The reason why we have a law enforcement system ...

[heracleitos]

Imagine the mob running after a murderer. They want to get even with him. If they manage to catch him, the mob will tear his flesh to pieces.

One civilized solution is for law enforcement to jump into the fray, apprehend the suspect, incarcerate him, and hand him over to the court. That allows us to have an adversarial process in which the defence lawyer and the prosecutor argue in front of a judge why the suspect is (not) guilty. At the end of the trial, the judge can then pronounce a verdict and if needed administer punishment.

This punishment must satisfy the mob's sense of justice. Otherwise, there will be a credibility issue and then next time it will be harder for law enforcement to convince the mob to allow the officers to arrest the suspect and to peacefully go home.

In other words, the reason why we have a law enforcement system is mostly for mob control.

In the light of this assessment, now look at the anti-hijab protestors in Iran who want to abolish the mandatory Islamic dress code (hijab). What you can see on television, are hundreds of Iranian law enforcement officers trying to control the situation. What you cannot see, are the millions of people who insist on the Islamic dress code and who would love to tear the flesh of these anti-hijab protestors to pieces. Law enforcement are saving the lives of these anti-hijab protestors by maintaining the credibility of the law. That is mainly what stops a much larger and much more dangerous mob from attacking and destroying the anti-hijab protest.

So, yes, one woman died in the anti-hijab protest at the hands of law enforcement but thousands are still alive only by virtue of law enforcement.

[Good_Egg]

Is there some assumption in there that the law being enforced reflects the strongly-held will of the majority ?

[heracleitos]

Is there some assumption in there that the law being enforced reflects the strongly-held will of the majority ?

Not necessarily of the majority.

In his post, "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority.", Nassim Taleb argues that the opinion of the majority is irrelevant because the majority simply finds itself re-normalized into the dominant view. It is only the will of the most intolerant that matters.

I find it a bit disingenuous that the anti-hijab protesters take things out on the Iranian police, because without their protection they would not even be able to protest.

They are effectively in the same position as the people who want(ed) to do a gay pride in Belgrade. The gay pride is existentially dependent on massive police protection in Serbia. So, they'd better be cooperative and agreeable instead of incessantly black mouthing the hand that protects them from the elements and the other laws of nature.

[Pattern-chaser]

Imagine the mob running after a murderer. They want to get even with him. If they manage to catch him, the mob will tear his flesh to pieces.

One civilized solution is for law enforcement to jump into the fray, apprehend the suspect, incarcerate him, and hand him over to the court. That allows us to have an adversarial process in which the defence lawyer and the prosecutor argue in front of a judge why the suspect is (not) guilty. At the end of the trial, the judge can then pronounce a verdict and if needed administer punishment.

This punishment must satisfy the mob's sense of justice. Otherwise, there will be a credibility issue and then next time it will be harder for law enforcement to convince the mob to allow the officers to arrest the suspect and to peacefully go home.

In other words, the reason why we have a law enforcement system is mostly for mob control.

It has always been my understanding that we, as individuals in a democratic system, make a deal with society: the police deal with law enforcement, thereby protecting us, the innocent majority, and in return, we agree not to indulge in vigilante action(s).

Have I had it wrong all these years?

[Pattern-chaser]

In his post, "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority.", Nassim Taleb argues that the opinion of the majority is irrelevant because the majority simply finds itself re-normalized into the dominant view. It is only the will of the most intolerant that matters.

There is an element of truth in that, distasteful though it might be...

[Good_Egg]

In his post, "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority.", Nassim Taleb argues that the opinion of the majority is irrelevant because the majority simply finds itself re-normalized into the dominant view. It is only the will of the most intolerant that matters.

I find it a bit disingenuous that the anti-hijab protesters take things out on the Iranian police, because without their protection they would not even be able to protest.

So you've three groups of people. A group who feel strongly enough to carry out acts of protest against the status quo, a group who feel strongly enough to protest against any changes to the status quo, and a (possibly majority) group who will go along with whatever is decided.

If you say it's the job of the police to protect all three groups from the actions of the two active groups, then I wouldn't disagree. That seems to imply a certain neutrality - it's not for the police as police to be for or against any particular change (although each individual when off-duty may choose to identify with any of the three groups).

You're right that it behooves the smaller (and thus weaker) of the two active groups to acknowledge that protection. As long as the police are neutral, that neutrality should be respected by all.

It's open to question how much of a minority the anti-hijab protesters are. They'd probably claim to be speaking for 50% of the population. Which of course doesn't mean that they are. But in the absence of opinion polling, how do you know ?

[heracleitos]

In his post, "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority.", Nassim Taleb argues that the opinion of the majority is irrelevant because the majority simply finds itself re-normalized into the dominant view. It is only the will of the most intolerant that matters.

I find it a bit disingenuous that the anti-hijab protesters take things out on the Iranian police, because without their protection they would not even be able to protest.

So you've three groups of people. A group who feel strongly enough to carry out acts of protest against the status quo, a group who feel strongly enough to protest against any changes to the status quo, and a (possibly majority) group who will go along with whatever is decided.

If you say it's the job of the police to protect all three groups from the actions of the two active groups, then I wouldn't disagree. That seems to imply a certain neutrality - it's not for the police as police to be for or against any particular change (although each individual when off-duty may choose to identify with any of the three groups).

You're right that it behooves the smaller (and thus weaker) of the two active groups to acknowledge that protection. As long as the police are neutral, that neutrality should be respected by all.

It's open to question how much of a minority the anti-hijab protesters are. They'd probably claim to be speaking for 50% of the population. Which of course doesn't mean that they are. But in the absence of opinion polling, how do you know ?

Violence is not a democracy in which the majority would prevail. Beyond a critical minimum, head count does not even matter. It is usually the more aggressive and the more reckless that wins. In the context of mobs, battle strategy does not exist either. A relatively small number of law enforcement officers should be able to keep the different mobs apart. The problem is that it is not possible to completely exclude injuries, or once in a while, even dead bodies. It really looks like a "thankless" job.

[AverageBozo]

In the case of the mob activity on January 6, law enforcement was tasked to repel the mob rather than protect it.

The reason for law enforcement isn’t mostly to protect mobs; it’s to enforce the law and only to enforce the law.

Police presence is needed at protests because members of either group, the protesters or the anti-protesters, are prohibited from causing bodily harm to members of the opposite group.

Police are needed at protests because it is unlawful to destroy property and to loot.

Every so often police are called upon to manage a mob situation. Every day police are employed to enforce the law in so many other ways.

The purpose of a law enforcement system is to enforce all the laws, not just, and certainly not mostly, to enforce those related to mobs and vigilantes.

[AverageBozo]

The ire of the protesters is rightly aimed at the police, who were there to control the mob rather than protect it, and who killed a young woman for inappropriate wearing of her attire.

[heracleitos]

In the case of the mob activity on January 6, law enforcement was tasked to repel the mob rather than protect it.

Well, I certainly understand that people can be critical of law enforcement.

I have personally never been beaten up by them. I just got intercepted a few times in my life, while driving a car.

With a bit of smooth talking -- and here in SE Asia -- along with giving them a customary tip, things always work out perfectly fine.

Other people may have a different life experience.

They have never been beaten up by their perennially absent father, and now it is law enforcement that needs to belatedly do the job with their sticks. So, yeah, the line between "repelling" and "protecting" or even "educating" can be very thin.

In my opinion, when it comes to that, you'd better not resist arrest. As I see it, you'd better be cooperative and conciliatory. Since it was obviously just a misunderstanding, as you politely and eloquently convinced them of, during the interrogation, they will just let you go. Possibly admit some minor wrongdoing and they will merely advise you not to do that again.

Concerning the dead woman, just like the typical feminist, she may very well have been arrogant, disrespectful, argumentative, confrontational, masculine, and have had the deeply ingrained need to always be right. She could surely attract a man -- most women can -- but she could never keep him; and soon she started blaming her problem on wearing hijab. It is always someone else's fault.

Law enforcement officers are quite predictable. If there are people who are more interesting to beat up than yourself, that is exactly what they will be doing. Seriously, I do not need to run faster than the bear. I only need to run faster than you.

[Pattern-chaser]

Concerning the dead woman, just like the typical feminist, she may very well have been arrogant, disrespectful, argumentative, confrontational, masculine, and have had the deeply ingrained need to always be right. She could surely attract a man -- most women can -- but she could never keep him; and soon she started blaming her problem on wearing hijab. It is always someone else's fault.

From this distance, geographical and cultural, you can tell all of this, which runs quite contrary to the news as reported? A woman was dealt with in a brutal fashion for something that seems to many like a very minor offence. But you can see that it's all her own fault, and that she can't "keep" a man? I'm not sure you're observing from the same planet that I am.

[heracleitos]

From this distance, geographical and cultural, you can tell all of this, which runs quite contrary to the news as reported?

Western propaganda news?
Cannot be trusted.

A woman was dealt with in a brutal fashion for something that seems to many like a very minor offence. But you can see that it's all her own fault, and that she can't "keep" a man? I'm not sure you're observing from the same planet that I am.

It you are disrespectful to law enforcement officers, the odds are all off. The thing that triggers them most of all, is a lack of respect.

Did she do that? Not sure, because I was not there.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you are disrespectful to law enforcement officers, the odds are all off. The thing that triggers them most of all, is a lack of respect.

Did she do that? Not sure, because I was not there.

And yet you still can see and understand enough to dismiss the victim thus:

Concerning the dead woman, just like the typical feminist, she may very well have been arrogant, disrespectful, argumentative, confrontational, masculine, and have had the deeply ingrained need to always be right.

Is she really like that? In your own words, you don't know because you weren't there. So why would you insult and dismiss this poor dead woman, when you have admitted you don't know enough to condemn or praise her?

[Robert66]

If you are disrespectful to law enforcement officers, the odds are all off. The thing that triggers them most of all, is a lack of respect.

Did she do that? Not sure, because I was not there.

And yet you still can see and understand enough to dismiss the victim thus:

Concerning the dead woman, just like the typical feminist, she may very well have been arrogant, disrespectful, argumentative, confrontational, masculine, and have had the deeply ingrained need to always be right.

Is she really like that? In your own words, you don't know because you weren't there. So why would you insult and dismiss this poor dead woman, when you have admitted you don't know enough to condemn or praise her?

The answer is simple - misogyny.

[Mounce574]

My question is, did the police kill her or was there other circumstances where opposing protestors may have done the deed?