Comment by timr

Comment by timr 6 months ago

> If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it?

Sure you do. Call the police. Record it, capture the details for evidence.

> Just stand back and watch?

Again, you're welcome to call the police. But no, you don't just get to rush in and start interfering because your sophisticated understanding of the circumstances as a complete nobody make you feel like Captain America.

> That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?

It's obviously not a "kidnapping". Nobody seriously believes that -- most obviously, Brad Lander, who wouldn't be screaming for a warrant from "kidnappers".

kevinh 6 months ago

A few days ago someone shot people while pretending to be a police officer. Someone impersonating ICE for kidnapping isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Reply View 13 replies

timr 6 months ago

Right. So your logic is: because someone, somewhere, once did something illegal while dressed as a police officer, we should interfere with every arrest, everywhere, because they might be fake police?
Or are you just restricting this logic to plainclothes officers, who aren't wearing uniforms at all?

Reply View | 5 replies
- acdha 6 months ago
  
  The argument being offered is that if the police follow the law, the problem goes away and there’s no impact on legitimate law enforcement activity.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  speakfreely 6 months ago
  
  So until every police officer follows the law, everywhere, in every instance, you believe anyone should be entitled to obstruct arrests if they disagree with the law?
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
apparent 6 months ago

Yes, and a few days ago some "peacekeepers" in UT tried to shoot someone whom they perceived to be a threat, and ended up shooting and killing a bystander nearby. Situations are complicated, and assuming you know what's going on, and that you can help, is presumptuous.

Reply View | 1 reply
- acdha 6 months ago
  
  That argument works better against the position: things which create confusion increase the odds of serious problems. Reducing uncertainty by having clear rules makes it safer for everyone: that “good guy with a gun” is far more likely to be involved in a tragic mistake not because they have any desire to be but because it’s a snap judgement with limited information and bystanders. Armed paramilitaries abducting people in a manner indistinguishable from a cartel kidnapping or police impersonation is dramatically increasing the risk to those officers snd everyone nearby for the same reason, and they’re not doing anything they couldn’t do without following the law with identification, serving legal warrants, etc.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
anon291 6 months ago

And a few days ago, some guy crossed a border with a young girl he passed off as his daughter when in reality he was a sex trafficker and going to sell the girl into sex slavery.
Since we're all clutching our pearls, we might as well clutch all of them.

Reply View | 4 replies
- disattention 6 months ago
  
  There seems to be a clear difference between criminals doing shady things and the government doing shady things. It seems like a false equivalency to compare an incident where a random guy does something terrible to one where law enforcement is rapturing people into the night while wearing masks.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  potato3732842 6 months ago
  
  What is law enforcement if not just random guys in uniform?
  If the same acts are/were committed (i.e. ditch the sex trafficking example because the .gov doesn't really do that) what makes their misdeeds not equivalent to those of the non-state actor?
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  TheCoelacanth 6 months ago
  
  The difference is that we have entrusted law enforcement with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and so we expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard to be worthy of the enormous power they exercise on our behalf.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- acdha 6 months ago
  
  The difference is that nobody is defending that guy, whereas misconduct by these officers is being defended by some people as a political tactic. There is no conflict in saying both things are bad, and indeed we teach kindergarteners that two wrongs don't make a right.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies