A really funny thing is when people say something the police do is a "War Crime".
Nothing the police do during standard police operations is a war crime, because the rules of war do not apply to police. That includes laws about chemical weapons in war, but also many other laws.
It's like taking an NHL rulebook and trying to apply it to a soccer game. Unless you're only focusing on a few very narrow rules, it just isn't something that follows. In a soccer game the rule saying you need to be wearing skates is absurd. The rule saying you need to wear hockey pads is absurd. The rule saying you need to have a hockey stick is absurd.
Similarly, the rules of war and the rules of policing are quite different and absurd to apply to one another.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably being a criminal who isn't wearing a criminal uniform is a war crime. You need to wear a domino mask and a striped suit to identify yourself as a criminal for the police, and if you do not wear your criminal uniform, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must have a criminal boss like a video game. If you are a criminal and you do not have a criminal boss, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must openly carry your firearm. If you are a criminal and you do not openly carry your firearm then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, you must announce your intention to engage with police in accordance with international law. If you do not declare war then you are no longer protected by the law.
There's other differences too. Police use hollow point bullets because they want the bullets not to harm bystanders, but militaries use full metal jacket bullets because they want the wounds from bullets to be as humane as bullet wounds can get.
Obviously non-lethal chemical weapons like tear gas or pepper spray are allowed for police, but not for militaries.
Criminals who are legally engaging in war and thus protected by the laws of war can surrender and expect certain rights that would not apply to normal criminals.
Police who are legally engaging in war and thus are protected by the laws of war can surrended and expect certain rights from the criminals, or the criminals may be acting unlawfully.
Criminals would be considered to be acting unlawfully under the laws of war when they commit crimes against civilians, allowing punishment potentially up to death.
A gang must have designated medics with official markings, and rival gangs or police cannot harm them.
If you shoplift a pack of gum from a 7-11, then you are potentially a war criminal, and may face summary execution.
Hospitals treating criminals must be clearly marked and safe from police raids.
If a gang simply declares a ceasefire, every captured gang member would have to be released, even if they murdered dozens of people.
Gang members would be allowed to use machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, fighter jets, up to and including nuclear bombs, but not brass knuckles.
Both criminals and police would only be allowed to use proportionate force to the military value of a target.
It is expected and written into the law that both the criminals and the police will kill each other, and there is nothing illegal about lawfully killing one another. In fact, if you kill a lot of police or a lot of criminals, your governing authority may give you a medal.
A police baton is arguably not allowed and may represent a war crime. The police must shoot to kill instead.
Criminals who loot and pillage are guilty of a crime under military law.
Criminals would need legitimate funding sources, and to have clear requisitions processes from their gang.
And remember, the punishment for many war crimes is death.
Maybe we shouldn't keep talking about war crimes in this context. That is a silly place.
With one caveat: police can be responsible for war crimes under such laws if they are acting as government agents in a wartime situation in ways that end up under the jurisdiction of such laws -- but the above would all start to apply for both sides.
In other news, a city of 20 million people disappeared off the map today as activists won a victory in court requiring it to uphold military law. The judge sentenced every person in the city to be an unlawful combatant and sentenced them to death, followed by himself.
The military took over the city which was a violation of the third amendment, but not military law.
Nothing the police do during standard police operations is a war crime, because the rules of war do not apply to police. That includes laws about chemical weapons in war, but also many other laws.
It's like taking an NHL rulebook and trying to apply it to a soccer game. Unless you're only focusing on a few very narrow rules, it just isn't something that follows. In a soccer game the rule saying you need to be wearing skates is absurd. The rule saying you need to wear hockey pads is absurd. The rule saying you need to have a hockey stick is absurd.
Similarly, the rules of war and the rules of policing are quite different and absurd to apply to one another.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably being a criminal who isn't wearing a criminal uniform is a war crime. You need to wear a domino mask and a striped suit to identify yourself as a criminal for the police, and if you do not wear your criminal uniform, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must have a criminal boss like a video game. If you are a criminal and you do not have a criminal boss, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must openly carry your firearm. If you are a criminal and you do not openly carry your firearm then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, you must announce your intention to engage with police in accordance with international law. If you do not declare war then you are no longer protected by the law.
There's other differences too. Police use hollow point bullets because they want the bullets not to harm bystanders, but militaries use full metal jacket bullets because they want the wounds from bullets to be as humane as bullet wounds can get.
Obviously non-lethal chemical weapons like tear gas or pepper spray are allowed for police, but not for militaries.
Criminals who are legally engaging in war and thus protected by the laws of war can surrender and expect certain rights that would not apply to normal criminals.
Police who are legally engaging in war and thus are protected by the laws of war can surrended and expect certain rights from the criminals, or the criminals may be acting unlawfully.
Criminals would be considered to be acting unlawfully under the laws of war when they commit crimes against civilians, allowing punishment potentially up to death.
A gang must have designated medics with official markings, and rival gangs or police cannot harm them.
If you shoplift a pack of gum from a 7-11, then you are potentially a war criminal, and may face summary execution.
Hospitals treating criminals must be clearly marked and safe from police raids.
If a gang simply declares a ceasefire, every captured gang member would have to be released, even if they murdered dozens of people.
Gang members would be allowed to use machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, fighter jets, up to and including nuclear bombs, but not brass knuckles.
Both criminals and police would only be allowed to use proportionate force to the military value of a target.
It is expected and written into the law that both the criminals and the police will kill each other, and there is nothing illegal about lawfully killing one another. In fact, if you kill a lot of police or a lot of criminals, your governing authority may give you a medal.
A police baton is arguably not allowed and may represent a war crime. The police must shoot to kill instead.
Criminals who loot and pillage are guilty of a crime under military law.
Criminals would need legitimate funding sources, and to have clear requisitions processes from their gang.
And remember, the punishment for many war crimes is death.
Maybe we shouldn't keep talking about war crimes in this context. That is a silly place.
With one caveat: police can be responsible for war crimes under such laws if they are acting as government agents in a wartime situation in ways that end up under the jurisdiction of such laws -- but the above would all start to apply for both sides.
In other news, a city of 20 million people disappeared off the map today as activists won a victory in court requiring it to uphold military law. The judge sentenced every person in the city to be an unlawful combatant and sentenced them to death, followed by himself.
The military took over the city which was a violation of the third amendment, but not military law.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 2
@sj_zero It's not about making sense, it's about making the connection in the back of your mind between some action and Nazi death camps. Normal people come within a mile of that topic and do the mentally lazy thing and just categorize the action as bad instead of rationalizing it.
You are correct, of course. But you have to admit, it's an entertaining thought experiment that helps show viscerally how absurd the attempt to connect the two is.