[lit-ideas] Re: Paying taxes for months on end
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:54:00 -0400
I had written:
"The point of the court action [in the Rodney King affair] was to
discern whether the police were empowered, that is had the right, to do
what they did. If they had 'absolutely no right to do that' then they
would have been found guilty because they did not have the power to act
as they did."
to which Robert Paul replies:
"I'm sure Phil did not mean to say exactly that. It is a contingent fact
that some people who have broken the law are, if tried, found guilty.
Phil seems to be thinking of an ideal world in which what he says would
be true. This world is not it."
There was a question whether the police officers were justified (i.e.
had the right, had the power, etc. Pick the word that doesn't get your
knickers in a knot.) in their response to King. How could this question
be settled? One way is to turn to the judicial branch of government.
As Robert so ably points out, the process is not one that ends with a
single verdict but, given the complexity and issues involved, can wind
its way all the way to the Supremes. Engaging in this court action is
one way of discerning whether they had this right or not. One verdict
does not decide the issue but turning to the courts is one way of
figuring out whether the police were justified in doing what they did.
Robert is right that it is a contingent fact that people who break the
law are found guilty. What is not contingent is that the courts are one
venue we turn to in order to figure out what the police do or do not
have permission to do. It is difficult to see what Robert's objection
amounts to then. If there is no question as to whether they are guilty
or not, what I take to be the meaning of 'absolutely no right to do
that', is Robert suggesting that the court could function as a court of
law and find them not guilty? This is not a question of contingency
since it is a hypothetical dealing with the nature of the court. That
is, once the original poster raised the hypothetical of 'absolutely no
right to do that', we entered an ideal world in search of understanding
regarding police powers. In this non-ideal world, where questions
concerning the limits of police power are very real, then that verdict
is, as Robert showed, merely one step in the discernment process.
At the end of April 1992, I was passing through Atlanta and decided to
see a Braves game. I walked up to the ticket booth and couldn't believe
my luck in getting a seat right behind home plate. I was even more
amazed when the game started and the stadium wasn't even a third full.
When I asked someone about this, they told me that the Rodney King
verdict had come down and that rioting had broken out in Atlanta. At
the end of the game, we had a police escort to the parking lot and out
to the highway since the neighbourhood of the stadium was one of the
worst hit by the riots. It was a truly frightening experience seeing
the glow of burning cars and buildings just a few blocks away.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
