Attitudes towards the police

[mistermack]

I thought I'd post this link, http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/poolem ... emills.pdf

it's to a case that showed corruption beyond belief that the Police in Gloucester, England got away with. Two men did ten years in prison for a crime they didn't commit, just to cover up the criminal incompetence of the police and the local accident dept. at Gloucester hospital.
The doctor mentioned, Dr. Chaudhuri, is my doctor, and the event happened a few streets away from where I lived.
This stuff gets very close to home.
Even though everyone in Gloucester knew the story, and knew it was a "frame up" at the time, it still happened, and the two guys did more than ten years each.
And the police got away scot free.
It's just so incredibly blatant. They know in advance they can't be touched.
.

[PsychoSerenity]

Don't get arrested, then. It's quite easy.

Is it really? Since resisting arrest is against the law? Really? Is it honestly? If I am arrested and asphyxiated on the police station floor as my friend's brother was, is that my fault too?

REALLY?

Is it my fault if I get arrested? Or does a presumption of guilt in such circumstances seem fair to you?

Shall we say 'Don't get arrested, then. It's quite easy.' to the black kids in UK who are arrested, stop and searched, without due cause and because of their colour? Maybe you could say 'Don't get arrested, then. It's quite easy.' to my school-days best friend who, when he had a girlfriend who lived 15 miles away, was stopped and searched in his car 52 times in six months, despite having no convictions, never being caught doing anything wrong, and being told that it was because he wore a baseball cap. Only a reasonably well-off +, middle aged white guy could say 'Don't get arrested, then. It's quite easy.' without a hint of irony.

Meeky I don't think you've got this right. Nobody should be getting arrested then searched, for no reason. Even if someone is stopped and searched because of their colour, they still don't get arrested unless they are carrying a weapon, drugs, stolen goods, or they try and fight the police and avoid being searched, they are suspected of another specific crime, or are refusing to answer questions.

I don't know if it's different in other parts of the country, or in other countries, but when I was searched there were no problems at all, and I don't think it's just because I'm white, but rather that I was cooperative and hadn't broken the law.

As far as I'm concerned, they are the to help me.

Bollocks.

Or, said a little more civilly, you are so woefully misinformed that it would be best for you if upon arrest you were struck dumb.
Don't believe it? Ask a lawyer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

They are most certainly NOT there to help you.

Sorry I can't watch the video right now, but this is still only relevant if I've done something to get arrested.

If I was lost, in trouble, or there was some disaster going on, I would trust a police officer to help me as much, if not more, than any other person. Therefore, I consider them, there to help me.

[Meekychuppet]

Yes you are. And several other people including myself. It is consistent with your style of discussion where you jump from discourse, to argument to aggressive dismissal of any position which differs from your own. In addition you accuse people and make personal judgements about them based on their opinion.

You mean a personal judgement like this one?

This has been raised a few times here and I would suggest you might reflect upon the fact that it has. I know of at least one other forum member (in addition to myself now) who won't engage in what one hopes would be reasonable discussion because of your manner.

I couldn't care less if my manner upsets anyone, and if someone doesn't want to talk to me on those grounds I won't be losing any sleep over it. You can't please all the people all of the time. Add that to the fact that I have no idea who this person might be and it would seem I haven't lost a great deal. If your ideas cannot stand up to rigourous scrutiny then I'd suggest that you might want to reflect upon that fact rather than lecturing someone else about what you think they should or shouldn't be doing. I don't resent anyone here so if people feel that way about me then that's a shame, but that's up to them. The idea that it has been 'raised a few times here' is of questionable veracity (at least to me) since I have only ever seen the same people raising it. Perhaps you mistake repetition for consensus? Who knows?

On a more broad point, not engaging makes a nice change from the complaining that people have utilised previously. Perhaps the message is getting through after all. Who'd have thought that saying 'if you don't like it you can always ignore it' repeatedly would be effective? I'll chalk that one up in the 'win' column.

[Rum]

Well there we have it. You don't give a shit about the discussion, the other point of view, the possibility that your position might be adapted upon reflection of another point of view. All you care about is 'winning'.

'Winning' an argument on the internet. Meh.

[Meekychuppet]

Well there we have it. You don't give a shit about the discussion, the other point of view, the possibility that your position might be adapted upon reflection of another point of view. All you care about is 'winning'.

'Winning' an argument on the internet. Meh.

You've just won me a bet, although I kind of regret it since it gave you a chance to ignore the whole content of my post and focus on the word 'win'. The fact is that you excused police brutality and murder on the fact that it seems to be a small occurrence, and after someone pointed out how shameful that statement was you then started the digression in to complaining about how I post.

Like I said, I ain't got no beef with you (or anyone else) but I'm there's no way I'll EVER accept a point of view that says police brutality is okay provided it's relatively rare.

[PsychoSerenity]

Well there we have it. You don't give a shit about the discussion, the other point of view, the possibility that your position might be adapted upon reflection of another point of view. All you care about is 'winning'.

'Winning' an argument on the internet. Meh.

You've just won me a bet, although I kind of regret it since it gave you a chance to ignore the whole content of my post and focus on the word 'win'. The fact is that you excused police brutality and murder on the fact that it seems to be a small occurrence, and after someone pointed out how shameful that statement was you then started the digression in to complaining about how I post.

Like I said, I ain't got no beef with you (or anyone else) but I'm there's no way I'll EVER accept a point of view that says police brutality is okay provided it's relatively rare.

Meeky, earlier you were accusing people of blindly accepting the law, when they hadn't said anything of the sort. Now you're accusing Rum of excusing police brutality, when again, he hasn't said anything of the sort. In fact what he said was "I am not defending the police".

Obviously authority needs to be challenged if it's being abused - but you can't do that by getting antagonistic with people just because they can see the good side to a system, as well as the bad.

[Meekychuppet]

Well there we have it. You don't give a shit about the discussion, the other point of view, the possibility that your position might be adapted upon reflection of another point of view. All you care about is 'winning'.

'Winning' an argument on the internet. Meh.

You've just won me a bet, although I kind of regret it since it gave you a chance to ignore the whole content of my post and focus on the word 'win'. The fact is that you excused police brutality and murder on the fact that it seems to be a small occurrence, and after someone pointed out how shameful that statement was you then started the digression in to complaining about how I post.

Like I said, I ain't got no beef with you (or anyone else) but I'm there's no way I'll EVER accept a point of view that says police brutality is okay provided it's relatively rare.

Meeky, earlier you were accusing people of blindly accepting the law, when they hadn't said anything of the sort. Now you're accusing Rum of excusing police brutality, when again, he hasn't said anything of the sort. In fact what he said was "I am not defending the police".

Obviously authority needs to be challenged if it's being abused - but you can't do that by getting antagonistic with people just because they can see the good side to a system, as well as the bad.

Just because he says 'I am not defending the police' does not validate the rest of his statement. When given the numbers concerning deaths in custody the response was 'it's only x % and more people die waiting for a bus'. If that is not defending it then what is? What good side is there to that? The trouble is that people seem to think that as long as the pros outweigh the cons then we cam look the other way on brutality. I'm afraid I don't buy it.

The point about blind acceptance is not that I accused anyone, it's that when pressed they won't answer the question.

[Robert_S]

Yes, there's a failure Meeky, but it extends beyond the police force then.

It's never just "the police" who are at fault. What about all those fat asses who sit in lofty chairs making laws about what does and does not constitute 'hate speech'? I suppose none of them thought it might be a good idea to, for example, extend the statute of limitations?

Is there a any organization trying to get more accountability on the part of the police in the UK? How much public support do they have?

Allow me to rephrase:

Is there any organization in the UK that tries to get more accountability from the police that is not made up of people whose manner inspires other people to imagine situations where police brutality might be an understandable excess.

[Coito ergo sum]

a police force is only necessary in society when you divide the people into those who have and those who aint got.

LOL. Praytell, what planet do you hail from?

Don't get out much? I suppose I should have explained more instead of paraphrasing. What I said was a section of a quote by Chairman Omali Yeshitela. The whole thing reads:

[Chairman Omali Yeshitela]
You have the emergence in human society
of this thing that's called the State
What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy
It is the po-lice department. It is the Army, the Navy
It is the prison system, the courts, and what have you
This is the State -- it is a repressive organization
But the state -- and gee, well, you know,
you've got to have the police, cause..
if there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to yourselves!
You'd be killing each other if there were no police!
But the reality is..
the police become necessary in human society
only at that junction in human society
where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got

I'm certainly not saying anything from "another planet".

He's just wrong, though. People don't only commit violent crime because some people have and some people don't have. Many wealthy people, who have much more than others, commit crimes, violent and nonviolent. Many murderers commit their crimes for pleasure, as do many rapists and molesters. Crimes are motivated not necessarily by money or unfairness, but passion, anger, gluttony, avarice, lust, love, desire, envy, and a whole panoply of motivations.

Some of criminality appears genetic. identical twins were twice as likely to have similar criminal behavior than fraternal twins who have similar but not identical genes, just like any two siblings. Other research indicated that adopted children had greater similarities of crime rates to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents.In 1986 psychologist Robert Hare identified a connection between certain brain activity and antisocial behavior. He found that criminals experienced less brain reaction to dangerous situations than most people. Such a brain function, he believed, could lead to greater risk-taking in life, with some criminals not fearing punishment as much as others. See - Causes of Crime - Explaining Crime, Physical Abnormalities, Psychological Disorders, Social And Economic Factors, Broken Windows, Income And Education - Crime, Criminal, Crimes, Commit, Person, and People http://law.jrank.org/pages/12004/Causes ... z0vXv0KupB

There are many other factors, too.

[sandinista]

People don't only commit violent crime because some people have and some people don't have.

Oh really? Now I must ask, what planet are you from?

Many wealthy people, who have much more than others, commit crimes, violent and nonviolent. Many murderers commit their crimes for pleasure, as do many rapists and molesters. Crimes are motivated not necessarily by money or unfairness, but passion, anger, gluttony, avarice, lust, love, desire, envy, and a whole panoply of motivations.

Some...yes, far less than are motivated by poverty and inequality and everything that goes along with it. Inequality and poverty are still the main motivators.

[Coito ergo sum]

People don't only commit violent crime because some people have and some people don't have.

Oh really? Now I must ask, what planet are you from?

The planet where humans commit violent crimes for pleasure, passion, anger, gluttony, avarice, lust, love desire, envy and a whole panoply of motivations.

I've seen a number of bar fights erupt over women.

Many wealthy people, who have much more than others, commit crimes, violent and nonviolent. Many murderers commit their crimes for pleasure, as do many rapists and molesters. Crimes are motivated not necessarily by money or unfairness, but passion, anger, gluttony, avarice, lust, love, desire, envy, and a whole panoply of motivations.

Some...yes, far less than are motivated by poverty and inequality and everything that goes along with it. Inequality and poverty are still the main motivators.

Then obviously there would be a need for police to handle the non-poverty and inequality related crimes. The assertion was that there would be no need for police if it wasn't for there being "haves and have nots." That's plainly false.

If you have any evidence regarding the fact that inequality motivates crime, you can post it any time.

[Lozzer]

lol i started mass debate

[Rum]

lol i started mass debate

Did it start you to masturbate too?

[Tigger]

Well there we have it. You don't give a shit about the discussion, the other point of view, the possibility that your position might be adapted upon reflection of another point of view. All you care about is 'winning'.

'Winning' an argument on the internet. Meh.

You've just won me a bet, although I kind of regret it since it gave you a chance to ignore the whole content of my post and focus on the word 'win'. The fact is that you excused police brutality and murder on the fact that it seems to be a small occurrence, and after someone pointed out how shameful that statement was you then started the digression in to complaining about how I post.

Like I said, I ain't got no beef with you (or anyone else) but I'm there's no way I'll EVER accept a point of view that says police brutality is okay provided it's relatively rare.

Meeky, earlier you were accusing people of blindly accepting the law, when they hadn't said anything of the sort. Now you're accusing Rum of excusing police brutality, when again, he hasn't said anything of the sort. In fact what he said was "I am not defending the police".

Obviously authority needs to be challenged if it's being abused - but you can't do that by getting antagonistic with people just because they can see the good side to a system, as well as the bad.

Just because he says 'I am not defending the police' does not validate the rest of his statement. When given the numbers concerning deaths in custody the response was 'it's only x % and more people die waiting for a bus'. If that is not defending it then what is? What good side is there to that? The trouble is that people seem to think that as long as the pros outweigh the cons then we cam look the other way on brutality. I'm afraid I don't buy it.

The point about blind acceptance is not that I accused anyone, it's that when pressed they won't answer the question.

I thought I had answered, but I want to say here, digressing slightly, that I don't blindly accept laws. Look at this for fuck's sake: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 71#p543918

[sandinista]

Coito

Then obviously there would be a need for police to handle the non-poverty and inequality related crimes. The assertion was that there would be no need for police if it wasn't for there being "haves and have nots." That's plainly false.

If you have any evidence regarding the fact that inequality motivates crime, you can post it any time.

No police in their current form. No mass armed gang. If you want evidence go visit a prison. Just talking from personal and life experience, if you need some kind of "web-evidence" that inequality motivates crime you really don't know much at all about crime OR poverty.