George Floyd

[eddieq]

The inability or unwillingness to fire/prosecute/hold accountable those sworn officers who overstep the state granted authority (i.e. the brutalization and/or outright murder of its citizens) reads as "state sanctioned murder". It's an extreme viewpoint, but I can understand people coming to the conclusion.

I am a fire police officer. I have "necessary police powers" while performing my duties on a fire call. I have the authority to stop traffic, set up detours and open/close streets as needed by the situation at hand (generally a fire or vehicle accident - or when I have been requested for parades and such). I do NOT have the authority to detain, arrest, cite, use a weapon while performing my duties, etc. If I started doing that, I would not have my position for very long. If I wasn't removed/punished for exceeding my authority, I may continue doing it and assume it was cleared by those who granted me that authority.

How a cop like Chauvin remained on the police force with his history is appalling to me. That it took a murder on video, public outrage and protests to even have him fired much less arrested and charged is mind boggling.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The "state" including all elective and non-elective offices (mayors, governor, senators, reps, judges, lawyers, ordinary citizens, police, National Guard, Federal operatives within the state, and all the cows in the field) can never be said to all-together-and-all-at-once sanction (agree to, authorize, approve of) any illegal action.

I disagree . . . The state (through its elected representatives) does empower law enforcement officers to use deadly force under appropriate circumstances; if action is not taken to punish those who use the force when not appropiate, then I do think it is proper to accuse the state of sanctioning the killings.

It may be semantics. As I wrote below (or above) "The state is complicit in ex post facto condoning of such things by finding the guilty cop not guilty or by not bringing charges in the first place or by bringing the wrong charges. Too many examples to cite. The effect on bad cops is the careless confidence that whatever they do is not going to be punished in any meaningful way. In that manner, the state "sanctions" their mindset and permits by inaction the continuation of misuse of power"

[liberty]

That you can’t grasp the difference between individual and state-sanctioned action is perhaps a sign of a very deficient education.

Sorry GSB, but you are wrong in this case. The state is the people who comprise the state. Do the people sanction it when their employee goes rogue? If your employee stole your car did you sanction it?

[Gob]

I disagree; the people of the state empower certain individuals (elected representatives and appointed officers, like the police and the district attorney (OK some DAs are elected)) to act on their behalf; when those persons do not act to stop or punish an illegal action, I think it is appropriate to say the illegal action was state sanctioned.

Disagree. If there are laws in place strictly forbidding extra-judicial murder by its representatives, then any killing done by an official, (outside of administering the death penalty,) is NOT sanctioned by the state, it is forbidden and illegal.

The official is not the state, and cannot self-sanction.

I take it that even in the US you have laws against cops killing suspects without trial? Please tell me you do?!?!??

[liberty]

I will make one correction about the state. In a true federation, which many are not real federations. The state is not subject to the federal government; the state is subject to the Constitution in the same way as the national government is subject to the Constitution.

[eddieq]

I take it that even in the US you have laws against cops killing suspects without trial? Please tell me you do?!?!??

We do. Summary executions are not legal and police have specific guidelines/polices;etc. on when/how deadly force is used. However, when the "state" either is unable or unwilling to punish those who violate it, it becomes - in a way - "state sanctioned".

It's semantics.

[BoSoxGal]

I’m glad there are enough intelligent thoughtful posters remaining here that they outweigh the reactionary know-littles.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well Gob, that's my point re semantics. You're using sanction in a literal way whereas Big RR and BSG are using it in a moral way. Perhaps I'm not saying that quite rightly.

How about - you are thinking of specific prior authorization for an illegal act whereas they are speaking of ex post facto complicity in NOT punishing the individual performing the illegal act etc. That happens.

You might recognize it more easily if we say some white people think that native Americans deserve an apology from the government but other white people say "we didn't do it" so a state apology is not to be offered. Sometimes moral imperatives can outweigh the literal

[BoSoxGal]

Well Gob, that's my point re semantics. You're using sanction in a literal way whereas Big RR and BSG are using it in a moral way. Perhaps I'm not saying that quite rightly.

How about - you are thinking of specific prior authorization for an illegal act whereas they are speaking of ex post facto complicity in NOT punishing the individual performing the illegal act etc. That happens.

You might recognize it more easily if we say some white people think that native Americans deserve an apology from the government but other white people say "we didn't do it" so a state apology is not to be offered. Sometimes moral imperatives can outweigh the literal

[MajGenl.Meade]

Dear God, I'm agreeing with liberty on this, but it's semantics

Nice save, eddieq! How did you edit that without an edit showing up? I was going to go all petulant because I wrote that it might be semantics whereas lib wrote the usual twaddle.

[eddieq]

Dear God, I'm agreeing with liberty on this, but it's semantics

Nice save, eddieq! How did you edit that without an edit showing up? I was going to go all petulant because I wrote that it might be semantics whereas lib wrote the usual twaddle.

Apologies. I saw it right away that it was you who posted semantics originally but with lib posting right after my tiny brain got confused. Chalk it up to being tired if you're kind.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Always, eq.

[Big RR]

Sorry GSB, but you are wrong in this case. The state is the people who comprise the state. Do the people sanction it when their employee goes rogue? If your employee stole your car did you sanction it?

Come on Liberty; then the state can sanction nothing without the agreement of all the people? The electorate doesn't agree on ANY issue, so the state is always free and clear.

As for

The state is not subject to the federal government; the state is subject to the Constitution in the same way as the national government is subject to the Constitution.

, how does the 14th amendment apply, let alone the 13th or 15th? The constotution clearly sanctions federal law to apply against the states in some circumstances.

[Econoline]

The "state" including all elective and non-elective offices (mayors, governor, senators, reps, judges, lawyers, ordinary citizens, police, National Guard, Federal operatives within the state, and all the cows in the field) can never be said to all-together-and-all-at-once sanction (agree to, authorize, approve of) any illegal action.

To use the word "state" as you have done is exactly the same as Trump using "antifa", assuming a unity of common purpose that does not exist in either word in order to pursue a particular political vendetta.

If I were to be charged with a crime, my case in court would be called "State of Illinois vs. Econ O. Line" even though I don't think all elective and non-elective offices in the state (mayors, governor, senators, reps, judges, lawyers, ordinary citizens, police, and all the cows in the field) would all-together-and-all-at-once assume a unity of common purpose against me.

That you can’t grasp the difference between individual and state-sanctioned action is perhaps a sign of a very deficient education.

Sorry GSB, but you are wrong in this case. The state is the people who comprise the state. Do the people sanction it when their employee goes rogue? If your employee stole your car did you sanction it?

If my employee stole my car and I did nothing to prevent it and nothing to punish them afterward, yes, I think it could be argued that I did, in effect, sanction it.

[Scooter]

Perhaps a middle ground would be to call it "state condoned", in that it is behaviour that would appear to be condemned by law, but in practice the organs of the state set up to punish it tend to look the other way except in the most egregious of cases.

[BoSoxGal]

Sorry GSB, but you are wrong in this case. The state is the people who comprise the state. Do the people sanction it when their employee goes rogue? If your employee stole your car did you sanction it?

If my employee stole my car and I did nothing to prevent it and nothing to punish them afterward, yes, I think it could be argued that I did, in effect, sanction it.

It’s an entire area of law - respondeat superior, vicarious liability, etc. Look it up.

I mean seriously, if the law doesn’t recognize these matters as state sanctioned, then why the fuck do you think courts order the state to pay the damages in the civil suits? The state is responsible for the actions of its agents, and by failing to root out and remove agents like Chauvin - who like many such actors has a years long history of inappropriate behavior - the state has de facto sanctioned the behavior.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hah, BSG! You pulled a Darren on me! That's not my quote but it is lib's! I know it was inadvertent but I hope others don't think I said anything so silly.

Scooter's post is almost right on target.

[Big RR]

I could easily live with that, but question whether some of the people posting here are taking the position that the state can sanction (or even condone, I'd bet) anything without the agreement of all the people (and maybe the cows as well). while I have always been a vocal opponent of captia punishment, I have no problem in calling it state sanctioned killing (and condoned would be inappropriate here as agents of the state are performing the killing), even when my state performed executions and I was not in agreement with it. IMHO, we, as part of the state, are responsible or what the state does (or does not do) in our names, whether we like it or not.

[BoSoxGal]

Hah, BSG! You pulled a Darren on me! That's not my quote but it is lib's! I know it was inadvertent but I hope others don't think I said anything so silly.

Scooter's post is almost right on target.

Yes I just caught that and fixed it. Sorry!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR Or as I put it several million posts ago

We are, in a sense, all Spartacus.

ETA Thank you, BSG