Stefan's response to recent police shootings and his emphasis on I.Q...

[jrodefeld]

I just watched Stefan's recent interview with Charles C. Johnson and I've got quite a few disagreements with him about the recent police shootings and I'd like to share my perspective here.  I've also found some of Stefan's "race realism" and racial I.Q. difference emphasis rather troubling for a while now and I'll get into some of that in a minute.  I don't want to bore by being too verbose, but I want to express my thoughts clearly for myself as much as for you.

 

First, I want to say a few words about police in general.  Like Stef, I am an anarchist libertarian.  What this means to me is that I oppose the State in it's entirety.  As such, I must completely oppose the existence of a State-monopolized police force.  I oppose aggression and who is assigned to carry out the aggression in the name of enforcing the State's edicts?  The police, of course.  I agree with Robert Higgs that there are no good cops.  Higgs said:

 

"The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.  

 

We need only consider the following:  

 

(1) A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;

(2) Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;

(3) Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.

 

There are no good cops."

 

In the current discussion vis a vis police shootings, Stefan seems to repeatedly show deference towards the police while offering blistering criticism directed towards the black community.  As valid as much of this criticism may be, it doesn't strike me as being particularly libertarian in that the poor black community poses far less of a threat to our liberties than do agents of the State.

 

The videos Stefan usually posts following the shooting of a black man often consist largely of a recitation of the black man's previous transgressions, legal history and bad behavior.  This talk strikes me as largely irrelevant.  There is a time and a place to offer pointed criticism towards the black community, but in the aftermath of a police officer shooting and killing a man, the primarily thing to consider is whether or not the police had justifiable cause to kill the man.  Whether, for example, Philando liked to smoke marijuana or whether he had a bunch of minor traffic violations in years prior are simply irrelevant to the question of whether or not he deserved to be killed.  

 

The only reasoning I could muster as to why this would be relevant would be that Stefan is attempting to excuse racial profiling by saying that blacks commit more crime per capita than other races.  But this too is a specious argument, since police are responding to each unique situation and should be held responsible for their actions.  

 

Libertarians like to criticize the teacher's unions for being terribly corrupt and doing a great deal of damage to our children in that their jobs are artificially protected by the State.  And they are completely right about that.  It is basically impossible to fire a bad teacher in many cases.  But why does Stefan not spend more time focusing on the equally pernicious (if not more so) police lobby?  

 

Vice wrote an article not long ago about it, and many libertarian writers have pointed out many of the same things:

 

http://www.vice.com/read/the-pernicious-power-of-police-unions

 

 

Why does Stefan seem to imply that prosecutorial verdicts involving police officers will be impartial when we have so much evidence to the contrary?  The actions of police officers are clearly judged by a completely different moral standard than average citizens.  Isn't Stefan always preaching about the irrationality of opposing moral categories?  There is no reason to judge police conduct by any different standard than we would judge the actions of anyone else.

 

I understand the problems with Black Lives Matter and the Progressive movement seizing upon shootings like these to inflame racial tensions and win support for their latest Statist programs.  I don't care about them because there is a principled libertarian reason to be opposed to police shooting and abuse.  There is a principled libertarian reason to call for much more police accountability, to break up the power of the police unions, get rid of or scale back the so-called "sovereign immunity" and show some empathy for many communities that are starting to see heavily armored, militarized police units as almost like an occupying force rather than a defender of their rights and property.

 

My favorite blog on this subject is Will Grigg's Pro Libertate:

 

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

 

I'm also partial to Scott Horton and his commentary both on Antiwar.com and on his show, the Scott Horton Show.  

 

 

I've tried to look at the facts that we have available thus far regarding the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings.  While the facts are still coming in and we don't know everything yet, the Alton Sterling incident looks extremely questionable and the Philando Castile shooting looks totally unjustified.  I'm just mystified why Stefan can't muster a few minutes to criticize the police.  Yes, the left and particularly Black Lives Matter have distorted things for their own political benefit and correcting the record is not un-called for.  But proper context should be established.  Due in particular to the war on drugs, many communities have been subject to police harassment and violence for activities that should not be crimes.  Anti-police sentiment is healthy, in my opinion.  We just need to convince people that it is the State itself that they should oppose, not just one narrow sub-category of State aggression.

 

Stefan and Charles Johnson implied that Philando Castile MAY have been the robbery suspect they were looking for and/or that his girlfriend (or whatever their relationship really is) might have participated in the robbery.  Both claims seem incredibly irresponsible without much more concrete evidence of either assertion.  

 

I agree with Walter Block in that libertarianism is neither left nor right, but I am concerned about Stefan perhaps shifting his views right-ward, where he is preoccupied with opposing the Left, Black Lives Matter, and the media instead of offering a principled anarchist libertarian perspective on events, un-clouded by the petty political considerations of the present.

 

I intend to raise some points about Stefan's resent obsession with I.Q. particularly with regard to blacks, but I think I've written enough for a first post.  I'll elaborate on that a bit latter.  For the record, I remain a fan of Stefan's with regards to most things he puts out and even when I disagree I find him frequently intellectually stimulating.  I just didn't want anyone to get the impression that I had some personal animosity towards Stefan because I disagree with him on some of his recent views.

[DaVinci]

I'm not sure I can write a response that can answer all your questions. Maybe only Stef can answer all this stuff? I'll add my two cents though.

 

I think there isn't much that can be done about cops right now. Yes, some of these instances that have happened recently with the cops are terrible, but it makes more sense to try put the brakes on the race baiting narrative than it does to point out that the cops are bad guys. We basically all kind of agree on the cops. 

 

You have a community right now who sees themselves as standing in front of the tank daring the powers that be to roll over them, except those same people standing in front of the tank are going to go vote for the guy in the tank in November. That's way more critical to stop than the actions of a couple cops given how many people it will affect. 

[shirgall]

[scottm]

There is a lot we can do, like moving Safety solutions into the free market (help me develop UberGuard - a p2p marketplace for Safety solutions to replace Government police): 
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47793-mobileapp-uberguard-a-p2p-marketplace-similar-to-uber-for-safety-services/

[webdever]

The videos Stefan usually posts following the shooting of a black man often consist largely of a recitation of the black man's previous transgressions, legal history and bad behavior.  This talk strikes me as largely irrelevant.  

 

 

 

It's very relevant. We only have video showing the aftermath of the events, and only have the reports of witnesses to determine what actually happened that led to the shooting. If the victim or witnesses have a history of bad behavior, acting aggressively towards cops, drug use, etc, and given that they ended up in the extremely rare case of being shot by a police officer, it makes their testimony much less believable and makes it much more likely that they threatened the police in some way which lead to their death.

 

Also I don't think the anarcho-capitalist perspective that all cops are immoral is incompatible with believing that when it comes down to a policeman and a criminal trying to kill him the policeman has a right to his life, or recognizing that given that we do not live in a libertarian society some police action is not the initiation of force and does make the streets safer.

[Wuzzums]

The videos Stefan usually posts following the shooting of a black man often consist largely of a recitation of the black man's previous transgressions, legal history and bad behavior.  This talk strikes me as largely irrelevant.  There is a time and a place to offer pointed criticism towards the black community, but in the aftermath of a police officer shooting and killing a man, the primarily thing to consider is whether or not the police had justifiable cause to kill the man.  Whether, for example, Philando liked to smoke marijuana or whether he had a bunch of minor traffic violations in years prior are simply irrelevant to the question of whether or not he deserved to be killed.  

 

The only reasoning I could muster as to why this would be relevant would be that Stefan is attempting to excuse racial profiling by saying that blacks commit more crime per capita than other races.  But this too is a specious argument, since police are responding to each unique situation and should be held responsible for their actions.  

 

 

We cannot accuse police for racial profiling when blacks commit more crime per capita. It's just common sense.

Guy was not shot because he was smoking weed or whatever, guy was shot because he was a suspect in a robbery and had a gun on him.

This is not a debate, nobody is arguing that he deserved being shot for his previous offenses. Stop trying to obfuscate the situation.

 

The day a black man in a suit that's coming home from his accounting job gets shot by the police, that's when I'll listen to their grievances.

 

 

I agree with Walter Block in that libertarianism is neither left nor right, but I am concerned about Stefan perhaps shifting his views right-ward, where he is preoccupied with opposing the Left, Black Lives Matter, and the media instead of offering a principled anarchist libertarian perspective on events, un-clouded by the petty political considerations of the present.

 

Being a libertarian implies following the NAP, which means every single libertarian on the planet has to oppose terrorist organizations like BLM. It would be hypocritical not to.

[dsayers]

I didn't read much of what you wrote. Because as I began to read, I saw numerous examples of a lack of integrity. So I searched the page for "bias" and found not one occurrence of the word. If you will not be forthcoming with your own biases, then I think I have a good enough idea as to where the lack of integrity stems from enough to know that it's not worth my time. Thought I would share that feedback since the acceptance and offering of one's biases are a necessary component of an honest conversation.

[Koroviev]

you also kind of seem to be missing the point in none of the videos is Stef saying that cops are wonderful and it's all the fault of the poor black people. In fact several time Stef has said we should get rid of the government all together...many...many times. The point is the lies that are being spread by the government controlled media and Stef is pushing back against those lies by presenting facts about the things that are going on. As for the all cops are bad cops, well can you really call someone evil who has been told their entire life that what they are doing is wonderful and everyone around them is telling them that they are the pinnacle of morality thus are doing the best they can in the situation that they are in? If that is the case then all of the libertarians who are not taking an active stance against spanking are MUCH more immoral than the cops since they have been exposed to the truth and are actively rejecting it. Don't get me wrong there are a lot of cops who do a lot of bad things and I'm not a fan of them, however the racist lies being spread by the government controlled media is, at this point in time, a much more pressing matter and one that can actively and productively be pushed back against. On top of all of that IF you can get people to begin to listen to reason and evidence then the need for the government (and government police officers) becomes much less. Whereas if, as you have done, you take the stance that all cops are bad thus it is all their fault you are simply attacking a symptom as opposed to the problem itself.

[Guest Gee]

Don't blame Stef, blame his friends on the alt right.

[EclecticIdealist]

I didn't read much of what you wrote. Because as I began to read, I saw numerous examples of a lack of integrity. So I searched the page for "bias" and found not one occurrence of the word. If you will not be forthcoming with your own biases, then I think I have a good enough idea as to where the lack of integrity stems from enough to know that it's not worth my time. Thought I would share that feedback since the acceptance and offering of one's biases are a necessary component of an honest conversation.

Ad Hominem attack to Poison the Well, Intellectual laziness - NOT AN ARGUMENT!

[shirgall]

Don't blame Stef, blame his friends on the alt right.

 

Since the alt-right does not have a unifying ideology I'm not sure of the utility of the label. Which if Stef's friends have which beliefs that support your thesis of... well, what, exactly? Racism?

 

Are you claiming that there is a bias (there ya go, @dsayers) in the interpretation of facts or the presentation of them?

 

The state of mind of the victims, and their proclivity to resist arrest or make furtive movements, is directly relevant here. The responding policeman has no chance to do anything except interpret what is going on before him, based on the nature of the call to which he is responding (in both recent events, suspicion of armed men who have committed crimes with those weapons).

 

We are all armchair quarterbacks here, but we have to make use of what facts we can to determine if the victim acted in a way that would lead the responding officer to assume he faced imminent lethal attack. A lot of training goes into police on this, and I have posted in the past the results of regular people getting put into lethal force shoot/don't-shoot drills. It's a sobering thing.

 

I keep reminding people that the time to fight the police is in the courts, not in the street. They are trained to end street confrontations by escalation and compliance because they have to be trained that way.

 

The real fight should be against the laws the police are called upon to enforce. Let's rail against victimless crimes that put police and citizens in bad situations. It would have zero effect on the recent two cases, but it might make the water boil a great deal less.

[dsayers]

Ad Hominem attack to Poison the Well, Intellectual laziness - NOT AN ARGUMENT!

When somebody says 2+green=unicorn, their is no argument to talk over, taint, or refute. Don't hate me because my integrity level is such that I am immune to mild obfuscation.

 

I'm glad that you are so consumed by your tantrum that you donated to the show to persist

[Will Torbald]

Since the alt-right does not have a unifying ideology I'm not sure of the utility of the label. Which if Stef's friends have which beliefs that support your thesis of... well, what, exactly? Racism?

 

Are you claiming that there is a bias (there ya go, @dsayers) in the interpretation of facts or the presentation of them?

 

The stats, the stats, the stats will tell

The past, the present and the future as well

 

 

It's from that song. Though what I can tell from his comment is that the facts and the statistics have been leading the conversation into the current direction of FDR's message of media skepticism and race inquiry.

[Tyler H]

I didn't read much of what you wrote. Because as I began to read, I saw numerous examples of a lack of integrity. So I searched the page for "bias" and found not one occurrence of the word. If you will not be forthcoming with your own biases, then I think I have a good enough idea as to where the lack of integrity stems from enough to know that it's not worth my time. Thought I would share that feedback since the acceptance and offering of one's biases are a necessary component of an honest conversation.

Would you mind identifying these examples of dishonesty? I did not catch them on my read through and would like to examine why I missed them.

[jrodefeld]

I'm not sure I can write a response that can answer all your questions. Maybe only Stef can answer all this stuff? I'll add my two cents though.

 

I think there isn't much that can be done about cops right now. Yes, some of these instances that have happened recently with the cops are terrible, but it makes more sense to try put the brakes on the race baiting narrative than it does to point out that the cops are bad guys. We basically all kind of agree on the cops. 

 

You have a community right now who sees themselves as standing in front of the tank daring the powers that be to roll over them, except those same people standing in front of the tank are going to go vote for the guy in the tank in November. That's way more critical to stop than the actions of a couple cops given how many people it will affect. 

 

I understand that perspective.  But this brings up a another issue that is bothering me.  What does Stef expect these people to do?  Like it or not, nearly everyone who chooses to vote in November will be voting for either Trump or Hillary.  Getting massive numbers of people to become either principled non-voters or vote libertarian is probably more unlikely than achieving some form of police union reform and accountability.

 

I'll agree that both are extremely unlikely in the short run.  But in a recent video, Stefan seems to be urging Bernie supporters to vote for Trump.  Surely they shouldn't be voting for Hillary, but Trump?  I never understood libertarians who support Trump.  Not that Stef is offering a full-throated endorsement, but even the implication that Trump will be much better in office seems unknowable.  Trump already chose a neo-con VP in Mike Pence and I'm quite sure once in office he'll start "making deals" with all the same Republican think-tank outfits that were influencing the Bush White House.

 

I think it's sad that most of these Black Lives Matter people, and those shouting for police accountability, will end up voting for Hillary in November.  But there is an opportunity to channel this anger into channeled efforts to achieve a greater degree of police accountability.

There is a lot we can do, like moving Safety solutions into the free market (help me develop UberGuard - a p2p marketplace for Safety solutions to replace Government police): 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47793-mobileapp-uberguard-a-p2p-marketplace-similar-to-uber-for-safety-services/

 

I agree 100%.  Replacing State police with free market security solutions is the best thing we could do.  If communities, of whatever race, were able to freely contract with competing private police and security companies for mutual defense of their neighborhoods, the relationship between police and the community would improve dramatically.  Security agencies would have an incentive to provide good services and refrain from abusing their customers, since they rely on freely-made payments and not coercively collected taxes.

 

Short of this, I think there are plenty of steps that could be taken within the current system.  Maybe an independent adjudication agency from another county or State could step in whenever there is a police shooting or controversy about improper policing behavior?  Therefore, there might be less instances of police covering for their buddies, destroying evidence and so forth.  Just an idea off the top of my head.

[jrodefeld]

We cannot accuse police for racial profiling when blacks commit more crime per capita. It's just common sense.

Guy was not shot because he was smoking weed or whatever, guy was shot because he was a suspect in a robbery and had a gun on him.

This is not a debate, nobody is arguing that he deserved being shot for his previous offenses. Stop trying to obfuscate the situation.

 

The day a black man in a suit that's coming home from his accounting job gets shot by the police, that's when I'll listen to their grievances.

 

 

 

Being a libertarian implies following the NAP, which means every single libertarian on the planet has to oppose terrorist organizations like BLM. It would be hypocritical not to.

 

Having a gun on you is not an act of aggression or a reason to shot.  Apparently we don't yet know whether he had a concealed carry permit.  He did not have one in the district that he lived but he may have gotten one in another county.  But I'd argue that this is irrelevant to a libertarian.  The act of having a gun and carrying it with you doesn't violate the NAP and since when are libertarians so concerned about whether someone has a government permit to exercise a natural right?

 

You say he was a "suspect in a robbery", but that was based on the flimsiest of evidence.  Police caught a glimpse of him driving in his car and thought he matched the robbery suspect because of his "wide-set nose".  Now, the police had the discretion to approach this situation many different ways.  If they were close enough to accurately match Philando's face to the robbery suspect, they were probably close enough to notice the four year old girl in the back seat.  They could have easily just jotted down the license plate number and approached Philando when he wasn't in the company of a small child.  They could have followed at a distance until Philando got to his destination and approached him in a different way for questioning.

 

But the police chose to pull over a person they suspected might have been involved in a robbery knowing full well that, were he the suspect they were looking for, the situation had the potential to be dangerous.  And they chose to initiate a potential dangerous encounter with a four year old child in the car.

 

Diamond Reynolds stated that Philando was reaching for his wallet to show officers his identification.  Stefan and others have demonstrated that Reynolds might not be the most reliable witness.  That may well be true, but there is no indication as of yet that Philando was reaching for his gun and he'd have very little incentive to do so.  

 

Stef is always speaking up for children but why weren't the officers more concerned for the welfare of the little girl who was in the car?  What sort of permanent psychological damage do you think she suffered from seeing a man, a father-figure, shot and killed in front of her?

 

 

Maybe evidence will come out that shows conclusively that Philando was actually reaching for his gun to shoot the officer.  But as someone who has experienced bad encounters with police, it can be a stressful situation even if you have done nothing wrong.  It is not hard to imagine that the officer would be asking for license and registration while alternately demanding the you keep your hands where they can see them.  In a stressful situation, you make a wrong move, "reach for your waistband" as police say, the officer feels threatened and he shoots you.

 

I cannot seem to find any justification for this shooting based on all the evidence that has been released thus far.

 

 

I would agree that police shooting and killing civilians wrongly is uncommon.  But police altercations with citizens, arresting people for non-violent crimes, SWAT raids and things of that nature are much more common.  So when people get upset about a police killing, it must be viewed in a larger context of strained relationships between police and civilians based on non-lethal encounters with police.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not defending Black Lives Matter.  However, I understand why a normal person who feels frustrated with police would superficially support BLM because, on the surface at least, they are calling for police accountability.  In reality, they are more obsessed with inflaming racial tensions, disrupting peaceful events and things of that nature.

 

I haven't seen a single policy proposal from Black Lives Matter that would do a damn thing to increase police accountability.  So don't mistake what I am saying.

[walks324]

So if the state creates immoral statutes, which a police offer is obliged to enforce, then by that same principal are we all not guilty of the same infraction as law-abiding citizens of the state? My interpretation of your argument is a conflation of individual character with an immoral institution.

 

There are people who possess native characteristics that would make them good cops and since the state has a monopoly on the use of force they have no choice but to join the state-run police. I take it that you are not an ignorant libertarian and recognize that their is evil in this world which necessitates an entity to protect the peaceful from the aggressive. Furthermore, I will presuppose you are economically literate and understand the value of the division of labor, which would lead to the conclusion that a third-party specialist is the most optimal way of providing for one's security. Therefore, a cop is no more immoral than any business owner who must register his enterprise with the state or face the consequence of imprisonment. Your argument is essentially concluding that FDR has to be a "bad" business because it was approved by the state and that the only way for Stefan to be "good" is to close up shop. 

[jrodefeld]

I didn't read much of what you wrote. Because as I began to read, I saw numerous examples of a lack of integrity. So I searched the page for "bias" and found not one occurrence of the word. If you will not be forthcoming with your own biases, then I think I have a good enough idea as to where the lack of integrity stems from enough to know that it's not worth my time. Thought I would share that feedback since the acceptance and offering of one's biases are a necessary component of an honest conversation.

 

Could you elaborate?  I may have misspoken or phrased certain things incorrectly, but I don't know why you would assume I have a lack of integrity based on anything I wrote.  I didn't intend to come across that way.

 

I stated quite clearly that I am a libertarian anarchist, like Stefan.  I have biases, like anyone else, but I try to temper those by looking at the facts.  

The second somebody uses the phrase "rather troubling" I stop reading immediately.

 

If you have actual arguments, email me and call into the show.

I agree it was a poor choice of words.  But if you had kept reading you would have noticed that I did offer some actual arguments.  What I intended by this phrase was that I had been thinking about the topic of race and I.Q. for a while since Stef had been placing so much emphasis on it and I do have some actual arguments and disagreements on the topic, but I'll hold off on addressing it because I first want to talk about Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and police shootings in general.  I didn't think it made sense to focus on both topics in the opening thread, so I punted on the latter and focused on the former.  

[dsayers]

Could you elaborate?  I may have misspoken or phrased certain things incorrectly, but I don't know why you would assume I have a lack of integrity based on anything I wrote.  I didn't intend to come across that way.

 

I stated quite clearly that I am a libertarian anarchist, like Stefan.

Since you were kind enough to follow up, I will try and answer your question. I can start right here. How is your claim to be a libertarian anarchist at all relevant? Going back to your original post with my critiques in bold:

 

I've also found some of Stefan's "race realism" and racial I.Q. difference emphasis rather troubling

Appeal to emotion/insecurity.

 

I don't want to bore by being too verbose

Telling my my experience while shaming yourself for expressing yourself.

 

Like Stef, I am an anarchist libertarian.

As above, so what? This comes across as an attempt to artificially lower defenses.

 

I agree with Robert Higgs that there are no good cops.  Higgs said:

Appeal to authority.

 

Stefan seems to repeatedly show deference towards the police while offering blistering criticism directed towards the black community.  As valid as much of this criticism may be, it doesn't strike me as being particularly libertarian in that the poor black community poses far less of a threat to our liberties than do agents of the State.

Couple examples of poisoning the well here. At which point, I stopped reading.

[jrodefeld]

Since you were kind enough to follow up, I will try and answer your question. I can start right here. How is your claim to be a libertarian anarchist at all relevant? Going back to your original post with my critiques in bold:

 

It's not relevant to my arguments, but it may be of some interest to people reading if they want to put what I am saying in a proper context.  Rational or not, people tend to react to arguments differently if they are coming from a leftist, a conservative or a libertarian.  I just wanted to provide full disclosure up front as to which camp I am in.

 

 

You said my post demonstrated a "lack of integrity", but your responses don't really back up that claim.  

 

You said:  

 "I've also found some of Stefan's "race realism" and racial I.Q. difference emphasis rather troubling"

 

Appeal to emotion/insecurity

 

 

I agree that "troubling" is the wrong word here.  What I meant is that I have some questions/arguments related to that topic, but first I'd like to discuss police shootings and what I think the libertarian response should be.

I don't want to bore by being too verbose

 

Telling me my experience while shaming yourself for expressing yourself.

 

 

There is no reason you had to respond to this throwaway line and it certainly is not an example of "lack of integrity".  I wasn't telling anyone their experience.  I am aware that I tend to write lengthy posts on forums, so I was just expressing that I am cognizant of my habits and I'll try not to turn off others by doing that.

 

Like Stef, I am an anarchist libertarian. 

 

As above, so what? This comes across as an attempt to artificially lower defenses.

 

 

And like I said above, it is not relevant to any of my arguments.  For people who haven't seen me post here before, I just wanted to avoid having people think that I might be a leftist troll just trying to stir things up.

 

The only reason me mentioning that I am an anarchist could be an example of a "lack of integrity" would be if you genuinely thought I did it as a conscious attempt at manipulating you.  I've known libertarians for a long time and the idea that a libertarian will be predisposed to accepting your argument simply because you label yourself a libertarian is absurd.  Libertarians argue among ourselves with more passion usually than we do with leftists and conservatives.

 

I agree with Robert Higgs that there are no good cops.  Higgs said:

 

Appeal to authority.

 

 

An argument from authority is only a fallacy if I claimed that we must believe what Higgs said because of who he is, rather than judge the argument on it's merits.  I happen to agree with Higgs but I'm not asking you to agree with anything I have said simply because Higgs has said similar things.  If this quote is not permitted in an argument, then ANY quote would also be illegitimate.

 

Stefan seems to repeatedly show deference towards the police while offering blistering criticism directed towards the black community.  As valid as much of this criticism may be, it doesn't strike me as being particularly libertarian in that the poor black community poses far less of a threat to our liberties than do agents of the State.

 

Couple examples of poisoning the well here. At which point, I stopped reading.

 

 

I don't agree that those two sentences constitute "poisoning the well".  

 

Wikipedia defines "poisoning the well" this way:

 

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

 

 

In the first place, I explicitly stated that much of his criticism directed at the black community is valid, or possibly valid.  The entire thrust of my critique is that Stefan seems to have been avoiding criticizing the actions of police in all of his recent videos when, from my perspective, there are MANY things about how the police responded to both Alton Sterling and Philando Castille that are worthy of criticism from a libertarian perspective.

 

Yet instead of doing this, Stefan and Charles Johnson were criticizing Castille for "having weed in his car".  It was even insinuated that because Castille liked to smoke weed, he was possibly a danger to children and was thus unsuited to his job at the School cafeteria.  Not only is such a criticism straight out of a 1930s "Reefer Madness"-esque propagana film, but the time dedicated to irrelevances about Philando's life could be dedicated to criticizing the police response.  I grant that Stefan has criticized police in the past and he may have had something to say in this situation but I just missed it.  Stef puts out many hours of content each week so I may have missed something.  

 

But I've consistently watched nearly all of the videos released in the wake of these two shootings so I do think I've got a pretty fair idea of what Stefan's views are in this matter.

 

 

Like I said in a previous post, the officers judged Castille to possibly be a robbery suspect based he had a "wide-set nose".  Leaving aside the trouble of getting an accurate idea of someones appearance when they are sitting in a moving vehicle, the police chose to pull over Castille knowing there was a woman and a small child in the car.  If you think you are possibly going to confront a robbery suspect, you know that the situation has the potential to escalate into something dangerous.  You should not do such a thing if you know there is a small child in the vehicle.

 

A better move would be for the police who noticed Castille to notify other police in the area of the sighting, inform them of the license plate number and have the car monitored from a distance.  When Castille parked and got out of his car, officers could get a better look at him to see if he truly matched the description of the robbery suspect.  They could approach him for questioning when the little girl was safely out of the picture.

 

I may be missing something, but this seems like a fairly good critique of what transpired.  I can't see any way to excuse the shooting based on what we know.

 

 

If you didn't want to respond to any of this, no problem.  But you did respond and you accused me of having a "lack of integrity".  Instead of responding to any of my arguments, you seem to be nitpicking at a few innocuous comments I made at the beginning as a way of avoiding any of the arguments I made after the first couple paragraphs.

[shirgall]

The stats, the stats, the stats will tell

The past, the present and the future as well

 

 

It's from that song. Though what I can tell from his comment is that the facts and the statistics have been leading the conversation into the current direction of FDR's message of media skepticism and race inquiry.

 

The facts and statistics have been talked about on FDR for years. There have been periods of deeper inquiry or focus, sure, but long before there was this "alt right". Head back to 2006 and podcast #175 some time.

[dsayers]

@jrodefeld: 2+2=4 whether you're a libertarian anarchist or a leftist troll and whether Higgs said it or not. Similarly, your use of words like blistering and poor weren't relevant (poisoning the well). What I get from your most recent post is that you are not aware of the ways in which manipulation has been modeled for you and you emulate it. I hope that's something you're able to connect with at some point. Especially if public speaking and influencing others continues to be of interest to you.

[AccuTron]

Given the woman and child in the car...

 

In passing, regarding the woman, she apparently smokes Newports and Newports were stolen in the robbery.  This is after the fact evidence that the officer probably didn't have, but valid for our considerations.  

 

She was also extremely calm in voice, as monotonic as a veteran tour guide, except for a few seconds now and then of wailed dismay, followed by calm voice.  For my betting money, this guy was the robber, and she was his accomplice.  If so, we observe who is really responsible for a stunning disregard for the child.

 

 

To follow the car to approach the man later:  

To where?  The possibility of a public-endangering high speed chase?  To an apartment complex, where the same situation as the car now involves all kinds of bystanders, some sitting at home on the other side of a wall that won't stop bullets, and tight surroundings which make avoiding the suspects gunfire difficult?  In an apartment with more weapons, and the girl is still there?  With phone calls made along the way for help from his buddies?  There's not a nicey-nice answer.  Gotta get on it while the trail is hot and close.  (Speaking of which, the robbery was only a few blocks away!)

 

(Someplace in here, there's also the question that if the state has no police, who's going to chase down the robbers?)

 

Also, there was in the links a blurry pic of something laying on the suspects leg, high up on his left thigh, which is the most concealment to an officer approaching on the driver's side.  Someone claimed it's a pic of a gun, but it's too blurry to see.  The officer on the scene had a high definition view.  

 

And what driver parks anything high up on their leg?  A phone might slip off, is more likely to be between the legs.  If YOU, Mr. Citizen, had a fleeting glance of a driver and something was high up on his leg, and you were in a position of possible armed and dangerous, what the heck would you think?  

 

If he was supposedly reaching for his permit, then why was his wallet on his upper thigh, assuming it was a wallet and not a gun?  I can understand a person getting out their wallet and resting it there, but the words I think I heard...would have to listen again...implied reaching for a wallet with some effort, as in getting it out of a pocket.  

 

If he already had it on his thigh, it's in plain view pretty much, certainly in the first one or two seconds of handling it, as a wallet.  If the officer was suspicious, then he would've ordered the driver to keep his hands in view, and reaching for his pockets would be very suspicious.  No matter how I look at it, the innocent card doesn't play.

[labmath2]

Given the woman and child in the car...

 

In passing, regarding the woman, she apparently smokes Newports and Newports were stolen in the robbery. This is after the fact evidence that the officer probably didn't have, but valid for our considerations.

 

She was also extremely calm in voice, as monotonic as a veteran tour guide, except for a few seconds now and then of wailed dismay, followed by calm voice. For my betting money, this guy was the robber, and she was his accomplice. If so, we observe who is really responsible for a stunning disregard for the child.

 

 

To follow the car to approach the man later:

To where? The possibility of a public-endangering high speed chase? To an apartment complex, where the same situation as the car now involves all kinds of bystanders, some sitting at home on the other side of a wall that won't stop bullets, and tight surroundings which make avoiding the suspects gunfire difficult? In an apartment with more weapons, and the girl is still there? With phone calls made along the way for help from his buddies? There's not a nicey-nice answer. Gotta get on it while the trail is hot and close. (Speaking of which, the robbery was only a few blocks away!)

 

(Someplace in here, there's also the question that if the state has no police, who's going to chase down the robbers?)

 

Also, there was in the links a blurry pic of something laying on the suspects leg, high up on his left thigh, which is the most concealment to an officer approaching on the driver's side. Someone claimed it's a pic of a gun, but it's too blurry to see. The officer on the scene had a high definition view.

 

And what driver parks anything high up on their leg? A phone might slip off, is more likely to be between the legs. If YOU, Mr. Citizen, had a fleeting glance of a driver and something was high up on his leg, and you were in a position of possible armed and dangerous, what the heck would you think?

 

If he was supposedly reaching for his permit, then why was his wallet on his upper thigh, assuming it was a wallet and not a gun? I can understand a person getting out their wallet and resting it there, but the words I think I heard...would have to listen again...implied reaching for a wallet with some effort, as in getting it out of a pocket.

 

If he already had it on his thigh, it's in plain view pretty much, certainly in the first one or two seconds of handling it, as a wallet. If the officer was suspicious, then he would've ordered the driver to keep his hands in view, and reaching for his pockets would be very suspicious. No matter how I look at it, the innocent card doesn't play.

Now that you have pointed out all the ways philando castille could have precipitated his own shooting, how about all the ways the officer could have screwed up? I am still waiting for Stef to put out the officers record as a police officer and all the laws he has ever broken. While the girlfriend has incentive to lie, so does the officer. When this shoiting is investigated, will the police department take part in it? Was the police officer innediately taken to the station and interrogated?

 

In what way is the officer treated differently from a regular citizen? Does he get the benefit of the doubt from investigators (they don't have to give people benefit of the doubt)? Is the standard for prosecution of a police officer the same for a civilian?

[Will Torbald]

The facts and statistics have been talked about on FDR for years. There have been periods of deeper inquiry or focus, sure, but long before there was this "alt right". Head back to 2006 and podcast #175 some time.

Well, I meant the current position. Remember Stef's "I no longer believe in egalitarianism" speech? That would have been way out of place in '06. I didn't try to imply FDR didn't use stats before. Having a guest like Jared Taylor and talking about the color of crime would have been unthinkable perhaps even two years ago in the show just my opinion.

[shirgall]

Well, I meant the current position. Remember Stef's "I no longer believe in egalitarianism" speech? That would have been way out of place in '06. I didn't try to imply FDR didn't use stats before. Having a guest like Jared Taylor and talking about the color of crime would have been unthinkable perhaps even two years ago in the show just my opinion.

 

Stef has gone further than most to expose himself to opinionated experts all across the spectrum of political opinion. We could easily make light of his politeness to Noam Chomsky in his interviews as well.

 

Egalitarianism is dead just like Feminism is, something new and dark has co-opted the position and turned it away from the principles that lead to its creation. Egalitarianism has stopped meaning equality of opportunity to becoming equality of outcome, just like "The Rule of Law" used to mean that the law applied equally to everyone regardless of social status, and that unjust laws were invalid on their face, but now it means laws should govern a nation, unless I disagree with them.

 

Stef has spent a lot of time researching since 2006, granted, and more time than we have likely spent. It really moved me that he broke down into tears just mentioning his research into the wars in the Middle East in a recent podcast.

 

It won't matter that it moved me, though, since Stef doesn't read the forums.

[Mister Mister]

I think it's sad that most of these Black Lives Matter people, and those shouting for police accountability, will end up voting for Hillary in November.  But there is an opportunity to channel this anger into channeled efforts to achieve a greater degree of police accountability.

 

 

Nope.  Where all this is leading is federalization of the police.  Obama and Hillary have said so fairly explicitly.

[Worlok]

Only got halfway through, but this is absurd.

 

Racial profiling is when you judge a person as having likely committed a crime because of their race. Now, if they fit a description, it's not racial profiling. If you stop and question a man because you think he committed a crime because he is black, then it is profiling UNLESS it is in your interest to stop and question people. Then it is simply an excuse to do what you wanted to do. If law enforcement was not based on harassing people to get them to admit to random shit, then it would be racial profiling. Guess what. Law enforcement is about harassing anybody and everybody to try and get them to admit to any crime.

 

regardless of what happens in the world, to state facts, regardless of what they are is hardly immoral. Steph stated many many facts about black crime and the people that were 'victims' of the shootings.  This is how it would work is a court of law. Facts are not racist.

 

Steph does not and should not have to focus on the "police lobby" or what we should all understand is a government backed union. Free unions good. Government backed unions bad. nobody, especially Steph is denying that. We just should not have to tell you a billion times by adding the word, "police" each time. We decry all government backed unions all the time.

 

If a person has a past criminal behavior, then you can rely on them to likely act in the same criminal manner. If a person is thought to be guilty of a crime, then you can rely on the likelihood that they may act in the same criminal way especially since they may believe you know what they did. Past behavior is very relevant.

 

When can a cop shoot you? Legally, then they honestly feel that they are in immediate danger for their life from you. By law, even if it is because you are black that you scared a cop just by being black, he only has to feel that danger and convince the jury. Also by law, the jury can decide that cop can eat a dick and convict him anyway. "I thought he was going to stab me" without evidence is just as good as "there was video surveillance of him charging you with a knife." Technically, that is.

 

The IQ debate is really quite fair. Studies he cites and experts he has on, support the idea that low IQ people, especially in the 80s commit more crime and are more inclined toward crime because of their acuity. Evidence strongly supports it, so it is an entirely justified argument. Evidence strongly supports the IQ per demographics and that is also a justified position to hold.

 

Let me know when the perp was not reaching for anything and was complying perfectly, but was shot anyway. It hasn't happened in the cases mentioned above, but you keep us up to date.

[labmath2]

Only got halfway through, but this is absurd.

 

Racial profiling is when you judge a person as having likely committed a crime because of their race. Now, if they fit a description, it's not racial profiling. If you stop and question a man because you think he committed a crime because he is black, then it is profiling UNLESS it is in your interest to stop and question people. Then it is simply an excuse to do what you wanted to do. If law enforcement was not based on harassing people to get them to admit to random shit, then it would be racial profiling. Guess what. Law enforcement is about harassing anybody and everybody to try and get them to admit to any crime.

 

regardless of what happens in the world, to state facts, regardless of what they are is hardly immoral. Steph stated many many facts about black crime and the people that were 'victims' of the shootings. This is how it would work is a court of law. Facts are not racist.

 

Steph does not and should not have to focus on the "police lobby" or what we should all understand is a government backed union. Free unions good. Government backed unions bad. nobody, especially Steph is denying that. We just should not have to tell you a billion times by adding the word, "police" each time. We decry all government backed unions all the time.

 

If a person has a past criminal behavior, then you can rely on them to likely act in the same criminal manner. If a person is thought to be guilty of a crime, then you can rely on the likelihood that they may act in the same criminal way especially since they may believe you know what they did. Past behavior is very relevant.

 

When can a cop shoot you? Legally, then they honestly feel that they are in immediate danger for their life from you. By law, even if it is because you are black that you scared a cop just by being black, he only has to feel that danger and convince the jury. Also by law, the jury can decide that cop can eat a dick and convict him anyway. "I thought he was going to stab me" without evidence is just as good as "there was video surveillance of him charging you with a knife." Technically, that is.

 

The IQ debate is really quite fair. Studies he cites and experts he has on, support the idea that low IQ people, especially in the 80s commit more crime and are more inclined toward crime because of their acuity. Evidence strongly supports it, so it is an entirely justified argument. Evidence strongly supports the IQ per demographics and that is also a justified position to hold.

 

Let me know when the perp was not reaching for anything and was complying perfectly, but was shot anyway. It hasn't happened in the cases mentioned above, but you keep us up to date.

Has a police officer ever shot someone who wasn't a threat to them? I will like a case to know what the standard is for proving the police officer in the wrong in a shooting.

[EclecticIdealist]

Has a police officer ever shot someone who wasn't a threat to them? I will like a case to know what the standard is for proving the police officer in the wrong in a shooting.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8368197/walter-scott-police-shooting

[shirgall]

Has a police officer ever shot someone who wasn't a threat to them? I will like a case to know what the standard is for proving the police officer in the wrong in a shooting.

 

Yes, and there are police in prison because of this. Most try to be good in bad situations and sometimes make mistakes but there is no mercy in courts for the deliberately evil.

 

One of the interesting side effects of the "reasonable and prudent person standard" is that it is judged by 12 random people deemed reasonable and unbiased by voir dire. When anyone makes a claim of self defense, they are saying "yes, I did commit a homicide but I was right to do it." The defendant has made a positive defense and the burden of proof shifts to them. Then that police officer has to articulate everything they have learned about lethal force, the details of the specific situation and how they apply, and provide documentation of that. Someone with a lot of training has to meet a higher standard than someone that does not know all these things. It's the "you, of all people, should have known better" principle.

[EclecticIdealist]

Yes, and there are police in prison because of this. They good in bad situations and sometimes make mistakes but there is no mercy in courts for the deliberately evil.

 

One of the interesting side effects of the "reasonable and prudent person standard" is that it is judged by 12 random people deemed reasonable and unbiased by voir dire. When anyone makes a claim of self defense, they are saying "yes, I did commit a homicide but I was right to do it." The defendant has made a positive defense and the burden of proof shifts to them. Then that police officer has to articulate everything they have learned about lethal force, the details of the specific situation and how they apply, and provide documentation of that. Someone with a lot of training has to meet a higher standard than someone that does not know all these things. It's the "you, of all people, should have known better" principle.

Actually, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. Even an act of homicide is presumed to be justified and the perpetrator innocent until proved guilty. A defense of one's actions are only necessary when the prima facie evidence indicates that the homicide was not in fact justified. Only then, does it become necessary for the accused to mount a defense against a prosecution. Simply asserting that the homicide was necessary and therefore justified is sufficient defense when there is an absence of prima facie evidence that contradicts the claim. Juris prudence in other countries will often require the individual to prove that the homicide was justified even when there is an absence of evidence to the contrary. It's simply not the case in the US, except in the court of public opinion and the media.

[jrodefeld]

Given the woman and child in the car...

 

In passing, regarding the woman, she apparently smokes Newports and Newports were stolen in the robbery.  This is after the fact evidence that the officer probably didn't have, but valid for our considerations.  

 

She was also extremely calm in voice, as monotonic as a veteran tour guide, except for a few seconds now and then of wailed dismay, followed by calm voice.  For my betting money, this guy was the robber, and she was his accomplice.  If so, we observe who is really responsible for a stunning disregard for the child.

 

 

To follow the car to approach the man later:  

To where?  The possibility of a public-endangering high speed chase?  To an apartment complex, where the same situation as the car now involves all kinds of bystanders, some sitting at home on the other side of a wall that won't stop bullets, and tight surroundings which make avoiding the suspects gunfire difficult?  In an apartment with more weapons, and the girl is still there?  With phone calls made along the way for help from his buddies?  There's not a nicey-nice answer.  Gotta get on it while the trail is hot and close.  (Speaking of which, the robbery was only a few blocks away!)

 

(Someplace in here, there's also the question that if the state has no police, who's going to chase down the robbers?)

 

Also, there was in the links a blurry pic of something laying on the suspects leg, high up on his left thigh, which is the most concealment to an officer approaching on the driver's side.  Someone claimed it's a pic of a gun, but it's too blurry to see.  The officer on the scene had a high definition view.  

 

And what driver parks anything high up on their leg?  A phone might slip off, is more likely to be between the legs.  If YOU, Mr. Citizen, had a fleeting glance of a driver and something was high up on his leg, and you were in a position of possible armed and dangerous, what the heck would you think?  

 

If he was supposedly reaching for his permit, then why was his wallet on his upper thigh, assuming it was a wallet and not a gun?  I can understand a person getting out their wallet and resting it there, but the words I think I heard...would have to listen again...implied reaching for a wallet with some effort, as in getting it out of a pocket.  

 

If he already had it on his thigh, it's in plain view pretty much, certainly in the first one or two seconds of handling it, as a wallet.  If the officer was suspicious, then he would've ordered the driver to keep his hands in view, and reaching for his pockets would be very suspicious.  No matter how I look at it, the innocent card doesn't play.

 

I think it is incredibly irresponsible to speculate that Philando was the robber without far more evidence.  The amount of evidence that we currently have to support such an accusation is pretty much zero, apart from the fact that Philando looks kind of like the suspect according to the police who pulled him over.  

 

Newport cigarettes are so popular in the black community that it has become a punch-line for comedians, so the fact that the woman smokes them is not much to base a serious accusation on.

 

If evidence comes out that Philando was indeed the robber and his girlfriend was an accomplice, then I will certainly change my opinion about this entire event.  That would be a momentous revelation.  It would not automatically excuse the actual shooting, but it would paint the entire situation in a different light.

 

If you watch the video and listen to the cop, you can clearly hear that the policeman sounds rather unhinged.  He seems incapable of dealing with a stressful situation.  The tone of his voice seems to lend credibility to the notion that he overreacted.  Police training should prepare police to deal with tense situations with a cool head.

 

What I believe happened was that the policeman either saw the gun on Philando's hip, or heard him or the woman say he had a gun, and overreacted and shot Philando five times.  Yes the policeman thought that Philando was the robbery suspect so he might have been extra nervous, but that doesn't automatically excuse an improper use of lethal force.

 

I believe the tone of the policeman's voice as heard on the cell phone video backs up this speculation.  

 

 

But let's also look at motive.  Even if Philando was indeed the robbery suspect, what possible incentive would he have to pull a gun on a police officer who just pulled him over for a supposed "broken taillight"?  Doing so would almost certainly be a death sentence.  Meanwhile, the penalty for the type of shoplifting he MAY have engaged in would be far less harsh.

 

Furthermore, Philando did not have a history of violent crime as far as I am aware.  His past legal history involved a lot of minor traffic citations.  He got cited for driving without a license, with suspended insurance, for a broken light, for speeding and things of that nature.  The worst of his offenses I believe was a DUI.  Unless I have missed something, there is nothing in his past that would indicate he was the type of person to rob a store or pull a gun on somebody.

 

 

The reason I care about this is not because of the importance of this particular case, but because I feel strongly about how libertarians should address police misconduct and the black community in general.  We have to go where the facts lead us and there is every reason to not automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the police.

 

I'm hearing a lot of accusations without much supporting evidence, specifically the claim that Philando Castile and Diamond Reynolds were involved in the robbery.  The only "evidence" given to support this is that Philando looked kind of like the suspect according to police and Diamond smoked Newports.

 

I'll write a separate reply to address the racial I.Q. difference issue and what my disagreements with Stefan are about this issue, but I do think the broadly collectivist view of blacks having lower I.Q.'s, being more violent inherently, and similar statements causes some to not look at these situations objectively.

 

These are just my opinions and I am happy to be corrected where I am wrong.

[jrodefeld]

Now that you have pointed out all the ways philando castille could have precipitated his own shooting, how about all the ways the officer could have screwed up? I am still waiting for Stef to put out the officers record as a police officer and all the laws he has ever broken. While the girlfriend has incentive to lie, so does the officer. When this shoiting is investigated, will the police department take part in it? Was the police officer innediately taken to the station and interrogated?

 

In what way is the officer treated differently from a regular citizen? Does he get the benefit of the doubt from investigators (they don't have to give people benefit of the doubt)? Is the standard for prosecution of a police officer the same for a civilian?

 

Very good points.  The thing that has bothered me the most about Stef's commentary is how one-sided it is.  He evidently has time to comb through Philando's background and criticize him for smoking marijuana and insinuate that this makes him un-fit to be around children yet he doesn't have time to do a commentary addressing the points you raised?

 

If a civilian was involved in a shooting like this, they would be arrested and charged with murder.  They would have a high burden of proof to prove that they were acting in self-defense.  For police officers, they are typically given a paid leave-of-absence while they conduct an internal investigation.  Almost without exception, the officer involved in the shooting is exonerated.  It is important to remember that law officers in the United States constitute one of the most powerful unions and they have tremendous political influence and power.

Only got halfway through, but this is absurd.

 

Racial profiling is when you judge a person as having likely committed a crime because of their race. Now, if they fit a description, it's not racial profiling. If you stop and question a man because you think he committed a crime because he is black, then it is profiling UNLESS it is in your interest to stop and question people. Then it is simply an excuse to do what you wanted to do. If law enforcement was not based on harassing people to get them to admit to random shit, then it would be racial profiling. Guess what. Law enforcement is about harassing anybody and everybody to try and get them to admit to any crime.

 

regardless of what happens in the world, to state facts, regardless of what they are is hardly immoral. Steph stated many many facts about black crime and the people that were 'victims' of the shootings.  This is how it would work is a court of law. Facts are not racist.

 

Steph does not and should not have to focus on the "police lobby" or what we should all understand is a government backed union. Free unions good. Government backed unions bad. nobody, especially Steph is denying that. We just should not have to tell you a billion times by adding the word, "police" each time. We decry all government backed unions all the time.

 

If a person has a past criminal behavior, then you can rely on them to likely act in the same criminal manner. If a person is thought to be guilty of a crime, then you can rely on the likelihood that they may act in the same criminal way especially since they may believe you know what they did. Past behavior is very relevant.

 

When can a cop shoot you? Legally, then they honestly feel that they are in immediate danger for their life from you. By law, even if it is because you are black that you scared a cop just by being black, he only has to feel that danger and convince the jury. Also by law, the jury can decide that cop can eat a dick and convict him anyway. "I thought he was going to stab me" without evidence is just as good as "there was video surveillance of him charging you with a knife." Technically, that is.

 

The IQ debate is really quite fair. Studies he cites and experts he has on, support the idea that low IQ people, especially in the 80s commit more crime and are more inclined toward crime because of their acuity. Evidence strongly supports it, so it is an entirely justified argument. Evidence strongly supports the IQ per demographics and that is also a justified position to hold.

 

Let me know when the perp was not reaching for anything and was complying perfectly, but was shot anyway. It hasn't happened in the cases mentioned above, but you keep us up to date.

 

I never said the police were racial profiling.  I never said they were racist.

 

Do you really think that if a civilian shot somebody that the excuse of "they were reaching for something" would be sufficient to exonerate them of murder?  Are you claiming there is not a double standard in how police who use lethal force are treated under the law versus how civilians are treated?

 

According to libertarian theory, we all have the equal right to self-ownership and self defense.  We can delegate rights we already have to agencies who can act on our behalf.  That means we are free to voluntarily delegate our individual right to self defense to a defense agency who are permitted to provide for the common defense in a specific geographical territory.  Of course, in a libertarian society the defense agency would be voluntarily funded rather than through coercive taxation.  The police, whether private or not, have the right to act in the exact manner an individual civilian can act.  The law should treat everybody equally.

 

Philando was allegedly reaching for his wallet at the request of the police officer.  We cannot know this for sure, but we can reliably assume that the policeman would ask to see his drivers license and insurance.  We have no evidence that Philando was NOT complying with police requests.  We also have to consider the credible possibility that the police officer was given conflicting and contradictory directions.  Even if Philando was not following directions, that doesn't give the policeman the right to lethally shoot him five times.  The officer would have to credibly believe that his life was in danger and his actions were in self defense.

 

From everything I have read on Philando Castile, his criminal history did NOT include violent crime.  That should be a very important distinction.  Having several dozen traffic citations and a DUI on your record does not credibly indicate you would pull a gun on somebody or rob a store.  

[Worlok]

Has a police officer ever shot someone who wasn't a threat to them? I will like a case to know what the standard is for proving the police officer in the wrong in a shooting.

 

I don't have facts and evidence immediately in front of me. However, is it perfectly plausible that it has happened? Yes. Have police gone to jail for it? Also yes. Doesn't mean that they did it, just that they were convicted. The single and only standard for "proving" anything in a court of law is that either the jury or the judge believe to be what they themselves consider to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" or at least a good enough display of evidence, that it is proof. If the jury said it happened, then it happened.  

 

So far as written law, you must have "reasonable belief" that a person is going to, right now, cause you "severe bodily harm or death." Convince the judge  or jury of said reasonable belief. This isn't a case law thing. This is every assault, battery, etc, law in the United States. If somebody comes at you with a knife and all you have is an rpg-7 and you shoot him, all you have to do is argue that he was in fact going to fuck you up with his knife. The fact that you blew somebody in half with a rocket propelled grenade is a separate matter of being in possession of a destructive device per federal regulation. You can look up your own state's assault laws, firearms and discharging laws, and self-defense laws. That's what they are going to come down to ( except they likely say nothing about rocket launchers, that's federal and to my knowledge, citizens may not own any destructive device ever)

 

Very good points.  The thing that has bothered me the most about Stef's commentary is how one-sided it is.  He evidently has time to comb through Philando's background and criticize him for smoking marijuana and insinuate that this makes him un-fit to be around children yet he doesn't have time to do a commentary addressing the points you raised?

 

If a civilian was involved in a shooting like this, they would be arrested and charged with murder.  They would have a high burden of proof to prove that they were acting in self-defense.  For police officers, they are typically given a paid leave-of-absence while they conduct an internal investigation.  Almost without exception, the officer involved in the shooting is exonerated.  It is important to remember that law officers in the United States constitute one of the most powerful unions and they have tremendous political influence and power.

 

I never said the police were racial profiling.  I never said they were racist.

 

Do you really think that if a civilian shot somebody that the excuse of "they were reaching for something" would be sufficient to exonerate them of murder?  Are you claiming there is not a double standard in how police who use lethal force are treated under the law versus how civilians are treated?

 

According to libertarian theory, we all have the equal right to self-ownership and self defense.  We can delegate rights we already have to agencies who can act on our behalf.  That means we are free to voluntarily delegate our individual right to self defense to a defense agency who are permitted to provide for the common defense in a specific geographical territory.  Of course, in a libertarian society the defense agency would be voluntarily funded rather than through coercive taxation.  The police, whether private or not, have the right to act in the exact manner an individual civilian can act.  The law should treat everybody equally.

 

Philando was allegedly reaching for his wallet at the request of the police officer.  We cannot know this for sure, but we can reliably assume that the policeman would ask to see his drivers license and insurance.  We have no evidence that Philando was NOT complying with police requests.  We also have to consider the credible possibility that the police officer was given conflicting and contradictory directions.  Even if Philando was not following directions, that doesn't give the policeman the right to lethally shoot him five times.  The officer would have to credibly believe that his life was in danger and his actions were in self defense.

 

From everything I have read on Philando Castile, his criminal history did NOT include violent crime.  That should be a very important distinction.  Having several dozen traffic citations and a DUI on your record does not credibly indicate you would pull a gun on somebody or rob a store.  

 

The thing that bother's Steph about your thread and discussions on the news is how 1 sided they are. You didn't notice, but that is almost entirely the point of him making those videos. You are beating a dead horse and we have heard your points on every news channel are web site. What is very rare is every fact that doesn't support the poor helpless black man and evil cops narrative. I'm not trying to say you are being a dick or anything, I'm just saying that you missed the point and this is what it is.

 

A civilian wouldn't be in a shooting in which he/she is trying to arrest an allegedly armed man committing what is legally defined in most places in the US as "assault with a deadly weapon." Yeah, you pull out a gun and threaten anybody and that's what it is. Regarding Sterling, a cop had to be there. A cop had to talk to a guy that somebody said had a gun and committed a violent felony immediately prior to that cop showing up. A cop had to show up and protect everybody from a guy thought to be committing a very serious and potentially deadly crime. The guy was legally detained and for damn good reason at this point. Everything a cop tells you to do while detained is a legal order until a court later decides that it wasn't. He disobeyed orders. He was tazed, reasonably because he would not obey lawful orders. He then resisted arrest and was perceived by the arresting officer to be reaching and touching both his pockets and the police's own gear. He was reasonably believed to possess a firearm. He was reasonably believed to have been trying to reach for a firearm after 1. committing assault with a deadly weapon against the person that called 911, 2. disobeyed lawful orders, 3. had to be tazed, 4. resisted arrest, 5. was reaching for his gun. You don't blink. You don't hesitate. You shoot that mother fucker so that you can go home to your family instead of going home to see god and another officer on the scene has to put him down like a rabid dog anyway. The cop had to be there. That was his job. He had to protect everybody else and for plenty of good reasons he was of the belief that he had to also protect himself right there, right then. At best, Alton Sterling was a complete fucking moron and died for it. At worst, a cop got a little too anxious and accidentally killed a man that was just too scared and was taught from too young an age that police are the enemy always. The fact that this guy has a union doesn't matter. Everything Sterling did was 100% wrong. I would have given him orders. I would have tazed him. maybe I would have kept tazing him 'til he put the cuffs on himself and apologized. If I felt he was reaching for a gun to shoot me, I would have shot him before he got a chance to draw.

 

We don't have video of the whole philando stop, if I'm convinced enough, just as a jury might be that he was reasonably believed to be a suspect of a previous crime, as was specifically stated prior to the shooting, then they had all the reason to stop and detain him. Reasonable suspicion, that's all and it becomes a completely legitimate detention. In fact, police are told that they can make up shit to stop people and question them. It's their job. Apparently, the "suspect" then claimed to have a gun in a specific location. He also claimed to have his identification in an immediately adjacent position. STOP. You don't reach for a damn thing. You don't even twitch funny. You will be told what to do and you will obey slowly and to the letter. You are not going to reach for or grab anything. You will be told to exit your vehicle slowly and you will do so. You will be told to keep your hands where they can be seen and you will do so. You will then be told that you will be disarmed and searched and you will allow it. You now pose no threat and you will continue to do exactly as you are told. If no crime is found to have been committed, you will be given your firearm and other articles. Your firearm will have been unloaded and you will be allowed to load it after the encounter has ended completely. Obviously if you are found to have committed a crime, you may be charged based on your politeness and severity of the crime. STOP. I both open and conceal carry. I know this dance and I have been through it. You might want to take my word for it. All that said, if you are reasonably thought to have committed a prior felony, for which you WILL go to prison, then it is fair to assume that you don't want to go and may be likely to resist. If a cop believe you committed a violent felony, you will be considered a threat and the likelihood that you will resist to deadly effect is considered to be very high. You put your hand near your gun and you will be shot. At this point, you only have to ask yourself one question. "Do I feel lucky?"  The facts you want to know are "did the cop actually have reasonable suspicion?" and "did he reach for or immediately near where he was thought to have a gun?" If yes to both, the cop should 100% have shot him. If just yes to the latter, then the cop probably should have shot him. If the cop knew he had a gun and told him not to reach for it or his ID, but he did so anyway, once again, the cop should have shot him 100%. The only times in which the cop would not have been completely justified in shooting him is if he had no reason to believe he was the suspect and had no reason to believe that he had a gun that he was reaching for OR he knew he had the gun, but actually for some insane fucking reason told him to reach for his wallet that he told the cop was literally right next to his gun. Fact his, he said he had a gun and he reached toward it. Unless you have it on video, I don't believe for a second that a cop told a guy with a gun that wasn't a super white  likely rich guy with an ultra friendly attitude to reach for his wallet. A cop might talk like that to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. A cop will not say that to baggy clothes thug johnson.

 

As far as the type or severity of the crime, if you are guilty you want to get away, and you certainly might try. If you then have a gun and for any reason also reach toward it, you're going to get shot.