Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[Spaghetti Cat]

I've gotten to know and understand Irv's views on certain things. While I can disagree with some of them, I can state without question that he's not a racist, bigot, or anything like you guys are trying to paint him as. If you want to make a point, fine, but cut out this nonsense. It really does nothing other than try to shut him up. So yeah.

 

Anyways, I'm reading up on the 10-year coverage of Hurricane Katrina. Something jumped out at me...

 

 

Looters filled industrial-sized garbage cans with clothing and jewelry and floated them down the street on bits of plywood and insulation as National Guard lumbered by.

Some in the crowd splashed into the waist-deep water like giddy children at the beach.

Mike Franklin stood on the trolley tracks and watched the spectacle unfold.

“To be honest with you, people who are oppressed all their lives, man, it’s an opportunity to get back at society,” he said.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/looters-take-advantage-new-orleans-mess/ (reprint of the original article)

 

Let's set aside the Bush hate and all the rest for just a moment. I don't agree, but let's take Mike Franklin at his word. He's been oppressed and now it's payback time. Ok that's one side.

 

My friend's brother had just started with the coast guard a year or so prior to Katrina, he was in New Orleans. HIs house was flooded and mostly destroyed. During that time he helped with the water rescue. If they were black, white, or whatever, he was doing the right thing.

 

It occurs to me a simple thought. What kind of society do we want to live in? Is it the Mike Franklins of the world, thoughts of vengeance and a taking society? Or is it the coast guard guy rescuing others while the chips are down?

 

We've had our issues in America for sure, but whenever the lowest point seemed to loom on the horizon great men got to work. Are we still capable of that? Or are we divided between the Mike Franklin's and pajama-boy eunuch's of the world?

 

Answer that and you might be capable of answering these questions of race in America. Otherwise this is all just noise.

 

 

[Clem Fandango]

 

I'd ask you to stop trotting out the scant view black people that actually agree with you as though people like you weren't considered a destructive force by the black community. You are entirely at odds with them, and no amount of 'ferguson grandmothers' 'REAL african americans' or 'black female sergeants' can change that.

I would say the destructive force in the black community is the fact that 93% of black homicides are carried out by other blacks, and that gang violence and lack of opportunity is much higher up on that scale than "the police". In fact it seems like educated people in the community tend to speak the same tune as the grandmother.

 

The black community has no sovereign responsibilities because they are not a sovereign people. The ghettos exist within the borders of the American state and are not self governed in any way whatsoever.

 

I'll try and make this simple. 'Black people' is a socially constructed category. Ghettos are ghettos because of specific policies. These policies come from the state, and the state binds together the artificial society that purports the distinction between 'white' and 'black.' The police protect and maintain the state. If there were no cops, there would be no state, there would be no 'black people' and there would be specific issues affecting black people. Thus, the police are responsible for gang violence and lack of opportunity.

 

Some educated black people will make token condemnations of rioting, it's called respectability politics and it's a cancer. They don't agree with you though, you are quite extreme

[Dingdongs]

 

I would say the destructive force in the black community is the fact that 93% of black homicides are carried out by other blacks, and that gang violence and lack of opportunity

The result of a system the police exist to uphold. Like, what part of this whole thing do you not understand?

 

In fact it seems like educated people in the community tend to speak the same tune as the grandmother.

 

Ha. Yeah, alright.I get it, I just don't get what you want the police to do differently. They have their jobs that they have to do and have to get home to their families, provide them with food and shelter, just like anyone else. I am well aware of the plight of black communities, just don't believe that the blame belongs in the court of the police. It's like treating a cancer with Motrin. Maybe you'll make people feel a bit better but the issue will stay just as bad and continue to get wors Edited August 30, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

 

 

I would say the destructive force in the black community is the fact that 93% of black homicides are carried out by other blacks, and that gang violence and lack of opportunity

The result of a system the police exist to uphold. Like, what part of this whole thing do you not understand?

 

In fact it seems like educated people in the community tend to speak the same tune as the grandmother.

 

Ha. Yeah, alright.I get it, I just don't get what you want the police to do differently. They have their jobs that they have to do and have to get home to their families, provide them with food and shelter, just like anyone else. I am well aware of the plight of black communities, just don't believe that the blame belongs in the court of the police. It's like treating a cancer with Motrin. Maybe you'll make people feel a bit better but the issue will stay just as bad and continue to get worsYou are still plagued by the illusion that the police's job is some earnest and altruistic pursuit of justice and order when it is not, and your inability to perceive the police state for what it is effects your ability to see that they are not simply doing their jobs with their hands tied by their duty when in reference to 90% of the type of oppression we are discussing. Police officer's as individuals are carrying out policy handed down by a wider discretionary figure yes, but they also use their own discretion and time and time again there are both conscious and unconscious racial biases that come into play, you mix that in with the policy like the war on drugs, and policies enacted to support it like profiling, and very quickly the police officer's job becomes one of very questionable ethics. That is for people who aren't deluded into believeing they are the thread by which law and order hangs, which is a problem because they represent the majority. So it is pretty hard to accept the cries of, "they are just doing their job," when they are either too apathetic or too indoctrined to see that their job is morally corrupted as much as the crime they pledge to fight. It's a tragic irony really because most police officers really do believe in justice and equality, they just don't realize their job isn't really playing to that effect.

 

The probelm with asking what police officers should do is unfair because poloce officers who try to report corruption are punished so the idea of any good cops toppling the system is might romantic but lofty at best. So what is the option, tell people not to become police officers? Most believe in the job, the pledge to uphold the law, and don't realize how the policies themselves are racially biased so how is that going to work? Besides you clearly believe we need police so that is out...

 

It comes back to policy reform. Stop the War on Drugs, stop he mass incarceration and systemic transformation of ordinary people into second class citizens. The thing police could do specifically is to stop taking bribes in the form of seized monetary assets from drug busts, which would demotivate practically the entirety of the prison population boom, racial profiling, illegal search and seizures, sentencing disparity, and voter disenfranchisement. You realize we are the only country, with a Democratic form of government, that jails and prisons people with the duration and frequency that we do for simple drug offenses? The fact that we have the biggest prison population on the planet, huge racial demographic disparities inside it, huge recidivism rates, can all be intrinsically linked to the start of the War on Drugs, and the police are the foot soldiers of this oppressive occupation. If they don't want to be viewed as the problem, they should try not to be a part of it.

 

I saw this video the other day and thought it was relevant here.

Edited August 30, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[Clem Fandango]

I get it, I just don't get what you want the police to do differently.

Go home to their families? Get splattered all over the wall? We don't share the delusion of a cohesive society and we have no solidarity with police, that's what you aren't getting. There is no end to this where the police address our grievances and we walk hand and hand into a post-racial future.

[Tchuck]

 

The solution to that isn't removing all cops, no matter how much you dream of that. It's reworking the laws so that they go after what they should be going, punishing those that do badly and enforcing better recruitment practices.

 

This isn't supported by anything but your personal whims and an apparently deeply engrained desire never to rock the boat.

 

And the experience of plenty of first world countries where the police force doesn't act in a violent matter like they do in the US because officers are better screened, the laws are better and the community doesn't have a deeply ingrained hate of the police force. Or those countries do not exist?

 

Enough with this narrative that I have a "deeply engrained desire never to rock the boat.". A couple weeks ago you were sure I was Japanese and loved the Empire and wanted to burn China. Do you want to be proven wrong again? I am being rational and working with the system we have. I'm a realist. I get your desire to burn the whole thing to the ground and start anew, and I have thought like that. But real world doesn't work like that. There's no practical effects for the actions you desire. This isn't the 30s, this isn't a world where people are highly sympathetic to anarchists or anything of the sort. Your so desired destruction and chaos won't lead to your desired utopia. But that's in another topic, which I am STILL waiting for your reply.

 

 

 

You're looking at cops as though they are a natural force in society rather than a recent invention with a sinister purpose. If you go into a law school and claim we've always had police and always will you'd be laughed out of the room once they're done explaining that systems of justice are entirely artificial, and are not an inherent part of the human experience that invariably flux and flow with changing circumstances. The police do not and will not reflect your personal views on what is just, they'll just keep fulfilling their purpose until one day there's no fatcat to pat their head and feed them treats.

 

And you are the one looking at cops as though they are some sinister force created by the man to keep minorities down. Some form of police force has been in existence since man has started to organize into communities, has it not? Town watches, city guards, civil guards, call them what you want. They were created to uphold the law and create order. Nothing in our world is natural, it is all artificial, made by man in order to make sense of the chaotic world. But it is in the nature of man to create systems to make life easier and more convenient, is it not? Anarchism is also an invention of man, so it's invalid as well according to your logic, right?

 

The police is not created to reflect my personal world views, and I don't think I ever claimed it was. As I've said over and over again, the police is created to enforce the laws and keep order, whatever society's definition of those are. If I don't agree with those definitions, there are a couple of ways I can go about trying to change it. But if I'm in the minority, tough luck for me.

 

 

 

I'm also not interested in 'punishment' at least not in my day to day life.

 

Yeah, you want the police to not bother you while you get your joint rolling. I get that. Unfortunately for now it is against the law to do what you wish. Get the law changed, and you'll be free to do it.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Tchuck

[Clem Fandango]

And the experience of plenty of first world countries where the police force doesn't act in a violent matter like they do in the US because officers are better screened, the laws are better and the community doesn't have a deeply ingrained hate of the police force. Or those countries do not exist?

They exist and I don't like them.

 

 

 

Enough with this narrative that I have a "deeply engrained desire never to rock the boat.".

All of your posts are in defence of the status quo.

 

 

 

I am being rational

You really aren't.

 

 

 

I'm a realist.

hey why try and fight back when you could just beg that guy to start punching your face instead of your crotch, gotta be realistic and take what you can get bro

 

 

 

But real world doesn't work like that. There's no practical effects for the actions you desire. This isn't the 30s, this isn't a world where people are highly sympathetic to anarchists or anything of the sort.

oh my GOD. Yes, the problem facing facing our movement is that there aren't enough of us. Well done.

 

Also this is gibberish. Surely 'practical effects' are what defines action.

 

 

 

Your so desired destruction and chaos won't lead to your desired utopia.

oh come on darl stop pretending you understand anarchism. You don't start fires and then the state goes away. Did you think it was a magic spell? The idea is to self-organise into a new system that replaces the old, the violence is against counter-revolutionaries who want to force us to go back to work, the violence doesn't magically produce a new society. f*ck.

 

 

 

But that's in another topic, which I am STILL waiting for your reply.

If I didn't respond it's almost definitely because I got bored of dealing with a liberal who is so deep in the trash can. I can guarantee you that you didn't post a single thing that gave me pause. I can't think of anything you've ever said that I didn't dismiss because I've heard it a million times. I don't know how to break this to you: you are not making me think, rather you force me to tediously comb through the Communist handbook so I can address your myriad bog-standard misconceptions.

 

 

 

And you are the one looking at cops as though they are some sinister force created by the man to keep minorities down.

Me and historians and legal scholars and pretty much anyone who knows anything about the transition from medieval law and order to Capitalism.

 

 

 

Town watches, city guards, civil guards, call them what you want.

None of these are police officers, hence we do not call the police the 'city guard.'

 

 

 

They were created to uphold the law and create order. Nothing in our world is natural, it is all artificial, made by man in order to make sense of the chaotic world. But it is in the nature of man to create systems to make life easier and more convenient, is it not? Anarchism is also an invention of man, so it's invalid as well according to your logic, right?

Something is not artificial if it is a natural force in society. Law and order is a natural force in society, but the police are an artificial construct.

 

But no, anarchism is not artificial, because it is not a construct. It's a recurring phenomenon in human development.

[sweller]

 

 

The solution to that isn't removing all cops, no matter how much you dream of that. It's reworking the laws so that they go after what they should be going, punishing those that do badly and enforcing better recruitment practices.

 

This isn't supported by anything but your personal whims and an apparently deeply engrained desire never to rock the boat.

And the experience of plenty of first world countries where the police force doesn't act in a violent matter like they do in the US because officers are better screened, the laws are better and the community doesn't have a deeply ingrained hate of the police force. Or those countries do not exist?

 

Enough with this narrative that I have a "deeply engrained desire never to rock the boat.". A couple weeks ago you were sure I was Japanese and loved the Empire and wanted to burn China. Do you want to be proven wrong again? I am being rational and working with the system we have. I'm a realist. I get your desire to burn the whole thing to the ground and start anew, and I have thought like that. But real world doesn't work like that. There's no practical effects for the actions you desire. This isn't the 30s, this isn't a world where people are highly sympathetic to anarchists or anything of the sort. Your so desired destruction and chaos won't lead to your desired utopia. But that's in another topic, which I am STILL waiting for your reply.

 

 

 

You're looking at cops as though they are a natural force in society rather than a recent invention with a sinister purpose. If you go into a law school and claim we've always had police and always will you'd be laughed out of the room once they're done explaining that systems of justice are entirely artificial, and are not an inherent part of the human experience that invariably flux and flow with changing circumstances. The police do not and will not reflect your personal views on what is just, they'll just keep fulfilling their purpose until one day there's no fatcat to pat their head and feed them treats.

And you are the one looking at cops as though they are some sinister force created by the man to keep minorities down. Some form of police force has been in existence since man has started to organize into communities, has it not? Town watches, city guards, civil guards, call them what you want. They were created to uphold the law and create order. Nothing in our world is natural, it is all artificial, made by man in order to make sense of the chaotic world. But it is in the nature of man to create systems to make life easier and more convenient, is it not? Anarchism is also an invention of man, so it's invalid as well according to your logic, right?

 

The police is not created to reflect my personal world views, and I don't think I ever claimed it was. As I've said over and over again, the police is created to enforce the laws and keep order, whatever society's definition of those are. If I don't agree with those definitions, there are a couple of ways I can go about trying to change it. But if I'm in the minority, tough luck for me.

 

 

 

I'm also not interested in 'punishment' at least not in my day to day life.

Yeah, you want the police to not bother you while you get your joint rolling. I get that. Unfortunately for now it is against the law to do what you wish. Get the law changed, and you'll be free to do it.

police officers first came about to literally watch minorities and control their behavior back during slavery.

[Tchuck]

They exist and I don't like them.

 

That's your problem, then.

 

 

 

All of your posts are in defence of the status quo.

 

All of yours are basically down to "f*ck the police". Pray, tell, how have you been rocking the boat? Have you partaken in any underground groups that try to change the order of things? Have you done anything other than respectfully disobeying the laws when the cops aren't watching and then bitching about them for coming after you when they catch you?

 

All my posts are aimed at finding the real reason why the problem exists and how we can go about solving it. All your contributions are nothing but "the police is evil, burn the system".

 

You really aren't.

 

I really am. I am using reason to find the cause of the problem. I'm not the one blinded by a complete hate of the police force and society in general.

 

 

hey why try and fight back when you could just beg that guy to start punching your face instead of your crotch, gotta be realistic and take what you can get bro

 

Except that's not what I said at all. I've been approached by the police before, under a country that's far more corrupt than where you live. Nothing ever happened. Why? Because I know how to approach these situations. Because I know if I'm being a loudmouth or act with bad intent that sh*t is going to happen. I don't agree with it, but then is not the time to try and change things and "make a stand". There is a time for that.

 

oh my GOD. Yes, the problem facing facing our movement is that there aren't enough of us. Well done.

 

Also this is gibberish. Surely 'practical effects' are what defines action.

 

That is one of them, yes. Do you deny that? Again, I've addressed your bloody revolution plans in the other thread, and have failed to receive a response. Let's not derail this topic into another anarchy debate.

 

oh come on darl stop pretending you understand anarchism. You don't start fires and then the state goes away. Did you think it was a magic spell? The idea is to self-organise into a new system that replaces the old, the violence is against counter-revolutionaries who want to force us to go back to work, the violence doesn't magically produce a new society. f*ck.

 

I understand it far better than you might think. I was a part of anarchist movements back in my country. I worked with collectives. I supported the people who were doing the protests against the world cup. I was a part of their plans, which I guarantee is far, far more than you've ever done in your life for the "revolution".

 

And apparently, YOU are the one who always thinks it's a magic spell. You are the one always claiming that only bloody violence and revolution will be the solution to the world. You are the one openly advocating the murder of any "wealthy" "owner of the means of production". You are the one who have deemed the police evil, all the police officers corrupt, and claim that the only solution is for all the pigs to fly. Whenever I try to find a way that we can move from this system into a better system, working with logic and reason on how things will work, you simply decide to stop arguing or go back to "burn them all".

 

 

 

 

If I didn't respond it's almost definitely because I got bored of dealing with a liberal who is so deep in the trash can. I can guarantee you that you didn't post a single thing that gave me pause. I can't think of anything you've ever said that I didn't dismiss because I've heard it a million times. I don't know how to break this to you: you are not making me think, rather you force me to tediously comb through the Communist handbook so I can address your myriad bog-standard misconceptions.

 

Right. Excuses and more excuses. Typical. Arguing is work, right? And we can't have you working. God forbid you become a productive person.

 

Me and historians and legal scholars and pretty much anyone who knows anything about the transition from medieval law and order to Capitalism.

 

Go on, then. Show it. It was a damn good transition as well. Medieval times were brutal, cruel, with no safety whatsoever. People are far better off under the current system than they were then.

 

None of these are police officers, hence we do not call the police the 'city guard.'

 

But they had the functions of a police officer, had they not? Keep the order, whatever the order was according to the head of state/city/borough/house. Sounds awfully similar to police officers.

 

Something is not artificial if it is a natural force in society. Law and order is a natural force in society, but the police are an artificial construct.

 

But no, anarchism is not artificial, because it is not a construct. It's a recurring phenomenon in human development.

 

Law and order need to be maintained. Hence, police officers were created.

 

Authority figures are also recurring phenomenons in human development. Even the most primitive village has an elder of sorts that is the ultimate decider of things.

 

The natural state of existence is chaos, uncertainty, insecurity. And that's garbage.

 

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

I would say the destructive force in the black community is the fact that 93% of black homicides are carried out by other blacks, and that gang violence and lack of opportunity

The result of a system the police exist to uphold. Like, what part of this whole thing do you not understand?

 

In fact it seems like educated people in the community tend to speak the same tune as the grandmother.

Ha. Yeah, alright.

I get it, I just don't get what you want the police to do differently. They have their jobs that they have to do and have to get home to their families, provide them with food and shelter, just like anyone else. I am well aware of the plight of black communities, just don't believe that the blame belongs in the court of the police. It's like treating a cancer with Motrin. Maybe you'll make people feel a bit better but the issue will stay just as bad and continue to get worsYou are still plagued by the illusion that the police's job is some earnest and altruistic pursuit of justice and order when it is not, and your inability to perceive the police state for what it is effects your ability to see that they are not simply doing their jobs with their hands tied by their duty when in reference to 90% of the type of oppression we are discussing. Police officer's as individuals are carrying out policy handed down by a wider discretionary figure yes, but they also use their own discretion and time and time again there are both conscious and unconscious racial biases that come into play, you mix that in with the policy like the war on drugs, and policies enacted to support it like profiling, and very quickly the police officer's job becomes one of very questionable ethics. That is for people who aren't deluded into believeing they are the thread by which law and order hangs, which is a problem because they represent the majority. So it is pretty hard to accept the cries of, "they are just doing their job," when they are either too apathetic or too indoctrined to see that their job is morally corrupted as much as the crime they pledge to fight. It's a tragic irony really because most police officers really do believe in justice and equality, they just don't realize their job isn't really playing to that effect.

 

The probelm with asking what police officers should do is unfair because poloce officers who try to report corruption are punished so the idea of any good cops toppling the system is might romantic but lofty at best. So what is the option, tell people not to become police officers? Most believe in the job, the pledge to uphold the law, and don't realize how the policies themselves are racially biased so how is that going to work? Besides you clearly believe we need police so that is out...

 

It comes back to policy reform. Stop the War on Drugs, stop he mass incarceration and systemic transformation of ordinary people into second class citizens. The thing police could do specifically is to stop taking bribes in the form of seized monetary assets from drug busts, which would demotivate practically the entirety of the prison population boom, racial profiling, illegal search and seizures, sentencing disparity, and voter disenfranchisement. You realize we are the only country, with a Democratic form of government, that jails and prisons people with the duration and frequency that we do for simple drug offenses? The fact that we have the biggest prison population on the planet, huge racial demographic disparities inside it, huge recidivism rates, can all be intrinsically linked to the start of the War on Drugs, and the police are the foot soldiers of this oppressive occupation. If they don't want to be viewed as the problem, they should try not to be a part of it.

 

I saw this video the other day and thought it was relevant here.

 

 

Police who report serious police corruption are not targeted and punished in a wide scale anymore. Yeah, they still talk about the ¨rat squad¨ and the like but the notion that every PD is still stuck in the Serpico days is just a bunch of unfettered nonsense.

 

We´ve been going back and fourth and coming back to the same issues again and again, given that your post here looks exactly like one from a month and a half ago and my response will too, so I don´t think we need to keep fleshing this out. Good talk though dude, at least we agree on the drug and imprisonment stuff.

 

Whoever said police were made to keep people in slavery, that´s a bunch of bullsh*t. Police have been around since we started organizing communities. Modern day police came about with the rise of the urban city. Original police themselves were generally minorities policing a majority, like Irish-Scot cops in NY policing a majority German Italian city... this slave bullsh*t is just that, bullsh*t.

[Saggy]

I just got done reading one of the books the video mentioned, "The New Jim Crow". There was a lot that was hard to swallow, particularly that white people caught up in the drug war are just collateral damage in a strategy that aims specifically to effect black/brown citizens, some pretty lofty ideals like when ever someone hears " criminal" they think of a black man, and the entire drug war was predicated on images of African Americans and the crack epidemic, etc. However the statistics used to come to the conclusion are the truly shocking part and the author did a lot of research to come to such a disturbing opinion, which honestly I am not sure I agree with. However there is no way to dispute the facts as they are even disagreeing with the authors theory on it. You should definitely give it a read, just the section about the drug war, the prison population boom and the examination of US supreme court cases is pretty incredible.

 

On the other hands, the supreme court's own decisions regarding those cases, I can draw my own conclusion that they were basically indifferent to the matter of racism. It basically boiled down time and time again, that without proof of overt racial policies and/or speech in the effect of a law, that it couldn't be proved to be racist. This was in the face of some pretty damning statistical evidence based on things like the arrest rates of African American men on federal highways in extreme disproportion to white males, even though the rates at which each race used and sold drugs was nearly identical. It wasn't just one case and I can't really quote the book, but case after case where you could see a clear racial element the supreme court would throw it out.

 

It's pretty far out of the scope of the police, that is the very top authority in the US so yeah I agree there is no real good reason to hate the police as people and don't advocate that. However it certainly seems to destroy the notion that these issues can be resolved through the proper channel of law, because in her book Michelle Alexander paints a pretty opposing picture, and it's hard to disagree with her opinion that the courts have "closed their doors" to the question of racism, at the very least. Now like I said that doesn't equal a racist subplot, but the indifference is dangerous and can have the same effect--and some would vehemently argue already has.

Edited September 1, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[Clem Fandango]

That's your problem, then.

Do you struggle with English (genuine question)? I don't dislike them the way I dislike Katy Perry.

 

 

 

Pray, tell, how have you been rocking the boat? Have you partaken in any underground groups that try to change the order of things?

Why would I join an 'underground group' (not that these weather underground types still exist at any rate)? Using violence on behalf of the population when the population doesn't want you to is inherently wrong. There's throwing a bottle at a neo-nazis, and then there's blowing up police stations. People support or don't vehemently oppose the former.

 

Are you asking why I haven't overthrown the police at 22?

 

 

 

All my posts are aimed at finding the real reason why the problem exists and how we can go about solving it.

NHHRRRGGG WE KNOW! Police are exceptional in the US because of a violent culture and white supremacy. I'm not interested into turning the US police into British police because I don't support the British police either.

 

 

 

I am using reason

I've only met a few liberals that could use reason, and you are not one of them.

 

 

 

Except that's not what I said at all. I've been approached by the police before, under a country that's far more corrupt than where you live.

You don't get it. I'm not talking about literal crotch-punching. The punch in the crotch is the US police, the punch in the face is the British police.

 

 

 

That is one of them, yes. Do you deny that?

oh my f*cking god seriously

 

 

 

Again, I've addressed your bloody revolution plans in the other thread, and have failed to receive a response.

If I remember correctly you were asking me a bunch of worthless questions about how moving house would be handled (lol) and I lost interest.

 

 

I understand it far better than you might think. I was a part of anarchist movements back in my country. I worked with collectives. I supported the people who were doing the protests against the world cup. I was a part of their plans, which I guarantee is far, far more than you've ever done in your life for the "revolution".

yeah bro I'm a dentist in real life. not like I dedicate my life and career to the cause. you've got the moral high ground because you went to one protest and got handed a placard.

 

do you think this is how I want to spend my life? arguing with people who don't really believe or understand what they say, with no guarantee of success other than a vague notion that people are too crafty to be lied to forever? listening to the grievances of people that are ignored by society? well it never gets easier to spend all day talking about rape, and I'm bitter that it's fallen to me and people like me. I'd rather be a hairdresser, so stow the condescending attitude.

 

 

 

Right. Excuses and more excuses. Typical. Arguing is work, right? And we can't have you working. God forbid you become a productive person.

Whether I'm productive or not is subjective (some people say I am, I disagree) but you are actively destructive. I'd rather you stayed in bed each morning.

 

 

 

Go on, then. Show it.

I like how you know absolutely nothing about the issue but are confident I'm wrong. I mean I doubt you've read a million books on the subject.

 

"Night watch groups in Colonial

America, as well as day watch groups that were added at a later time, were largely ineffective; instead of

controlling crime in their community, some members of the watch groups would sleep and/or socialize

while they were on duty.11 These citizen-based watch groups were not equipped to deal with the increasing

social unrest and rioting that were beginning to occur in both England and Colonial America in the late

1700s through the early 1800s.12 It was at this point in time that publicly funded police departments began

to emerge across both England and Colonial America."

http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/50819_ch_1.pdf

"The institution of slavery and the control of minorities, however, were two of the more formidable historic features of American society shaping early policing. Slave patrols and Night Watches, which later became modern police departments, were both designed to control the behaviors of minorities. For example, New England settlers appointed Indian Constables to police Native Americans (National Constable Association, 1995), the St. Louis police were founded to protect residents from Native Americans in that frontier city, and many southern police departments began as slave patrols. In 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the nation's first slave patrol. "

http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-origins-american-policing

 

 

But they had the functions of a police officer, had they not? Keep the order, whatever the order was according to the head of state/city/borough/house. Sounds awfully similar to police officers.

 

Lol 'keeping order' historically didn't mean throwing pot smokers in jail for an arbitrary amount of time. It meant being around to pull out your sword if things got out of hand. The 'city guards' you see on TV are a rough equivalent to modern police, but again are not police because they weren't a military force. They didn't put down rebellions and they wouldn't leave the city to storm a bandit camp. They were essentially mall security. If you live in a place where security firms can detain you, they are literally mall security.

 

Authority figures are also recurring phenomenons in human development. Even the most primitive village has an elder of sorts that is the ultimate decider of things.

 

This is a pathetic understanding of tribal hierarchy. The 'elders' were everyone over 55. You're thinking of a 'chief' which is a specific form of organisation that isn't at all universal.

 

Authority is a recurring phenomenon, but all forms of authority are constructs. I don't even reject all authority (it's easier to have one guy make a decision than a hundred), but any form of authority we engage in would be ad hoc and ephemeral. Say an appointed, short term parliament, or perhaps a meritocratic war council in very extreme cases. There's nothing inherently wrong with the former system (the latter is tricky), but it's important to acknowledge that good idea or no it's just some sh*t we pulled out of our arses.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Melchior

[Saggy]

Here is a pretty interesting article with some proposed answers to the question of what should police officers do differently...

 

http://theantimedia.org/if-police-academies-wont-teach-cops-how-to-not-kill-people-we-will/

Edited September 19, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[universetwisters]

I always thought the "S" in SWAT went with "Special Weapons", as in they had assault rifles with lasers and concussion grenades. Putting it like "Special-circumstances-with Weapons and Tactics" doesn't really get to the point as it currently does.

[Dingdongs]

Here is a pretty interesting article with some proposed answers to the question of what should police officers do differently...

 

http://theantimedia.org/if-police-academies-wont-teach-cops-how-to-not-kill-people-we-will/

Not bad, the guy makes some good points and echoes exactly what we've been saying in the thread... less us v. them mentality, etc. But he should probably quit trying to retrain officers when he has no clue himself. Literally lol'd at this -

 

 

 

There is no tactical advantage to having a violent suspect outside of the vehicle.

yeah because you can take down and get cuffs onto somebody through a door.

[Clem Fandango]

Not bad, the guy makes some good points and echoes exactly what we've been saying in the thread... less us v. them mentality, etc. But he should probably quit trying to retrain officers when he has no clue himself. Literally lol'd at this -

 

 

I've asked multiple cops what they view their role in society to be, and they can never answer. So I ask 'what do you think of the community' and the answer is always the same: everyone except us and the richest of the rich, are violent drunkards*. They think society is just full of mean, terrible people and their job is to scare everyone into line. That is what a police force is. If they viewed themselves as part of the community then they couldn't bring themselves to ride around with a gun and body armour bonking people on the head and carting them off to live in cages.

 

You keep saying you don't support this 'us and them' mentality, but you say things like 'reform the community.' Only cops and their spawn say that, because it's gibberish to the other 7 billion of us.

 

*That's only what they say if they don't literally admit to being a gang. 'The biggest gang in Sydney, other gangs is runnin' scared.'

[gooeyhole]

You probably didn't get a good answer because they aren't thinking that deep about their job.

 

f*cked up sh*t happens > respond to it > do the protocol > go home

 

They do what they assume is right. Being a power hungry asshole isn't uncommon, but it has become a bit Hollywoodized by some folk.

[Clem Fandango]

You probably didn't get a good answer because they aren't thinking that deep about their job.

If someone gave me a gun and told me to go round up kids from the neighbourhood, I'd have a million and one questions.

 

They don't think about their job because they don't want to. They like hurting people, and they tell themselves it's everybody's fault but their own when they get made to answer for it.

[gooeyhole]

 

You probably didn't get a good answer because they aren't thinking that deep about their job.

If someone gave me a gun and told me to go round up kids from the neighbourhood, I'd have a million and one questions.

 

They don't think about their job because they don't want to. They like hurting people, and they tell themselves it's everybody's fault but their own when they get made to answer for it.

 

I see what you're saying, but to me it's a tad extreme. It think the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle.

[Clem Fandango]

How extreme something sounds has no bearing on its veracity. Saying men and women should be equal was once too radical to merit discussion.

[gooeyhole]

How extreme something sounds has no bearing on its veracity. Saying men and women should be equal was once too radical to merit discussion.

 

Times have changed the "extremes" of the political spectrum indeed. I don't see how you could come to such a conclusion on the police without having the "but..." phase. Different ways of processing things I guess.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Canadian Badass

[Saggy]

I know a person aspiring to be a police officer and have asked him about this, and it's kind of a cavalier attitude like, "Well of people aren't stupid then they won't get in trouble," that surprises me the most.. Police don't have any more hate in their hearts for people than exterminators have for cockroaches or rats, but they often view society just the same: As vermin. Though to be fair I think that kind of attitude of not caring who is disadvantaged by your position is manifested in many other professions, so is not exclusive to police officers. However it is another one of those instances of basically arming some of the ugliest basic human instincts. "Go out and search anyone that looks suspicious and if they give you any trouble knock their heads around and charge them for resisting" kind of rhetoric... It isn't policy but some officers think that way, and policy doesn't do enough to root them out, and even on some cases tries to shield them.

[Dingdongs]

I know a person aspiring to be a police officer and have asked him about this, and it's kind of a cavalier attitude like, "Well of people aren't stupid then they won't get in trouble," that surprises me the most.. Police don't have any more hate in their hearts for people than exterminators have for cockroaches or rats, but they often view society just the same: As vermin. Though to be fair I think that kind of attitude of not caring who is disadvantaged by your position is manifested in many other professions, so is not exclusive to police officers. However it is another one of those instances of basically arming some of the ugliest basic human instincts. "Go out and search anyone that looks suspicious and if they give you any trouble knock their heads around and charge them for resisting" kind of rhetoric... It isn't policy but some officers think that way, and policy doesn't do enough to root them out, and even on some cases tries to shield them.

Going out and searching for suspicious activity is literally what a police force is supposed to do. This notion continually espoused n this thread for the past 35 or whatever pages now that cops should never stop anyone for suspicious behavior (the same stops that get guns of the street) is just so ridiculous. What do you want them to do then? Sit in the station house and wait for the streets to be overrun? Give me a break.

 

Your friend isn't entirely wrong, but from a cop's perspective that's really all it comes down to - if you do something wrong, they're going to bust you for it. Anything else is far outside of the bounds of the police officer that's driving around or walking a beat. You don't like the fact that the "something" they do wrong is not permitted by law? Write your legislator. You don't like that the sentence for the "something" is ridiculously long? Vote out the judge or the DA who called for the sentence.

 

With that said, I do agree (once again...........) that police need to stop viewing the community as their enemies and need to work with them. But Melchior, the community also needs to stop viewing the police as their enemies. There has to be ground on both sides. The cops can start treating the community great, but while the community still runs out screaming and throwing bottles and microwaves out the window at cops who are walking down the street, it's very hard for that reconciliation to occur. Unfortunately that treatment bitters cops just like it bitters people in the community. The mother of 4 boys who have all been stopped by police multiple times each will harbor that discontent with police for her life, just like the cop who rises through the ranks will harbor that discontent for a community who shot at his partner, broke a bottle on him, or spat on him on his daily beat for the remainder of his career

Edited September 21, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

 

I know a person aspiring to be a police officer and have asked him about this, and it's kind of a cavalier attitude like, "Well of people aren't stupid then they won't get in trouble," that surprises me the most.. Police don't have any more hate in their hearts for people than exterminators have for cockroaches or rats, but they often view society just the same: As vermin. Though to be fair I think that kind of attitude of not caring who is disadvantaged by your position is manifested in many other professions, so is not exclusive to police officers. However it is another one of those instances of basically arming some of the ugliest basic human instincts. "Go out and search anyone that looks suspicious and if they give you any trouble knock their heads around and charge them for resisting" kind of rhetoric... It isn't policy but some officers think that way, and policy doesn't do enough to root them out, and even on some cases tries to shield them.

 

Going out and searching for suspicious activity is literally what a police force is supposed to do. This notion continually espoused n this thread for the past 35 or whatever pages now that cops should never stop anyone for suspicious behavior (the same stops that get guns of the street) is just so ridiculous. What do you want them to do then? Sit in the station house and wait for the streets to be overrun? Give me a break.

 

Your friend isn't entirely wrong, but from a cop's perspective that's really all it comes down to - if you do something wrong, they're going to bust you for it. Anything else is far outside of the bounds of the police officer that's driving around or walking a beat. You don't like the fact that the "something" they do wrong is not permitted by law? Write your legislator. You don't like that the sentence for the "something" is ridiculously long? Vote out the judge or the DA who called for the sentence.

 

With that said, I do agree (once again...........) that police need to stop viewing the community as their enemies and need to work with them. But Melchior, the community also needs to stop viewing the police as their enemies. There has to be ground on both sides. The cops can start treating the community great, but while the community still runs out screaming and throwing bottles and microwaves out the window at cops who are walking down the street, it's very hard for that reconciliation to occur. Unfortunately that treatment bitters cops just like it bitters people in the community. The mother of 4 boys who have all been stopped by police multiple times each will harbor that discontent with police for her life, just like the cop who rises through the ranks will harbor that discontent for a community who shot at his partner, broke a bottle on him, or spat on him on his daily beat for the remainder of his career

What is so unreasonable about wanting them to respond to calls instead of initiate stops? You keep wanting to paint it as a necessary evil to keep guns off the street, but how much more often does someone go to jail for a non violent offense than they find a gun in someone's car.

 

You don't see how your second paragraph demonstrates the hunter vs prey dynamic of this? You want people not to villify police officers, trying to get someone to embrace their oppressor is never going to work. It is not police officers fault as people, but they're a part of a system and I don't think many can actually separate the person from the uniform, and frankly why should they? When you admit that most of them are clearly out there trying to pull over suspicious people with the mentality of "they're all scum", thinking either they're going tro get shot or have to shoot someone before being shot, and this is a defensible occupation?

 

You keep trying to absolve police officers from responsibility on a personal level, and I think it is misguided and born from your own sentiment of knowing police officers and not liking how society views them, even though you know them as people. That's fair but you can't maintain that personal view of them and actually remain objective in this argument, because no matter who one individual police officer is, the collective force overall is leaning more toward a force of occupation and oppression than it is of crating a safe public.

 

In the mean time, Melchior already pointed out that the police's role in history has been pretty dubious, and frankly their presence has always been justified by convincing the middle classes that it is a necessary evil to law and order for the police to harass the lower class. It was very obvious then, because we also called them various racial slurs, openly and in the law itself. Now days this country is " free" of racism so the proof that police are specifically to target lower class members of society is not written in their job description, but only a few people in this thread can argue that its not there.

 

The problem with your idea about getting the laws changed is that people have tried, and failed. I'm sure you completely disregarded the book I mentioned, but it outlines supreme court decisions for practically everything we have discussed and more, from the basic annihilation of the 4th amendments, to profiling, even to jury selection. If you want to see what trying to change the laws themselves gets give it a read.

 

Let's pretend the system can work thought, it is just going to take years of more appeals, a new supreme court, etc. What do you propose people do in the one or two decades that will take? Just shut up and be good while their rights get trampled if not their face? I mean you realize the last major movement to have any success on change in this matter was MLK? Oh, and guess what what on his agenda next... Fighting poverty and the war on the lower class.

 

It's hard to see the police force, collectively, as anything benign, and hard to reason why any person that lives in a community harassed by stop and frisk procedures and profiling, that they could see the police as anything but the enemy.

 

Who do you think has more control in their life? A 16 year old who can't read or write because he's forced to sell crack by and older brother or father, lest he end up homeless because they can't get Section 8 with their mother's conviction record... For drug posession.

 

Or a police officer who can read and write, has graduated high school and probably college, and can decide at any time he wants to go home without worrying if he sold his whole bag of crack yet.

 

Which character do you think has more ability to say, "What am I doing with my life" or to say "You know maybe these people all aren't the same". I mean you're expecting critical thinking and human compassion from a group that has basically had the ability for both systematically beaten from them, sometimes figuratively speaking, and as we see lately the only time anyone care is when it happens literally.

 

See I think cops are good people who realize the job they do has an effect on people, otherwise they wouldn't do things like this...

 

To me it is really just a matter of who really has the power to change things.

Edited September 21, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[Clem Fandango]

the cop who rises through the ranks will harbor that discontent for a community who shot at his partner, broke a bottle on him, or spat on him on his daily beat for the remainder of his career

How else should people respond to oppression? Call them up and ask them to leave the community? I doubt they're willing to have that conversation.

 

 

 

But Melchior, the community also needs to stop viewing the police as their enemies.

 

You keep talking about reconciliation and I'm not interested, I'm interested in removing police bastards from my community entirely. I don't support the police to any degree, I don't cooperate with them, I don't let them in my house, and I make a pig nose at every cop car that passes me. I don't have a balcony, but if I did, I'd throw blenders at them.

[Saggy]

That is kind of an unrealistic desire though don't you think? Part of the problem is that even if you could persuade all or just a large minority that police are a problem, there is still a huge industry built around it. People are not going to just stand idly by while millions employed in various law enforcement positions lost their jobs. The only realistic approach is changing what their job role entails, and that would be easier since society is so deeply indocitrinated to believe they need police to maintain "law and order". Besides, if one were to do it that way, you already have an organization with man power and resources you can use to benefit the community. Plus the thing about using propaganda to indoctrinate a society to believe this is necessary is that it goes both ways, the people that are working as police officers probably believe very deeply that what they are doing is right. Why waste that? It simply ends up, in my mind, with good aspects of human nature being corrupted to benefit a select few. Why some people can't see it as such, and believe the current implementation of police does in any way serve their best interests, I don't know.

 

What if, for example, instead of arresting and jailing drug addicts and non distributors for simple posession, they treated it as a public health issue? Imagine if police when encountering a suspected drug addict provided clean needles and saline instead of handcuffs and "takedowns" and instead of jail they took them to a rehabilitation clinic where they had to stay at least until they were through withdrawals? Without those men and women what would we hope, they just decide to be social workers? Screw that, they took an oath to uphold the law, they believe in what they do enough to commit atrocities in the name of duty, just change their duty to something that isn't morally reprehensible.

Edited September 22, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[Clem Fandango]

The police resist 99.9% of reforms, they will violently resist if you try and turn them into social workers. Being the violent protectors of respectable society from the unwashed hoards, is at the core of their identity.

 

You wouldn't say that, instead of booting politicians out, we should just somehow convince them to help society? If they were interested in doing that there'd be no problem!

[El Dildo]

I'm not sure the issue is as black and white as Melchior or Sagacious is painting it.

I think you're both making fair points from opposite extremes. surely there's common ground.

 

Being the violent protectors of respectable society from the unwashed hoards, is at the core of their identity.

 

so lets change their identity.

there are plenty of young men and women who go into law enforcement with the assertion that they're going to solve crimes and bring justice to whose who truly deserve it. they have no interest in the 'beat' or busting crackhead skulls open on the curb or swinging a big stick while talking down to the poor. the criminal justice system is a manmade construct like any other. it's not monolithic and it's not impervious to societal evolution.

 

even the Joint Chiefs have gotten around to letting gays come out in the military.

the same military which no longer allows drill instructors to physically assault recruits. the same military which wouldn't let blacks serve with whites, or women at all, etc etc.

 

the police are not aliens.

[Clem Fandango]

the criminal justice system is a manmade construct like any other. it's not monolithic and it's not impervious to societal evolution.

It's designed from top to bottom to resist societal evolution. If it weren't, the civil rights movement would have been the end of racist police, and these videos of cops killing innocent people would be the end of the police altogether.

 

 

I think you're both making fair points from opposite extremes. surely there's common ground.

Common ground? I'm against the police. I'm not going to support any measures to reform the police because I do not believe in maintaining order with a military force. They can smile and call me sir all they like, f*ck them.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

What is so unreasonable about wanting them to respond to calls instead of initiate stops? You keep wanting to paint it as a necessary evil to keep guns off the street, but how much more often does someone go to jail for a non violent offense than they find a gun in someone's car.

It's not a necessary evil, it's just a necessary thing period. I am not going to sit here and educate you on urban policing. You can read about it yourself. There is no way to maintain law and order in a town, city, county, whatever else, if police are not out patrolling. This is like explaining to somebody why a doctor has to put gloves on before operating - it's so fundamental.

 

 

You don't see how your second paragraph demonstrates the hunter vs prey dynamic of this? You want people not to villify police officers, trying to get someone to embrace their oppressor is never going to work. It is not police officers fault as people, but they're a part of a system and I don't think many can actually separate the person from the uniform, and frankly why should they? When you admit that most of them are clearly out there trying to pull over suspicious people with the mentality of "they're all scum", thinking either they're going tro get shot or have to shoot someone before being shot, and this is a defensible occupation?

I never said most of them are out there to pull people over with a "they're all scum mentality". I said that there is a belief that's deep-seated into the culture of many police departments that they are not servants of the community but rather that they are solely enforcers of the law and that it is "us", the law, versus "them", the rest. This is especially true in precincts wherein the police and community have poor relations. I would say that it is less of "they're all scum" and more of "look for something wrong with everybody".

 

 

 

You keep trying to absolve police officers from responsibility on a personal level, and I think it is misguided and born from your own sentiment of knowing police officers and not liking how society views them, even though you know them as people. That's fair but you can't maintain that personal view of them and actually remain objective in this argument, because no matter who one individual police officer is, the collective force overall is leaning more toward a force of occupation and oppression than it is of crating a safe public.

How is it occupation and repression to enforce laws that are written in penal codes by legislators elected by the people? In fact, you do know that the stiff penalties for drugs are actually a brainchild of black community leaders in the 80s and 90s, right?

 

 

 

The problem with your idea about getting the laws changed is that people have tried, and failed. I'm sure you completely disregarded the book I mentioned, but it outlines supreme court decisions for practically everything we have discussed and more, from the basic annihilation of the 4th amendments, to profiling, even to jury selection. If you want to see what trying to change the laws themselves gets give it a read.

Can you summarize these points and we can discuss them? With all due respect I'm not going to read the entire book so we can have a debate.

 

 

Let's pretend the system can work thought, it is just going to take years of more appeals, a new supreme court, etc. What do you propose people do in the one or two decades that will take? Just shut up and be good while their rights get trampled if not their face? I mean you realize the last major movement to have any success on change in this matter was MLK? Oh, and guess what what on his agenda next... Fighting poverty and the war on the lower class.

It's hard to see the police force, collectively, as anything benign, and hard to reason why any person that lives in a community harassed by stop and frisk procedures and profiling, that they could see the police as anything but the enemy.

Who do you think has more control in their life? A 16 year old who can't read or write because he's forced to sell crack by and older brother or father, lest he end up homeless because they can't get Section 8 with their mother's conviction record... For drug posession.

Or a police officer who can read and write, has graduated high school and probably college, and can decide at any time he wants to go home without worrying if he sold his whole bag of crack yet.

Which character do you think has more ability to say, "What am I doing with my life" or to say "You know maybe these people all aren't the same". I mean you're expecting critical thinking and human compassion from a group that has basically had the ability for both systematically beaten from them, sometimes figuratively speaking, and as we see lately the only time anyone care is when it happens literally.

I never said that those members of the "lower class" lack critical thinking skills. What I said was that we need to take steps as a society to help those lower class people rise up and become part of the middle class. Some of that includes criminal justice reforms, like making it easier to get records expunged, lowering a lot of crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibiting employers from asking about arrests and misdemeanor convictions and only permitting violent felonies, all of these things are things we can do to fix this problem. There's very little you can do to the police department that will help the lower class. Do you think that overnight if you took the police out of the minority poor communities that they will all go to work and get 4 year degrees the next day? No, the area will erupt in crime and you'll see more death and destruction and it'll be like it was in the 80s.