Using violence to arrest someone is only necessary if they resist. If the crime is so petty and only deserving of a fine in the first place, that will all be hashed out in court. So what's the point of resisting arrest at all for such a minor crime?
Sure, if they are doing something violent or endangering other people. I have already described an example other legal methods which can resolve the issue, without resorting to violence.
So passive resistance gets you a free pass? Think of the perverse incentives that creates. You would have absolutely no reason not to resist arrest.
The question is whether arrest and physical confrontation was even necessary.
Come on. It's obviously true that we as a society could save more lives if we spent more money. We could make all cars able to withstand ridiculous crashes for a price. There's always going to be a balance. The comment you're ironically mocking (despite having just said mocking opinions is proof you have nothing logical to fall back on) is merely pointing out that it's completely wasteful to add all these extra steps to the process for little benefit.
For starters, you have no concept of what money is, clearly, as you are describing it like it's a finite thing. It's a piece of printed paper that people apply value to in order to conduct trade, not something mined from the ground.
Next, I wasn't mocking. "Think of all the money wasted." Not think about the lives lost, not the freedom lost, not the suffering. It's "about the money."
Perhaps you should define violence. Initially you talk about "using violence to arrest someone" which implies that you can arrest someone (i.e. put handcuffs on them and take them away) without that being violent.
Nothing I said ever implied anything like that. I even clarified "such a petty crime." You are drawing your own conclusions here.
So we've established putting hands on someone isn't violent, since you can cuff them, so where is your line exactly?
This is why we're talking about it. For doing something like selling cigarettes on the street, I feel violence is not needed. We have agencies specifically for commercial crimes, like the IRS, the Secret Service, the FBI, etc. Attacking someone, which is what we're talking about, for a petty crime like that is insane. Especially considering the method of which it happened. A choke hold was completely unnecessary, never mind specifically frowned upon in police training.
Restraining them completely so they can't move? How is that different from handcuffing them? Be specific.
I think you need to evaluate the difference between restraining and handcuffing, and choking to death, or executing.
So there should be no limit to the amount of money the government should spend to save a single human life?
Answering a question with a question.
We could probably save a life or two by mandating every car be bulletproof.
We probably could, but this is pretty ridiculous in the context of the conversation, as it has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, besides a vague reference to money.
So assuming you're saying we shouldn't do that, you're admitting that sometimes it's not worth it to spend a lot more money to save a few more lives
So, you're putting money over something like freedom, human life, and due process.
you're admitting that sometimes it's not worth it to spend a lot more money to save a few more lives.
Why the extreme logic? It's a repeating foundation of your entire argument. Why does everything have to be "this way or that way." It's almost like discussion, debate, and reason have no use to you.
So it's a matter of where to draw the line
Yes, that's why I'm engaging in this conversation, and the original point of my original post, which honestly, was pretty straightforward.
The poster you're mocking is just saying that drawing the line where the article does would be wasteful. Rather than saying where you would draw the line you just mock the very idea of line-drawing.
Didn't mock anyone, but keep making accusations with no base and questioning my morality, instead of actually engaging in the topic and the specifics of the debate.