Punching Nazis

[Perfection]

My conclusion form this thread is punching Nazis is a mixed bag. You lose some non-violence cred but you gain some "I'm not screwing around" cred. However, since Trump's current MO is to act without respect to democratic norms and the law, it is more consistent to try to act within democratic norms and the law. We must work to reinforce the system that Trump is attempting to smash apart by working within it. So for that reason I'm on the nix the punches angle.

That said, I'm still going to enjoy watching them get punched.

 

[W|M]

Currently existing laws and institutions are what got us into this mess in the first place

 

[Perfection]

I largely see this as a result of Republicans being too obstructionist to allow for the needed reforms. They're not committed to making the institutions work because they firmly believe institutions can't work. People who work in government should have some belief in government. Conservative skepticism is healthy and great, but too many conservatives have devolved into cynicism and paranoia.

 

[Commodore]

You don't really understand how Constitutional rights work, do you?

Yeah, I do. I also understand that 228 years of legal precedent has expanded the meaning of those rights. I also understand that our entire criminal code, from federal laws all the way down to local laws are informed by the Constitution and, in theory, exist in order to protect one or more Constitutional rights that you have. You, as an individual, have absolutely no authority to deny anyone their Constitutional rights through any means that could be construed as coercion or violence. It's not like we are talking about a corporation firing someone for their opinion, we are talking about you thinking it is okay to use violence to silence people you disagree with. The corporation is well within their rights to fire someone they disagree with politically, you are not well within your rights to commit an act of violence against someone just because you don't like what they are saying.

Still though, even if you might not have a legal obligation to respect someone's Constitutional rights, you certainly have a moral one. And if you make the excuse of "well they don't respect my rights, so I'm not going to respect theirs!" that just makes you a childish person that's part of the problem. Didn't your parents ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Or, if you want to get biblical, that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?

 

[Perfection]

There are limits to constitutionally protected free speech, such as libel, harassment, and incitement of violence. Acts that the alt-right arguably engage in. So strictly speaking, the puncher may be retaliating for speech that isn't constitutionally protected.

 

[Commodore]

There are limits to constitutionally protected free speech, such as libel, harassment, and incitement of violence. Acts that the alt-right arguably engage in. So strictly speaking, the puncher may be retaliating for speech that isn't constitutionally protected.

But the puncher has no legal authority to act upon that. If you see someone engaging in speech that isn't protected, you go get a cop. If you decide to take matters into your own hands, you are going to be the only one that gets punished, and rightfully so.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But the puncher has no legal authority to act upon that. If you see someone engaging in speech that isn't protected, you go get a cop. If you decide to take matters into your own hands, you are going to be the only one that gets punished, and rightfully so.

If the only thing stopping bad behavior is the presence of cops then we've already lost. I'll trust my own judgements, thanks.

 

[Commodore]

If the only thing stopping bad behavior is the presence of cops then we've already lost. I'll trust my own judgements, thanks.

No, it's when vigilante justice becomes acceptable that we've lost. The average citizen simply cannot be trusted to make appropriate decisions when it comes to crime and punishment.

 

[Perfection]

But the puncher has no legal authority to act upon that. If you see someone engaging in speech that isn't protected, you go get a cop. If you decide to take matters into your own hands, you are going to be the only one that gets punished, and rightfully so.

Well, I think deference to due process is in general better in the case of alt-right protesters because it's a little inconsistent to chide them for attempting to deprive people of due process when one is doing the same.

However, I can think of clear cut extraordinary cases (say a man with a megaphone who is about to tell a lie to a crowd of people that would almost surely lead to violence) where punching is acceptable.

Still I can see some interesting arguments being made in the alt-right punching case that the puncher may believe that the police ought to try to find him and arrest him and that he ought to have punched. A sort 'good trouble' to borrow John Lewis' terminology (though John Lewis would object to the violent act).

In any case though, my post was not arguing in favor of punching or not punching. You stated that suppression of constitutionally protected speech was their aim, and I wanted to provide an argument against that notion. Vigilantism is a crime of significantly different moral character than naked suppression.

 

[W|M]

No, it's when vigilante justice becomes acceptable that we've lost. The average citizen simply cannot be trusted to make appropriate decisions when it comes to crime and punishment.

What makes you think that the violence of the cop is more legitimate than the violence of the average person on the street?

 

[Commodore]

However, I can think of clear cut extraordinary cases (say a man with a megaphone who is about to tell a lie to a crowd of people that would almost surely lead to violence) where punching is acceptable.

Except, legally, it's not acceptable. The reason being that individual citizens who are not law enforcement officers have no legal authority to take such action. The only time the use of violence is acceptable for a private citizen to use is in defense of their own life or property. And no, the argument of "well if he said something that starts a riot, my life/home/business might be in danger" doesn't fly in a court. The danger to your life or property has to be direct and imminent.

Vigilantism is a crime of significantly different moral character than naked suppression

But a crime nonetheless. And an arguably more dangerous one at that as vigilantism can (and has) very easily spiral out of control into straight up mob violence.

 

[Commodore]

What makes you think that the violence of the cop is more legitimate than the violence of the average person on the street?

Training, accountability, laws, regulations, and oversight. A citizen taking independent action has none of those things to curb their violence. Also, it is not the job of individual citizens to maintain public order, whereas that is arguably the primary function of any government.

 

[KmDubya]

What makes you think that the violence of the cop is more legitimate than the violence of the average person on the street?

Are you really serious in this statement????

Some random guy on the street has the same legitimacy as an officer of the law, duly sworn in and appointed by the government of the people, by the people and for the people, trained and committed to protect and serve. This is just mind boggling that you can possibly believe this.

Maybe in some sort of third world ******** you have such a corruption of the law but in America that is definitely not the case.

 

[Perfection]

Except, legally, it's not acceptable. The reason being that individual citizens who are not law enforcement officers have no legal authority to take such action. The only time the use of violence is acceptable for a private citizen to use is in defense of their own life or property. And no, the argument of "well if he said something that starts a riot, my life/home/business might be in danger" doesn't fly in a court. The danger to your life or property has to be direct and imminent.

I'm pretty sure defense of the lives of others is also an acceptable use of violence. I'm not sure where you get "direct and imminent" requirement from but it seems to me that such an act could plausibly be considered necessary.

Wikipedia article on necessity suggests the following

Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid.

I believe my concocted scenario meets all those requirements.

But a crime nonetheless. And an arguably more dangerous one at that as vigilantism can (and has) very easily spiral out of control into straight up mob violence.

Sure, it has its own set of issues.

 

[W|M]

Training, accountability, laws, regulations, and oversight. A citizen taking independent action has none of those things to curb their violence. Also, it is not the job of individual citizens to maintain public order, whereas that is arguably the primary function of any government.

You must be pretty sheltered to think that cops have accountability or oversight. While yes, it is the primary function of the state to enforce laws and maintain the status quo, that doesn't mean that what it does is good.

Are you really serious in this statement????

Some random guy on the street has the same legitimacy as an officer of the law, duly sworn in and appointed by the government of the people, by the people and for the people, trained and committed to protect and serve. This is just mind boggling that you can possibly believe this.

Maybe in some sort of third world ****hole you have such a corruption of the law but in America that is definitely not the case.

You're implying that cops are where they are and that they do what they do by popular demand, which isn't the case. Nobody voted for cops to come into being, and nobody is going to run on a platform of getting rid of them, so the idea that cops exist because everyone wants them to exist is laughable. They're trained to protect and serve the interests of the state, and by extension, capital, not the people as a whole.

 

[Perfection]

One thing to bear in mind Commodore, is that what people should do and what people should be legally permitted to do are not the same things.

For instance, I should not call west india man a total jerk, but I should be legally permitted to call west india man a total jerk. (no offense to total jerks out there )

This can arguably also cut the other way where one should do what one should not be legally permitted to do.

Perhaps we should not be legally permitted to punch alt-right provocateurs even though we should punch alt-right provocateurs. Though I tend to lean against that stance, I don't find it to be particularly incoherent.

 

[Berzerker]

Lexicus wasn't responding to someone with a "you are wrong I am right" form when neither of you has any certain knowledge. His statement was clearly opinion. Yours was less apparently opinion, because of the form. So no, I had no complaints about his comment, and still think yours was ignorant. If you had stated your opinion first and he had jumped on you the way you jumped on him I'd be having the same conversation with him...though I am pretty sure he would have been smart enough to get out of it, if not smart enough to have never gotten into it in the first place.

Meanwhile, I always get a good laugh when people from the sidelines use the word coward to describe someone taking an action, so thanks for that.

Lexicus said Martin was killed for walking and I said Martin was killed for attacking someone with a gun. You claimed to have no knowledge but decided my opinion was objectionable because I wasn't there. Lex wasn't there either. Then you said I expressed too much certainty with my definitive statement, as if 'Martin was killed for walking' is not certain and definitive? Your double standards are transparent. I called somebody you admire a coward and you're upset. The sideline is fine for me, I dont like either of these people, but the puncher should be in jail. Federal hate crime?

 

[Arwon]

The only time the use of violence is acceptable for a private citizen to use is in defense of their own life or property.

This is probably a whole other huge argument in itself

 

[Arwon]

This can arguably also cut the other way where one should do what one should not be legally permitted to do.

Perhaps we should not be legally permitted to punch alt-right provocateurs even though we should punch alt-right provocateurs. Though I tend to lean against that stance, I don't find it to be particularly incoherent.

I'd argue this is the response to all the silly "ticking bomb" hypothetical torture justifications.

 

[Perfection]

I'd argue this is the response to all the silly "ticking bomb" hypothetical torture justifications.

I agree. In fact, thinking about that exact situation is the first time I noticed the distinction.