Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

[ClaytonB]

Asinine, but yes, intelligible.

Well, and it has only one possible answer. “Should I try to do something that’s impossible?”

Well, no, of course not, because it’s impossible. h/t Rothbard

Clayton -

[bloomj31]

@Clayton

You might think you know what it means to freeze all commerce (I guess I should say all action) but you don’t. It’s an inherent contradiction because human beings act. They are always acting. They never stop.

Oh I see what you mean. Yeah you’re right cops cannot literally flash freeze everyone in place at a particular place in time. They can set up a roadblock, order everyone out of their cars, handcuff every adult, sit them on the curb and then search their vehicles. If they have something in particular they’re looking for then they can search the cars until they find it. They obviously think they found what they were looking for.

@Clayton

The idea of dragnetting - stop-framing all action within some subset of the population - is inherently contradictory.

A dragnet is just a coordinated police search. Common methodology includes things like roadblocks, systemized searches, checkpoints and things like that. They’re not claiming the power to stop time.

[MMMark]

Wed. 12/06/06 20:16 EDT
.post #161[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #31 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]I understand the economics involved I just see no reason why I should value two hours of someone else’s time over potentially catching a criminal.

I won’t tell you that you “should” value one thing over another. I would simply point out to people that this is a symptom of an inherently rotten system, and that such a system is not inevitable, but rather, the inevitable result of unquestioned acceptance of certain ideas.

@bloomj31

If they don’t like it they can leave. If they choose not to leave they can take their grievances to the legal system. If they find no satisfactory recompense through the legal system then, as far as I’m concerned, their case is closed. The only thing they can then do is complain to people and hope someone listens. … If you don’t like it go away. If you don’t go away then you understand that it’s theoretically possible that you might be detained against your will for two hours.

Of course, but I think that, being universally obvious, this doesn’t really offer anything new or “better” to people who don’t know about libertarianism.

What I think is not universally obvious is the idea that what is currently monopolized by government can be offered on the market and that, in addition to greater choice, lower prices, higher quality and better service, consumers, by choosing how and where to spend their own money, would finally have the power to reward those who best serve them, and punish those who don’t. For example, how many owners would dare allow mall security to handcuff every patron for two hours and ransack private property, all on the pretext of apprehending a shoplifter? Only government can continually get away with this abusive behavior; competitive, market enterprises can’t afford it.

So while we all must manage, in our own ways, with the unpleasant daily realities of the “statist quo,” we can additionally try to “spread the good word” and proselytize.

[bloomj31]

Well good luck with that.

[MMMark]

Wed. 12/06/06 20:47 EDT
.post #162[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #44 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]Well good luck with that.

Thanks.

[ClaytonB]

They’re not claiming the power to stop time.

But I think this is the subtext by which dragnets are sold to the public. If the police can’t stop time with a dragnet, then what exactly is it that makes the police power so special? There’s more than one way to solve a problem and who says that the only or even the best solution to this was cordoning off an entire intersection and putting a lot of bystanders in danger, along with imposing costs on them that they didn’t reasonably agree to by virtue of being in the public square in order to recover the stolen property of just another private entity (the bank)?

A bank robber is not a danger to anyone except the bank tellers for the duration of the robbery and, after that, he wants nothing more than to just disappear. At the point this dragnet occurred, the bank robber was trying to disappear. So this is not a “public safety” issue at all, it’s a “Wells Fargo wants their money back” issue. Which is fine for WF. Obviously, WF does not have the right to impose this kind of cost on the public on its own cognizance so I don’t think the public police should do it on their behalf.

But returning to the original point - what can the cops do that WF’s own security cannot? After all, the cops can’t stop time, either. That’s the question that needs to be answered. Why isn’t the bank responsible for its own security? If someone steals my wallet, the cops aren’t going to cordon off an intersection to catch the thief because, after all, I’m responsible for my own security. There’s a very obvious failure to actually think clearly about public policy here and answer even the most elementary questions. This is precisely the kind of lobotomized public policy that the Constitution and liberal political philosophy in general is supposed to prevent.

Clayton -

[bloomj31]

@Clayton

If the police can’t stop time with a dragnet, then what exactly is it that makes the police power so special?

That’s difficult to articulate. One of the things that makes it special is that it derives its authority from the state which means that it represents the ultimate authority in the land. That means that when the cops show up with their lights flashing and start ordering people out of their cars that those people are probably gonna do it because they’d be afraid not to. You can’t buy that kinda fear. It has to be imposed. The cops represent the executive branch of the government and they have the full power of the law and the state behind them. That’s serious power. Wells Fargo’s security doesn’t have that kinda authority. There’s also the understanding that the cops serve the public, not just some bank. They’ll wield that power for anyone who’s on the side of the law, not just the person who can afford it (although money matters.)

@Clayton

There’s more than one way to solve a problem and who says that the only or even the best solution to this was cordoning off an entire intersection and putting a lot of bystanders in danger, along with imposing costs on them that they didn’t reasonably agree to by virtue of being in the public square in order to recover the stolen property of just another private entity (the bank)?

There’s always more than one way to solve a problem. Perhaps this wasn’t the ideal solution. But it seems to have worked. It also demonstrates the lengths the cops will go to catch a criminal. That’s a real demonstration of power and it creates fear that can’t be bought. People who live in this country agree to certain rules just by virtue of living here. If they don’t like it, they can try to change the rules, they can contest the rules in court or they can leave. Now the question is: was this type of search within the boundaries of the law? On that I’m uncertain, I’ve been looking at case law to see. I think it’s arguable that it was overdone.

@Clayton

the bank robber is not a danger to anyone except the bank tellers for the duration of the robbery and, after that, he wants nothing more than to just disappear. At the point this dragnet occurred, the bank robber was trying to disappear. So this is not a “public safety” issue at all, it’s a “Wells Fargo wants their money back” issue.

It’s not just about who he’s a danger to, it’s about what he’s done. People like that need to understand that they will be caught and when they’re caught they will regret ever having tried to rob a bank. The rules must be enforced or else they become meaningless.

@Clayton

Which is fine for WF. Obviously, WF does not have the right to impose this kind of cost on the public on its own cognizance so I don’t think the public police should do it on their behalf.

They do actually have the right to impose that cost on others because they pay their taxes (which are probably higher than yours) and they reside within the boundaries of the state and that entitles them to the same police protections that are available to everyone else. That’s part of the deal of living here.

@Clayton

But returning to the original point - what can the cops do that WF’s own security cannot? After all, the cops can’t stop time, either. That’s the question that needs to be answered.

I dunno, apparently they can’t stop a bank robber. But more importantly, they can’t go out on the street, order people out of their cars and handcuff them, search the cars and then apprehend the suspect. They don’t have the authority.

@Clayton

Why isn’t the bank responsible for its own security? If someone steals my wallet, the cops aren’t going to cordon off an intersection to catch the thief because, after all, I’m responsible for my own security.

Because they reside in the United States. No one is singularly responsible for their own security, that’s one of the best things about living here imo. This isn’t a free society. We’re not all out their on our own. Who knows what the cops would do to protect you? I don’t have a crystal ball.

@Clayton

This is precisely the kind of lobotomized public policy that the Constitution

Did you know that originally the Bill of Rights was not incorporated into the states? That came way later. The police power is one of the reserved powers left to the states by the 10th Amendment. That means that states had at the founding almost unlimited power to execute their laws (because of the necessary and proper clause as well) unless they conflicted with the federal government’s laws. Now because of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause many of the civil protections previously only afforded to citizens from the federal government have also been expanded into protections from state governments but there is still great debate about their scope.

[John_James]

@Clayton

If someone steals my wallet, the cops aren’t going to cordon off an intersection to catch the thief

Well…unless of course you’re the Chief’s son. Then you can get no less than 10 cops specially assigned to the case of your missing cell phone. Because after all, who needs to be responsible when you’ve got nepotism and a monopoly control on legal force.

[Malachi]

@bloomj31

To me catching the criminal matters more than potentially wasting two hours time of people I couldn’t care less about.

at least youre honest. Please tell me why its important to catch a criminal, if you “couldn’t care less” about people? What do you care about, locking people in cages? You have said before that the coercive reappropriation of resources isnt de facto wrong, so what about “robbing a bank” is soooo evil that it became important to apprehend this guy?

[Malachi]

That means that when the cops show up with their lights flashing and start ordering people out of their cars that those people are probably gonna do it because they’d be afraid not to. You can’t buy that kinda fear. It has to be imposed. The cops represent the executive branch of the government and they have the full power of the law and the state behind them. That’s serious power. Wells Fargo’s security doesn’t have that kinda authority. There’s also the understanding that the cops serve the public, not just some bank. They’ll wield that power for anyone who’s on the side of the law, not just the person who can afford it (although money matters.)

thats not exactly accurate. First of all, people pull over, allow themselves to be handcuffed, searched etc., not because of some noble respect for the law, but because of consequences. They perform that way for anyone who is aggressive and appears capable of violence. Ask someone who has been to iraq, where soldiers performed the very same police-type actions and were largely considered to be illegitimate occuppiers. Furthermore, the police do not serve the public, they serve the state nominally, and their own interests typically. If police were actually supposed to “protect and serve” then why would the us supreme court rule that police have no duty to protect you? Private security has no such constraints, they literally do serve their customers.

But more importantly, they can’t go out on the street, order people out of their cars and handcuff them, search the cars and then apprehend the suspect. They don’t have the authority.

why do you think the government insists on this monopoly?

[bloomj31]

@Malachi

Please tell me why its important to catch a criminal, if you “couldn’t care less” about people? What do you care about, locking people in cages? You have said before that the coercive reappropriation of resources isnt de facto wrong, so what about “robbing a bank” is soooo evil that it became important to apprehend this guy?

I care most about the rules of the social order being upheld. I care about order and the rule of law being enforced. It’s not that I don’t care about people. It’s that I think the trade off between two hours of some random people’s time and catching a criminal seems worth it. Robbing the bank is not objectively evil but it does represent a clear disregard for the established rules of our social order. You’re not supposed to rob banks. Why? I don’t really have an ultimate reason or a grand objective rule yet. It probably has something to do with the evolutionary adaptive response to those who take things in a personal context but I really can’t say yet I’m still searching for the answer.

@Malachi

First of all, people pull over, allow themselves to be handcuffed, searched etc., not because of some noble respect for the law, but because of consequences. They perform that way for anyone who is aggressive and appears capable of violence.

Right but that sort of fear is amplified when it’s understood that there’s no one else to turn to. There is one law, one set of rules, one source of authority. That makes them that much scarier to deal with which is preferable in my mind to the private alternative. I don’t want people thinking they get a choice as to who they obey. I want them to understand that there’s no alternative. That’s the kind of fear that only a monopoly on force can create. Does it have its drawbacks? Absolutely. But I feel it’s absolutely preferable to the private alternatives I’ve seen proposed.

@Malachi

If police were actually supposed to “protect and serve” then why would the us supreme court rule that police have no duty to protect you?

Reference?

@Malachi

Private security has no such constraints, they literally do serve their customers.

Exactly that’s what makes such a system a nightmare to me. I don’t mind living in a society where people can choose what kind of toothpaste they buy but I don’t want everyone to have a choice over what laws to obey. I want there to be only one choice for everyone, take it or leave it (or try to elect people to formally change it.) Who in their right mind would want to live in a social order where the law and its executors openly and intentionally served the desires of men as opposed to the letter of the law itself?

@Malachi

why do you think the government insists on this monopoly?

Because they couldn’t have singular authority otherwise. Now why wouldn’t you want them to have that monopoly? So that the law would be more responsive to you? That really sounds appealing?

[Malachi]

I care most about the rules of the social order being upheld. I care about order and the rule of law being enforced.

not trying to be harsh, but you dont seem familiar with the concept of rule of law, as it is diametrically opposed to the idea of endowing agents of the state with special powers. But I really want to know how you define “rules of social order” because putting 19 people in handcuffs for 2 hours isnt my idea of any kind of social order, and these rules in question are more unilateral than truly social.

Right but that sort of fear is amplified when it’s understood that there’s no one else to turn to. There is one law, one set of rules, one source of authority. That makes them that much scarier to deal with which is preferable in my mind to the private alternative.

when youre staring down the barrel of a gun, that stuff becomes significantly less important. As for “no one else to turn to,” do you acknowledge the potential for abuse?

Reference?

Dechaney v. Winnebago county, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, or the evening news

I don’t want everyone to have a choice over what laws to obey.

well then youre tilting at windmills because people will always be able to choose to violate the law.

Who in their right mind would want to live in a social order where the law and its executors openly and intentionally served the desires of men as opposed to the letter of the law itself?

anyone who understands human action.

Because they couldn’t have singular authority otherwise. Now why wouldn’t you want them to have that monopoly? So that the law would be more responsive to you? That really sounds appealing?

because monopolies are inefficient and prone to abuse, and yes, it sounds very appealing to be responsible for procuring my own police and legal services so I could refrain from funding abusive police departments and court systems, and instead pay for police etc. that I prefer.

[bloomj31]

@Malachi

not trying to be harsh, but you dont seem familiar with the concept of rule of law, as it is diametrically opposed to the idea of endowing agents of the state with special powers.

What’s your idea of the rule of law?

@Malachi

But I really want to know how you define “rules of social order” because putting 19 people in handcuffs for 2 hours isnt my idea of any kind of social order, and these rules in question are more unilateral than truly social.

It’s conceivable that the police overstepped their constitutional bounds. The rules of social order cannot be defined in a simple paragraph or something they involve an understanding that people have with one another. You’re not supposed to rob banks. If the people who were detained really feel like the cops overstepped their authority then they can complain about it. I don’t really know how all of those people feel though. Now if the police did overstep the bounds then perhaps they did violate the understanding of the social order as much as the bank robber did. But still I’d rather they be able to do that every now and again and get the guy than not.

@malachi

do you acknowledge the potential for abuse?

Sure it can and obviously does happen.

@malachi

Dechaney v. Winnebago county, Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, or the evening news

I don’t watch TV for insights into the SCOTUS but I’ll definitely review the cases. Looking through them now.

@Malachi

well then youre tilting at windmills because people will always be able to choose to violate the law.

Ofcourse but if the system is set up right they’ll have serious reservations before doing so and, just as important, they will come to seriously regret having done so in the first place.

@Malachi

anyone who understands human action.

Well then you guys who “understand human action” so well can go somewhere else. I’m really interested to see what happens in your free society.

@Malachi

because monopolies are inefficient and prone to abuse

So what if they can be inefficient and prone to abuse? Those are drawbacks that you cannot tolerate under any circumstances? Like you’d take apart the whole system just for that?

@Malachi

yes, it sounds very appealing to be responsible for procuring my own police and legal services so I could refrain from funding abusive police departments and court systems, and instead pay for police etc. that I prefer.

Well I don’t ever want you to be able to do that. I hope I can help to prevent such a thing from ever coming to pass.

[Malachi]

What’s your idea of the rule of law?

the same rules apply to everyone.

The rules of social order cannot be defined in a simple paragraph or something they involve an understanding that people have with one another. You’re not supposed to rob banks.

on the contrary, young padawan, the rules of social order are quite simple. Do not violate people or property. Violence is only permitted as a defensive reaction to aggressive violence, and as a last resort. Youre not supposed to rob banks because youre not supposed to rob anyone, because it violates their property and likely their person as well. At very least, 18 of those 19 individuals could respond to you by saying “I didn’t rob anyone, why was I assaulted and detained?”

If the people who were detained really feel like the cops overstepped their authority then they can complain about it.

yah, thanks. How about this:

if the bank feels that badly about being robbed, then they can complain about it.

But still I’d rather they be able to do that every now and again and get the guy than not.

I’m still trying to figure out what your opinion is based on, if not the interests and benefit of those individuals involved.

Ofcourse but if the system is set up right they’ll have serious reservations before doing so and, just as important, they will come to seriously regret having done so in the first place.

none of which requires a state, or even a monopoly on police/law. And we already know that markets are more efficient, so what is your justification here?

Well then you guys who “understand human action” so well can go somewhere else. I’m really interested to see what happens in your free society.

haha, nope, sorry, I’m gonna stay right here and watch the house of cards come tumbling down.

So what if they can be inefficient and prone to abuse?

I’m sorry, I dont mean to be offensive, but do you work for a living? Do you feed yourself? Because its hard for me to imagine someone who earns his own keep saying something like that. “who cares if the system pisses away my wealth and doesnt provide what it is supposed to?”

yes, I think inefficiency and abuse are very good reasons to find a better way. Wouldnt you agree?

Well I don’t ever want you to be able to do that. I hope I can help to prevent such a thing from ever coming to pass.

What, you actually realize that you need to piss my wealth away too, because the abusive and inefficient monstrosity that exists would wither and die if it couldnt rob me and steal from me?

[MMMark]

Thurs. 12/06/07 22:51 EDT
.post #163

[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #31 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]If you choose to live in this country, you choose to live by its laws.

Do you think this is true for every citizen?

[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #51 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]I care most about the rules of the social order being upheld. I care about order and the rule of law being enforced.

Do you think “the rule of law (is) being enforced” for every citizen?

[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #51 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]There is one law, one set of rules, one source of authority. … I don’t want people thinking they get a choice as to who they obey. I want them to understand that there’s no alternative.

Do you think this applies to every citizen?

[bloomj31]

@Malachi

the same rules apply to everyone.

I seriously do not understand why you would prefer that rule of law to our current rule of law.

@Malachi

on the contrary, young padawan, the rules of social order are quite simple. Do not violate people or property. Violence is only permitted as a defensive reaction to aggressive violence, and as a last resort. Youre not supposed to rob banks because youre not supposed to rob anyone, because it violates their property and likely their person as well. At very least, 18 of those 19 individuals could respond to you by saying “I didn’t rob anyone, why was I assaulted and detained?”

I do not think that actually reflects the reality of the social order but instead what you would want the social order to be. Obviously human nature is not what you wish it were.

I would tell any of those people that the reason they were detained was because they were caught in an extraordinary circumstance where the police could not fully observe their due process rights at that time and the circumstance seemed to warrant an irregular form of detention. If they refused to accept that then they could file suit against the police station. I’d be interested to see how the case played out, I do think they might have a strong due process claim.

@Malachi

yah, thanks. How about this:

if the bank feels that badly about being robbed, then they can complain about it.

They did.

@Malachi

I’m still trying to figure out what your opinion is based on, if not the interests and benefit of those individuals involved.

I don’t know what you mean.

@Malachi

none of which requires a state, or even a monopoly on police/law. And we already know that markets are more efficient, so what is your justification here?

The market process would undoubtedly be more efficient in certain ways, but that kind of efficiency is not something I’m interested in when it comes to dispensing the law.

@malachi

I’m sorry, I dont mean to be offensive, but do you work for a living? Do you feed yourself? Because its hard for me to imagine someone who earns his own keep saying something like that. “who cares if the system pisses away my wealth and doesnt provide what it is supposed to?”

How much money did you pay in state income taxes last year?

@Malachi

yes, I think inefficiency and abuse are very good reasons to find a better way. Wouldnt you agree?

Yes and no. Abuse is more of an annoyance to me than inefficiency but then determining what constitutes abuse and inefficiency can be difficult. Obviously this might be an example of abuse but I’m not seeking an alternative way after seeing this though I might like to know if the cops violated those people’s constitutional rights.

@Malachi

What, you actually realize that you need to piss my wealth away too, because the abusive and inefficient monstrosity that exists would wither and die if it couldnt rob me and steal from me?

No it’s because I don’t trust you to have any idea what the law ought to be for you or anyone else. And I hope you’re never allowed to do the sort of damage I imagine you’d do if you could make those choices for yourself.

Also did you read the opinions for these cases you recommended?

[bloomj31]

@MMMark

Do you think this is true for every citizen?

Ideally yes.

@MMMark

Do you think “the rule of law (is) being enforced” for every citizen?

I’m not sure I understand the question. Every citizen all the time everywhere?

@MMMark

Do you think this applies to every citizen?

Ideally yes.

[MMMark]

Thurs. 12/06/07 23:25 EDT
.post #164[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #57 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]Ideally yes.

How about actually?

@bloomj31

I’m not sure I understand the question. Every citizen all the time everywhere?

What I’m getting at is, do you think there is a class of citizens who can legally ignore the law?
For example, do you think there is a class of citizens who can commit legal robbery, legal theft, legal assault, legal murder, etc?

[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #56 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]No it’s because I don’t trust you to have any idea what the law ought to be for you or anyone else. And I hope you’re never allowed to do the sort of damage I imagine you’d do if you could make those choices for yourself.

Do you mean, you don’t trust Malachi, or you don’t trust anyone?

[bloomj31]

@MMMark

What I’m getting at is, do you think there is a class of citizens who can legally ignore the law?

For example, do you think there is a class of citizens who can commit legal robbery, legal theft, legal assault, legal murder, etc?

You mean like the IRS? I’m just assuming that’s where you’re going with this line of questioning.

@MMMark

Do you mean, you don’t trust Malachi, or you don’t trust anyone?

There are people who I’m more inclined to trust than not but none of them are libertarians. Malachi appears to be a libertarian. I can’t be exactly sure what kind of legal system he’d like but if it’s anything like I’ve read about in my studies of libertarianism it sounds like an absolute nightmare.

[MMMark]

Thurs. 12/06/07 23:42 EDT
.post #165[url=Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber - #59 by bloomj31]

@bloomj31

[/url]You mean like the IRS?

For example, yes, like the IRS.

@bloomj31

There are people who I’m more inclined to trust than not but none of them are libertarians.

So, you trust some people to, in your own words, “… have (some) idea what the law ought to be for you or anyone else”?
Just not libertarians?

Also, will you please answer my other question: “How about actually?”

I’ll rejoin the conversation later. Must go to bed now. Thanks and good night.