If the abused wife is for some weird reason standing in the doorway trying to prevent him from leaving his home, he has the right to hit her.

I agree that the police should try to limit their use of force, and I didn’t like the early pepper spray video because, without the context of the surrounded police transporting arrestees, it seemed grossly disproportionate. But I disagree that it has to be “the absolute minimum possible force.” Citizens do NOT have the right to obstruct or resist lawful police action, and there is no reason for those citizens to expect to be free from force when they decide to do so.

Let’s take this out of the cop context and try it on a citizen: if you and your buddies surround me and my family and tell me we can leave if my wife consents to sex with you (something that you certainly have the right to request, and she certainly has the right to do, and therefore is “more” lawful than the demand that arrestees be released), you’re not going to be free from use of force, and what’s more, no sane Agitator commenter would object that you were just “passively” preventing us from leaving and not “actively” using force. If you wind up getting shot, no sane DA is going to charge that. Why shouldn’t cops have the right to use a lower level of force when similarly unlawfully detained in the performance of their legitimate duties?

There were alternatives, I agree. But this was a reasonable use of force under the circumstances, even if it wasn’t the minimum theoretically possible force.

If property rights (and ethics in general) derived from human nature then, given that all action is in accord with nature, all human actions would be ethical and property rights-respecting by definition.

They’re not derived entirely from human nature, but then I also said specifically that property rights were derived. You were the one who said “ethics in general.” I didn’t carry they argument that far. Part of moral philosophy is to ensure the functioning of a thing according to its nature and purpose. Property rights reflect fundamental aspects of the make up of the human psyche an animal.

That aside, even if a woman has ownership of her body, it doesn’t logically follow that she can use deadly force against an unwanted guest. Abortion is a nuanced issue which cannot be succinctly summed up in a pithy one liner. There are various aspects where it does come down to a difference in world views (such as whether rape victims can claim some right to abort). However, part of the problem with abortion is that most abortions are caused by sexual acts a woman wanted. The baby was created by her voluntary actions. Libertarian thought by necessity must way her responsibility in that scenario against whatever property rights she has in her body otherwise it would be a sort of resurrection of Pater Familias on the maternal side of things.

We should probably stop this lest we threadjack things too far.

–The commentator claimed that “Telling police you will let them leave if they release people they have arrested is ‘a threatening action’.” In what way? Were the police in any danger? Were they threatened with any violence or repercussion if they refused to comply with the crowd’s demands? They were ‘restrained’ by the crowd for less than 20 minutes. If they had waited a few hours without releasing their arrestees, do you think anything at all would have happened to them?

How can you have a threat without a claimed consequence?

–I watched as police approached from OUTSIDE the student cordon, including bringing a police car up to within a few yards. At this point, there were fewer than a dozen students actually blocking the path. Is there any reason the police could not have simply arrested each of those students, one at a time, clearing the path while forming their own wall to keep the path clear? In order to block them again, the students would then have had to move from passive resistance to ACTIVE resistance, at which point the police would be justified in use of force.

–The commentator said, “This could have been avoided had the protesters not attempted to trap the police and keep them from leaving.”

This is true…but that is not the ONLY way it could have been avoided. Why is the onus only on citizens to prevent the use of unnecessary force? Police saying “comply if you don’t want me to pepper spray you” is a lot like a man telling his abused wife “don’t make me hit you”.

Here is a post by a guy who I feel made some valid points about the police use of pepper spray. Even better was comment #6 (by someone calling themself Local Yokel), who points out what I believe would have been a much better and more justifiable way to handle the ousting of campers, if they felt it was really necessary.

http://www.smilepolitely.com/culture/an_achingly_rational_approach_to_the_uc_davis_pepper_spray_incident/

which has been presented where exactly?

Why don’t you answer the point I’ve now raised TWICE, and which was clear in Balko’s original piece: the evidence for UOF going up is crystal clear if you understand that USE OF SWAT IS USE OF FORCE. Definitionally.

Either admit that, in which case the enormous rise in the use of SWAT teams clearly proves the increase in UOF, or deny it clearly and unequivocably.

Either state that you’re wrong, or state that you honestly believe that one should not classify breaking someone’s property, threatening them with automatic weapons, killing their pets, setting off explosive devices in their home, and laying hands on them to force them facedown on the ground as “a use of force”.

And if you honestly believe that, you live on a different planet than most people. Because if I did those things to innocent people, I would be charged with a wide variety of crimes.

balko has made an unsupported assertion. apparently, unsupported assertions are fine if they are in accord with the prejudices and your metanarrative.

we probably agree that SWAT is used TOO often. but if the claim is that police UOF has been trending up, that’s fine, but support it with data.

which has been presented where exactly?

Way to go. Attack the poster, not the ideas. Typiical of people who lack the latter

you can count on a non-response from dunphy that addresses none of the points you raise; if you get any response at all…..

As I understand it, one of the rights citizens have in this country is the right be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As far as I am concerned, you do not have any right, nor does anyone, to say “well, just ’cause they got off doesn’t mean they’re not guilty”. In the eyes of the law, that is EXACTLY what it means. That is what it has to mean, unless people are going to be allowed to try cases in their own minds and determine guilty or innocence themselves, which I don’t believe they should do.

I am the FIRST to admit LOTS of innocents get arrested – and this happens FAR more often in the war on DOMESTIC VIOLENCE than the WOD. that’s because arrests are mandated in many situations. the average INNOCENT is far more likely to get ensnared in the WODV than the WOD.

I was not speaking about WOD vs. domestic violence…I was speaking of police work in general. That said, I believe it is normal to send standard uniformed officers to handle domestic violence, not a SWAT team with flashbangs and submachine guns, so I think the likelihood of an innocent person being subject to violence is much greater in WOD cases.

of course, i don’t believe in the WOD, but it’s much more likely the person being arrested pursuant to same DID the crime, than in the case of a domestic violence arrest.

If you mean that they technically broke a law, you’re probably correct. The problem is that:
a.) does that law even need to be enforced
b.) even if it does, is having your home broken into, your property damaged, your dogs killed, your family terrorized, and yourself subject to possible physical injury (from being handcuffed, from flashbangs or accidental shootings, etc) WITHOUT TRIAL a fair and appropriate punishment?

regardless, the point is that USING FORCE IS NOT THE DEFAULT

Do you dispute that deploying a SWAT team to serve standard warrants on nonviolent offenders is a default practice in many law-enforcement agencies?

Because in my eyes, ANY USE OF A SWAT TEAM IS A USE OF FORCE. When you use SWAT, there is often no attempt whatsoever to resolve the situation without violence. Violence, in the form of door-breaking, property damage, threats with guns, physical grappling, and killing of animals, IS PART OF THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

those aren’t opinions. those are facts. clearly supported by a mountain of stats, and in my case – experience.

Would you mind providing me some citation of these facts? Ideally from a nonbiased, non law-enforcement source?

generally speaking it is much more difficult to deescalate a MOB, than an individual

I agree with this…which is why I don’t understand why SWAT is used more often against individuals than mobs, with no attempt to de-escalate.
Use of a SWAT team is an automatic escalation of force, unless the perpetrator is already engaged in violence or the threat thereof.

Here is an interesting juxtaposition: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15735029

Can you imagine an unarmed police response to suspected terrorists in the United States?

Please keep up the great work.

But no, it doesn’t apply to rape.

Like most appeals to responsibility, this manages to be both a non sequitur and a red herring, and in any case doesn’t apply to pregnancies caused by rape.

Biology really has nothing to do with it, unless you’re saying that biology tells us that a woman’s body is not her property (perhaps you think it is the man’s, or the state’s, or perhaps it belongs to her offspring, though the latter would be a very novel theory). Note the argument in question says nothing one way or another about a fetus’s personhood; you can give an argument for evicting a trespasser without arguing that the trespasser isn’t human.

If property rights (and ethics in general) derived from human nature then, given that all action is in accord with nature, all human actions would be ethical and property rights-respecting by definition. But this is nonsense. There might be a duty to care for vulnerable or weak human beings (like children, and arguably infants/fetuses), but it doesn’t derive from biology, as a very brief empirical investigation will no doubt indicate: “Biology” shows us that women can and do terminate their pregnancies when it is convenient* to do so, and that, in general, the weak and vulnerable among our species are often ignored, exploited, abused, or outright cannibalized (figuratively or literally).

*The woman’s moral beliefs about abortion and expected social consequences, of course, factor into her cost-benefit analysis.

The basic facts of reproduction being generally pretty well known, I’m fond of saying this: You invite the penis in, you invite the fetus in.

(Aside on property rights: In Oregon, it is actually possible for your friend crashing on your couch “for a couple of days” or your children, after turning 18, to be legally considered renters, with all the tenant rights that implies, including proper notice and the requirement of court involvement before you change the locks)

I still don’t know if I buy that argument myself, or that even if I did if it would justify all abortion practices, but it is an argument that upholds the woman’s autonomy without dehumanizing the fetus, at least no moreso than any other factual description of an uninvited intruder.

I don’t think biology would support that, and people being the idiots that most people are, would naturally evolve that into a direction that would involve other uncivilized behaviors like a “right to abandon” a child that is now an inconvenience. A key part of the reason why Ron Paul’s brand of libertarianism meets such enthusiastic support among non-libertarians (I know a lot of average joe conservatives and liberals who like him a lot) is that his brand of libertarianism is practical in areas like this. AFAIK, he’s pro-life and admits that biology trumps property rights (as property rights exist to serve human nature, which is founded in our biology).

I tend to lean more conservative these days, but I say to other conservatives:

1. I am anti-police militarization because I am pro-life.
2. I am anti-torture because I am pro-life.
3. I am anti-abortion because I am pro-life.

Being pro-life means more than just supporting an end to abortion. It means supporting an entire legal regime that respects the right to live of all human beings in all of their variations from cradle to grave.

There is, sort of. You can just say he or she is an uninvited intruder on the woman’s property (in this case, her body) that she has a right to eject in the manner safest and most convenient for her, with no (or minimal) concern for the intruder’s safety. I still don’t know if I buy that argument myself, or that even if I did if it would justify all abortion practices, but it is an argument that upholds the woman’s autonomy without dehumanizing the fetus, at least no moreso than any other factual description of an uninvited intruder. I agree that it’s (usually) a cruel and callous thing to do, even if it is fully justified.

heck, just a few years ago, not too long after my agency got them, i would hear VERY frequently on the radio “radio, we have a taser deployment. can we get a sgt. to the scene?”

i hear it very very rarely now. that’s anecdotal, but the difference is staggering.

several reasons why.

1) court decisions, such as the recent 9th circuit decision (which imo was an EXCELLENT DECISION
2) dept’s REWRITING their UOF policies such that tasers are not justified in certain circ’s where they usually were
3) increasing the paperwork required when a taser is deployed.. lol. it’s true that if you want cops to do something less, make them write paperwork
4) the “new toy” factor, as childish as that sounds, exists, and that has subsided

i’ve carried one over 8 yrs and never had to decide to pull the trigger, but i have gotten voluntary compliance from subjects who, having been tased before, saw the taser and the little red dot on their chest and said “fuck it”. that’s a wonderfully effective tool – compliance gained. nobody hurt.

and those don’t usually go into the stats – compliance gained WITHOUT a fight BECAUSE of the taser

one of my coworkers tased a 65 yr old guy who kicked at one of them a few years ago. i was there. the guy was old, and it was a weak-ass kick.

was it LEGALLY justified? yes. would *i* have done it? hell no!

i suggest that willingness to tase has subsided substantially in the last couple of years. it is now, almost always, being deployed properly, with proper restraint

in regards to noncompliance, GENERALLY speaking, for a nonviolent offense , as per the 9th, taser use is not justified for mere noncompliance or even most cases of passive AND active resistance.