Wow. This is a big knot for me. Some are saying cops acted in self defense by (possibly) setting a fire and killing Dorner. Sure he was legally entitled to due process, but is that even relevant beforehand (in an AnCap context)? It is only after the fact that justifiability would be determined at arbitration. Arbitrators would not suggest death sentences beforehand right? Or maybe in certain circumstances they would, like in a dispute between the vigilantes and dorners defense firm. Can anyone offer any clarity? It just seems wrong, but if this guy is a murderer, is it wrong? Is it wrong because the cops did it? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/13/audio-catches-cops-shouting-burn-this-motherfcker-during-dorner-siege/
Judging by the cops running around and shooting up the place (old ladies and the sort), they had always intended to kill him.
Does it really matter? What is the purpose of these kinds of exercises? Are we going to craft a recommendation to LAPD for future incidents? Don't shout "burn this motherfucker" and don't light private property on fire to burn up a fugitive? Seriously, what's the point?
Clayton -
It is a data point in a moral regression. How can you know what is right and wrong without case studies? If your morality breaks down upon application to new circumstances, it is flawed. This is a test.
Also, if this action is morally wrong, it is an example of the evil of the state. It if is right, it is an example of the good of the state. Examples matter, don't they?
I don't think dirty, internecine disputes between one part of the State and another part of the State - both committed to the "any means necessary" doctrine - are suitable events for case study, if for no other reason than that the outcome of such case-study can only be of use to the individuals in similar positions in the political establishment... none of whom are listening. Why bother lecturing a brick wall? Better to analyze how peaceful individuals and communities can use their time, energy and talents more effectively in relating to one another and simply ignoring the State as much as possible. Oh and mocking its absurdity and incompetence, as well, to keep spirits high... Dorner was 5 minutes walk from the police HQ in Big Bear the whole time... what a bunch of jackasses!
Separate issue: I noticed that you used "State" rather than "state". Do you find this to be less confusing to the uninitiated? Is it grammatically correct (not that it really matters)? Just curious...
I'm not perfectly consistent in my usage of capitalization on that.
The State - capitalized - means to me the principle of government. It is roughly synonymous in my mind to how The Crown is used in the British commonwealth countries. It's more than just "whatever the Queen is/says"... it's an ideology, a way of thinking, an Establishment. In the British model, the Crown is also a very ingenious device for escaping liability. The Queen herself does not act, it is the Crown that acts. Were you to attempt to sue (your only venue would be through Crown courts, by the way), you could never actually sue the woman we call "Queen Elizabeth II" because she does not actually perform any of the actions that you might be suing for... it is always The Crown who acts.
The State, in my mind, is precisely this liability escape-hatch. It is the hypocrisy of the assumption by one man of the power to rule over another man crystallized into chemically-pure form, then encased in glass and labeled "The State". So long as all the members of the State continue to worship this Kaaba-stone of hypocrisy, it retains its power. If you ask why the Queen does as she does, the reply is that this is what is required of her by the State. If you ask why the State does such-and-such, the reply is that this is what the Queen has required of it. If you try to hold the Queen liable for something her police or her military or her government did to you, the Crown will be named as the correct party to be sued and your case thrown out of court. If you try to hold the Crown liable (and succeed), at most the subjects will be made to pay. After all... we are the government!
In the American system, the "interests of the state" ultimately serve this role. One of the more notorious such interests is national security. But national security is only the most notorious interest of state... there are many others. Eminent domain, the police power, social equality and justice, regulatory powers, the taxing power, the legislative power, protection of minorities and the disabled, social security of the elderly and infirm, etc. etc. etc. These are all manifestations of the root source of power: the interests the of state. If you sue the government and say "I don't owe you a dime, you have no right to take any of my money" and by some miracle your case were to make it to the Supreme Court, where even the Constitution itself can be interpreted in context of the general light of law, the answer would be unanimous: It is in the INTERESTS OF THE STATE to collect taxes. Thus, the State collects taxes. Now, this might be a shocking outcome if you are a naive believer in the justice of the courts... after all, it is in the interests of the mugger to take your wallet! No one ever disputed that... the question is whether it was justifiable?? And the stark reply of the Supreme Court - here translated slightly - would be cold in its indifference: We are the State, you moron, and it's in our interests to take your money, what sort of idiot are you to come complaining to us about having taken your money? But they will never hear a case directly challenging the power of the government to tax. Ever.
The democratic system of government is actually even more pernicious in this regard. At least the British have a face they can associate with ultimate reponsibility for the Crown's behavior, even if they cannot actually hold her liable. They still at least know who to blame. In the democratic system, there is no one to blame. The President is just an officer. He either performed the duties of his office, or he did not. He cannot be held liable for outcomes, he can only be held liable for failure to faithfully execute the duties of his office. Thus, democratic government is the ultimate liability blind. And we see the consequences of this in the 2008 housing collapse and the ensuing devastation (as well as the Great Depression and much of the total wars of the 20th century). The democratic system is the ultimate form of private (secret) power and profit combined with public liability. The Establishment does not have losses. Losses are put down to the public treasury. Only the profits stay in the hands of the Establishment. And the public generally does not even know who is in control - real control - of this mess. We don't even know who to protest against... forget about holding anyone legally liable.
So, yeah, the State means this when I use it. So does the state. It's more of a poetic thing than a technical thing.