite them for breaking the law as doing so is a deterrent to others who will potentially speed, which can potentially put other lives at risk

Speeders...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1XXSmdxpjY

[brian_23452]

[...]
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

Common sense tells us that you have created a nice little false dilemma here.  Obviously there is a sane, rational, third choice, which is that there is no reason so choke a man to death on the street for selling cigarettes. 

[Spendulus]

[...]
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

Common sense tells us that you have created a nice little false dilemma here.  Obviously there is a sane, rational, third choice, which is that there is no reason so choke a man to death on the street for selling cigarettes. 

Who said anything about common sense?  Buddy, we are talking about the USA police mentality here.

Where you WILL FIND CASES, MANY OF THEM....

where the initiating causative event that escalated into a police shooting was a guy walking down the middle of a busy street, obstructing traffic, a broken tail light lense, any number of small simple things.

Note this is complicated by the fact that officers are often tasked to pull people over or question them on small wrongdoings, actual or alleged, as on occassion this will result in discovery of bigger "crimes."

[brian_23452]

[...]
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

Common sense tells us that you have created a nice little false dilemma here.  Obviously there is a sane, rational, third choice, which is that there is no reason so choke a man to death on the street for selling cigarettes. 

Who said anything about common sense?  Buddy, we are talking about the USA police mentality here.

Where you WILL FIND CASES, MANY OF THEM....

where the initiating causative event that escalated into a police shooting was a guy walking down the middle of a busy street, obstructing traffic, a broken tail light lense, any number of small simple things.

Note this is complicated by the fact that officers are often tasked to pull people over or question them on small wrongdoings, actual or alleged, as on occassion this will result in discovery of bigger "crimes."

Right I understand what you are saying, but if you have police officers killing people for selling cigarettes on the street, the problem is with the police officers, not with the law. 

[exoton]

I disagree with this ideology. There are plenty of laws that are not appropriate to kill to enforce. One prime example are the laws regarding speeding on the highways and roads. It is certainly not appropriate to give a speeder the death penalty (or to kill them if they do not stop their crime), however it is appropriate to ticket them and to cite them for breaking the law as doing so is a deterrent to others who will potentially speed, which can potentially put other lives at risk

Speeders...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1XXSmdxpjY

I am not talking about street racing. I am talking about people who drive on public roads (when many other people are trying to use the same roads) at speeds that society has deemed unsafe

[painlord2k]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

Common sense tells us that you have created a nice little false dilemma here.  Obviously there is a sane, rational, third choice, which is that there is no reason so choke a man to death on the street for selling cigarettes. 

1) The policeman didn't choke him to dead. The fact he is telling them "I don't breathe" is telling he was breathing at the time and was conscious.
1-1) This imply any choke hold was not applied for more than a few seconds (not enough to do anything)
1-2) This imply any hold didn't prevent blood to reach the brain (he would pass out in few seconds and not be able to speak)

2) If he had collaborated with the police he would be get a ticket and would let go out. Or maybe arrested because he was on probation for previous sentences.
2-1) When he become uncooperative and then tried to go away, the cops (there were five and a black female sergeant) had no other option than to force him to submit.
2-2) Unless you advocate for policemen to have the power to arbitrarily enforce laws (different from "enforce arbitrary laws") the police could not avoid to give him a ticket or arrest him.

3) In the end the man died because he was very sick and his health failed him in a time of stress. Even his inability to comply with the orders and be reasonable could be referred to a chronic hypoxia, but health is not an excuse to break the laws.

What news papers and news shows and political hacks do not want is for people to understand that the first cause of this man dead is a stupid laws police was forced to enforce.
NY City/State have the highest taxes on cigarettes, so people smuggling cigarettes from nearby states and selling them on the streets outcompete the legal sellers of cigarettes.
The legal sellers then call the police to prevent this illegal competition from hurting their business.
Then the police have no other choice than enforce all laws, even the stupid ones.

The people guilt of this dead and of taking the freedom of people selling loose cigarettes on the street are the politicians people put in power at the state and city level.
Complaining how the police enforce these laws is like complaining about guns killing people without looking at the people holding the gun.

[Wilikon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

Common sense tells us that you have created a nice little false dilemma here.  Obviously there is a sane, rational, third choice, which is that there is no reason so choke a man to death on the street for selling cigarettes. 

1) The policeman didn't choke him to dead. The fact he is telling them "I don't breathe" is telling he was breathing at the time and was conscious.
1-1) This imply any choke hold was not applied for more than a few seconds (not enough to do anything)
1-2) This imply any hold didn't prevent blood to reach the brain (he would pass out in few seconds and not be able to speak)

2) If he had collaborated with the police he would be get a ticket and would let go out. Or maybe arrested because he was on probation for previous sentences.
2-1) When he become uncooperative and then tried to go away, the cops (there were five and a black female sergeant) had no other option than to force him to submit.
2-2) Unless you advocate for policemen to have the power to arbitrarily enforce laws (different from "enforce arbitrary laws") the police could not avoid to give him a ticket or arrest him.

3) In the end the man died because he was very sick and his health failed him in a time of stress. Even his inability to comply with the orders and be reasonable could be referred to a chronic hypoxia, but health is not an excuse to break the laws.

What news papers and news shows and political hacks do not want is for people to understand that the first cause of this man dead is a stupid laws police was forced to enforce.
NY City/State have the highest taxes on cigarettes, so people smuggling cigarettes from nearby states and selling them on the streets outcompete the legal sellers of cigarettes.
The legal sellers then call the police to prevent this illegal competition from hurting their business.
Then the police have no other choice than enforce all laws, even the stupid ones.

The people guilt of this dead and of taking the freedom of people selling loose cigarettes on the street are the politicians people put in power at the state and city level.
Complaining how the police enforce these laws is like complaining about guns killing people without looking at the people holding the gun.

NY State, killing people for saving them for smoking less?: Blue state. Illinois making a crime to tape a cop? Blue state. Not smart laws.

[brian_23452]

1) The policeman didn't choke him to dead. The fact he is telling them "I don't breathe" is telling he was breathing at the time and was conscious.

No one is disputing that at the beginning of the assault, he was alive.  If he had been dead to begin with we wouldn't be having this discussion.

1-1) This imply any choke hold was not applied for more than a few seconds (not enough to do anything)

Obviously, it *DID* do something!  He was alive and well until the choke hold was applied.  At which point he then died.  Regardless of your political affiliation or viewpoint, the fact that we are unable to agree on the most basic facts about what happened tell me this isn't going to be a productive conversation.

1-2) This imply any hold didn't prevent blood to reach the brain (he would pass out in few seconds and not be able to speak)

Or have a heart attack and die.  I mean, I find it strange that you discount that as a possibility, given the fact that that this is precisely what happened. 

2) If he had collaborated with the police he would be get a ticket and would let go out. Or maybe arrested because he was on probation for previous sentences.
2-1) When he become uncooperative and then tried to go away, the cops (there were five and a black female sergeant) had no other option than to force him to submit.

Well, no, that's the whole point.  It would have been a very simple matter for the police to simply ticket him (which is all this situation called for to begin with) and moved on.  At no point was there any need for them to "subdue" him.

2-2) Unless you advocate for policemen to have the power to arbitrarily enforce laws (different from "enforce arbitrary laws") the police could not avoid to give him a ticket or arrest him.

Again, no.  Ive commited minor traffic violations in the state of new york and at no point did the police ever feel the need to "detain" me.  They simply write the ticket and move on.  And if you don't stick around, which can happen sometimes with a parking ticket, I again never was "detained", they just write the ticket anyway. 

3) In the end the man died because he was very sick and his health failed him in a time of stress. Even his inability to comply with the orders and be reasonable could be referred to a chronic hypoxia, but health is not an excuse to break the laws.

Right, which is precisely why applying choke holds in the Empire State is illegal!  Because it sometimes leads to the victims' death, especially if the victim is in poor health to begin with (which the police are not in a position to evaluate).

What news papers and news shows and political hacks do not want is for people to understand that the first cause of this man dead is a stupid laws police was forced to enforce.

Again, no.  I have been pulled over in the state of new york on more then one occasion where I did not receive anything but a warning.  Just a week ago I littered in front of a police officer (I did not see him until after) and he didn't even say anything despite having seen it.   Fact is, the police have every ability to do whatever the heck they want.  They certainly aren't "forced" to uphold a "stupid" law.  It is a very common thing for the police in new york to not enforce certain laws.  Of course, a large part of that depends on the color of your skin. 

NY City/State have the highest taxes on cigarettes, so people smuggling cigarettes from nearby states and selling them on the streets outcompete the legal sellers of cigarettes.
The legal sellers then call the police to prevent this illegal competition from hurting their business.

Ah, now we get to the root of the matter.  Not entirely accurate of course.  See, it is illegal to purchase cigarettes individually in new york, you have to buy packs of 20.  Not because of taxes (they were sold this way back when the packs cost literally 1/10 what they do now) but because the tobacco companies don't want you to only buy one.  Ironically, "loosies" usually have been taxed at some point though they obviously don't have a tax stamp on them (wait a moment, weren't tax stamps one of those evil terrible things the British government did that caused Americans to revolt in the first place???). 

Then the police have no other choice than enforce all laws, even the stupid ones.

Of course they do, don't be silly.  The police in New York on a regular basis ignore countless offenses that they do not deem worthy of enforcement.  Littering, jay walking, numerous moving violations, public intoxication, the list goes on and on.  Saying that the police MUST enforce a law if it is on the books is silly, and anyone who has spent an hour there knows it to be false.

[exoton]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not-willing-to-kill-to-enforce/

Common sense tells us that you have created a nice little false dilemma here.  Obviously there is a sane, rational, third choice, which is that there is no reason so choke a man to death on the street for selling cigarettes. 

1) The policeman didn't choke him to dead. The fact he is telling them "I don't breathe" is telling he was breathing at the time and was conscious.
1-1) This imply any choke hold was not applied for more than a few seconds (not enough to do anything)
1-2) This imply any hold didn't prevent blood to reach the brain (he would pass out in few seconds and not be able to speak)

2) If he had collaborated with the police he would be get a ticket and would let go out. Or maybe arrested because he was on probation for previous sentences.
2-1) When he become uncooperative and then tried to go away, the cops (there were five and a black female sergeant) had no other option than to force him to submit.
2-2) Unless you advocate for policemen to have the power to arbitrarily enforce laws (different from "enforce arbitrary laws") the police could not avoid to give him a ticket or arrest him.

3) In the end the man died because he was very sick and his health failed him in a time of stress. Even his inability to comply with the orders and be reasonable could be referred to a chronic hypoxia, but health is not an excuse to break the laws.

What news papers and news shows and political hacks do not want is for people to understand that the first cause of this man dead is a stupid laws police was forced to enforce.
NY City/State have the highest taxes on cigarettes, so people smuggling cigarettes from nearby states and selling them on the streets outcompete the legal sellers of cigarettes.
The legal sellers then call the police to prevent this illegal competition from hurting their business.
Then the police have no other choice than enforce all laws, even the stupid ones.

The people guilt of this dead and of taking the freedom of people selling loose cigarettes on the street are the politicians people put in power at the state and city level.
Complaining how the police enforce these laws is like complaining about guns killing people without looking at the people holding the gun.

1 - you are right on this. plus just because someone says they cannot breathe does not mean that any less force should be used against you when the fore is necessary. If making this claim would force the police to use less force then making this claim would essentially be a get out of jail free card.

2. Right. There would be a good chance that he would be arrested and released on his own recognize by a judge.

3. - I can't really speak to how healthy he was, but he looked very much overweight which is generally an indication of someone not being healthy