Regarding civil disobedience

[TheQuietCorner]

In looking at a recent thread, I had a question that I'd like some other perspectives on. I recently had a conversation with my dad on the topic as well, and I'm not sure how exactly to look at the issue. I have no intention of bashing anybody or their actions or opinions in this thread.

When you disagree with a law or an act of government, what is an appropriate way to change it? During the racial issues in the middle of the century, there were a lot of violations of the law in an attempt to change the law. During the Vietnam War, there were a lot of deserters who didn't agree with the war.

If the government refuses to change a law that you or a group of people disagree with, when does it become acceptable to break the law?

I hope I'm clear enough in my question and intentions. Thanks.

[ExUSPP]

It is never acceptable to break the law. If you do not agree with a law and the Government refuses to change it then you need to elect leaders who agree with your views. If theses people are not elected then you are in the minority and majority rules (usually) in this country.

[mobrien316]

I don't believe it is ever "acceptable" to break the law. Civil disobedience to me means that you refuse to obey whichever law or laws with which you disagree, in a nonviolent manner, and you accept the consequences for doing so.

If you choose to disobey a specific law (in a nonviolent manner, without hurting anyone at all) and you readily accept the known consequences for doing so, in my opinion you are still being ethical and moral. If you simply break the law and then offer up the excuse that you don’t agree with the law and therefore you shouldn’t have to face the consequences, in my opinion you are a criminal.

I pulled over a guy and found out his vehicle registration had expired a year ago. I told him about it and he said he was well aware of that, but since he refused to pay his property taxes the DMV wouldn’t let him renew.

I told him I’d have to tow his car and give him an infraction ticket for operating unregistered and he was fine with that. He knew the consequences of not paying his property taxes and he was willing to live with them.

While I don’t agree with him, I can respect him a lot more than the guy who cries and whines about his expired registration and bitches that his property taxes are unfair and he shouldn’t have to pay them.

[Derexan]

When Injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

But i'll agree - If you're going to use civil disobedience, you should accept the consequences.

If per say, for some reason gun confinscations were in affect ALA 2005 New Orleans style, and situations were proponents of civil liberties and the constitution are in grave danger, i believe that it is your DUTY as a citizen to defend those liberties by non cooperation, and resistance.

--But if you Stop traffic becuase of a war you disagree with, then you should at least accept the consequences of your actions.

[retdetsgt]

Depends on the law. If it's something that involves public safety, I'd say no.

However to say that people should never engage in civil disobedience is thumbing your nose at all the civil rights demonstrations used to get rid of the racial inequality we had for centuries in this country.

I grew up in a racially segregated south where black people couldn't even enter a lot of businesses, much less get access to education, etc. W/o civil disobedience, that would have continued for years longer. Petitioning lawmakers did nothing to change things.

That being said, it needs to be "civil" and you should be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. Also that should be a last resort for laws that do discriminate or otherwise harm a segment of society and should not be for laws that you simply disagree with like traffic laws.

Off the top of my head, I don't know of any laws that would fall into the catagory of discrimination that couldn't be settled in court, however.

[Chautona]

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

If the law is wrong, we change it by the methods prescribed in our constitution. If the contstitution is wrong, we start over and abolish the government and begin afresh. (But that'd have to be pretty extreme!)

The only law I can imagine breaking defiantly would be forbidding me to worship my God or care for my family.

[Valor55]

That being said, it needs to be "civil" and you should be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

That's the key. If you want to stand on the sidewalk and hold a sign, fine. If you want to lay down in the road and get arrested, fine. If you want to throw rocks and molotov cocktails and destroy property you've crossed the line.

[retdetsgt]

That's the key. If you want to stand on the sidewalk and hold a sign, fine. If you want to lay down in the road and get arrested, fine. If you want to throw rocks and molotov cocktails and destroy property you've crossed the line.

Yep. Everyone that does that should go down for felony riot, IMO.

[Chautona]

Call me naive but...

If you want to throw rocks and molotov cocktails and destroy property you've crossed the line.

1. Does this really happen? and
2. What is a molotov cocktail? and
3. What happened to the old attitude that if you don't like it here, leave?

[Terminator]

Call me naive but...
1. Does this really happen? and
2. What is a molotov cocktail? and
3. What happened to the old attitude that if you don't like it here, leave?

1) Yes

2) Molotov Cocktail- A makeshift bomb made of a breakable container filled with flammable liquid and provided with a usually rag wick that is lighted just before being hurled.

3) You got me...

[codered]

TQC, why do you ask this of US in the LE feild? Shouldn't this be better served to those in the 'lawmaking' field?
And yes, I do find this line of questioning offensive and arguementaive........another line from the 'liberalistic agenda' that wishes to trip up the LE spectrum, and give a negative light on those that wish to maintain the safety of the United States.
BTW, I have many relatives that died in the Vietnam war... and I don't appreciate your 'sit in ' attitude'.

[Valor55]

Call me naive but...

If you want to throw rocks and molotov cocktails and destroy property you've crossed the line.

1. Does this really happen? and
2. What is a molotov cocktail? and
3. What happened to the old attitude that if you don't like it here, leave?

Yes. It does happen here rarely. They'll also throw glass jars full of urine or feces to get it on us. It's worse in Europe and Asia. The anarchists like Black Bloc over there are extremely violent. We're starting to get a taste of it when they show up here for stuff. My last agency I was on the riot team, or civil disturbance team as it's called. We were issued fire retardant nomex flight suits to wear and we were also going to get one time use personal fire extinguishers that fit in your pocket. That way if the guy next to you got hit and was on fire you could put him out. :eek: No fires but a PETA "demonstration" got real out of hand once. It's amazing how much they talk about tolerance but don't practice it.

Terminator had a good definition of the molotov cocktail. Imagine standing on a riot line shoulder to shoulder with other cops trying to prevent people from getting through. Someone throws a glass jar full of kerosene with a flaming rag attached. When the bottle breaks at your feet the flaming kerosene suddenly expands and splatters all over your legs and the legs of those around you. I've seen video of it in Asian riots.

[Mr.Melon]

A democracy can take away people's rights and commit injustices just as any other form of government. It may be more difficult, because we've purposefully and wisely put more safeguards in place, but I have no delusions that we've discovered and created a perfect form of government, free from corruption and the immoral. I could never say that civil disobedience is immoral; I do feel that it should be meted out in accordance to the degree of wrong done to a person or people by the government. For example, to me, PETA is an organization that was mentioned earlier that seems to often step far past the line I myself would deem appropriate.

Personally, the biggest infringement on our rights in this country is the restrictions being placed on our rights to bear arms. I don't want to start a Second Amendment argument, but based on history, when the government starts taking the weapons away from the citizenry, dark times lay ahead. There are examples going as far back as ancient Japan, with the taking of swords from the layperson. More recently, Hitler passed a gun ban in Germany under the same guise of safety that's being passed to the American public today, and very soon after, people started ending up in concentration camps.

Am I saying that the people who vote for and propose gun ban legislation have some evil, ulterior motive just waiting in the folds for us after our weapons have been taken away? No, certainly not--but someone might. I believe it's wrong. Of course, I do not at this time have to worry about such a thing, because being a police officer (well, after the academy), I certainly wouldn't have my gun taken away. But, if I were a civilian in that situation, I would not let the government take away my firearms. I would be nonviolent--but I wouldn't give them up, either.

Of course, with my position as a police officer, I'll have sworn to uphold the laws of my state. If I found a person with an illegal gun, I'd have to take whatever action the laws and department policies required of me. But I wouldn't think he or she was a bad person, and I'd understand what they were doing. The two opposing forces (the government and the opposition of that government) are timeless, and in my opinion, are very important in the way things change in our world. The vast majority of the time, the government's actions against any person or organization are just and necessary. As I said earlier, though, I have no delusions that our government is perfect and can do no wrong--so when someone is engaged in civil disobedience, they will face the consequences, but I cannot say that when practiced in proportion to the wrong done, that it is by any means immoral or unethical. Even though I may not agree with it, they must do what they think is right, and I can't fault them for it.

[Valor55]

A democracy can take away people's rights and commit injustices just as any other form of government. It may be more difficult, because we've purposefully and wisely put more safeguards in place, but I have no delusions that we've discovered and created a perfect form of government, free from corruption and the immoral. I could never say that civil disobedience is immoral; I do feel that it should be meted out in accordance to the degree of wrong done to a person or people by the government. For example, to me, PETA is an organization that was mentioned earlier that seems to often step far past the line I myself would deem appropriate.

Personally, the biggest infringement on our rights in this country is the restrictions being placed on our rights to bear arms. I don't want to start a Second Amendment argument, but based on history, when the government starts taking the weapons away from the citizenry, dark times lay ahead. There are examples going as far back as ancient Japan, with the taking of swords from the layperson. More recently, Hitler passed a gun ban in Germany under the same guise of safety that's being passed to the American public today, and very soon after, people started ending up in concentration camps.

Am I saying that the people who vote for and propose gun ban legislation have some evil, ulterior motive just waiting in the folds for us after our weapons have been taken away? No, certainly not--but someone might. I believe it's wrong. Of course, I do not at this time have to worry about such a thing, because being a police officer (well, after the academy), I certainly wouldn't have my gun taken away. But, if I were a civilian in that situation, I would not let the government take away my firearms. I would be nonviolent--but I wouldn't give them up, either.

Of course, with my position as a police officer, I'll have sworn to uphold the laws of my state. If I found a person with an illegal gun, I'd have to take whatever action the laws and department policies required of me. But I wouldn't think he or she was a bad person, and I'd understand what they were doing. The two opposing forces (the government and the opposition of that government) are timeless, and in my opinion, are very important in the way things change in our world. The vast majority of the time, the government's actions against any person or organization are just and necessary. As I said earlier, though, I have no delusions that our government is perfect and can do no wrong--so when someone is engaged in civil disobedience, they will face the consequences, but I cannot say that when practiced in proportion to the wrong done, that it is by any means immoral or unethical. Even though I may not agree with it, they must do what they think is right, and I can't fault them for it.

I don't think that anyone here is advocating removing anyone's rights to civil disobedience. As stated earlier, if it is civil nobody really has a problem with it. It's the rock throwers and the violent deviants who give civil disobedience a bad name.

I don't think to many around here are going to argue about taking guns away from people.

Just remember, there's a difference between a dope dealer or felon with a gun and a citizen with no criminal intent who has violated, perhaps by accident, a rule or regulation. I'm not saying let everyone go but you will learn about discretion and the letter of the law vs. spirit of the law.

[TheQuietCorner]

TQC, why do you ask this of US in the LE feild? Shouldn't this be better served to those in the 'lawmaking' field?
And yes, I do find this line of questioning offensive and arguementaive........another line from the 'liberalistic agenda' that wishes to trip up the LE spectrum, and give a negative light on those that wish to maintain the safety of the United States.
BTW, I have many relatives that died in the Vietnam war... and I don't appreciate your 'sit in ' attitude'.

I ask this of you because I appreciate the thoughts and opinions of the people who enforce the law about the law. A good example would be the marijuana issues. I don't know of any legislators that have actually seen and dealt with the home invasion robberies and other crimes that stem around drugs. Police do. The only reason that I know about just a small fraction of the issues around it is because of the people on this site. Police see the things on a daily basis and the consequences of laws that most people, including lawmakers and myself, don't see.

I'm sorry if I have offended you. I did not intend to argue. I was hoping to gain some insight from Law Enforcement who have dealt with disobedience... civil or not. I truly did not wish to trip up LE or the forums, and I don't wish to shed a negative light on Law Enforcement or our military.