The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[grumbler]

But really, Grumbler, if you need to ignore the obvious differences between the powers given to the police and those given to a citizen to apply force, you might want to reconsider the validity of your argument.

Look up "special pleading fallacy" and you will see why you should reconsider your argument.

Different groups have different powers not given to civilians at large, but you are claiming that the power to apply force uniquely creates a group that is neither civilian nor military... a claim you cannot back up with anything other than special pleading.

[Barrister]

But really, Grumbler, if you need to ignore the obvious differences between the powers given to the police and those given to a citizen to apply force, you might want to reconsider the validity of your argument.

Look up "special pleading fallacy" and you will see why you should reconsider your argument.

Different groups have different powers not given to civilians at large, but you are claiming that the power to apply force uniquely creates a group that is neither civilian nor military... a claim you cannot back up with anything other than special pleading.

At least he's using something.  You're just using argument by assertion.  You just repeat that civilian and military are opposites.  I maintain they are not - that military is just one of several things that fall in the category of "not civilian".

We're arguing the definition of a word - and yet somehow dictionary references aren't good enough for you... Yet you've offered no other argument to back you up.

[grumbler]

At least he's using something.  You're just using argument by assertion.  You just repeat that civilian and military are opposites.  I maintain they are not - that military is just one of several things that fall in the category of "not civilian".

We're arguing the definition of a word - and yet somehow dictionary references aren't good enough for you... Yet you've offered no other argument to back you up.

This is precisely argument by assertion.  I point out that international law and US law make no distinction between police and any other kind of civilian, and you point out that some dictionaries do, some don't, and some say that fireman are also a special non-civilian-non-military... groupthingywhatever, and then assert that your evidence is better than mine.  You can't even say what the criteria define these "several things that fall in the category of 'not civilian'" despite several tries.

We are arguing the changing definition of a word (civilian) and whether changing the definition is good or bad. 

Oh, and I've never claimed that "civilian and military are opposites," so don't try to lay that on my head.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler is well and truly down the rabbit hole BB - best to stop now.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I've been holding this mortar round for 51 hours, I'd really like to know if the police are legitimate military targets or not.

[Admiral Yi]

What charge(s) would y'all bring against the cop?

[Tonitrus]

As much as one might hesitate to do it...I have to side strongly with grumbler on this issue.

The arguments put out in favor of the civilian/police divide seem only to boil down to a desire for the distinction to exist.

- Dictionary definitions?  Ok, but these can easily evolve change with just common usage/changing times...or a simple evolution for the desire of the meanings of a word to change.  Too fungible.
- Uniforms and hierarchal structure?  These exist in plenty areas, both public and private.
- The ability to apply force on others and deprive them of freedom in accordance with the law?  There are circumstances where the so-called "civilians" can do so, even if perhaps with less leeway.  Judges can deprive you of freedom, backed by the law, but are not commonly thought of as not "civilians".  Even if they do use police to enforce those actions.

It just feels too much like one simply wants the distinction to exist, therefore it does, even if there is no tangible benefit to it existing.

BB mentioned the example of "police" vs. "civilian" witnesses.  What is the point of the distinction?  What would be the difference if they were all just "witnesses", but one was a police officer, and other was, say, a butcher?  Or a carpenter?  From where I stand (and I am open to be enlightened) on the outside, it looks like an attempt to imply that one is more authoritative and worthy of greater weight than the other...which seems very unlikely.

[11B4V]

What charge(s) would y'all bring against the cop?

Which one?

[Admiral Yi]

Which one?

Shot 13 year old.

[crazy canuck]

As much as one might hesitate to do it...I have to side strongly with grumbler on this issue.

The arguments put out in favor of the civilian/police divide seem only to boil down to a desire for the distinction to exist.

- Dictionary definitions?  Ok, but these can easily evolve change with just common usage/changing times...or a simple evolution for the desire of the meanings of a word to change.  Too fungible.
- Uniforms and hierarchal structure?  These exist in plenty areas, both public and private.
- The ability to apply force on others and deprive them of freedom in accordance with the law?  There are circumstances where the so-called "civilians" can do so, even if perhaps with less leeway.  Judges can deprive you of freedom, backed by the law, but are not commonly thought of as not "civilians".  Even if they do use police to enforce those actions.

It just feels too much like one simply wants the distinction to exist, therefore it does, even if there is no tangible benefit to it existing.

BB mentioned the example of "police" vs. "civilian" witnesses.  What is the point of the distinction?  What would be the difference if they were all just "witnesses", but one was a police officer, and other was, say, a butcher?  Or a carpenter?  From where I stand (and I am open to be enlightened) on the outside, it looks like an attempt to imply that one is more authoritative and worthy of greater weight than the other...which seems very unlikely.

The distinction I think you are missing is who does the action.  A court does not physically deprive anyone of liberty.  They might order that someone be deprived of liberty, but others carry out that order.  That is where the coercive power of the state comes into play (and part of the reason the courts are a separate branch, since they also make rulings regarding the manner in which the state operates when that liberty is taken).    The thing that sets the police apart is their power comes before any action by the court.  The police have the discretion to detain without an order of the court.  The same can be said for border guards but the conversation didn't go that way.

So really all that is left of Grumbler's argument is an assertion that civilian must mean anyone who is not in the military simply because that is one definition of the word.  But even that breaks down outside the US - and the example of the RCMP has already been discussed in that regard.

[Tonitrus]

Ok, so that well describes a function and powers of someone appointed with police powers.  But I don't see why that precipitates a need to make those persons distinctive from others on that basis alone, again, except for what seems to be an inexplicable need to highlight that distinction in the widespread sense that we do.

I simply just don't see a need for it.  And as Grumbler has highlighted, that artificial distinction seems to have spawned plenty of downsides and maintains no real benefits (I won't count simply administrative ones).

[Razgovory]

So, police and military are not civilians because they are both____.  Fill in the blank using one word.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, so that well describes a function and powers of someone appointed with police powers.  But I don't see why that precipitates a need to make those persons distinctive from others on that basis alone, again, except for what seems to be an inexplicable need to highlight that distinction in the widespread sense that we do.

I simply just don't see a need for it.  And as Grumbler has highlighted, that artificial distinction seems to have spawned plenty of downsides and maintains no real benefits (I won't count simply administrative ones).

I think it has to do with who exercises the coercive powers of the state.  The military and police are rather unique in that way.   

[11B4V]

Which one?

Shot 13 year old.

Tough call that one.

[grumbler]

Ok, so that well describes a function and powers of someone appointed with police powers.  But I don't see why that precipitates a need to make those persons distinctive from others on that basis alone, again, except for what seems to be an inexplicable need to highlight that distinction in the widespread sense that we do.

I simply just don't see a need for it.  And as Grumbler has highlighted, that artificial distinction seems to have spawned plenty of downsides and maintains no real benefits (I won't count simply administrative ones).

I think it has to do with who exercises the coercive powers of the state.  The military and police are rather unique in that way.

Prison guards exercise the coercive powers of the state, as do dogcatchers and meter maids, so police and military are not, in fact, unique in that.

Your argument boils down to special pleading (you really need to look that up before you continue to ignore the First Rule of Holes).