Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

> 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".

View on HN

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.

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?

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.

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?

That’s a great example of a straw man argument. I especially like the way you start by acknowledging that the question is official misconduct but by the end of the sentence have flipped it to blame people for expecting law enforcement officers to follow the law.

Sure, much as yours was a great example of the perfectionist fallacy.

How would you identify an arrest by law enforcement to know whether or not you are obstructing it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 on news.ycombinator.com