Police and the use of force

[Traveler]

I do not intend to go into all my experience and reasoning – but I do want to address a subject that I believe is being lied about in our society.  I will say that I was in the military during the Vietnam conflict.   Part of my time was in assignment to an intelligence unit; trained to deal with prisoners of war.  I never dealt directly with anyone foreign to our country but I received insight and training into what is necessary to maintain authority.

So I want to present what I believe to be necessary for someone in a place of public authority and trust.  I believe police are in a place of public authority and trust as a matter of law and order.   For a person in a place of authority – they have the right to exercise that authority.  The problem is – what happens when that authority is resisted?

As I see it – there are only two fundamental options when authority is being resisted.  The first option is to relinquish the authority to the resistance.  That is not a good option in any society. The other option is to escalate the use of force until the authority is no longer resisted.  If there is another option – I will consider it but just because I am willing to consider it and your logic – do not expect that your logic will go unchallenged. 

I was listening to KSL radio and a judge was talking about a young man that was killed by police and then demonstrators having a run in with police while demonstrating.  As part of the radio program – a judge was saying that as long as the demonstrators were peaceful there was no need for the use of force.  I thought the judge was way out of line and likely somewhat hypocritical.  If I was to go to his courtroom and start peacefully expressing my opinion – I do not believe for a moment that if that judge told (ordered) me to be quiet – that if I resisted his order and simply said that I was peacefully protesting that he would treat me the way he was suggesting that the police maintain order.  I believe that judge would exercise whatever force was necessary to completely remove me from the court and end my peaceful protest in his court room.

So here is my point – there is no such thing as excessive force while there is resistance.

I also say this having been arrested and ordered to lay face down in snow in freezing weather.  I was 100% innocent and unarmed – but I did not resist.  I did not complain that I was being mistreated because I was innocent.  I did not resist – even a little tiny bit.  I believe that had I resisted I could have been shot and killed.  I am not suggesting that anyone do something that I am not willing to do myself.

I will also say that there are just times when someone assuming authority ought to be resisted.  I understand that concept very well.  But one must understand that resisting can get someone killed.  And so my almost final point is that if someone of just authority is being resisted (just authority is, for example, a police officer) that resistance can and will likely be met with force until there is no resistance.

Last point – if someone is mentally ill or on some drug that prohibits them from compliance – They should not be free to walk the streets.  Someone should be protecting them.  If they cannot be protected – the public safety is at great risk.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

There is also the scenario where the person "resisting" does not know that he is dealing with police, and believes himself to be the victim of a mugging or home invasion.

There was the case in Michigan of James King who was in just that position. Two plainclothes cops were staking out a filling station kiosk where they believed a suspected burglar was likely to show up. James King - who from certain angles looked a bit like the person they were after - turned up instead. One of them confronted him, while the other went behind him and started pulling things out of his pockets. Believing this to be a mugging, King "resisted" - whereupon the officers beat seven bells out of him and put him in hospital.

(By the way, this is not a BLM matter: James King is white.)

The ridiculous thing is that having done that - and having confirmed that he was not the man they were after - they prosecuted him anyway for "violently resisting arrest" - which is a felony. He was found not guilty, but only after the entire family fortune had been flushed down the toilet on lawyer fees. And now he can't sue to get the money back because of this "qualified immunity" garbage that American police are always hiding behind.

How the heck was he supposed to know that they were cops? There were plenty of witnesses who saw the whole incident, and NOT ONE of them realized at the time that these were cops. To their mind, they were witnessing a violent mugging, and some were even calling 911 to report it. It was only when "police backup" arrived that anyone knew the truth.

They say that they were wearing lanyards for identification. Oh yeah? Like the first thing anyone's going to do when assaulted by muggers is to scour their apparel for lanyards. Plus if you expect to be instantly recognized as a cop on the basis of a lanyard, why bother wearing plain clothes at all? Why not just wear a uniform?

What were these cops - and the authorities who enabled their BS case against King - expecting??? Did they think that all members of the public have clairvoyant powers? Or do they think it is a felony offence to resist a mugging, just in case the "muggers" later turn out to be plain clothes police officers?

I'm not surprised they got short shrift from the jury.

Not that that prevented poor James King being hospitalized, or his parents turned into paupers, or his being barred for life from applying for federal jobs for the heinous crime of having been "accused of a felony". By idiots.

There are lots of web pages and videos on this, but here is one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/03/16/after-almost-beating-student-to-death-cops-demand-supreme-court-block-police-brutality-lawsuit/#23431f8ce325

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Jamie123

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

There is also the scenario where the person "resisting" does not know that he is dealing with police, and believes himself to be the victim of a mugging or home invasion.

There was the case in Michigan of James King who was in just that position. Two plainclothes cops were staking out a filling station kiosk where they believed a suspected burglar was likely to show up. James King - who from certain angles looked a bit like the person they were after - turned up instead. One of them confronted him, while the other went behind him and started pulling things out of his pockets. Believing this to be a mugging, King "resisted" - whereupon the officers beat seven bells out of him and put him in hospital.

(By the way, this is not a BLM matter: James King is white.)

The ridiculous thing is that having done that - and having confirmed that he was not the man they were after - they prosecuted him anyway for "violently resisting arrest" - which is a felony. He was found not guilty, but only after the entire family fortune had been flushed down the toilet on lawyer fees. And now he can't sue to get the money back because of this "qualified immunity" garbage that American police are always hiding behind.

How the heck was he supposed to know that they were cops? There were plenty of witnesses who saw the whole incident, and NOT ONE of them realized at the time that these were cops. To their mind, they were witnessing a violent mugging, and some were even calling 911 to report it. It was only when "police backup" arrived that anyone knew the truth.

They say that they were wearing lanyards for identification. Oh yeah? Like the first thing anyone's going to do when assaulted by muggers is to scour their apparel for lanyards. Plus if you expect to be instantly recognized as a cop on the basis of a lanyard, why bother wearing plain clothes at all? Why not just wear a uniform?

What were these cops - and the authorities who enabled their BS case against King - expecting??? Did they think that all members of the public have clairvoyant powers? Or do they think it is a felony offence to resist a mugging, just in case the "muggers" later turn out to be plain clothes police officers?

I'm not surprised they got short shrift from the jury.

Not that that prevented poor James King being hospitalized, or his parents turned into paupers, or his being barred for life from applying for federal jobs for the heinous crime of having been "accused of a felony". By idiots.

There are lots of web pages and videos on this, but here is one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/03/16/after-almost-beating-student-to-death-cops-demand-supreme-court-block-police-brutality-lawsuit/#23431f8ce325

 

I do not doubt that this case may have some merit.   I personally am not in any position to validate any of it and from the article is may not be over yet.  As I scanned through the article I could not find that the reporter even attempted to research or understand the view or motives of the officers.  Obviously if the defendant was handcuffed to a hospital bed the officers would have been forced to identify themselves as officers of the law.  Again, obviously something is missing and it would be unjust on my part to attempt an opinion based on this article alone.

I would add that individual bias can greatly effect what a person thinks they see.  This happens a lot in sports, especially when a fan(s) thinks the refs make a bad call.  One of my best friends was a high school and college ref and constantly dealt with vandalism and threats and required police escorts to leave games.  He was never thanked for reffing and eventually quit.

With all this in mind I would put forth an observation.  In any profession, skill or life in general - if we take at random 10 individuals tasked to execute an ability to which they are employed - example policeman, plumber, politician, musician, ditch digger or whatever.  We will discover that there is a vast difference in ability, value and quality between the best and worst of the 10.  There is a great deal we can discover and say about this profound difference but I would highlight one very important principle concerning this difference and as always there are exceptions but there is a great error in focusing on such exception rather than the preponderance of the trend.

What I intend to highlight is that given any group of ten - any effort to criticize or inhibit all of the ten for the lack of ability of the worst of the ten will most often result in the best of the ten finding something else to do and will most likely result in the worst of the 10 performing even worse.  I will use a company I once worked for that had acquired the best engineers in a certain field and had a 90% market share of their business.  However, as with all companies and businesses there was a down turn in the economy forcing this once great company into downsizing and reducing the pay of their engineers.  What happened should not be a surprise to anyone.  The top engineers had the best opportunities to go elsewhere and many took that opportunity.  The bottom end of the engineers were the most likely to remain.  Over the next 5 years the once leading company went from the 90% market share of the business to 15% and the trading stock of the company reflected about the same loss in value.

Here is the thing - if there are bad apples in the police apple crate - they must be dealt with individually.  If the police are de-funded or in any way criticized, treated or disrespected all based on the accomplishments of the worst of them - the result will be that the best will find other things to do and the worst will hunker down and produce even a more inferior result.   For goodness sake even in the training of animals less intelligent than humans; a good trainer realizes that good behavior must be rewarded and the bad behavior discouraged.  The beast will still revert under certain circumstances - but for long term benefits - you cannot focus completely on just the bad behavior.  If improvement is to be made then the best and most likely to improve must be positively incentived. 

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Here is the thing - if there are bad apples in the police apple crate - they must be dealt with individually.  If the police are de-funded or in any way criticized, treated or disrespected all based on the accomplishments of the worst of them - the result will be that the best will find other things to do and the worst will hunker down and produce even a more inferior result. 

The problem with an organization like the police is that it easily forms a kind of "band of brothers" mentality. The cops know they depend on each other, and if a cop fails to support his brother (or sister) officer - whatever the circumstances - he can expect to be denied support himself further down the line. There'll be "dirty looks" and "snide remarks" and "I don't want him for a partner, he's a snitch!"

It's nothing particularly unusual. It's human nature. You see it everywhere. It's in the "no telling tales" rule of the school playground. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." "You drop me in it and I'll pay you back double - and so will everyone else!"

In this case, the police were ordering people to delete footage from their cellphones - ostensibly for "officer safety". You'd think that if they were interested in determining the truth they'd want to preserve all the information they could - which could have included collecting that footage and using it in the investigation. But no: they had the word of their "brothers in arms" and they didn't want any evidence preserved that might contradict it.

OK maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the whole thing has been twisted by the liberal left to make the police look bad. But it nevertheless it does seem thoroughly plausible. The police are human, and being human myself I know what dark and nasty forces are at work in us.

And there's a lot to be said for the positive aspects of a "band of brothers": harnessing the positives while eliminating the negatives is not an easy thing.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I do not doubt that this case may have some merit.   I personally am not in any position to validate any of it and from the article is may not be over yet.  As I scanned through the article I could not find that the reporter even attempted to research or understand the view or motives of the officers.  Obviously if the defendant was handcuffed to a hospital bed the officers would have been forced to identify themselves as officers of the law.  Again, obviously something is missing and it would be unjust on my part to attempt an opinion based on this article alone.

Also, whatever the merits of this particular case, there remains the possibility that we might fail to identify authority prior to resisting it.

At the risk of getting "biased" and anecdotal again, I'll tell another story: There was a colleague of mine from many years ago, who had a rather motley collection of friends, whom he was always telling stories about. One of these had briefly been in prison for some minor offence, and a few days after his release, at about 5am, with no warning at all, his front door was smashed open and a lot of men charged into his house. Believing this to be a home-invasion, he leaped out of bed and punched the first of them, only to find himself arrested for assaulting a police officer.

The police tore his house apart, were quite unable to find what they were looking for, and eventually admitted that their intelligence had been wrong. But for a while they clung doggedly to the "assaulting a police officer" charge, forcing him through a bunch of magistrates' courts and bail hearings about it, but after a few weeks...and with tremendous ill-grace...they dropped it.

The point is not that this story (or the previous one) is the unbiased truth, but that it can happen. And what should we do about it? Should we defend ourselves when attacked? Or must we always "lie back and think of England", just in case our assailants happen to be authority-wielding government agents, who have neglected to advertise their identity?

The Jamie

(Being Annoying)

Edited August 6, 2020 by Jamie123

[askandanswer]

On 8/6/2020 at 9:04 AM, Traveler said:

will also say that there are just times when someone assuming authority ought to be resisted.  I understand that concept very well.  But one must understand that resisting can get someone killed.  And so my almost final point is that if someone of just authority is being resisted (just authority is, for example, a police officer) that resistance can and will likely be met with force until there is no resistance.

I'm of the view that preserving human life is more important than maintaining authority and that if one has to choose between the two, the choice should be preserving human life. Authority is only useful to that extent that it contributes to the maintenance and preservation of life. If it ever works against that ideal, it becomes less useful. 

[NeuroTypical]

I remember back when I was uncertain about law enforcement using pepper spray and tasers.  Then I went to my local small-town citizen's police academy, and ran through use of force scenarios with them.  Bad guy - possibly dangerous - might hurt himself and/or others - what do you do?  Any reasonable person with a little training concludes it's best for everyone that he's in handcuffs until the threat of harm has passed.  So how do you get him into handcuffs?  You can shoot him.  You can wrestle with him.  You can bust out a billy club and break some bones.  Or you can use pepper spray or a taser.  I then volunteered for a taser demonstration.  Before my 4 seconds of the worst pain ever was even over, it made me a believer.  I'd rather be tased into compliance, than clubbed, wrestled, or shot into compliance.

The other option people want to see - the cops can do nothing in this situation, and he'll either hurt/kill someone or he wont.   I think Traveller's take on things is spot on here.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I'm of the view that preserving human life is more important than maintaining authority and that if one has to choose between the two, the choice should be preserving human life. Authority is only useful to that extent that it contributes to the maintenance and preservation of life. If it ever works against that ideal, it becomes less useful. 

The problem with this view is that when authority backs down, it "loses its teeth" and becomes weak. Weakened, authority is less able to protect the people it exists to protect.

For example, a cop points his gun at a robber and tells him to stop, and the robber refuses to comply. Let's (for the sake of argument) assume circumstances in which only two options are available to the cop: (a) shoot the robber, or (b) let him go.

If he shoots the robber, the robber possibly dies, but the message is sent to other robbers that the cops will shoot, and they think twice before robbing. Ergo there is less crime, and thus fewer people are placed in danger.

If he doesn't shoot the robber, the robber gets away, and the message is sent that the cops will not shoot. This encourages other robbers, meaning more crime, and hence more people are placed in danger.

But it's not even this simple: if the cops are known to shoot, the most desperate robber take the message that they need to shoot the cops before the cops shoot them. So...It's...complicated.

[CV75]

I think it helpful to discuss the intersection of three principles: authority, enforcement, and method. The Gospel teaches us that authority is instituted of God, and this filters into our government. Enforcement can run anywhere along the spectrum from coercion (force) to invitation (persuasion). A free society, also taught in the Gospel to be instituted and inspired of God, behavioral responsibility is attached to the benefits of rights and freedom -- so loss of freedom answers to poor behavior. Methods need to match the problem, and there are many cases where law enforcement (or its ancillary supports, whether SWAT for coercion or social crisis teams for persuasion) can be employed. Authority needs to demonstrate wisdom in enforcement and methods, and good, even-handed policy can do much in supporting that. Once partisanship becomes deeply rooted in authority (or vice-versa), it is bound to become corrupt.

Edited August 7, 2020 by CV75

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I remember back when I was uncertain about law enforcement using pepper spray and tasers.  Then I went to my local small-town citizen's police academy, and ran through use of force scenarios with them.  Bad guy - possibly dangerous - might hurt himself and/or others - what do you do?  Any reasonable person with a little training concludes it's best for everyone that he's in handcuffs until the threat of harm has passed.  So how do you get him into handcuffs?  You can shoot him.  You can wrestle with him.  You can bust out a billy club and break some bones.  Or you can use pepper spray or a taser.  I then volunteered for a taser demonstration.  Before my 4 seconds of the worst pain ever was even over, it made me a believer.  I'd rather be tased into compliance, than clubbed, wrestled, or shot into compliance.

The other option people want to see - the cops can do nothing in this situation, and he'll either hurt/kill someone or he wont.   I think Traveller's take on things is spot on here.

There's also another option.  In much of the world police officers do not carry guns or other weapons of that sort.  They may have a sort of club they can use (thus, yes, beat someone into compliance as you would).  This leads them to try to avoid confrontations of a violent sort in many situations...because when all you have is a stick and the other guy has a gun, it could go very badly for you.  Instead of violent confrontation, they de-escalate or talk the individual down.  Verbal usage and words become very important. 

This means that there may be bad outcomes in rare instances (yes, that guy who robs the bank and has his gun to a hostage may not turn out well...but that is seen more in the movies than real life).  In day to day crime, however, descalation works incredibly well.  Part of this is because of different cultures.  Cultural differences make this much easier in many nations than the US.  The US for some reason seems married to violence and resistance, rather than being more reasonable in given situations.

Because of this, Japan and some European nations have far more success in stopping and reducing crime as well as preventing criminal acts than is found in most areas of the United States.  However, this idea of descalation is not just an idea found in Europe and some parts of Asia, it is actually practiced in the United States by some departments as well. 

It's another option that is also available, but that is not always taken.  It's even done in the United States in some areas, though perhaps some of the more news making officers in recent months haven't followed that course at all times.

That said, I agree with @Traveler in regards to resistance.  In some situations (though it didn't appear as much with the George Floyd situation, that seemed more like just simple murder by cop for the most part) I see where people get shot by the police and it makes national news, the individual was actively resisting the police.  I have never had the same situation as Traveler and not been accosted in the way he was (thankfully), but I don't think it's a wise move to resist the police.  When they ask you to do something, compliance seems the best and easiest way to resolve the matter, at least at that time.  Let your lawyer figure things out beyond that, because it seems trying to resist the law and government, unless you are in a rebellion (and there is none going on in the US as far as I know currently), you are not going to win that fight.  Compliance would seem a far better route, and for almost all cases, I think when bad things happen it is a result of people resisting the police rather than complying with the given instructions.

[askandanswer]

On 8/6/2020 at 9:04 AM, Traveler said:

As I see it – there are only two fundamental options when authority is being resisted.  The first option is to relinquish the authority to the resistance.  That is not a good option in any society. The other option is to escalate the use of force until the authority is no longer resisted.  If there is another option – I will consider it but just because I am willing to consider it and your logic – do not expect that your logic will go unchallenged. 

I see many problems with the above idea. Reduced to its essence, the above idea can be expressed as submit or die because if you don't submit I'm going to increase the use of force until you do, or, you have to obey me because I'm stronger than you and I can hurt you more than you can hurt me. The western world started to move away from that idea at least 815 years ago with the signing of the Magna Carta which was the first agreement to place limits on the powers of the state against the people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta) That agreement still continues to serve as a helpful example of what can happen when authority, in that case, in the form of the king, is resisted. What followed has been more than 800 years of development of the common law that has sought to further refine that basic idea of how the power of the sovereign and the exercise of authority must be reduced and regulated. 

The idea of increasing force until resistance is relinquished is an absurd, authoritarian and simplistic approach and it seems like a rule fit for animals in the jungle rather than a rule for rational, complex, thinking people whom God has made "a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." (Psalms 8:5) . It's the defining characteristic of a bully. It's nothing more than "might makes right." It's simply a subset of the ideas expressed in the roundly condemend work of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan in which, for the purpose of maintaining peace and public order, Hobbes proposed that all power is given absolutely to the sovereign. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book) Such a notion has been strongly rejected for centuries by political philosophers. This idea of enforcing authority at any cost seems to give priority to the purposes of the state over the purposes of individuals, when in reality, the state has been created by the mass of individuals that make up society and it only exists only to serve the purposes of those individuals.

I think the above idea fails to adequately consider the purpose for which the authority is being exercised. There are many scenarios where it just makes more sense to let something go rather than take a life. Nor does the idea give proper consideration to the effective and appropriate use of de-escalation strategies. And it seems to assume both that the person exercising the authority is better able to judge whether or not it is right/proper/appropriate to exercise the authority than the person who is resisting it, and that the exerciser of the authority is making well-informed, rational right decisions about the degree of force relative to the amount of resistance. Let's also not forget the power of peaceful resistance, as demonstrated by Mohandras Gandhi, particularly in his protests against the salt tax, when unthinking British soldiers, for the sole purpose of maintaining authority attacked hundreds, maybe thousands of Indians who simply wanted to make their own salt in their own country. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March) 

Authority should be exercised with wisdom, and if the requisite wisdom is lacking then the use of authority needs to be restrained in proportion to the lack of wisdom of the exerciser. Authority should also be resisted if it is being exercised for an unjust purpose. In such cases. to not resist the exercise of authority is to support whatever unjustness is being done. And finally, we should not forget the counsel of scripture - Doctrine and Covenants, 121:39  "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

Edited August 9, 2020 by askandanswer

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I see many problems with the above idea. Reduced to its essence, the above idea can be expressed as submit or die because if you don't submit I'm going to increase the use of force until you do, or, you have to obey me because I'm stronger than you and I can hurt you more than you can hurt me. The western world started to move away from that idea at least 815 years ago with the signing of the Magna Carta which was the first agreement to place limits on the powers of the state against the people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta) That agreement still continues to serve as a helpful example of what can happen when authority, in that case, in the form of the king, is resisted. What followed has been more than 800 years of development of the common law that has sought to further refine that basic idea of how the power of the sovereign and the exercise of authority must be reduced and regulated. 

The idea of increasing force until resistance is relinquished is an absurd, authoritarian and simplistic approach and it seems like a rule fit for animals in the jungle rather than a rule for rational, complex, thinking people whom God has made "a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." (Psalms 8:5) . It's the defining characteristic of a bully. It's nothing more than "might makes right." It's simply a subset of the ideas expressed in the roundly condemend work of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan in which, for the purpose of maintaining peace and public order, Hobbes proposed that all power is given absolutely to the sovereign. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book) Such a notion has been strongly rejected for centuries by political philosophers. This idea of enforcing authority at any cost seems to give priority to the purposes of the state over the purposes of individuals, when in reality, the state has been created by the mass of individuals that make up society and it only exists only to serve the purposes of those individuals.

I think the above idea fails to adequately consider the purpose for which the authority is being exercised. There are many scenarios where it just makes more sense to let something go rather than take a life. Nor does the idea give proper consideration to the effective and appropriate use of de-escalation strategies. And it seems to assume both that the person exercising the authority is better able to judge whether or not it is right/proper/appropriate to exercise the authority than the person who is resisting it, and that the exerciser of the authority is making well-informed, rational right decisions about the degree of force relative to the amount of resistance. Let's also not forget the power of peaceful resistance, as demonstrated by Mohandras Gandhi, particularly in his protests against the salt tax, when unthinking British soldiers, for the sole purpose of maintaining authority attacked hundreds, maybe thousands of Indians who simply wanted to make their own salt in their own country. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March) 

Authority should be exercised with wisdom, and if the requisite wisdom is lacking then the use of authority needs to be restrained in proportion to the lack of wisdom of the exerciser. Authority should also be resisted if it is being exercised for an unjust purpose. In such cases. to not resist the exercise of authority is to support whatever unjustness is being done. And finally, we should not forget the counsel of scripture - Doctrine and Covenants, 121:39  "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

Let us use an example - In the pre-existence, Lucifer resisted G-d's Plan.  Are you implying that he (and all that resisted with him) should not have been cast out (an increase of force) and forever "Damned" because of their resistance and refusal to submit to authority?  What I would like to know is if you have an example where authority was resisted and that authority gave in to the resistance  and as a result - that no authority was  lost?

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

I think the usefulness of your example is lessened by three important considerations. First, the authority that was involved in casting out Lucifer was exercised by a Being who thinks and operates and is motivated in a total different way than His children. Second, that authority was exercised in a social setting completely different, and unlike anything we have known on earth, except, perhaps, for the City of Zion. Third, it was exercised over spirit beings who were not as whole or complete as beings with a physical body and who lacked the experiences provided by mortality. When the One exercising the authority, and the setting in which the authority is being exercised, and those over who the authority is being exercised are completely different from where and how and by whom and over whom authority is exercised on earth today then  I think your example is nullified.

In reply to your question as to whether I have an example, sometime in about 1776 the colonialists in parts of North America resisted the authority of the crown. The authority gave in to the resistance and the authority that used to be in the crown ended up in the authority of the US constitution. The authority was, in effect, transferred, from one source to another.

The loss of authority is not always a bad thing, and sometimes it is even a good and necessary thing. Authority can easily be lost or transferred from an organisation when it is exercised excessively, unjustly or unwisely. Isn't that what is happening with the current ongoing efforts to restructure or reduce various police departments? Aren't they in the process of having their authority transferred from them to other organisations? And it's not just police departments from whom authority is lost or transferred when it is exercised inappropriatly and and when people begin to resist that inappropriate exercise of authority - that's what happens to just about any organisation you can think of except for heavily militarised dicatorships who have the means and the willingness to overcome any form of resistance.

Edited August 9, 2020 by askandanswer

[estradling75]

I think you guys are talking past each other.  After the Revolutionary War our Founding Fathers had to address the very short comings that lead to the War.  They knew that a Country that was unwilling/unable to enforce its laws were going to have Revolutions and Revolts.  They knew this because they had literally just done it. The British had tried to enforce its laws against the colonies, but had come up short.  Had the British be able to do so our Founding Fathers would have been hung as Traitors and our history would be quiet a bit different.

They did not want a repeat of what they had just done to the British being done to them.  Paradoxically they also felt that the injustices that they had revolted are injustices that should not stand.  This creates a paradox.  How do you have enough force  to enforce the laws while still having that power be subject to correction?

The answer they came up with was to have Three Branches of Government with each Branch being able to check and limit the other.  To that end we have an Executive Branch tasked with enforcing the law.  To that end they the people and tools and training to deal with just about any rebellion that is out in the open or in its daily activities.  If you resist.  They are trained to escalate until you comply or are no longer a threat.

When the enforcement arm is wrong or otherwise doing wrong you do not stand your ground on your lawn with a shot gun to correct them.  That is not the means by with the Executive Branch is held in check.  To hold the Executive Branch accountable you take them to the Courts and/or to Congress and/or to the voting booth.  This means "How" you  use to try to correct things you see as wrong is vitally important.  If you do the "How" in the wrong way, you fail, and you just might end up dead.  But if you do the "How" in the right way your physical safety should never really be in doubt, and you just might be successful.

Its not a perfect system by any means... But it is really not that hard to understand how it is designed to work.

 

   

Edited August 9, 2020 by estradling75

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I think you guys are talking past each other.  After the Revolutionary War our Founding Fathers had to address the very short comings that lead to the War.  They knew that a Country that was unwilling/unable to enforce its laws were going to have Revolutions and Revolts.  They knew this because they had literally just done it. The British had tried to enforce its laws against the colonies, but had come up short.  Had the British be able to do so our Founding Fathers would have been hung as Traitors and our history would be quiet a bit different.

They did not want a repeat of what they had just done to the British being done to them.  Paradoxically they also felt that the injustices that they had revolted are injustices that should not stand.  This creates a paradox.  How do you have enough force  to enforce the laws while still having that power be subject to correction?

The answer they came up with was to have Three Branches of Government with each Branch being able to check and limit the other.  To that end we have an Executive Branch tasked with enforcing the law.  To that end they the people and tools and training to deal with just about any rebellion that is out in the open or in its daily activities.  If you resist.  They are trained to escalate until you comply or are no longer a threat.

When the enforcement arm is wrong or otherwise doing wrong you do not stand your ground on your lawn with a shot gun to correct them.  That is not the means by with the Executive Branch is held in check.  To hold the Executive Branch accountable you take them to the Courts and/or to Congress and/or to the voting booth.  This means "How" you  use to try to correct things you see as wrong is vitally important.  If you do the "How" in the wrong way, you fail, and you just might end up dead.  But if you do the "How" in the right way your physical safety should never really be in doubt, and you just might be successful.

Its not a perfect system by any means... But it is really not that hard to understand how it is designed to work.

 

   

1.  My impression is that the 2nd amendment was the failsafe, or the back up plan.  Some argue it is just a militia like the National Guard (which, these days, though under the control of the Governor, when called up, are actually under the command of the executive when activated federally, so even that excuse doesn't really jive with my thoughts, even if they are correct).  Many others feel (and I think this is what the founding fathers actually meant when you look at what they went through and what some of them wrote on the matter) that this allows any citizen or individual weapons which they can utilize.  This even allows military weaponry (and it was military weaponry which the British wanted to seize which was the background of Paul Revere's famous ride and the ensuing battles) for citizenry.  Of course, in our day, military weaponry is far more powerful and other considerations are thought about (do we want normal, everyday citizens to have nuclear bombs in their arsenal...for example).

However, the intent, in this way  that many feel gives the right to rebel against the government and overthrow it (much like the revolutionaries) if they disagree with it.  Thus, the right to bear arms is not just a normal right, but one in which the citizenry can utilize their weapons in order to overthrow what they see as a corrupt government.  Of course, if you are the only one standing your ground on your lawn to try to correct them, unless you have a LOT of others with you backing you up, you'll probably end up dead.  In the same light, even if you have an army backing you up, as you say, if you and your army fail...you just might end up dead that way as well (or in prison or your rights taken away, etc...etc...etc.)

2.  On a secondary note, the Constitution was written to create a more powerful executive that actually had teeth to enforce the laws and rights of the government.  It was created, however, after the first government created had dealt with some failure.  The Articles of Confederation were the original ideas, but in this, the executive branch didn't really have the power to enforce much of anything.