Actually every time people said to be communist led a state, like the one your profile icon refers to, it was definitely sort of a police-state. So reds are actually known for loving the police.
I don't know the specifics of how law enforcement in America works, but I know that America has a lot of local police agencies that are sepa… morerate entities.
You're basically right. There are several different levels that cooperate, but have a measure of independence. From smallest to largest you have.
* Municipal/Local Police: Keep order in towns, mostly deal with drunks, petty drug users/sellers and traffic issues.
* County Sheriff (sometimes, can be alongside or instead of local police). For instance, when I was subpoena'd over an accident I saw, it was a county deputy who gave me the summons, not a local cop.
* Metropolitan Police: People who police the cities, much more involved with drug enforcement and other amoral activities.
* State Police: I'm not that knowledgable these guys, but I think they have juristiction over places like highways and state game lands or elsewhere that local police can't go.
* Feds: Me… [view original content]
End civil forfeiture and stop subversion of the warrant system.
Switch to the European model of drug rehabilitation.
Abolish the DEA and DHS. Make big cuts to the ATF.
Abolish all arrest quotas. Measure success by civil peace and absence of crimes against people and property.
Integrate law enforcement into communities (various means of doing so)
Stop equipping police with military hardware at taxpayer's expense.
Unfortunately, the chances of any of this happening on a large scale (without a mass crisis or insurrection) are slim. The current system is a racket and I doubt police(as a collective) will give up their funding and special treatment without a fight.
As you said: "said to be communist". Sovietism isn't technically communist, since the idea of ending the dictactorship at some point never crossed their mind. Communism is more like an ideal which has never been reached. It depends on which red you're talking about then.
Actually every time people said to be communist led a state, like the one your profile icon refers to, it was definitely sort of a police-state. So reds are actually known for loving the police.
I've got a lot of respect toward the police/gendarmerie in my country, seeing how they've got to deal with terrorism and are also directly aimed by it can only increase this respect. I'm not saying "praise police every morning", because they can screw things sometimes. But like everything, there's good and bad, you know.
I might do it my job if I'm enough successful in my ending years of studying. The job I aim requires big grades and is very selective here (the equivalent in english I think superintendent) but I'll do my best.
It's a tongue in cheek avatar. I'm a Mutualist (a form of Libertarian Socialism), not a Marxist.
As for Socialism and whether or not it's pro or anti-police, I'm happy to have that conversation, but we should probably have it in the general politics thread.
Actually every time people said to be communist led a state, like the one your profile icon refers to, it was definitely sort of a police-state. So reds are actually known for loving the police.
Well, that´s both a yes and no question, in many countries, the police are unfortunately the goverments henchmen who strikes down on people who only want justice, here´s an example:
The police are good here. They're understanding, willing to listen, and really do seem to be out to protect us.
You will probably get a different side from the drunk junkies whom like to wander into my store and steal shit.
Regardless of political affiliations, race, class, or whatever, I think we ALL can agree on ONE thing...
The police should utilize Saltlicks in the future if they wish to gain a good reputation among Americans. That is all.
Well, that´s both a yes and no question, in many countries, the police are unfortunately the goverments henchmen who strikes down on people … morewho only want justice, here´s an example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/turkey-police-fire-rubber-bullets-at-banned-gay-pride-parade/
Well, that´s both a yes and no question, in many countries, the police are unfortunately the goverments henchmen
Hell, it just happened in America. Police at Standing Rock used rubber bullets, concussion grenades (which cost someone an arm), tear gas and water hoses (in freezing temperatures). They also used armored vehicles, helicopters and assault rifles (which they aimed at people) to intercept groups of protesters on a few occasions.
Well, that´s both a yes and no question, in many countries, the police are unfortunately the goverments henchmen who strikes down on people … morewho only want justice, here´s an example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/turkey-police-fire-rubber-bullets-at-banned-gay-pride-parade/
So? When People refused to pay taxes, Washington called in the Army and led it himself to quash it. New York's Mayer called in the local militia to quash protest over the institution of the Draft (ie conscription) during the American Civil War, and the troops were given orders to take no prisoners until the rioters were put down, which meant musket and bayonets galore and lots of fleeing citizens.
There were times in American history that police didn't bother arresting people if they showed any resistance, was easier to shoot them than case them, police were also considerably less trained to boot on how to handle people.
Really, history never changes. Disrupt the operation of a city, or the state, expect possible repercussions. You can protest anywhere you like unless it gets in someone else's way in short, or causes other problems, and the more important that someone else is, the more strict the response will be. ie Protest in a Field, ya nothing going to happen, protest in front of Wallstreet, and you're likely going to get arrest within 10 minutes. The rise of Unions in the USA when business men could hire personal armies legally with the protection of the state... such horrible times. Where was that, when a armored car attacked a union camp full of women/children with a machine gun? Yes that happened in the USA.
That being said oppression is different. Luckily in the USA you can say almost whatever you want unless it directly threatens someone with harm and nothing will happen t..... well nvm, there is the concept of intellectual shaming, like "HOW DARE YOU SAY GEORGE WASHINGTON DIDN'T HAVE WOODEN TEETH, no more inviting you to our History Professor Games anymore." Sarcasm but for an average citizen they do not have to worry so much. UNLESS, they decided to express their views in a manor that gets in someone's way. Protest in front of the gate of the White House, and you may have a bad time.
That example of Union workers. If they protested and refused to work, nothing would of happened to them. But they decided to also forcefully disrupt the operation of the business they worked for, and even tried to close their operations completely down. You can bet a very stern response followed.
I think it's a problem that people seem to often forget that it's a lot better today than it used to be. If this was say 1910. Those native americans protesting about the pipe line would have the US Army marching on them.
Well, that´s both a yes and no question, in many countries, the police are unfortunately the goverments henchmen
Hell, it just happe… morened in America. Police at Standing Rock used rubber bullets, concussion grenades (which cost someone an arm), tear gas and water hoses (in freezing temperatures). They also used armored vehicles, helicopters and assault rifles (which they aimed at people) to intercept groups of protesters on a few occasions.
It's state terror, nothing more.
As a lot of others have said, there are good cops and bad cops. But they put their lives on the line every day keeping the streets safe, and without them the world would be a very bad place
Although I myself haven't had the best personal relationship with them - a few years ago when I was still a kid, there were teenage gang members on the streets who'd bully me and my friend constantly as well as vandalize the houses on our street - throwing eggs and bottles at our house and even shooting one of the windows which was rather expensive to replace and when we called the cops, they did nothing - they just gave a warning to the parents who said "What? But my boy would never do that!" and despite the numerous complaints, barely anything was actually done about the problem - it ended as they grew up and moved apart, thankfully.
Even then, I know that there are allot of good cops who risk their lives to protect people they don't even know, something so noble as self sacrifice for the greater good shouldn't be disregarded just because of our own negative experiences with some cops - remember people, generalizing is bad! I know it's a habit on the internet but let's not say that two rotten potatoes mean they're all rotten. Yes, there are bad cops but there are also good cops, and despite it all, both manage to good and make bad mistakes. Let's not forget these are still people we are talking about, just because they have a job to do doesn't mean we shouldn't fabricate them to be corrupt when we have no idea what crap they have to deal with on a daily basis! Let's be thankful for them, or at least for the ones that strive to do good!
I was just pointing out to sevyn that this isn't just something that happens in tin-pot autocracies like Turksey. American history is one of people seeking justice and the government sending in its thugs to protect state and corporate interests. Hell, that's part of why modern policing exists in the first place. In England, they originally were meant to suppress the unrest that came after the enclosure acts and French Revolution.
I think it was the Ludlow a Massacre that you're thinking of. The Pinkertons had a car with a primitive machine gun up top, the miners called it the "death special".. Speaking of Pinkertons, corporate thugs were out in force at Standing Rock, until they set German Shepherds on people and thus replaced by cops. Apparently, Energy Transfer has a pipeline to the 20's, where their meatheads came from.
That being said oppression is different. Luckily in the USA you can say almost whatever you want unless it directly threatens someone with harm and nothing will happen t..... well nvm, there is the concept of intellectual shaming, like "HOW DARE YOU SAY GEORGE WASHINGTON DIDN'T HAVE WOODEN TEETH, no more inviting you to our History Professor Games anymore." Sarcasm but for an average citizen they do not have to worry so much. UNLESS, they decided to express their views in a manor that gets in someone's way. Protest in front of the gate of the White House, and you may have a bad time.
it's a shame that standing in a free-speech zone and talking isn't conducive to seeking change/justice/anything else. Mind you, I'm not at all shocked that the state doesn't stand aside and let protesters win (class interest again!), i'm simply pointing out that thuggish behavior by police must be expected if one plans to do anything but the most inconsequential, passive bullshit, even acts of non-violent, civil disobedience are met with force, as we saw throughout the Standing Rock debacle. I don't think state terror today is justified by a historical precadent of worse state terror. Though I'm also not certain that's the point you're trying to make.
I think it's a problem that people seem to often forget that it's a lot better today than it used to be. If this was say 1910. Those native americans protesting about the pipe line would have the US Army marching on them.
i disagree somewhat. I think it's regressed a great deal in the last few decades. Compare the response of the 1968 DNC riots to the response at Standing Rock. The latter is the Miami Model of riot policing and involves a much greater degree of force, as well as intrusive surveillance, infiltration, agent provacateur activities (disputed) pre-emptive arrests and careful management of press presence. It's downright Orwellian. I've been to modern protests, the presence of riot police doesn't prevent trouble, it almost always guarantees trouble. They intentionally provoke it. It's not the sabers and live rounds of Tsarist Russia, but it's arguably much more violent than it's been.
Otherwise, we're largely in agreement, just approaching it from different perspectives.
So? When People refused to pay taxes, Washington called in the Army and led it himself to quash it. New York's Mayer called in the local … moremilitia to quash protest over the institution of the Draft (ie conscription) during the American Civil War, and the troops were given orders to take no prisoners until the rioters were put down, which meant musket and bayonets galore and lots of fleeing citizens.
There were times in American history that police didn't bother arresting people if they showed any resistance, was easier to shoot them than case them, police were also considerably less trained to boot on how to handle people.
Really, history never changes. Disrupt the operation of a city, or the state, expect possible repercussions. You can protest anywhere you like unless it gets in someone else's way in short, or causes other problems, and the more important that someone else is, the more strict the response will be. ie Protest in a… [view original content]
I think one of the major problems is the war on Terror has seen a massive influx of cash to police departments to be better prepared to deal with anything. An increased Militarization of the Police in short. Originally only "SWAT" units if a city had one, carried assault weapons, like SMGs or Military Grade Rifles in their vehicles at all times. (Yes I consider SMGs, and AR-15s assault weapons regardless whether semi or fully auto,, they're assault weapons. they were designed for assault tactics and must be classified as such regardless). Outside of that, police often had whatever arms they could get, buy or even have donated to their departments. This mean throughout much of the 20th Century, you'd see police with Browning Automatic Rifles, M14 Rifles, Garands, and a massive mix of random equipment differing from department to department. Which on their own are very powerful weapons for law enforcement. But those weapons often stayed at the station for dire times. Not in the back of a squad car. Compounded in modern years a massive influx of firepower disadvantages between the average citizen vs the average police officer. If you want AR-15s in your house you must expect every cop in your town has one in the trunk of their squad car in short, otherwise it will be like the 1920s all over again with police using revolvers vs Thompson SMGs and BARs, which didn't end well for police.
PS: I never disagreed with you, I just thought I'd throw some random examples out there.
'So?' back a ya, kamerad.
I was just pointing out to sevyn that this isn't just something that happens in tin-pot autocracies like Turkse… morey. American history is one of people seeking justice and the government sending in its thugs to protect state and corporate interests. Hell, that's part of why modern policing exists in the first place. In England, they originally were meant to suppress the unrest that came after the enclosure acts and French Revolution.
I think it was the Ludlow a Massacre that you're thinking of. The Pinkertons had a car with a primitive machine gun up top, the miners called it the "death special".. Speaking of Pinkertons, corporate thugs were out in force at Standing Rock, until they set German Shepherds on people and thus replaced by cops. Apparently, Energy Transfer has a pipeline to the 20's, where their meatheads came from.
That being said oppression is different. Luckily in the USA you can say almos… [view original content]
Many cops never have to use their weapons except for yearly range qualification. Protecting people and property is a fairly minor part of the job, unless you're SWAT or dealing with a crisis.
Trash collectors are more likely to suffer injury and death on the job and cities would be completely unlivable without them. Yet garbage men and their supporters don't demand special respect and privileges. When a garbage man screws up, the company is expected to correct the misdeed and make things right with the client.
As a lot of others have said, there are good cops and bad cops. But they put their lives on the line every day keeping the streets safe, and without them the world would be a very bad place
@DillonDex : since this touches on some points you made about police being vital and about targeting individuals rather than the institution.
Access to milsurp is definitely part of the problem, but I think the rot goes deeper than that. Time for an unsolicited history lecture!
Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, would probably be appalled to see how his institution has devolved, at least across the pond in America. The "Bobbies" were created to be a kinder, civilian alternative to the standing armies who brutally enforced the ruling class' order in England's industrial areas.
They were meant to be part of the citizenry and not alienated from the masses as the soldiers were. They were armed proportionally to the thugs and desperate poors they had to deal with. Their goals were primarily to protect people and property and to maintain a semblance of civil peace by enforcing laws (unfortunately, even the unjust ones). Still, their success was measured by a lack of crime, not the number of arrests.
The police of today have much more in common with those menacing standing armies than with Sir Peel's bobbies. They're a paramilitary force, armed to the teeth and often staffed by a lot of young men and women who went straight from the battlefield to police work.. The overall estrangement of police from the people contributes to the us vs. them mentality that tends to rule. Their success is often measure by the number of people they put behind bars or as I like to put it, the number of lives they ruin. in short, they're the instruments of state terror Peel wanted to be rid of.
The regression was started by their anti-labor activities but went into full swing since the second War on Drugs, which was explicitly launched in order to crush the budding black power movement and their "deviant" allies. And boy did they succeed. Independent, stable black communities were crushed and in many cases a storm cloud of mutual resentment and fear has fallen over every interaction between police and residents in those communities.
This is a societal problem, not an individual one. The police and apologists are harming themselves and others by insisting it's just a few bad apples causing our problems. It's the tree and possibly the whole damn orchard that's contaminated. Meanwhile those who believe that cops shoot black kids because they're racist pigs and that everything will be solved with "diversity training" and shit are themselves part of the problem in my opinion. A radical re-evaluation of criminal justice in general is the only viable solution I see.
I think one of the major problems is the war on Terror has seen a massive influx of cash to police departments to be better prepared to deal… more with anything. An increased Militarization of the Police in short. Originally only "SWAT" units if a city had one, carried assault weapons, like SMGs or Military Grade Rifles in their vehicles at all times. (Yes I consider SMGs, and AR-15s assault weapons regardless whether semi or fully auto,, they're assault weapons. they were designed for assault tactics and must be classified as such regardless). Outside of that, police often had whatever arms they could get, buy or even have donated to their departments. This mean throughout much of the 20th Century, you'd see police with Browning Automatic Rifles, M14 Rifles, Garands, and a massive mix of random equipment differing from department to department. Which on their own are very powerful weapons for law enforcement. But those weapons often stayed … [view original content]
@DillonDex : since this touches on some points you made about police being vital and about targeting individuals rather than the institution… more.
Access to milsurp is definitely part of the problem, but I think the rot goes deeper than that. Time for an unsolicited history lecture!
Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, would probably be appalled to see how his institution has devolved, at least across the pond in America. The "Bobbies" were created to be a kinder, civilian alternative to the standing armies who brutally enforced the ruling class' order in England's industrial areas.
They were meant to be part of the citizenry and not alienated from the masses as the soldiers were. They were armed proportionally to the thugs and desperate poors they had to deal with. Their goals were primarily to protect people and property and to maintain a semblance of civil peace by enforcing laws (unfortunately, even the unjust ones). S… [view original content]
Right, which came out of Peel's, I think, genuine affinity for the people which then manifested in his policing policies during the period of liberal toryism where he was home secretary, which ultimately birthed the Metropolitan police. I recall from my time obsessing over the Victorian era - even though I believe all that happened before the era technically started, but whatever, it's all relative.
1830's, wasn't it? Close enough for anti-government work, I'd say.
Which I guess we agree is a better system.
Yeah, better in my opinion. Though far from ideal.
And I understand that perspective, and I appreciate the fact it is not unfounded. Also, I hate pretty much every instance of comparison, between British and American police - I think they're too much of a far cry from one another than people tend to acknowledge, just going back to your first point. So I'm with you on the distinction.
Yup, it's an important distinction to make. Though I must admit I'm against law enforcement in general.
As for rest, I do think a lot of the us vs them mentality is stirred up by ideologues - which is the reason I take issue with it, a lot of the time. If anyone is interested in limiting state power, and putting legitimate innovations in place to curtail police brutality and corruption, we're basically on the same page, but here's my problem: I don't think most of the people who criticize the police have anything in the way of concrete solutions, akin to the like I'm sure you have.
Actually, I was more referring to the us vs. them mentality of police (though it certainly exists on the other side too). City police tend not to be part of the communities they serve. Ideally, the community is a tribe and the police would be the defenders and warriors of said tribe. But police aren't usually part of the tribe. They're alienated from its needs and feelings and thus are seen as a foreign, hostile presence. This hostile environment acts back upon the cops, causing the us and them mentality.
I actually have the opposite opinion about ideologues. Ideologues have their worldview and their ideas about the way things should be done. I think the lack on concrete solutions comes from a lack of ideology. I have a libertarian socialist worldview. My opinions about state violence and unjust hierarchies guide my critique of the police and my proposed solutions (a blessing and curse, as it lends itself to bias).. Most people see a problem but see no way out.
I think the vast, vast majority are, at best, trendies jumping on the hate train, and at worst, political activists who want to bring in stupid, taxpayer funded measures like "anti-racism training," full on bans, and things that are far worse. And if the choices are, siding with the police, or siding with those people (which is usually the case) I'm certainly choosing the police.
Some are. Progressive politics is an extracurricular activity these days. Then again, if police misconduct wasn't widely reported, I doubt we'd being seeing all these bootlickers on social media praising everything the cops do and posting "dindu nuffin" memes. It's important to remember that while some folks involved are just "trendies" there are some Johnny-come-latelys who have truly woken up and joined the struggle with good intentions. I saw a lot of that a few weeks ago after the incident at Standing Rock, even among my more conservative friends. The proportion might not be as huge as you think it is.
As for solutions, yeah a lot of them suck. But they have the potential to improve. BLM mostly consists of kids our age or younger, remember. The movement is still very young and constantly evolving. The Occupy movement is a good example, having evolved into a pretty threatening left-wing revolt within the Democratic Party. I suppose it's a difference of perspective. I see law enforcement as a historically and fundamentally bad institution that will never voluntarily act in the interest of liberty. Whereas, I see anti-police activists as flawed, but still developing and capable of change, which is why I critically support them.
Right, but the anti-police hysteria has only exasperated the problem as opposed to fixing it - and it needs to be fixed. These communities aren't going to fix themselves.
It’s a double-edged sword. One one hand it’s great to see people challenging violent authority and giving law enforcement a well-deserved wake up call. Enemies of peace deserve no peace and all that.
On the other hand, people are aiming too low by focusing almost exclusively on the grunts and that’s negatively impacting the community itself.
Honestly anti-police activists are screwed no matter what we do. If you submit to the respectability politics and behave, the powers that be will pat you on the head and ignore you. If you riot or engage in civil disobedience, you become a household name, but a lot of other problems come along with that.
But what would that look like exactly.
I wrote about it on the previous page in response to Jon_Dee. I think the only way to go forward is to end the drug war and revert to the classical model of policing, as a stopgap measure. My end goal would be independent communities that can mostly defend themselves and each other.
I’m not optimistic about any of this happening. I personally think shit is gonna get worse until it breaks down.
Well, police are risking their lives everyday for people. I'm thankful for them in some ways. And while there are some bad ones, people shouldn't generally dislike them.
Well, police are risking their lives everyday for people. I'm thankful for them in some ways. And while there are some bad ones, people shouldn't generally dislike them.
English police are mostly fine, you can talk to them and they tend to listen. community support officers on the other hand are a bunch of stuck up bullies with too much time on their hands and no communication skills they are just volunteers but act like they have power, police officers openly laugh in their faces
Comments
I see you've been dipping into my grandma's meme stash.
Actually every time people said to be communist led a state, like the one your profile icon refers to, it was definitely sort of a police-state. So reds are actually known for loving the police.
But what needs to happen to the police force then, in your mind? I'm just curious.
Here's a start.
Decriminalize all drug use and some distribution.
End civil forfeiture and stop subversion of the warrant system.
Switch to the European model of drug rehabilitation.
Abolish the DEA and DHS. Make big cuts to the ATF.
Abolish all arrest quotas. Measure success by civil peace and absence of crimes against people and property.
Integrate law enforcement into communities (various means of doing so)
Stop equipping police with military hardware at taxpayer's expense.
Unfortunately, the chances of any of this happening on a large scale (without a mass crisis or insurrection) are slim. The current system is a racket and I doubt police(as a collective) will give up their funding and special treatment without a fight.
As you said: "said to be communist". Sovietism isn't technically communist, since the idea of ending the dictactorship at some point never crossed their mind. Communism is more like an ideal which has never been reached. It depends on which red you're talking about then.
I've got a lot of respect toward the police/gendarmerie in my country, seeing how they've got to deal with terrorism and are also directly aimed by it can only increase this respect. I'm not saying "praise police every morning", because they can screw things sometimes. But like everything, there's good and bad, you know.
I might do it my job if I'm enough successful in my ending years of studying. The job I aim requires big grades and is very selective here (the equivalent in english I think superintendent) but I'll do my best.
It's a tongue in cheek avatar. I'm a Mutualist (a form of Libertarian Socialism), not a Marxist.
As for Socialism and whether or not it's pro or anti-police, I'm happy to have that conversation, but we should probably have it in the general politics thread.
The police are good here. They're understanding, willing to listen, and really do seem to be out to protect us.
You will probably get a different side from the drunk junkies whom like to wander into my store and steal shit.
Well, that´s both a yes and no question, in many countries, the police are unfortunately the goverments henchmen who strikes down on people who only want justice, here´s an example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/turkey-police-fire-rubber-bullets-at-banned-gay-pride-parade/
Regardless of political affiliations, race, class, or whatever, I think we ALL can agree on ONE thing...
The police should utilize Saltlicks in the future if they wish to gain a good reputation among Americans. That is all.
Lmao, how's it going Salty?
Okay I guess, idk if anyone's noticed but I don't really go on here much anymore :P
What about u?
I came in here thinking the topic was about the band.
Could be, worse. They used to fire real bullets, or clubbed people half to death.
Edit: redundant, given my post below.
Hell, it just happened in America. Police at Standing Rock used rubber bullets, concussion grenades (which cost someone an arm), tear gas and water hoses (in freezing temperatures). They also used armored vehicles, helicopters and assault rifles (which they aimed at people) to intercept groups of protesters on a few occasions.
It's state terror, nothing more.
So? When People refused to pay taxes, Washington called in the Army and led it himself to quash it. New York's Mayer called in the local militia to quash protest over the institution of the Draft (ie conscription) during the American Civil War, and the troops were given orders to take no prisoners until the rioters were put down, which meant musket and bayonets galore and lots of fleeing citizens.
There were times in American history that police didn't bother arresting people if they showed any resistance, was easier to shoot them than case them, police were also considerably less trained to boot on how to handle people.
Really, history never changes. Disrupt the operation of a city, or the state, expect possible repercussions. You can protest anywhere you like unless it gets in someone else's way in short, or causes other problems, and the more important that someone else is, the more strict the response will be. ie Protest in a Field, ya nothing going to happen, protest in front of Wallstreet, and you're likely going to get arrest within 10 minutes. The rise of Unions in the USA when business men could hire personal armies legally with the protection of the state... such horrible times. Where was that, when a armored car attacked a union camp full of women/children with a machine gun? Yes that happened in the USA.
That being said oppression is different. Luckily in the USA you can say almost whatever you want unless it directly threatens someone with harm and nothing will happen t..... well nvm, there is the concept of intellectual shaming, like "HOW DARE YOU SAY GEORGE WASHINGTON DIDN'T HAVE WOODEN TEETH, no more inviting you to our History Professor Games anymore." Sarcasm but for an average citizen they do not have to worry so much. UNLESS, they decided to express their views in a manor that gets in someone's way. Protest in front of the gate of the White House, and you may have a bad time.
That example of Union workers. If they protested and refused to work, nothing would of happened to them. But they decided to also forcefully disrupt the operation of the business they worked for, and even tried to close their operations completely down. You can bet a very stern response followed.
I think it's a problem that people seem to often forget that it's a lot better today than it used to be. If this was say 1910. Those native americans protesting about the pipe line would have the US Army marching on them.
As a lot of others have said, there are good cops and bad cops. But they put their lives on the line every day keeping the streets safe, and without them the world would be a very bad place
I like english police. Mainly due to them not randomly shooting people since we dont have gun laws....oh, I mean culture.
Although I myself haven't had the best personal relationship with them - a few years ago when I was still a kid, there were teenage gang members on the streets who'd bully me and my friend constantly as well as vandalize the houses on our street - throwing eggs and bottles at our house and even shooting one of the windows which was rather expensive to replace and when we called the cops, they did nothing - they just gave a warning to the parents who said "What? But my boy would never do that!" and despite the numerous complaints, barely anything was actually done about the problem - it ended as they grew up and moved apart, thankfully.
Even then, I know that there are allot of good cops who risk their lives to protect people they don't even know, something so noble as self sacrifice for the greater good shouldn't be disregarded just because of our own negative experiences with some cops - remember people, generalizing is bad! I know it's a habit on the internet but let's not say that two rotten potatoes mean they're all rotten. Yes, there are bad cops but there are also good cops, and despite it all, both manage to good and make bad mistakes. Let's not forget these are still people we are talking about, just because they have a job to do doesn't mean we shouldn't fabricate them to be corrupt when we have no idea what crap they have to deal with on a daily basis! Let's be thankful for them, or at least for the ones that strive to do good!
'So?' back a ya, kamerad.
I was just pointing out to sevyn that this isn't just something that happens in tin-pot autocracies like Turksey. American history is one of people seeking justice and the government sending in its thugs to protect state and corporate interests. Hell, that's part of why modern policing exists in the first place. In England, they originally were meant to suppress the unrest that came after the enclosure acts and French Revolution.
I think it was the Ludlow a Massacre that you're thinking of. The Pinkertons had a car with a primitive machine gun up top, the miners called it the "death special".. Speaking of Pinkertons, corporate thugs were out in force at Standing Rock, until they set German Shepherds on people and thus replaced by cops. Apparently, Energy Transfer has a pipeline to the 20's, where their meatheads came from.
it's a shame that standing in a free-speech zone and talking isn't conducive to seeking change/justice/anything else. Mind you, I'm not at all shocked that the state doesn't stand aside and let protesters win (class interest again!), i'm simply pointing out that thuggish behavior by police must be expected if one plans to do anything but the most inconsequential, passive bullshit, even acts of non-violent, civil disobedience are met with force, as we saw throughout the Standing Rock debacle. I don't think state terror today is justified by a historical precadent of worse state terror. Though I'm also not certain that's the point you're trying to make.
i disagree somewhat. I think it's regressed a great deal in the last few decades. Compare the response of the 1968 DNC riots to the response at Standing Rock. The latter is the Miami Model of riot policing and involves a much greater degree of force, as well as intrusive surveillance, infiltration, agent provacateur activities (disputed) pre-emptive arrests and careful management of press presence. It's downright Orwellian. I've been to modern protests, the presence of riot police doesn't prevent trouble, it almost always guarantees trouble. They intentionally provoke it. It's not the sabers and live rounds of Tsarist Russia, but it's arguably much more violent than it's been.
Otherwise, we're largely in agreement, just approaching it from different perspectives.
Edit: phrasing and additions.
I think one of the major problems is the war on Terror has seen a massive influx of cash to police departments to be better prepared to deal with anything. An increased Militarization of the Police in short. Originally only "SWAT" units if a city had one, carried assault weapons, like SMGs or Military Grade Rifles in their vehicles at all times. (Yes I consider SMGs, and AR-15s assault weapons regardless whether semi or fully auto,, they're assault weapons. they were designed for assault tactics and must be classified as such regardless). Outside of that, police often had whatever arms they could get, buy or even have donated to their departments. This mean throughout much of the 20th Century, you'd see police with Browning Automatic Rifles, M14 Rifles, Garands, and a massive mix of random equipment differing from department to department. Which on their own are very powerful weapons for law enforcement. But those weapons often stayed at the station for dire times. Not in the back of a squad car. Compounded in modern years a massive influx of firepower disadvantages between the average citizen vs the average police officer. If you want AR-15s in your house you must expect every cop in your town has one in the trunk of their squad car in short, otherwise it will be like the 1920s all over again with police using revolvers vs Thompson SMGs and BARs, which didn't end well for police.
PS: I never disagreed with you, I just thought I'd throw some random examples out there.
I noticed! Things have been all right with me.
Many cops never have to use their weapons except for yearly range qualification. Protecting people and property is a fairly minor part of the job, unless you're SWAT or dealing with a crisis.
Trash collectors are more likely to suffer injury and death on the job and cities would be completely unlivable without them. Yet garbage men and their supporters don't demand special respect and privileges. When a garbage man screws up, the company is expected to correct the misdeed and make things right with the client.
@DillonDex : since this touches on some points you made about police being vital and about targeting individuals rather than the institution.
Access to milsurp is definitely part of the problem, but I think the rot goes deeper than that. Time for an unsolicited history lecture!
Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, would probably be appalled to see how his institution has devolved, at least across the pond in America. The "Bobbies" were created to be a kinder, civilian alternative to the standing armies who brutally enforced the ruling class' order in England's industrial areas.
They were meant to be part of the citizenry and not alienated from the masses as the soldiers were. They were armed proportionally to the thugs and desperate poors they had to deal with. Their goals were primarily to protect people and property and to maintain a semblance of civil peace by enforcing laws (unfortunately, even the unjust ones). Still, their success was measured by a lack of crime, not the number of arrests.
The police of today have much more in common with those menacing standing armies than with Sir Peel's bobbies. They're a paramilitary force, armed to the teeth and often staffed by a lot of young men and women who went straight from the battlefield to police work.. The overall estrangement of police from the people contributes to the us vs. them mentality that tends to rule. Their success is often measure by the number of people they put behind bars or as I like to put it, the number of lives they ruin. in short, they're the instruments of state terror Peel wanted to be rid of.
The regression was started by their anti-labor activities but went into full swing since the second War on Drugs, which was explicitly launched in order to crush the budding black power movement and their "deviant" allies. And boy did they succeed. Independent, stable black communities were crushed and in many cases a storm cloud of mutual resentment and fear has fallen over every interaction between police and residents in those communities.
This is a societal problem, not an individual one. The police and apologists are harming themselves and others by insisting it's just a few bad apples causing our problems. It's the tree and possibly the whole damn orchard that's contaminated. Meanwhile those who believe that cops shoot black kids because they're racist pigs and that everything will be solved with "diversity training" and shit are themselves part of the problem in my opinion. A radical re-evaluation of criminal justice in general is the only viable solution I see.
...
I'd prefer it if you didn't stand so close to me...
1830's, wasn't it? Close enough for anti-government work, I'd say.
Yeah, better in my opinion. Though far from ideal.
Yup, it's an important distinction to make. Though I must admit I'm against law enforcement in general.
Actually, I was more referring to the us vs. them mentality of police (though it certainly exists on the other side too). City police tend not to be part of the communities they serve. Ideally, the community is a tribe and the police would be the defenders and warriors of said tribe. But police aren't usually part of the tribe. They're alienated from its needs and feelings and thus are seen as a foreign, hostile presence. This hostile environment acts back upon the cops, causing the us and them mentality.
I actually have the opposite opinion about ideologues. Ideologues have their worldview and their ideas about the way things should be done. I think the lack on concrete solutions comes from a lack of ideology. I have a libertarian socialist worldview. My opinions about state violence and unjust hierarchies guide my critique of the police and my proposed solutions (a blessing and curse, as it lends itself to bias).. Most people see a problem but see no way out.
Some are. Progressive politics is an extracurricular activity these days. Then again, if police misconduct wasn't widely reported, I doubt we'd being seeing all these bootlickers on social media praising everything the cops do and posting "dindu nuffin" memes. It's important to remember that while some folks involved are just "trendies" there are some Johnny-come-latelys who have truly woken up and joined the struggle with good intentions. I saw a lot of that a few weeks ago after the incident at Standing Rock, even among my more conservative friends. The proportion might not be as huge as you think it is.
As for solutions, yeah a lot of them suck. But they have the potential to improve. BLM mostly consists of kids our age or younger, remember. The movement is still very young and constantly evolving. The Occupy movement is a good example, having evolved into a pretty threatening left-wing revolt within the Democratic Party. I suppose it's a difference of perspective. I see law enforcement as a historically and fundamentally bad institution that will never voluntarily act in the interest of liberty. Whereas, I see anti-police activists as flawed, but still developing and capable of change, which is why I critically support them.
It’s a double-edged sword. One one hand it’s great to see people challenging violent authority and giving law enforcement a well-deserved wake up call. Enemies of peace deserve no peace and all that.
On the other hand, people are aiming too low by focusing almost exclusively on the grunts and that’s negatively impacting the community itself.
Honestly anti-police activists are screwed no matter what we do. If you submit to the respectability politics and behave, the powers that be will pat you on the head and ignore you. If you riot or engage in civil disobedience, you become a household name, but a lot of other problems come along with that.
I wrote about it on the previous page in response to Jon_Dee. I think the only way to go forward is to end the drug war and revert to the classical model of policing, as a stopgap measure. My end goal would be independent communities that can mostly defend themselves and each other.
I’m not optimistic about any of this happening. I personally think shit is gonna get worse until it breaks down.
Well, police are risking their lives everyday for people. I'm thankful for them in some ways. And while there are some bad ones, people shouldn't generally dislike them.
You're right. I'd like to add that they also provide entertainment.
I like them. Sometimes.
English police are mostly fine, you can talk to them and they tend to listen. community support officers on the other hand are a bunch of stuck up bullies with too much time on their hands and no communication skills they are just volunteers but act like they have power, police officers openly laugh in their faces