First thing, it is exactly due process not to listen too much to a suspect words during the time of arrest. There is a better time to do that kind of thing. You have the right to remain silent is not a joke. A suspect is treated differently than a witness, and Murphy acted as such.
1. I do not think you understand what is being said here. The violation of due process that has been committed is the assault of a suspect. The argument is: since she already violated due process once (by assaulting, ie repeatedly punching) a suspect, you cannot logically claim that Murphy would do anything (in this case, listen to Harry) because not doing so would violate due process. Murphy has already proved that she is willing to violate due process once, so it cannot logically be claimed that she would never violate due process. That is the main rebuttal of your claim that "of course Murphy would have listened to Harry because if she didn't, it would violated due process."
Supporting evidence also provided is that Murphy did not, in fact, listen to Harry when he tried to talk to her; that further, she assaulted him when he tried to speak; and that even further, she specifically said "no more talking."
2. Yes, suspects have the
right to remain silent. Not the obligation to do so.
3. A suspect is treated differently than a witness, yes. This does not mean it is in any way acceptable for a police officer to
physically assault them--which Murphy did. This makes her as much of a criminal as she believed Harry to be.
As for police vilence, well, you know yourself that this kind of thing happened quite often. Furthermore, Murphy know more than most what Harry is capable of. It is actually not a bad idea to incapacitate Harry with a punch just in case. Harry is a powerful and dangerous man after all. It might not be legal or ethical, but it is practical to put the guy down to reduce the chance of complication. In the case of FM, Harry is innocent and he probably won't escape the police, but nobody knows that and Murphy can no longer depend on the trust between her and Harry.
1. Yes, police violence happens a lot. So does murder. Does the fact that lots of people commit murder mean that we should stop arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning murderers?
2. First, as I remember it, it was at least two punches. Second, it demonstrably did
not incapacitate him.
3. By your logic, Murphy should have put a bullet through Harry's head rather than arresting him.
4. What trust? The only trust the books have shown between Harry and Murphy is exceedingly one-way: Harry trusts Murphy, and Murphy does not trust Harry.
Harry is a good guy, but in case he is the bad guy, he need to be treated seriously considering his power. It is the same reason why the white council is so wary of him. The same reason why Murphy is harsh on him in book 14. The same principle applies. It is the side effect of having great power which is probably why the council emphasize secrecy.
So you're saying that police brutality is acceptable when directed at people who have a black belt in martial arts? Or military veterans? I assume when you say "powerful," you mean people who are physically dangerous and who cannot be considered safe even when disarmed. If not, maybe we should say that police brutality is fine when directed at computer hackers, rich people, and people with political connections as well.
Entering into someone's house without permission is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Harry knew it. He should have ask to borrow Bob from Butters. He said he can't do it because he need to keep Butters uninvolved and safe, but Bob denounce him and Harry has no defense.
I'm pretty sure no one on this thread is claiming that stealing is right. What we're saying is that Harry had understandable reasons, and that his motivation was good.
Harry should have learn this lesson long ago. Susan in book 3 and that 2 werewolf in book 11 is the price for this kind of mistake.
...Actually, I don't think either of these are good examples, but getting into a discussion about them would derail the thread. I'll start another thread about this issue when I'm finished responding to your post.
The moment he burgled Butters's home, Butters already involve. He should have known better and he did, but he still make the mistake because he don't trust anyone.
He does trust people--he trusts Murphy's judgement more than his own, and he trusts Molly enough that he tells her what he describes as (paraphrased, because I don't have my book available to look it up) "far more truth than I ever shared." He's not refusing to ask Butters for help because he doesn't trust Butters; he's refusing to keep Butters safe. (I'm explicitly not referring to what happens after Harry finds out about Nemesis--at that point he does stop trusting people, and quite rightly).
Harry don't mind Thomas and Molly because Harry don't have much of a choice. He can't intimidate them, Thomas is his brother and Molly is freaking Molly and Harry owe her too much for what happened in book 12. He could not get them uninvolved even if he wanted to. The fact that Harry do not take the initiative to ask Thomas or Molly for help is already a bad indication.
Harry does have a choice--I am reasonably confident that Harry could beat either of them in a fight, and then knock them out or otherwise restrain them. And "can't intimidate them"? They're his friends--he would be trying to
persuade them, not
intimidate them. And practically speaking, Harry doesn't owe Molly for what happened in Changes: the suicide thing was an explicit abrogation of his free will, and thus he cannot be held responsible for it; and coming to the big fight was Molly's free-willed choice, as I believe she told Harry in Ghost Story. And when and for what would Harry have asked for Molly and Thomas's help with? He didn't know he needed them until he'd already run into them. As soon as he does run into them, he does ask them for help--it's not like he says, "hi, we should catch up later, but right now I'm doing something that I'm not going to let you get involved in."
As for Murphy in FM. Remember that Murphy's and Harry's relationship during book 1 and 2 is not as strong as after book 4. How can a trusting partnership be develop if Harry is keeping so much secrets?
Yes, there is trust between them, but that is trust between an employee and an employer, not the trust between comrades that has gone through life and death. The evemnts in FM started the evolution of their relationship from mere employer and employee to life and death partner. Even so, I say Murphy and Harry only truly become life and death comrade in book 4 and it solidify after book 6.
Once again, you are misunderstanding what I, at least, am saying. My claim has never been that Murphy should treat Harry as her close friend. It has explicitly been that there is little or no trust between them, so claiming that Harry betrayed Murphy's trust does not excuse her actions--because, once again, that trust
does not exist to be betrayed.If you say you don't like Murphy because of that punch, well, that is your choice, though I don't understand why we need to dislike a character for a single mistake. Harry himself make a much worse mistakes and nobody is hating him for it. Heck, even Michael is not totally clean. There are people who even like freaking Marcone, what can I say?
It's not just her punching Harry. It is what that action shows about her earlier actions, and her later actions in response to that.
Earlier: At this point, I have been excusing Murphy's treatment of Harry for a book an a half because "She's a good cop. That's why she's acting like this." However, her assault of Harry proves that she is
not a good cop, and that therefore her being one retroactively does not excuse any of her earlier actions.
Later: She never apologizes (not until 6 books later, and not until Harry brings it up, and then the apology was perfunctory, so to me it does not count). She still tries to arrest him even when he is in the middle of saving her and her fellow police officers' lives. She acts as though Harry expecting her to shoot her is somehow unjustified, even though all her behavior up until this point makes it a completely reasonable assumption on his part. She never indicates that she feels that she was wrong to assault a suspect (ie, she wishes she hadn't done it because Harry was innocent, not because it's a violation of the law) while still claiming that the law is important and should be upheld as this sacred thing, which makes her a hypocrite.
Harry, by contrast, almost always feels bad about his mistakes, and either apologizes, tries to make up for them, or both.
What has Michael done that's wrong?
And yeah, I don't get why people like Marcone either.
And it is common sense not to listen to suspects during the time of arrest. So Murphy not wanting to listen to Harry at the time is normal. Harry is a suspect now and he needed to be treated as such. Expecting Murphy to still treat Harry as a friend and partner under such a circumstance is asking too much. And though the punch in the face probably could be avoided, it is not too far out of the practical norm either.
1. Since when do people not listen to suspects when they're being arrested? They may disregard what they say, but that's not the same as not listening.
2. I'm not expecting Murphy to treat Harry as a friend; I'm expecting Murphy, as a police officer, to
not commit a felony-level crime. I don't feel like that's an
unreasonable standard.
3. It's not outside the norm to repeatedly assault suspects who are A) not fighting back; and B) clearly in shock? Can you please provide evidence for this position? Because I find it fairly unbelievable.