Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brentai]

a police force (in theory) upholds the law, which as we've noted is at variance with some people's notions of justice.

Yes exactly.  But instead of addressing the law which is the issue, we have people who would rather demonize an inevitable result of it.

Here is how you can tell that you're barking up the wrong tree: Imagine every single police officer in the country quitting en masse.  Are you, at this point, more satisfied with the state of the country?

[NexAdruin]

Only if I get to be a vigilante without consequences as a result.

[Burrito Al Pastor]

and actually, i'll be the one to go ahead and say "all police are bad." the police cannot, by nature of what the word "police" means, ever be an ally to revolution or reform.

The police cannot. The men and women who make up that police force certainly can.

[Norondor]

yes, but then they are quitting their jobs and are, hence, not police.

Yes exactly.  But instead of addressing the law which is the issue, we have people who would rather demonize an inevitable result of it.

Here is how you can tell that you're barking up the wrong tree: Imagine every single police officer in the country quitting en masse.  Are you, at this point, more satisfied with the state of the country?

we have a strawman emoticon but not one for this? well, instead i'll just say, "eat my ass and blow a big brown bubble."

[Norondor]

ok that wasn't called for, but.

[Pacobird]

Only if I get to be a vigilante without consequences as a result.

Define "consequences".

[Royal☭]

Hey, my biggest problems with police are:

1) They have weapons. I'm opposed to violence in general, but we have one of the most well-armed police forces in the world. And there is little to no consequences for using them. There are several countries where police aren't allowed to have more than a nightstick, and yet they manage lower violent crime rates.

2) Their function is usually something other than "protect and serve". The police in my city are little more than fine collectors, as most arrests are for outstanding traffic tickets (yeah, we have a debtor's prison system). They do little to serve the peacekeeping and non-violent resolution services that they should. And in no way am I convinced that police "prevent crime". Systems of wealth distribution and access to public services do a better job of preventing crime than any police force ever could.

3) They are in fact the tool of a wealthy and ruling classes. What we are seeing at OWS is definitely not police quelling violent rioters or murders. They are the front line preventing the poor, destitute and radical from being able to take justice upon those who exploit and manipulate them. Keep in mind, you have not once seen the police be used to confront the economic injustices of bankers, congressmen, bosses or paymasters. Instead, the laws and courts are designed to make the things that poor people do illegal, and the police then carry out that whim.

The problem I see is that a lot of people are mistaking the individual police officer for the Police. Yes, an individual police officer is capable of making his own decisions and deciding whether he wants to be a part of the system. But as a whole, the Police serve the laws created by the ruling class, whose motives and interests are radically different from the rest of the population. And as long as this is the case, they will continue to brutalize and dehumanize the protesters. As long as you continue to equate the Police with the hypothetical function of a police force, you ignore the very real atrocities committed by police throughout history.

[Thad]

Yes exactly.  But instead of addressing the law which is the issue, we have people who would rather demonize an inevitable result of it.

But it isn't.

The Oakland PD is violating the law.

There are cases where police abuses are the result of following unjust laws.  This is not one of them.  But neither is it a case of a problem endemic to all police.  It is, instead, a case of a specific police department that has a systemic problem.

Here is how you can tell that you're barking up the wrong tree: Imagine every single police officer in the country quitting en masse.  Are you, at this point, more satisfied with the state of the country?

And this is a false choice I keep seeing in the argument.

Constantine and Norondor are arguing that all police are, by their nature, oppressive.

I'm arguing that no, only some of them are, and it's destructive to make general statements about all police.

Ryg, because he is an idiot, is pulling a reductio ad absurdum and claiming that that implies you can't make general statements about the Oakland PD, because look at all the Oakland Police who AREN'T gassing, beating, and shooting innocent people.

Thing is, police departments are organizations.  Each individual PD has individual leadership, politics, and pressures.  That's not to say that 100% of officers in a department are alike, because that would be silly, but there are some general assumptions you can make based on the specific PD you're dealing with.

Not to put too fine a point on it, in my neighborhood, when you see a squad car you check and see whether it's Tempe PD or Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

The sight of a Tempe police car doing the rounds gives me the feeling that I live in a safe neighborhood.  The sight of an MCSO car does not.

Is it unfair to get nervous when I see an MCSO patrol car?  Well, I'm sure there are guys in the department who are perfectly all right guys.  But the primary goal of the MCSO is to crack down on illegal immigrants, and everybody -- both for and against -- knows that.  And, furthermore, anybody who's applied for a job in the MCSO in the past 15 years knew that.

I'm sure there are guys working there who are just there to make ends meet and because that's the place that was hiring.  And I feel bad for those guys that I'm going to mistrust them on sight.  But that mistrust has a strong basis in the behavior of the office they work for.

As far as Oakland goes, well, if management were discouraging the use of unnecessary force it would have stopped after the first skull-crackin'.  Or, you know, BEFORE the first skull-crackin'.

But as I said, Atlanta appears to be a different story.  A policeman asked Occupy for help, and Occupy gave it.  I don't see a reason for antagonism there -- and I expect that officer's coworkers don't either.

[Royal☭]

CLOWNS ARRESTED IN NEAR-SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON WALL STREET BULL

MATADOR AND CLOWNS ARRESTED IN NEAR-SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON WALL STREET BULL

A small group of Occupy Wall Street activists engaged in a near-successful corrida against the Wall Street Bull.

The incident began when two clowns, HannahMorgan and Louis Jargow, scaled the steel barricades protecting the landmark. The clowns began spanking and climbing the beast, traditional ways of coaxing a bull into anger in preparation for a Castilian corrida, or bullfight.

Within seconds, police officers grabbed both clowns by their colorful shirts and wrestled one of them (Jargow) to the ground. The other (Morgan) continued to play the harmonica until an officer removed it from her mouth.

With the officers thus occupied, a matador in full traje de luces leapt onto the hood of the patrol vehicle parked in front of the bull and boldly presented his blood-red cape to the beast.

“I wondered whether I, neophyte matador, could bring down this behemoth, world-famous for charging towards profit while trampling underfoot the average worker,” said the OWS activist/torero whose first fight this was. “Come what may, I knew I must try.”

Police officers took no notice of the matador, occupied as they were with the clowns.

“This bull has ruined millions of lives!” wailed clown Jargow as he lay on the ground face-down. “Yet he and his accomplices have been rewarded with billions of our tax dollars—and we, here to put a stop to it all, are thrown to the ground. ¡Un escándalo!”

Both clowns were charged with disorderly conduct and released an hour later; they returned to Zuccotti Park to great fanfare. The Wall Street bull continues to rage.

[Kashan]

If your goal is to have a revolution then you pretty much can't avoid having the police as your enemy. If your goal is to resolve an accident with a drunk driver the police are pretty helpful.

[Thad]

If your goal is to have a revolution then you pretty much can't avoid having the police as your enemy.

Depends how you define "revolution".

Robert Anton Wilson noted, when he was the first person to be given medical marijuana in Santa Cruz County, that it was a fundamentally different case of civil disobedience than what he'd been involved in in the 1960's -- because in the 1960's, the mayor wasn't standing on a podium with you while you were given pot by the city.

It's not a representative case, but my point is that it's entirely possible for a city government to engage in peaceful civil disobedience against a larger government.

[Brentai]

Yes exactly.  But instead of addressing the law which is the issue, we have people who would rather demonize an inevitable result of it.

But it isn't.

The Oakland PD is violating the law.

Here is how you can tell that you're barking up the wrong tree: Imagine every single police officer in the country quitting en masse.  Are you, at this point, more satisfied with the state of the country?

And this is a false choice I keep seeing in the argument.

Constantine and Norondor are arguing that all police are, by their nature, oppressive.

I'm arguing that no, only some of them are, and it's destructive to make general statements about all police.

Dude, if you'd stop trying to debate me for a second you'd figure out that I've only been talking to Constantine and Norondor and saying basically the same thing.

Of COURSE the Oakland PD is at fault for their actions.  I'm not addressing the Oakland PD because I don't think there's anybody here who thinks their actions are legal or justified.  If there is, please point them out to me so I can rupture their spleens.

But removing or disarming the police force overall isn't the answer*.  We saw what happens when you do that fairly recently, in London.  What started as a demonstration quickly turned into a gathering of misguided anarchists who immediately figured out that they could steamroll over the useless police force en masse and start FIGHTING THE MAN AND/OR ANYBODY WHO HAPPENS TO BE AROUND AND HAS MONEY.  The Occupy Oakland organizers themselves have admitted that the encampments are starting to attract more and more of those kinds of people, and the main thing keeping them from going off is, well, a police force ready and able to bash their skulls in.  Now of course Oakland PD could have fucking well accomplished this without pre-emptively demonstrating their ability to bash skulls in, but the point stands that that's where we are now.  If you ask me what I really think, I think those armed police out there who AREN'T bashing skulls in are helping us more than anybody, keeping the jackass insane anarchist fucks from setting the movement back further than where it even started.

And yeah, Constantine, I do agree that the function of the modern police force is more along the lines of "tax collector" than "peacekeeper".  But that is most fucking definitely the fault of the law, not the law enforcer.  Keep focus on what's important and maybe you can make a positive change.  Or you can just keep hating people for who they are.  Your choice.

I say this to you directly because I think you really could be a force for good but you so constantly choose the angle that makes you look like an unsympathetic prick to anybody remotely moderate and it pains me far more than any valueless conservative fuck ever could.


* I realized after rereading that that removing or disarming the police force in Oakland specifically probably IS the answer.

[Thad]

Dude, if you'd stop trying to debate me for a second you'd figure out that I've only been talking to Constantine and Norondor and saying basically the same thing.

The best debates are with people I agree with almost, but not quite, 100%.

Also, they're over beers, but I don't have any right now.

But removing or disarming the police force overall isn't the answer*.

I'm not entirely sure that's even what Noro and Constantine are saying.  Noro mentioned "necessary evil" and I think that's their perspective in general -- that police are by their nature oppressive but that doesn't mean we can just get rid of them either.

It's not a view I agree with (though Constantine's "an individual policeman is different from The Police" brings us a little closer inline), but it's not the same thing as saying "remove or disarm them".

I don't think.

We saw what happens when you do that fairly recently, in London.  What started as a demonstration quickly turned into a gathering of misguided anarchists who immediately figured out that they could steamroll over the useless police force en masse and start FIGHTING THE MAN AND/OR ANYBODY WHO HAPPENS TO BE AROUND AND HAS MONEY.  The Occupy Oakland organizers themselves have admitted that the encampments are starting to attract more and more of those kinds of people, and the main thing keeping them from going off is, well, a police force ready and able to bash their skulls in.  Now of course Oakland PD could have fucking well accomplished this without pre-emptively demonstrating their ability to bash skulls in, but the point stands that that's where we are now.  If you ask me what I really think, I think those armed police out there who AREN'T bashing skulls in are helping us more than anybody, keeping the jackass insane anarchist fucks from setting the movement back further than where it even started.

And indeed, the violent cops are making it worse by adding fuel to the fire.  They're making it a whole lot easier for people to stir up violent sentiments.

And yeah, Constantine, I do agree that the function of the modern police force is more along the lines of "tax collector" than "peacekeeper".  But that is most fucking definitely the fault of the law, not the law enforcer.

Generally agreed!  But I won't let the officers off the hook either.  Plenty of blame to go around.

Keep focus on what's important and maybe you can make a positive change.  Or you can just keep hating people for who they are.  Your choice.

I say this to you directly because I think you really could be a force for good but you so constantly choose the angle that makes you look like an unsympathetic prick to anybody remotely moderate and it pains me far more than any valueless conservative fuck ever could.

Whereas Noro just says delightfully incendiary shit for comic effect.

Not that he doesn't believe every word of it, but he makes extremism FUN!

[Thad]

Aw fuck, three dead.

The article's short on facts, and shows a slight 1% bent in its language.

Oakland protesters are claiming the killing by their camp had nothing to do with the protest.  Too early for me to have an opinion beyond "Aw fuck, three dead."

[Brentai]

The article's short on facts, and shows a slight 1% bent in its language.

Does it?  I think it does a fair job of presenting the movement as just A Thing considering that the subject of the article is how they've gotten three people killed.

[Thad]

"Anti-capitalist" is, at best, an unfortunate choice of words.  "Fighting what is seen as corporate greed by Wall Street and big business" is a pretty weak-sauce description, too.

They're subtle enough that it's entirely possible they're unintentional.

Again, I think it's too early to say "they've gotten three people killed" -- though not noticing there's a dead guy in a tent for two days is a pretty fucking huge oversight.

Bad news, regardless of where blame may ultimately fall.

[Büge]

The fact that the news report is vague regarding the circumstances of death isn't inspiring confidence in me.

[Thad]

Confidence in whom?

I'd say it's a pretty typical case of "News media rush headline-grabbing story out the door before details are in."

That said, it sounds like one could have been a suicide and one could have been natural causes or exposure (which still doesn't excuse not noticing somebody had died for two days).  The Oakland one seems a bit baffling at this point; argument, escalation, boom you're dead; Occupy Oakland seems awfully quick to dismiss it as having nothing to do with them, and in a direct sense they're probably right, but would those people have been there arguing if not for the tent city?  Dunno.

[Ziiro]

Man Outed As Undercover Cop At Occupy Oakland Condemns Police Brutality, Supports The Movement

SHAVIES: I’m a police officer. I’m part of the 99 percent. [...] In the ’60s when people would protest, would gather in order to bring about change, right? Those protests were nonviolent they were peaceful assemblies. They were broken up with dogs, hoses, sticks. [...] It looks like there was a square, and police shot tear gas. That could be the photograph or the video for our generation. That’s our Birmingham. So, twenty years from now this movement could be the turning point, the tipping point, right. It’s about time your generation stood up for something. It’s about time young people are in the streets. [...] Ya’ll don’t need to throw gas canisters into a group of people occupying an intersection.

My words need salt. Maybe some siracha.

[Norondor]

I'm not entirely sure that's even what Noro and Constantine are saying.  Noro mentioned "necessary evil" and I think that's their perspective in general -- that police are by their nature oppressive but that doesn't mean we can just get rid of them either.

To put it another way, we need a policing body to, basically, keep the inevitable from happening if there are armed jerks anywhere in the world and no policing body. However, putting aside any matters of law, state, or individual tradition, they're inevitably the guardians of conservatism -- their job would make no sense otherwise. This necessarily means they are against greater social justice, personal liberty, etc. -- these conflict with their job in every way, not least of all economically -- they get overtime and hazard pay for busting protester heads.

to put it yet another, snappier way, we also can't do without reeking landfills or sewage treatment plants, and it's in the interest of common citizens to avoid those as much as possible too.