The same thing she would do when there's no cops around or in a slow response time area under your theory. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ deal with it. Policies are not much protection without an enforcer hanging around.
But they are better when there is an enforcer available. Arguing against a policy that works
sometimes on the basis that it doesn't work
all the time is stupid when the alternative you're proposing is to basically work never.
These random and vague hypothetical aren't much use. "Everybody has a plan till they get punched in the mouth".
Your constant appeals to violence are telling. Whether or not you even understand it, that's what your proposal amounts to: let individual violence settle the issue.
I consider that uncivilized and sub-optimal.
Sure. They have to catch you first.
And yet again, more lawlessness is the natural outcome of your preferred policy, by your own admission.
Again with the vague hypotheticals.
Make them less vague if you want. These are obvious issues, and you keep ducking them.
Any of the above, or variations thereof, may or may not go down.
Many of them are
likely to go down. They're pretty basic scenarios. If you don't have any idea how to handle them, then you haven't actually thought about what your policy preference means when put into practice.
One way or the other, the situation is likely to temporaly resolve itself before Mr Policeman gets around to checking it out.
Often through violence.
And you'd be wrong. Problems and unforseeables are always a liklihood.
All the problems I described are very, very forseeable. I just foresaw them.
The biggest concern I have is with unexpected escalation to weapons. That's a bitch.
Indeed it is. Yet another reason to NOT just keep the cops out of it.
Bottom line is policy is dandy when it's enforceable on the fly. More often than not, it's not, IME. Most people bark a lot, and bite a lot less, so ya throws ya dice and do what you think is right, like you would with or without police backup.
I don't think you understand that in all these other conflict situations that you've dealt with, there WAS a legally correct answer to the conflict. Even in the absence of law enforcement to compel that answer, the fact that a legally correct answer exists still affects the actors in the conflict. Because even without cops on site, a legally incorrect resolution could still come back to bite the participants on the ass down the road. That helps constrain escalation, even if imperfectly.
What you seem to want is to remove any legally correct answer to the conflict. And you don't recognize how bad an idea that is. You can't understand how that could loosen those restraints on escalation. Because you haven't actually thought about these issues in any depth, even after all this time.
