Comment: disagree

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Farmer (see in situ)


They were not randomly chosen. They were police. It's pretty clear that the couple was not targeting anyone random. It was not a random killing.

Your use of the word "murder" evades the question about whether or not it was self-defense or defense of others. You have no argument there. Either that, or you have an incorrect argument.

Part of the underlying problem is your assumption about "due process." Due process, if it contributes anything of value in a "free society," limits the actions of people acting under "authority." If police wish to kidnap you or have you killed, you are supposed to be protected by due process. Miranda rights and such things are part of "due process." Of course this has been turned around and cast as a limitation on individuals. An individual acting on his own without the deception of authority is not subject to nor limited in any way by due process. He is limited by responsibility for his actions.

As I understand it, the people who killed the police officers are now dead. That situation may be viewed as the consequence of their actions for which they were responsible. They were responsible as individuals, so "due process" has nothing to do with it.

The question, which you have not answered is: Was their killing of the police officers murder? It is not murder simply because you say it was.

If Cantwell is correct (and you have agreed he is on this point) that police (and I mean all police) carry out aggression against those who have committed no (real) crime, i.e., who have only violated the arbitrary rules of politicians (one could almost say random laws here), then the actions of the couple were clearly at least in the defense of others. You might argue that the retaliation was out of proportion to the crime, but the retaliation was just that. It wasn't murder.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the whole idea that "punishment" should be in proportion to the crime came along with the idea of human authority and group-think: "An eye for an eye." Ghandi (and Jesus) didn't seem to have much use for that. Jesus said a thief won't rob a strong man's house when the strong man is at home. Do you think it's out of fear for a "proportional" retaliation?

You also mention that there will always be police as part of your argument. There have been all kinds of societies without police. Even in America. You don't need special designated people to enforce moral laws---only arbitrary immoral ones.

Again, I would say that you haven't offered any objections on moral grounds but only strategic ones.