One priority for a modern state – perhaps the highest priority – is for it to keep its citizens safe from harm.
And within that priority is the need for the state to to keep its citizens safe from harm inflicted by the state itself.
A modern state has – or should have – a monopoly on legitimate coercive and indeed lethal force.
By “legitimate” is meant that the force used will have a lawful basis, will be used in accordance with legal rules, is sanctioned ultimately by someone capable of being publicly accountable, and is capable of review by an independent court.
So what happens when this breaks down?
What happens when the it is the state that is inflicting injury and death on its own citizens – or on people in its care?
And what happens when that coercive and lethal force does not appear to have a legal basis and/or is not in accordance with legal rules and/or is sanctioned by those with no accountability and/or is not capable of independent judicial review?
That is: what happens, for any or all these reasons, the use of coercive and lethal use of force does not seem to have any legitimacy?
What happens when the only justification for the use of coercive and lethal use of force – or excuse or pretext – is that might is right?
Well, among other things, you have a fundamental failure in the functioning of a modern state.
For the key word here is “legitimacy”.
Anybody can (seek to) use coercive and lethal force – and many will get away with it.
And if that is possible, then you have a gangster state, an outlaw state, a pirate state – where anything goes by those who can use coercive and lethal force and be protected from any legal or political consequences.
Some may like the idea of such a state – some may read science fiction or fantasy fiction where there are cities or entire societies where might is right.
Or when may look at various places – now and throughout history – where any sense of a legitimate central order has broken down. And what one will often see are massacres and gangsterism.
That is why there is a quid pro quo – the state gets to have a monopoly on the use of coercive and lethal force, in return for that coercive and lethal force being used legitimately.
That is that the force used will have a lawful basis, will be used in accordance with legal rules, is sanctioned ultimately by someone capable of being publicly accountable, and is capable of review by an independent court.
*
Now looking at the United States, there appears to be the free use of coercive and lethal force by the federal agency ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
Last week Renee Nicole Good was killed by ICE in circumstances that seem to have been murder: a state execution of an innocent person on the streets for no good reason.
At the start of that day three children had a mother and at the end of that day they did not, just because an ICE agent decided to shoot their mother three times in the face.
I have written about this over at Prospect in an article entitled Death in Minnesota – please click here to read it.
Fatalities happen, police shootings of innocent people happen – but what was especially striking about this killing was the response of the federal government and its supporters.
For want of a better word: they celebrated the killing.
The woman somehow deserved it because she was dubbed “domestic terrorist”.
*
Now turning back to the general issue of legitimacy, we can see that this use of lethal (and not only coercive) force appears from from any of those elements which can (in limited circumstances) render it legitimate.
The extra-judicial execution of Renee Nicole Good seems not to have a legal basis, it was not in accordance with legal rules, was sanctioned (even implicitly) by those who seek to evade accountability, and it may not be capable of review by an independent court.
The federal state is resisting working with the local police.
It looks as if the state is confident it can get away with it.
*
But.
The cost of the state getting away with it will be further diminution of the legitimacy of the state having a monopoly of coercive and legal power.
Yes, as a matter of realpolitik, the state can seemingly do as it wishes.
Yet in the medium term, legitimacy matters.
A society is not easy to govern unless there is at least acceptance of the powers of the police and the military: sheer repression is expensive and often unsustainable.
That is why the wise tyrant hides behind a veneer of legalism and constitutionality.
And that is also why gangster states rarely last very long.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Ah. For much of this article, I thought I was reading a commentary on the situation in Iran!
It is of general application – which I then apply to a particular instance.
Indeed. One only need consider the straw that broke camel’s back and secured the exit of most of Ireland from the UK: summary executions in 1916.
The tradition of impunity for the British army in shooting and killing unarmed civilians on the island of Ireland “hasn’t gone away, you know” (as they say). Even now.
Chances of ICE killers being held accountable?
If the Democrats take back the House and the Senate. Otherwise no.
Does the state have a monopoly on legitimate coercive and lethal force? A person may legitimately use reasonable force in self defence, up to and including lethal force, even in the UK .
In a state like the US, with its second amendment, there are many people outside the government services with their own firearms, and the right to keep and use them.
Turning to the particular, Renee Nicole Good was plainly not a domestic terrorist and it is ludicrous for the US government to say so.
But she was at the wheel of a large vehicle and (it seems) refusing to comply with the demands of law enforcement personnel.
Many might think that use of lethal force was excessive in these circumstances, but putting the the political noise to one side, if Jonathan Ross (the ICE shooter, not the UK celebrity) said he was in fear of his life, it would not be altogether surprising if he faced no criminal sanction. Even if he was mistaken about the level of threat he faced.
That is the sort of question that could and should be asked by an impartial and independent investigation, and if necessary by an impartial and independent court.
“Does the state have a monopoly on legitimate coercive and lethal force? A person may legitimately use reasonable force in self defence, up to and including lethal force, even in the UK.”
Yes, because that it only permitted by the courts and Acts of Parliament. Only the state can render it legitimate. I am sorry my point was not clear, leading you to type a long reply premised on an error.
“That is the sort of question that could and should be asked by an impartial and independent investigation, and if necessary by an impartial and independent court.”
Agreed. BUT where will you find an impartial and independent investigator in today’s USA? Any investigation has (in my opinion) to start from the premise that the death was a catastrophe – if only for the deceased – and look for ways in which it could have been averted.
On the point about the presumed shooter being ‘in fear for his life’, I cycle frequently on the streets of London and am from time to time in fear of my life. However, I do not pull out my trusty weapon (which I have not got) and shoot the offending motorist, I simply accept that it is part of the life I choose to live. I would argue that a law enforcement officer, armed by the State, has chosen the role he is playing and should not be entitled to shoot at anyone any time he is ‘in fear for his life’.
Is defence coercive? (no)
My understanding is that ICE are not classed as law enforcement, so an ICE agent has no power to order a citizen to stop. Furthermore, and again my understanding, is that there was a report by ICE on ICE killings of suspected illegal immigrants in or at the wheel of motor vehicles, which found that in nearly all circumstances there was no justification for the killings, ie the agent(s) shooting was not in danger from the vehicle, and that in any case shooting at moving vehicles wasn’t an effective technique for stopping them, and should no longer be used. I haven’t watched any of the videos, but it seems clear from the stills I have seen that Jonathon Ross was at the side of the vehicle, in no danger.
The death of Ms Good is a tragedy but as you say the wider implications derive from the truly callous response of the Federal Government.
I am reminded of the death of a demonstrator in the UK – Blair Peach* I seem to recall – in the mid-seventies. The UK government’s response at the time seemed to me as a youthful, slightly radical, observer to be pretty heartless – I seem to remember reference to an unusually thin skull – but at least such remarks were accompanying expressions of regret and I don’t think anyone in an official position suggested for a moment that Mr Peach deserved his death or that they were glad he was killed. Now the President of the US and his acolytes appear to rejoice in the death or injury of anyone they oppose, or believe opposes them.
This is not a world I would want to live in.
* My references are entirely from memory and I apologise to anyone concerned if my facts are muddled or just wrong.
The problem for Trump, as a wannabe tyrant, is that he is not wise, apart from his bully’s instinct for weakness. His unconstitutional actions are usually covered by claimed or imagined emergencies requiring immediate, decisive, action. But ICE appears to be out of control. I doubt ICE’s flooding of Minneapolis was a strategic directive from the White House. However, this murder could well be a turning point, as the video and audio evidence is so clear. Either they will have to row back on the actions of ICE, or they will have to double down on the “domestic terrorist” line to maintain control.
The real question comes with the mid term elections. Will they go ahead, and almost certainly hand control of Congress to Trump’s opposition? Or will they be cancelled because of a newly manufactured emergency. Whether that’s in Venezuela, Iran, or Greenland.
“One priority for a modern state – perhaps the highest priority – is for it to keep its citizens safe from harm”.
Perhaps a higher priority is staying elected and suppressing any tendency for a stink to escape.
According to Wikipedia there are about 100,000 allegedly ‘illegal’ immigrant persons in Minnessota out of some 5.8 million persons. The word ‘illegal’ being somewhat flexible. But Minnessota was not noted for rampaging drug fiends etc etc. Rounding up people – say 1 in a 1000, going through some sort of data search and chucking say 2000 out looks like a lot of bother for very little reward – real reward that is not political headline reward.
If you play with guns someone will get hurt and at least to me it looks a bad political decision to put gun totin feds on the street in heated times.
We might take a look at the electoral politics of Minnessota, finely balanced. Depending how the spin doctors move these recent killings might convince some that a ‘strong leader’ is a good thing or the killings might screw up Team Trump’s chances entirely. Maybe sending in the Feds was supposed to look tough and strong, like the Milky Bar kid.
Now more enforcers have been sent in – don’t want to look weak now do we – but if cooler heads prevail they might be kept out the way and removed after the heat has died down. Yon Vance has a (not so) lean and hungry look.
The US government is getting close to copying the Nazis!
My “O”-level maths teacher challenged us to define “a tangent”. Every attempt was shot down in flames of incontrovertible logic. Finally he said, “A tangent is a straight line which cuts a circle at two coincident points.”
“Getting close”? Up to a point.
If you’re going to talk about things getting close but never touching, then the word you need is asymptotic.
In fact the US government actually is copying Nazi tactics, nothing close about it.
The Rule of Law is no longer applicable to the United States of America – at any level.
In God we Trust – We are God now!