When is it ok to use violence against your own people?

And when should the international community step in? (Or the EU in the case of an EU member state)?

If those citizens violate laws which violate the rights of other citizens, or violate terms dictated in their nation's constitution.

When is it ok? In my opinion it's when citizens form mobs and start rioting, attacking bystanders, and destroying property en masse. However, even then there should be limits to state violence. In Catalonia for example, police were firing rubber bullets at people attempting to vote. That's way too heavy handed under those circumstances.

@StevenC

So you take it that property is more important than human life? (kinda playing devil's advocate here, not because i've taken a specific side, but to clarify your views... which may help clarify mine)

@Orathatic that's sort of a strawman. He's not saying property is more valuable than human life, but if they start to damage that then police have the right to use whatever means to bring them into custody. The way you presented it makes it seem like he's willing to have people be killed to protect property, which is not the case.

St. Louis police are being sued for going after people recording police violence against protesters.

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/second-lawsuit-filed-against-st-louis-over-police-tactics-in/article_4be5bbc2-a364-11e7-80a9-573631a2478b.html

No, I don't think property is more important than human life. When people smash windows, light cars on fire, and attack random passer-bys, then the state should have the power to stop them (within reason) and arrest them for commiting a crime.

Members of society should be helping to build it rather than destroy it. If someone is destroying property, they are a net negative on society and should be removed from it through any means necessary.

@Leon, it is entirely plausible that a new walmart moving to your town has ruined the economy, has killed local businesses and that the property rights which walmart enjoys are destroying that community.

I'm not advocating FOR the destruction of property, but i can entirely see why a small local community would want to see Walmart 'run out of town'.

And in the more generic sense, there are people who see faceless multi-nationals as doing more damage to their community and society than they add.

Now i'm not expecting you to take this position, but i can see why some people do.

@Pompeii its not a strawman, it was a question. I didn't claim StevenC said something he didn't and then attacked (the strawman) for him saying thus. I merely enquired IF he was building that, for clarification (less the attacking step).

@StevenC So if property rights aren't more important, then should state violence be used to kill rioters?

I believe i have said violence is only justified in self-defence and defence of others. So i'll agree with you that 'attacking random passers-by' would justify the use of violence to stop it. I was more curious about the 'lighting cars on fire' and 'smashing windows' part...

That's a moot point, orathaic. The vast majority of riots thus far have destroyed small businesses. The people who are rioting have no such higher goals for their rioting. They are rioting for the sake of rioting because they enjoy causing mayhem.

Nope.

This is dealing with property rights again. If the police aren't allowed to depend people's property, then am i allowed to defend my home if someone tries to burn it down? should i be allowed to use violence to protect physical property?

adding the police into the equation is just an extra step and that's messing with people's heads

It's also worth pointing out that one can't destroy or steal property without inflicting a large range of other consequences. A looted shop has a terrified family living above it. A car set on fire has the potential to spread the fire further and put lives at risk. Let's not pretend that there exists a kind of rioting with purely financial consequences.

How about property that is killing people?

Orathaic, the state uses violence all the time to enforce various laws.

The question is where that authority ends

I think attacking peaceful protestors is a sign of authoritarianism. I think that if someone in a crowd breaks property the police would be justified to arrest that person only. Arresting people who are otherwise peaceful or just walking by is out of bounds. Shooting people who pose no threat is murder.

And sometimes destroying property is justified in self defense or the defense of others.

Say: a bomb.

Octavious, that's a good point, which means the kinds of injustice that cause rioting also ought to be against the law

@'The question is where that authority ends'

Yes, that is what i'm asking...