Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack.
The penalty for false accusations is something pathetic, like 1 year.
Initiate the violence.
Don't pay your property taxes, and ignore summons, etc? Eventually someone will show up at your door to toss you out of your house. If you just sit on your couch and say "nuh huh" eventually they will violently throw you out. If you use self defense to stop the violence, they'll simply kill you or incapacitate you.
Grow a funny plant in the wrong state? Eventually, if they find out, men with guns will bust into your house. They won't be 'self-defending' you into your custody, they will be initiating the violence against you to take you.
While self defense is 'violence' I think a lot of us just almost "don't count it." Self defense is more like stopping the violence, IMO.
You may not be a fan of killing over stolen property, but depending on the situation and state it is completely allowed. I think some states even allow you to kill a person who stole something from you while they are running away.
This means the initiation of physical violence can be initiated by you as well and be considered just.
Laws regarding weed are more nuanced, but it doesn't change that individuals can under certain circumstances initiate physical violence towards somebody legitimately.
I'm not aware of any state that allows you to use violence to collect on a contract, however. IF you see taxes as satisfaction of the social contract or whatever. It's hard for me to argue failure to pay taxes as theft; I'd call it more of failure to pay for an involuntary contract. IMO it would be much more appropriately be classified as a civil offense than a criminal one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc
And get away with it as a "justified" killing. Any regular person in the same situation would have been convicted of murder.
If you are civilian and are detaining a person for a just cause like they were trying to kill you or something (Daniel had been pointing a gun out of a window so it is reasonable to think he may try to kill somebody) and the person reached to his back like that you might not be convicted if you shoot them.
It seems to me like you are making the assumption that a civilian would be convicted. Do you have any examples for the same situation?
Oh, and cops are civilians, too. They just like to pretend otherwise, with that whole "sheepdog" insanity. And, unfortunately, in US, we've normalized this. But anyway, a non-cop would be convicted of assault already at the point they aimed a rifle at another person and told them to crawl. That aside, if by some miracle a similar situation did emerge, I can't see how the shooter wouldn't be convicted, since the usual standard for self-defense by lethal means is "imminent threat of death or significant bodily harm", which is eminently not the case in the video. The fact that the cop customized his AR-15 with an engraved dust cover that said "you're fucked" is a cherry on top that does give you a hint regarding the general state of mind of that cop.
FWIW I carry myself and know many other people who do, and they were all universally appalled at this case, even more than your average person.
The victim clearly wasn't in a good position to shoot the cop even if he grabbed a gun. The cop would likely have had time to shoot, if necessary, if Daniel had pulled a gun. (Assuming the camera is the same perspective as his head).
There obviously wasn't an actual threat in this case but there was a perceived threat. The cop was there because Daniel was being reckless with a gun. I think that is the key reason why I am not sure there should be a conviction. Being reckless with a gun then reaching for your waist band / back when being told not to is clearly not a good thing to do.
I do think the cop is at fault for not giving clear directions, for contradicting his directions, etc. I'm not trying to victim blame or anything like that. I am saying I am not sure what the average person would do. You know he has a gun and he reached for the waist band. I think the average person would quite possibly shoot. I don't think the average person should be a cop just like I don't think this guy should be a cop.
Just to be clear you have the right to protect yourself or others from unjust violence not all violence. If you are about to murder somebody, another person does not have the right to stop a good Samaritan trying to stop the murder.
>> Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack.
> Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards
Surely the context of this exchange is whether a police officer who has been accused of a crime still should be on active duty? Also I didn’t say ”punish”, I said ”get rid of”, which is effectively what happens if a cop is taken off duty pending investigation and potential court case.
Simple as that. Even capital offences.
This doesn't mean that if a jury can't convict, the prosecution gets the punishment. Still need to be legally proven to have made false accusations.