Heard of the saying walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? You claim I am not meant to come away with the assumption that your like everyone else saying the same thing but you offer no evidence for it. No, if you want to stand out as different then you have to go the extra mile to prove you are different or else it is a reasonable assumption to make. Oh, on that note, your clarification... put you deeper into this groups mentality then further from it.Le Tueur said:
Check the reports... 1 in 100 people who get shot with rubber bullets are killed and 1 in 5 are permanently crippled or disfigured. Tear gas isn't much better you know, I'm not sure the exact numbers but they have been known to cause lung damage and suffocate people before. Hell, all it would take is one person with some sort of lung condition and this gas is lethal. Not hard to assume that, in a group of dozens of average people, you would have a handful which would react lethally to gas.
So if you just started opening fire on a group of non-violent protesters it will lead to casualties. Law suits will be filed, even if no one dies, and eventually you might become indicted in the whole mess along side your commanding officer. Sure the blue line is likely to protect you directly, but how does that make you any less guilty of taking someone's life if it was your bullet or canister that killed them?
So you say police shouldn't have to do their jobs if it becomes 'too difficult' for them? That, because it is easier, they should be able to open fire on crowds of people to force compliance? You know what, putting aside the whole 'it is just easier' feeling I get I still have to call bullshit on the idea that they won't have the ability to arrest these people. Police manage to arrest dozens of people at a time in far more volatile situations then the hypothetical put forth here.
Taking the organisers into custody isn't going to be a problem for hundreds of police officers who are going to already be present. There is only a handful of organisers at these events, one person clearly in charge and a dozen or so support staff. This isn't really that big of a 'difficulty' for such a large group of cops is it? If they need to come back and arrest more people for not dispersing, then clearly they can do that... not like the people they are arresting are going anywhere. Indeed, if they did leave the area then they didn't need arresting at all as they have dispersed.
If they can round up hundreds, if not thousands, of people after 9/11 without a stitch of ground support being in place prior to that day and successfully detain them... well I think it is easy for the police to arrest protesters when they have hundreds of cops already standing there next to said people and manage the logistics of detaining them. Trying to say they wouldn't be capable of it... honestly, I don't know if you are just making such a weak argument because you have nothing or if you really think that little of the police forces abilities. Given history, I have to go with the weak argument as the police are very good at arresting and detaining people.
Should the crowd become violent though? Well that changes the hypothetical situation and I have already addressed this matter. All I can say is changing the hypothetical to fit the argument shows just how weak this initial argument actually is. Right now all we have is a group sitting around and you having the order to fire. No way you twist that, it would be a crime to obey such a order. You arrest them, you don't shoot at them in hopes they run away.
If anything, the whole 'shoot and hope they run' seems to be counter to the purpose of having police officers.
Of course it would! The ACLU alone would file the briefs on day one, hell I wouldn't be suprised if they have a word template for that very situation so all they had to do was put in a few details and file the damn things. Also there would be media coverage of the whole thing, given how the media would probably have been present and have footage to show for ratings. Inquiries and investigations would take place, as even in a justified police shooting there is hearings and investigation. Hell, even in self defence situations criminal charges could still be placed before the officers involved are acquitted by jury as it has happened before. You are telling me that the police shooting into the crowd isn't going to produce even a ripple in the media and the legal community?
Throw on top of that a dismissal of a cop whom didn't fire into that crowd and you are sure numerous legal groups, the ACLU for sure, would be all over that! With your 'moral objection' on record there would be a huge crack in the official story for these groups to exploit. The department would be more interested in covering their own arses by giving you concessions, even if it was a violent mob you refused to fire on, then face the shit storm of legal issues that would come forth from your objection. After all that same blue line that would protect the people involved would also be doing the same for those who didn't take part. Everyone in the department would just want it all to go away....
Again, to fit your argument we have to change the hypothetical situation. Amending it so the no choice now has unreal implications attached to it. In reality, if this situation was real, there would be a shit storm caused because of it. One that would give you more then enough protection if you took the moral high ground.
Legal and moral wise you don't need permission to disobey a criminal command. Sure I will give you the fact it would be far better to make the argument with the superior at the moment of the order as opposed to just being saying no and dealing with the fallout after. Yet where in the hypothetical did the no answer translate to 'throw your weapon down and refuse to explain yourself?' A 'no and then I argue with my superior' is very much a no... and very much the likely outcome if you said No to the order to begin with.
.