Every Command is Backed by the Threat of Violence in a Legal System Based on Physical Coercion: FLA Cops Attempt to Murder Black Man to Make Arrest, One Sat on Him while Another Used Front Chokehold

From [HERE] and [HERE] Several Sarasota community members, including the mother of a jailed Black man, are accusing two white Sarasota Police officers of using excessive force during an arrest on Sunday.

ABC7 first learned about the incident after a viewer shared a Facebook Video with the station. That video was posted to a public Facebook Page and appears to capture the arrest.

Signatures on the Probable Cause Affidavit show the arresting officers as Sarasota Police Officer Paul Gagnon and Officer John Clancy, Jr.

According to the report, the officers were executing a Manatee County warrant on Malcolm Jamal Johnson, 32, of Sarasota.

The report says officers came across Johnson at Fred Atkins Park, at the corner of Washington Boulevard and Martin Luther King Way in Sarasota.

ABC7 obtained body camera video from the arrest. It shows officers asking Johnson who he is. Once he confirmed his identity, officers told him to put his stuff down.

Officers claim Johnson admitted to concealing MDMA in his sock. [was that before, during or after being sat on by a large white cop while another choked on his neck?] Johnson was charged with resisting arrest and possession.

FUNKTIONARY STATES: "Lawless Society - a socio-juristic human relation confliguration where law is upheld, codified, and deified over humanity. If you fear or worry about its advent, you'll certainly never recognize its presence. 2) a Police State of the Overruling Class" - from FUNKTIONARY. Dr. Blynd states, "the difference between an outlaw and a lawman is mainly on paper - not on principle."

Michael Huemer explains;

Government is a coercive institution. Generally speaking, when the state makes a law, the law carries with it a punishment to be imposed upon violators. It is possible to have a law with no specified punishment for violation, but all actual governments attach punishments to nearly all laws.  Not everyone who breaks the law will in fact be punished, but the state will generally make a reasonable effort at punishing violators and will generally punish a fair number of them, typically with fines or imprisonment. These punishments are intended to harm lawbreakers, and they generally succeed in doing so.

     Direct physical violence is rarely used as a punishment. Nevertheless, violence plays a crucial role in the system, because without the threat of violence, lawbreakers could simply choose not to suffer punishment. For example, the government commands that drivers stop before all red lights. If you violate this rule, you might be punished with a $200 fine. But this is simply another command. If you didn’t obey the command to stop before all red lights, why would you obey the command to pay $200 to the government? Perhaps the second command will be enforced by a third command: the government may threaten to revoke your driver’s license if you do not pay the fine. In other words, they may command you to stop driving. But if you violated the first two commands, why would you follow the third? Well, the command to stop driving may be enforced by a threat of imprisonment if you continue to drive without a license. As these examples illustrate, commands are often enforced with threats to issue further commands, yet that cannot be all there is to it. At the end of the chain must come a threat that the violator literally cannot defy. The system as a whole must be anchored by a non-voluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices.

     That anchor is provided by physical force. Even the threat of imprisonment requires enforcement: how can the state ensure that the criminal goes to the prison? The answer lies in coercion, involving actual or threatened bodily injury, or at a minimum, physical pushing or pulling of the individual’s body to the location of imprisonment. This is the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.

     Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion. To justify a law, one must justify imposition of that law on the population through a threat of harm, including the coercive imposition of actual harm on those who are caught violating the law. In common sense morality, the threat or actual coercive imposition of harm is normally wrong. This is not to say that it cannot be justified; it is only to say that coercion requires a justification. This may be because of the way in which coercion disrespects persons, seeking to bypass their reason and manipulate them through fear, or the way in which it seems to deny the autonomy and equality of other persons.

     I shall not attempt any comprehensive account of when coercion is justified. I rely on the intuitive judgment that harmful coercion requires a justification, as well as some intuitions about particular conditions that do or do not constitute satisfactory justifications. For instance, one legitimate justification is self-defense or defense of innocent third parties: one may harmfully coerce another person, if doing so is necessary to prevent that person from wrongfully harming someone else. Another justification for harmful coercion is consent. Thus, if you are in a boxing match, to which both participants have agreed, then you may punch your opponent in the face. [MORE]