Outlaws

[Arkady]

In medieval and renaissance times, people were sometimes sentenced to "outlaw" status. The idea was that rather than the sovereign expending his own men and money to bring a criminal to justice, he'd simply announce that he'd lifted the legal protection that person received -- anyone could kill the person or take from him anything he owns without any legal repercussions. It could, effectively, be a death sentence, or at least equivalent to "house arrest" for someone who could only stay safe while within his castle.

I was thinking about this in the context of the rancher who has been having his cattle trespass and graze on our land without paying us the huge amount of money he owes for that enrichment. From our government's perspective, enforcing the court order on our behalf is problematic. If the rancher or one of his lawless enablers starts shooting, while the government is attempting to enforce the law, it becomes something like Waco or Ruby Ridge (or like the bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia-- a deadly attempt to end a standoff similar to WACO, but one that conservatives don't generally remember because it only involved black victims).

So, that's where a sentence of "outlaw" would be an interesting alternative. Rather than use federal manpower to enforce the law, simply pass a law that removed him from the protection of the federal government -- if he's not willing to pay what he owes for the services of the government, those services would simply be denied to him. If his state still wanted to protect his rights, so be it, but no federal help, including no ability for the state to enforce across state borders. If someone wants to go on his land and carry his cattle across the state border and sell them, then no federal help in investigating or punishing that crime. If someone wants to hack into the guy's bank account and take all his money and steal his identity, don't look to FBI cybercrimes investigators or any federal law to stand against that. If he tries to sell his cattle in interstate commerce, and the counterparty to that contract takes the cattle and then refuses to pay, tough luck. If other states and out-of-state entities want to seize his out-of-state assets, including any bank and investment accounts held outside the state, that's fine, too. Feel free to go through his mail and take anything you like. And if, while his cattle are on federal land, someone wants to practice his sharp shooting by gunning them down, that would be perfectly legal, too.

I don't suggest this as a practical idea, but rather just to call attention to all the ways he relies on federal law to protect him, even as he refuses to obey the federal law himself. He expects the taxpayers to support him him countless ways, but then thinks it's just fine if he doesn't pay what he owes.

 

[freyasman]

In medieval and renaissance times, people were sometimes sentenced to "outlaw" status. The idea was that rather than the sovereign expending his own men and money to bring a criminal to justice, he'd simply announce that he'd lifted the legal protection that person received -- anyone could kill the person or take from him anything he owns without any legal repercussions. It could, effectively, be a death sentence, or at least equivalent to "house arrest" for someone who could only stay safe while within his castle.

I was thinking about this in the context of the rancher who has been having his cattle trespass and graze on our land without paying us the huge amount of money he owes for that enrichment. From our government's perspective, enforcing the court order on our behalf is problematic. If the rancher or one of his lawless enablers starts shooting, while the government is attempting to enforce the law, it becomes something like Waco or Ruby Ridge (or like the bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia-- a deadly attempt to end a standoff similar to WACO, but one that conservatives don't generally remember because it only involved black victims).

So, that's where a sentence of "outlaw" would be an interesting alternative. Rather than use federal manpower to enforce the law, simply pass a law that removed him from the protection of the federal government -- if he's not willing to pay what he owes for the services of the government, those services would simply be denied to him. If his state still wanted to protect his rights, so be it, but no federal help, including no ability for the state to enforce across state borders. If someone wants to go on his land and carry his cattle across the state border and sell them, then no federal help in investigating or punishing that crime. If someone wants to hack into the guy's bank account and take all his money and steal his identity, don't look to FBI cybercrimes investigators or any federal law to stand against that. If he tries to sell his cattle in interstate commerce, and the counterparty to that contract takes the cattle and then refuses to pay, tough luck. If other states and out-of-state entities want to seize his out-of-state assets, including any bank and investment accounts held outside the state, that's fine, too. Feel free to go through his mail and take anything you like. And if, while his cattle are on federal land, someone wants to practice his sharp shooting by gunning them down, that would be perfectly legal, too.

I don't suggest this as a practical idea, but rather just to call attention to all the ways he relies on federal law to protect him, even as he refuses to obey the federal law himself. He expects the taxpayers to support him him countless ways, but then thinks it's just fine if he doesn't pay what he owes.

A very large segment of the population already lives under that status, for all practical purposes. Why do you think so many folks don't like the cops?
And BTW, I do remember the MOVE thing, (though I was pretty young) and to this day, I'd like to know why a civilian police department even had that much C-4, let alone thought it was an appropriate response.

 

[Mytzlplk]

good post arky

while it is my understanding that many a legal scholar think some of the stuff applied to him is unconstitutional, that's for the courts to decide if the rule of law is to prevail.

I'm inclined to think that before this is all over with the feds are gonna screw him in ways he hasn't yet imagined for taking the law into his own hands.

 

[marvin martian]

A very large segment of the population already lives under that status, for all practical purposes. Why do you think so many folks don't like the cops?
And BTW, I do remember the MOVE thing, (though I was pretty young) and to this day, I'd like to know why a civilian police department even had that much C-4, let alone thought it was an appropriate response.

If you believed, as Arkady does, that the government can do no wrong, and the only problem is that it isn't (and can't ever be) large or powerful enough, you would understand why that thought never occurred to him.

 

[fairsheet]

When a GOP's in the Whitehouse, anyone who even dreamed of apologizing for the criminal and blaming the authorities, would be roundly shouted down.

When a Democrat's in the Whitehouse, all of a sudden, the criminal becomes the good guy.

 

[Arkady]

If you believed, as Arkady does, that the government can do no wrong, and the only problem is that it isn't (and can't ever be) large or powerful enough, you would understand why that thought never occurred to him.

I often criticize the government for doing wrong. But in this case, the government went through the proper steps. It got court orders and then tried to enforce our rights against this thief. I don't object to that. I just hope it doesn't take too long to collect the money we're owed, and I hope he sees some prison time for defying the court order.

 

[worldlymrb]

And Illegal Immigrants are called what in your Police State? Victims or Heroes?

 

[afella]

I often criticize the government for doing wrong. But in this case, the government went through the proper steps. It got court orders and then tried to enforce our rights against this thief. I don't object to that. I just hope it doesn't take too long to collect the money we're owed, and I hope he sees some prison time for defying the court order.

The government could put a lien on his property and collect, just not at the present moment. Correct? It would be a far better option than confronting someone, who you know will not comply, with massive force creating a side show.

Proper steps are one thing and OK in my book, but when a situation is deliberately escalated from a government agency, it becomes a major issue. The situation could have gotten VERY nasty, and it would have been at the governments hands as they should anticipate the response they got from certain people in our country.

 

[NightSwimmer]

The government could put a lien on his property and collect, just not at the present moment. Correct? It would be a far better option than confronting someone, who you know will not comply, with massive force creating a side show.

Proper steps are one thing and OK in my book, but when a situation is deliberately escalated from a government agency, it becomes a major issue. The situation could have gotten VERY nasty, and it would have been at the governments hands as they should anticipate the response they got from certain people in our country.

So then, your argument is that the government should never use physical force in order to enforce the law?

 

[afella]

So then, your argument is that the government should never use physical force in order to enforce the law?

That is a vague statement. It is, and should be, used as a last resort. The crime here being dollar signs, there are ample ways to collect money as a government agency. If that means risking getting people shot over a few bucks and you support that, it would be your acceptance of government force on its citizens. It would never be mine, in this instance.

 

[Arkady]

The government could put a lien on his property and collect, just not at the present moment. Correct? It would be a far better option than confronting someone, who you know will not comply, with massive force creating a side show.

Proper steps are one thing and OK in my book, but when a situation is deliberately escalated from a government agency, it becomes a major issue. The situation could have gotten VERY nasty, and it would have been at the governments hands as they should anticipate the response they got from certain people in our country.

It would be on his hands, first and foremost. He's the law breaker. He chose to escalate this, by confronting public servants with the threat of deadly force when they tried to enforce the law. If they can come up with a less confrontational way to get our money and to punish him for his defiance of the court order, that's great. They should make every effort. But either way, he should get primary blame if something goes wrong, as long as he's making armed resistance to legal action.

If he were to embrace non-violence, like the OWS protestors ordered out of various parks, my sympathies would go the other way, and I'd put primary blame for any harm on the government, if it chose a confrontational approach. But if if he makes armed resistance, that's a different matter.

 

[freyasman]

So then, your argument is that the government should never use physical force in order to enforce the law?

If you're a LEO staring at a bunch of guys with rifles who are all saying "No!!!" and you push it anyway, there had better be a better reason than because the guy owes some money.... or because you're just too used to pushing folks around to know when to quit.

 

[NightSwimmer]

That is a vague statement.

No, it isn't. It is a clear and concise representation of exactly what you said. Think about it.

 

[NightSwimmer]

If you're a LEO staring at a bunch of guys with rifles who are all saying "No!!!" and you push it anyway, there had better be a better reason than because the guy owes some money.... or because you're just too used to pushing folks around to know when to quit.

I don't know what you mean by saying that. A bank robber owes money to the bank. Should the police be limited to writing polite letters asking him to return the money?

 

[freyasman]

I don't know what you mean by saying that. A bank robber owes money to the bank. Should the police be limited to writing polite letters asking him to return the money?

You don't know what I mean, huh? Bullshit....

 

[worldlymrb]

So then, your argument is that the government should never use physical force in order to enforce the law?

So if someone doesn't pay their ObamaCare fine or their Student Loan, should heavily armed federal bureaucrats with machine guns and tanks use physical force to collect?

Of course every Police State requires a Para-Military Collection Agency doesn't it?

 

[fairsheet]

The government could put a lien on his property and collect, just not at the present moment. Correct? It would be a far better option than confronting someone, who you know will not comply, with massive force creating a side show.

Proper steps are one thing and OK in my book, but when a situation is deliberately escalated from a government agency, it becomes a major issue. The situation could have gotten VERY nasty, and it would have been at the governments hands as they should anticipate the response they got from certain people in our country.

Overwhelming displays of potential force are a time-honored and respected means of DISSUADING violence. In a real "war", the authorities would've "sniped the ringleaders right off the bat, then come over with helicopter gunships.

The guvmint didn't do that. Clearly, the guvmint's #1 goal was to avoid violence. I think the guvmint learned a very valuable lesson from Waco. If the feds are fired upon, they have no choice but to fire back. So....if the feds want to avoid violence, their duty must be to prevent the doers from firing in the first place.

Had one of these nuts fired on the Feds, it would've been on him. But, the fact of its being on him, would be of little comfort.

 

[NightSwimmer]

You don't know what I mean, huh? Bullshit....

No, I didn't understand your point at all. What does any of this have to do with astrological signs?

 

[NightSwimmer]

So if someone doesn't pay their ObamaCare fine or their Student Loan, should heavily armed federal bureaucrats with machine guns and tanks use physical force to collect?

Of course every Police State requires a Para-Military Collection Agency doesn't it?

Of course, those limited to binary thinking can only see one extreme or the other.

 

[worldlymrb]

Of course, those limited to binary thinking can only see one extreme or the other.

Like how the federal govt selects which laws it is going to enforce... That kind of thinking?

If the federal govt is trying to collect a debt, or a fee. Then that is a civil matter.

But when the banker govt tries to extort/intimidate a small farmer with 200 heavily armed federal bureaucrats, that is an act of terrorism.