Coercive Violence can best be described/defined as the controlling influence resulting from the potential that great harm will be perpetrated on someone if they don't follow the prescribed ultimatums/laws/philosphies of another who has the weapons, strength, or other ability to cause harm.
As an example: While most people believe that by working together in a peaceful, lawful society, there will always be a fringe element who would lean towards a self serving, unlawful society. If we put our peace officers on the street in pink cardigans, penny loafers, chinos and unarmed it is unlikely that the fringe element would be coerced into believing they should obey the law. On the other hand, A peace officer armed with multiple weapons, body armor and the legal right to use deadly force if justified, represents the potential for violence that would coerce most of this fringe element into conducting themselves more appropriately.
Apply this philosphy to the war in Iraq and you can see why Coalition forces struggle to gain the upper hand on the insurgency. As a citizen who's rules will you follow? The insurgent who will decapitate your son, daughter or family member or the Coalition soldier who's only legal recourse is detain the insurgent?
Chat with our AI personalities
why did the coercive act fail
An unexpected result of the Coercive Acts was the increased support for Massachusetts and its resistance to the authority of England. The Coercive Acts were originally meant to subdue disobedience.
1774 is the date
Intolerable Acts
I think this might be the section 8? yes it is near the bottem ...is this a question for a take home test by any chance because i am writting about this right now lol