Proportionality

"They attacked *me*!"

"They threw a cowpie at you, so you decided to kill them all! They're starving, you fool - all because of a war you started!" 

     -- Joffrey and Tyrion

 

I started with a snippet of dialog from Game of Thrones because I think it contains a lot of insight about the appropriate use of force when restoring order--questions that are especially relevant given recent real-world events.  I also used it because Tyrion slaps Joffrey about two seconds later, and who doesn't love seeing that, right?

 

I could watch this all day

But I'm getting sidetracked.  Here's the question I was getting at: when is it appropriate to use force to combat crime? To answer this question, you have to ask a bunch of other questions: What kind of crime? How much force, and gets to wield it? What do you mean by "combat" - are you using force after the crime has occurred, or is it a preventive measure? Are there other methods you could use? 

Think hard about those questions. 

Now, think about them in the context of the recent mass shooting in Kenosha, WI.  Here's a quick overview: there's been several days of civil unrest there, a teenager named Kyle Rittenhouse traveled there from Illinois with an AR he somehow (!) acquired, then he murdered several alleged looters.  That's the short summary.

We still don't know what crimes made Rittenhouse travel to Kenosha - looting, vandalism, or something else - but I suspect we'll find out shortly.  But based on what we know, Rittenhouse was responding to a property crime of some sort.  So now the question becomes, is it okay to use force in response to a property crime?

But what kind of property crime? That's a pretty broad term, covering everything from arson to vandalism.  So let's start with arson.  It's a pretty serious crime, after all.  It can cause up to several thousand dollars in damage, and possibly kill people unfortunate enough to be in whatever building the arsonist targets.  I guess an argument could be made.  On the other hand, does killing an arsonist put the fire out? Does it repair the damage the fire caused? Obviously not.  So let's leave arson as "I don't know" for right now.

Now let's move on to less serious forms of property crime.  How about vandalism - is it okay to shoot someone for throwing a cinder block through a window? Spray-painting the front of a building? Does that seem like a justified response?

How about theft? Taking anything that belongs to someone else seems like a property crime.  Is it okay to shoot a looter? Let me phrase the question another way.  Are people more important than property? Because I can't think of many things valuable enough to justify the use of lethal force in response to their theft. Maybe items that could be used to destroy property or kill people, like, say, explosives.  Or a tank - remember that guy in San Diego a couple decades ago? I could see lethal force being justified in that situation.  But the stuff that you see on most store shelves in malls, business districts, or downtown shopping areas? No.  To my mind, none of that is valuable enough to justify killing someone over.
 

No, this doesn't mean I'm saying the thieves and looters should be let off the hook.  There's a lot of space between saying "kill them" on one side of the spectrum and "let them walk free" on the other side.

So what is the solution? Well, for me, that old saying about letting the punishment fit the crime is a pretty good guideline. If you steal or destroy property or merchandise that doesn't belong to you, then you should be penalized financially in proportion to the value of what you stole or destroyed.  And if the damages run into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, like a burned-out building might, then you pay that bill off with your time.  I.E., prison.  

 

Yes, I recognize this system isn't perfect.  Sometimes people can't pay, or maybe police can't identify the guilty parties, or this incentivizes repeat offenses.  I don't have an answer for those things, and it's definitely not fair to the business owners or the insurance companies to absorb the costs of stolen merchandise or damaged property.  Regardless, I'd rather see it this way than have someone lose their life over a $75 microwave or a shattered $200 store window.

Now, a fair number of people might call this too lenient.  I don't know what percentage of the population they represent, but it seems like a decent-sized one.  I see them in Youtube comments and overhear them in public places, making offhand remarks about how looters deserve to be shot.  "It's one way to prevent repeat offenses." "They were tearing the place up, they deserved it." "When the looting starts, the shooting starts." There's a certain percentage of Americans that thrill to that tough-guy talk.  If you look at American pop culture over the years, it's a recurring theme: Dirty Harry, The Punisher, The "Death Wish" movies, Robocop.  Personally, I think it's the attitude you have when you're a testosterone-fueled (because it's usually guys) teenager and think every problem can be solved by the application of force. People usually grow out of that mindset once they realize the world is more nuanced, but I guess some of them hang on to it well into adulthood.  "Law and order" sounds great - we all want that, right? To be able to walk to our cars without being jumped and leave our doors unlocked at night, right? That legitimately sounds great. I'm all for it.  But thinking you can punch or shoot it into existence is a simple and inaccurate way of looking at the problem.

But then you have professional assholes like Tucker Carlson stoking that vigilante mindset by defending Kyle Rittenhouse, casting a brainwashed teenager who traveled hundreds of miles with murder on his mind as some sort of hero who fought to restore order when Kenosha's elected officials wouldn't.  

 

Let's be clear: Rittenhouse is a murderer, not a hero.  Period, full stop.

Carlson is smart enough to realize this, but he's also savvy enough to know his audience.  He knows he's tapping into the desire to be the "noble outlaw" that his viewers all possess.  The ones holding the line against the legions of monsters and barbarians hellbent on raping and pillaging and destroying society.  I'll bet any amount of money that Tucker's broadcast (the one I linked to) has got at least two dozen or so of his viewers fantasizing about doing the same thing.  They're probably at a gun store right now, looking over the rack of ARs and deciding which one they want.  Carlson is flicking lit matches at a stack of tinder, and it's a decent bet that one of them will eventually ignite the pile.

I started this piece with a Game of Thrones quote, and I'm going to end with another one, because it seems appropriate.

"The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die."