They don't carry a monopoly on violence though? In the US, at least, you have the right to defend yourself which can include killing or detaining a person inflicting harm on you or others. This is the same thing cops can do.
It's a fair point, but they do have a unique form of monopoly on violence. They can "legitimately" initiate violence.
Initiate the violence.
Don't pay your property taxes, and ignore summons, etc? Eventually someone will show up at your door to toss you out of your house. If you just sit on your couch and say "nuh huh" eventually they will violently throw you out. If you use self defense to stop the violence, they'll simply kill you or incapacitate you.
Grow a funny plant in the wrong state? Eventually, if they find out, men with guns will bust into your house. They won't be 'self-defending' you into your custody, they will be initiating the violence against you to take you.
While self defense is 'violence' I think a lot of us just almost "don't count it." Self defense is more like stopping the violence, IMO.
Self defense can include stopping somebody from taking your property (maybe not every state?) This is comparable to not paying taxes. The taxes are legitimately owed to the government and so you have "stolen" from the government. Similar to stealing from an individual (in a sense).
You may not be a fan of killing over stolen property, but depending on the situation and state it is completely allowed. I think some states even allow you to kill a person who stole something from you while they are running away.
This means the initiation of physical violence can be initiated by you as well and be considered just.
Laws regarding weed are more nuanced, but it doesn't change that individuals can under certain circumstances initiate physical violence towards somebody legitimately.
I concede you're right. It's not a complete monopoly. My state would allow a citizen's arrest for felony theft, for instance. Generally killing someone over property is illegal, absent some unique circumstances (like breaking into an occupied structure).
I'm not aware of any state that allows you to use violence to collect on a contract, however. IF you see taxes as satisfaction of the social contract or whatever. It's hard for me to argue failure to pay taxes as theft; I'd call it more of failure to pay for an involuntary contract. IMO it would be much more appropriately be classified as a civil offense than a criminal one.
Maybe? The victim was reaching towards his back which complicates the situation. The police officer had already told him to not do that. This is almost certainly a twitchy cop who gave confusing commands like keep your hands up and also crawl and he probably should lose his job, but it isn't as easy as you seem to be conveying.
If you are civilian and are detaining a person for a just cause like they were trying to kill you or something (Daniel had been pointing a gun out of a window so it is reasonable to think he may try to kill somebody) and the person reached to his back like that you might not be convicted if you shoot them.
It seems to me like you are making the assumption that a civilian would be convicted. Do you have any examples for the same situation?
It's not at all surprising that a rapid sequence of confusing commands that was loudly yelled at him at a gunpoint, interspersed with threats, wasn't precisely followed - not to mention that "crawl towards me" and "keep your hands in the air at all times" are literally contradictory. I don't think I'd do better in his shoes - and you can look at the comments on that video and see for yourself just how many people have the same sentiment. Which is to say, a reasonable person should not be expected to be able to carry out such instructions precisely in this situation.
Oh, and cops are civilians, too. They just like to pretend otherwise, with that whole "sheepdog" insanity. And, unfortunately, in US, we've normalized this. But anyway, a non-cop would be convicted of assault already at the point they aimed a rifle at another person and told them to crawl. That aside, if by some miracle a similar situation did emerge, I can't see how the shooter wouldn't be convicted, since the usual standard for self-defense by lethal means is "imminent threat of death or significant bodily harm", which is eminently not the case in the video. The fact that the cop customized his AR-15 with an engraved dust cover that said "you're fucked" is a cherry on top that does give you a hint regarding the general state of mind of that cop.
FWIW I carry myself and know many other people who do, and they were all universally appalled at this case, even more than your average person.
I agree with much of what you said. I probably didn't convey my points clearly.
The victim clearly wasn't in a good position to shoot the cop even if he grabbed a gun. The cop would likely have had time to shoot, if necessary, if Daniel had pulled a gun. (Assuming the camera is the same perspective as his head).
There obviously wasn't an actual threat in this case but there was a perceived threat. The cop was there because Daniel was being reckless with a gun. I think that is the key reason why I am not sure there should be a conviction. Being reckless with a gun then reaching for your waist band / back when being told not to is clearly not a good thing to do.
I do think the cop is at fault for not giving clear directions, for contradicting his directions, etc. I'm not trying to victim blame or anything like that. I am saying I am not sure what the average person would do. You know he has a gun and he reached for the waist band. I think the average person would quite possibly shoot. I don't think the average person should be a cop just like I don't think this guy should be a cop.
Legally it depends on the jurisdiction. In my view everybody has the right though.
Just to be clear you have the right to protect yourself or others from unjust violence not all violence. If you are about to murder somebody, another person does not have the right to stop a good Samaritan trying to stop the murder.
