You aren't making the case for abandoning the rule of law, you are just asserting that it is the right thing to do in this case.
Your argument seems to be that everything possible has been tried to address police violence and that there is no other solution other than to riot.
I could point to various crime statistics to suggest that the problem is not in fact intractable or "fairly common" (while still being a problem to be addressed) but it really isn't worth it. Even if I shared your apparent assessment of the problem, how does it make sense to physically and economically destroy communities in response? How does it make sense to make it impossible to actually "police" in these communities? How does it make sense to drive away anyone with resources from these communities? Why do you even think the people reacting this way are making a principled statement about police violence and aren't just taking advantage of the situation?
The phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind but it is entirely inadequate to describe the disastrous sequence of events that is going on in so many communities right now.
It's simple enough. The police primarily operate to preserve the existing social order which prioritizes property over life. The deliberate infliction of economic pain is being used to coerce change, because other avenues have failed. The authorities there could very easily preempt this by arresting the police officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back and charging him with attempted murder. He'll have his day in court and be given ample opportunity to make the argument for why his actions were justified.
In general, rioting is used selectively, targeting official buildings followed by corporate concerns, which extract capital from local communities. Little of the news coverage about Kenosha drew attention to the fact that the largest building burned down Monday night was the WI Dept of Corrections; many commentators prefer to focus your attention on commercial damage in order to push the idea that it's indiscriminate.
> The authorities there could very easily preempt this by arresting the police officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back and charging him with attempted murder.
You think the mob will stop? You are advocating for a justice system driven by threats from the mob that must be responded to in real time. You aren't even attempting to grapple with the particular facts that are in evidence at the moment in this case, never mind what might be discovered by actually asking questions. You aren't describing a justice system based on the rule of law, you are describing mob rule. It won't end well for anybody. Why would anyone in their right mind be a police office given the framework you describe? Why would anyone choose to stay in that type of a jurisdiction? The logical consequences of your framework would be disastrous for the community. The medicine you are prescribing is far, far worse than the disease.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it would, or at least would have had this happened earlier. I'm not advocating for mob rule; I'm saying that riots are a response to the lack of justice that prevails. The police officer should have been arrested immediately on suspicion of attempted murder, much as Derek Chauvin should have been arrested immediately on suspicion of murder for killing George Floyd.
The reality is that police often shoot and kill with a sense of impunity because they enjoy considerable legal immunity, to the point that the identity of a police officer who carries out a shooting is often withheld from the public. I'm saying that any time a police officer shoots, kills, or seriously injures someone, they should be immediately relieved of duty pending a full inquiry, no matter what the circumstances. If there is a colorable suspicion of misbehavior (eg the shooting was not a case of returning fire or action during the commission of a crime), then they should be subject to arrest like any other criminal suspect, while retaining their full panoply of legal rights like presumption of innocence, access to counsel etc.
If a lot of people don't want to be cops who are subject to such restraints, good. I don't want cops who use force casually. What we have now is a system that throws the book at anyone who takes or threatens life (with far higher sentences than most other developed countries despite little evidence of a deterrent effect) while frequently applying light or no penalties, or sometimes no serious investigation, to police officers who commit similar acts. These inequities are compounded by economic and racial disparities in the application of force, legal sanctions and so on.
Unless you've lived in other countries or have significant first- or second-hand experience (including talking to current and former police officers) this might be hard information to accept.
> If a lot of people don't want to be cops who are subject to such restraints, good. I don't want cops who use force casually. What we have now is a system that throws the book at anyone who takes or threatens life (with far higher sentences than most other developed countries despite little evidence of a deterrent effect) while frequently applying light or no penalties, or sometimes no serious investigation, to police officers who commit similar acts.
A core principle of a civil society with the rule of law is the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to enforce the laws. If someone steals from you, you don't get to hunt them down and kidnap them for 1 year even if the punishment for the crime is 1 year of imprisonment. We explicitly grant police the authority to use force and when they don't use it properly they are subject to exactly the same punishment as you and I. There is no conceptual asymmetry on the use of illegitimate force. Self-defense is another example of this. You can legitimately use force against an attacker in self-defense. If you kill someone in self-defense that isn't murder and isn't an example of a double standard.
> I'm saying that any time a police officer shoots, kills, or seriously injures someone, they should be immediately relieved of duty pending a full inquiry, no matter what the circumstances.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly what happens. The mob isn't waiting more than 30 minutes never mind for a "full inquiry".
> If there is a colorable suspicion of misbehavior (eg the shooting was not a case of returning fire or action during the commission of a crime), then they should be subject to arrest like any other criminal suspect, while retaining their full panoply of legal rights like presumption of innocence, access to counsel etc.
Tell that to the mob and its enablers. We have state governors opining on who was right or wrong just hours after tragic events, without any attempt to understand what really happened. This encourages mobs and rioting.
Same thing happened in Chicago a couple of weeks ago. Some ridiculously vague account on social media regarding an interaction with police and a mob arrives to loot and pillage all night long.
Just a couple of days ago in Mineapolis someone committed suicide while police approached and that triggered more rioting.
We won't survive as a society if every police interaction is interpreted immediately as yet another racial injustice, never mind if every rumor of a police interaction is interpreted that way. Mobs and rioting need to be shutdown hard so we have room for "full inquiry", but there are political leaders who not only won't shut down this activity they are actively encouraging it.
