Oh you misunderstand, he knows the law well. He just knows how to use it as a tool to protect the elites from accountability and as a bludgeon to punish the people for non-compliance, as well as how to make sure that never gets flipped.
What he said has nothing to do with law. He just said stuff knowing that nobody will do anything to stop him. Or to stop them.
The law is extremely clear in this regard - the ICE dude murdered a person for no reason. The rules on the use of deadly force literally use a moving car as an example of when not to use deadly force - as long as there are “other defence options, such as moving out of the way”.
correct. this is a man that admitted openly to lying about immigrants eating pets to foment hatred to fire up his voter base that already hates immigrants.
The law is extremely clear in this regard - the ICE dude murdered a person for no reason. The rules on the use of deadly force literally use a moving car as an example of when not to use deadly force - as long as there are “other defence options, such as moving out of the way”.
When the people tasked with upholding the law consistently disregard it in particular circumstances - as they do when it comes to abuse of power by law enforcement - that law only exists in the circumstances in which it is consistently applied. Things like qualified immunity have effectively nullified any law that ostensibly holds law enforcement accountable. The law does not exist for any other purpose except to protect the dominant socioeconomic group in a given country without binding them, while binding the subjugated socioeconomic group without protecting them. Who is in which group is dynamic and always subject to change, but this rule almost always holds except in cases where very skilled lawyers are able to argue in court that someone in the latter group actually belongs to the former in some specific circumstance. That is the law being used for something that it was not designed to do, a bit like an exploit in a video game soon to be patched.
The law does not exist for any other purpose except to protect the dominant socioeconomic group in a given country
“In any given fundamentally broken country”, you mean?
The law absolutely does exist for other purposes. Otherwise we wouldn’t have as robust anti money laundering laws, child protection laws, rape laws, human rights laws, etc., etc.
Enforcement of laws is a separate issue to the existence of laws.
Remember how Trump was talking about starting for a third term? Which is illegal in the US? Well, they intended to introduce legislation that would allow him to start legally. Problem is that if they did that, Obama could also start. Their solution? Add a clause that it had to be a third term within one term of the previous term, or something like that. Making it illegal for Obama to start but legal for Trump to start.
That’s a law that “exists for no other purpose except to protect/benefit the dominant socioeconomic group”.
A law saying “if you kill a dude for no reason, you’re going to jail” is not, even if oh so often certain class of mostly white guys are exempt from it.
All of those laws are unequally enforced. Anti money laundering laws are applied only to the subjugated socioeconomic group (drug dealers belonging to the working class, etc.). The dominant socioeconomic group gets their children protected, their rape victims to receive justice, their human rights defended. The subjugated socioeconomic group rarely benefits from these laws, which is why thousands of rape kits sit in warehouses never being investigated, why children born into poverty are more often separated from their parents and institutionalized rather than receiving the help they need, and why human rights are routinely violated without consequence.
The people making such laws can sometimes intend for them to be universal, but such people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of laws, and it never quite pans out that way in practice.
You are right. Laws are universal and apply equally to everyone. The problem is the systems that exist to create and apply those laws. There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes for me to believe that it upholds fairness. I also don’t believe it’s a fundamental human failing, I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.
There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes
No. *There are too many cases where the interpretation of law is selective", and/or “there are too many cases where the enforcement of law is being selective”. There are no laws (that I know of, correct me if I’m wrong) that say “if you’re rich, this doesn’t apply to you”, or something like that.
I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.
And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.
And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.
It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.
When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.
The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.
In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.
It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.
Oh you misunderstand, he knows the law well. He just knows how to use it as a tool to protect the elites from accountability and as a bludgeon to punish the people for non-compliance, as well as how to make sure that never gets flipped.
Had someone unironically suggest that if Trump takes a third term that it would open the way for Obama to run again.
Anyone citing the old order of rules, laws, and fairness is delusional or under informed.
What he said has nothing to do with law. He just said stuff knowing that nobody will do anything to stop him. Or to stop them.
The law is extremely clear in this regard - the ICE dude murdered a person for no reason. The rules on the use of deadly force literally use a moving car as an example of when not to use deadly force - as long as there are “other defence options, such as moving out of the way”.
correct. this is a man that admitted openly to lying about immigrants eating pets to foment hatred to fire up his voter base that already hates immigrants.
When the people tasked with upholding the law consistently disregard it in particular circumstances - as they do when it comes to abuse of power by law enforcement - that law only exists in the circumstances in which it is consistently applied. Things like qualified immunity have effectively nullified any law that ostensibly holds law enforcement accountable. The law does not exist for any other purpose except to protect the dominant socioeconomic group in a given country without binding them, while binding the subjugated socioeconomic group without protecting them. Who is in which group is dynamic and always subject to change, but this rule almost always holds except in cases where very skilled lawyers are able to argue in court that someone in the latter group actually belongs to the former in some specific circumstance. That is the law being used for something that it was not designed to do, a bit like an exploit in a video game soon to be patched.
“In any given fundamentally broken country”, you mean?
The law absolutely does exist for other purposes. Otherwise we wouldn’t have as robust anti money laundering laws, child protection laws, rape laws, human rights laws, etc., etc.
All those laws are only enforced against disfavored groups.
Rich people got to engage in all the Epstein stuff and are all still free.
Elon can create an industrial child porn machine and all the governments are totally unbothered.
Enforcement of laws is a separate issue to the existence of laws.
Remember how Trump was talking about starting for a third term? Which is illegal in the US? Well, they intended to introduce legislation that would allow him to start legally. Problem is that if they did that, Obama could also start. Their solution? Add a clause that it had to be a third term within one term of the previous term, or something like that. Making it illegal for Obama to start but legal for Trump to start.
That’s a law that “exists for no other purpose except to protect/benefit the dominant socioeconomic group”.
A law saying “if you kill a dude for no reason, you’re going to jail” is not, even if oh so often certain class of mostly white guys are exempt from it.
All of those laws are unequally enforced. Anti money laundering laws are applied only to the subjugated socioeconomic group (drug dealers belonging to the working class, etc.). The dominant socioeconomic group gets their children protected, their rape victims to receive justice, their human rights defended. The subjugated socioeconomic group rarely benefits from these laws, which is why thousands of rape kits sit in warehouses never being investigated, why children born into poverty are more often separated from their parents and institutionalized rather than receiving the help they need, and why human rights are routinely violated without consequence.
The people making such laws can sometimes intend for them to be universal, but such people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of laws, and it never quite pans out that way in practice.
There’s a massive gulf between “the purpose of a law existing” and “a law being enforced”.
I know you don’t work in the field because you have no idea how absolutely, ridiculously hilarious this statement is. :D
Also, calling drug dealers “working class” is certainly a vibe…
Are you from the US?
The laws ARE universal. But because humans are humans (therefore: shitty), they’re not being universally or equally enforced.
And none of this changes the fact that laws do not, in fact, “exist for [no] other purpose except to protect the dominant socioeconomic group”.
“The purpose of a system is what it does.”
You are right. Laws are universal and apply equally to everyone. The problem is the systems that exist to create and apply those laws. There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes for me to believe that it upholds fairness. I also don’t believe it’s a fundamental human failing, I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.
No. *There are too many cases where the interpretation of law is selective", and/or “there are too many cases where the enforcement of law is being selective”. There are no laws (that I know of, correct me if I’m wrong) that say “if you’re rich, this doesn’t apply to you”, or something like that.
And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.
It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.
When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.
The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.
In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.
It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.
Well, that is how the laws where designed.
This is such a childish thing to say, my god…