Attitudes towards the police

[Hermit]

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?

[Robert_S]

Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer

Much more mundane uses for the police in such a society would include safe and orderly traffic flow, the prevention of interpersonal violence and harassment for all conflicts that don't involve money, the suppression of ant attempts at the de-equilibration of wealth...

[charlou]

Obey the law while it's the law.
If you want it changed, speak to your representatives, get community demonstration organised.
Don't keep breaking the law and then whine and bitch about the police oppressing you because they're doing what they're supposed to. It's fucking stupid.
We don't live in totallitarian states.

On the matter of corruption, the risk for whistle blowers is enormous. They need more protection, things like anonymity.

A police force is necessary. Everyone here can already think of moments in which they would very much prefer the presence of a police force.

The thing is, we citizens should make sure our legislatures pass laws that will be respected. If too many people have contempt for the law, like in the US alcohol prohibition era and the drug laws today, then that sows disrespect for the law in society from which our police are recruited. So, we end up with a bunch of hypocrites in uniform.

I agree with this and the other related points you made earlier. I think these and points made by others on this topic are all defining aspects of a complex situation that doesn't have a single cause with a matching single solution.

[Trolldor]

Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer

Much more mundane uses for the police in such a society would include safe and orderly traffic flow, the prevention of interpersonal violence and harassment for all conflicts that don't involve money, the suppression of ant attempts at the de-equilibration of wealth...

Why just lightly tap him when I can shove a boot in his face?

[JimC]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

take proper steps to complain/protest/use the democratic process to attempt to get them changed.

I am so, so glad you said this. The last protest we had was G20. What happened there? The death of Ian Tomlinson. The police found the only person on the area not involved in the protest, and killed him. The subsequent inquiry decided that the officer should not face charges (look the assault up on YouTube and tell me if you think a civilian would have been exonerated), and would you believe it? The strangest coincidence took place. By the time the inquiry concluded the Statute of Limitations expired and the family are now unable to bring a prosecution for commoon assault against the murderer.

The law is an ass.

I'm not familiar with that particular incident, but if it was clear misconduct by a policeman, there definitely should have been action. I suppose you will cynically say that no action proves that the whole system is rotten; however, where I live there have been police dismissed from the service and charged in cases of assault by police etc.

I will make the point, however, that the G20 protests all around the world have always had a hard core of violent anarchists, who trash cars and private property, throw petrol bombs and stones at police etc. In situations like this (in contrast with escorting peaceful demonstrations), you are going to get a predictably violent reaction from riot police, one that is quite understandable (although it too must be limited to a degree, and involve the use of reasonable and proportional force). I'm sure that you could find me instances where the police response, even faced by violent rioters, went beyond this. I would simply repeat that such cases requires a thorough investigation; at least in western countries some elements of the media will aid this process... If it is being swept under the carpet, then a variety of other legal angles could be explored.

The alternative seems to be to do nothing but vent about how the whole system is corrupt, no normal democratic processes will work, so lets hit the streets and trash stuff for the thrill of it, achieving precisely nothing, apart from further polarisation.

[Hermit]

I'm not familiar with that particular incident, but if it was clear misconduct by a policeman, there definitely should have been action. I suppose you will cynically say that no action proves that the whole system is rotten; however, where I live there have been police dismissed from the service and charged in cases of assault by police etc.

I will make the point, however, that the G20 protests all around the world have always had a hard core of violent anarchists, who trash cars and private property, throw petrol bombs and stones at police etc. In situations like this (in contrast with escorting peaceful demonstrations), you are going to get a predictably violent reaction from riot police, one that is quite understandable (although it too must be limited to a degree, and involve the use of reasonable and proportional force). I'm sure that you could find me instances where the police response, even faced by violent rioters, went beyond this. I would simply repeat that such cases requires a thorough investigation; at least in western countries some elements of the media will aid this process... If it is being swept under the carpet, then a variety of other legal angles could be explored.

The alternative seems to be to do nothing but vent about how the whole system is corrupt, no normal democratic processes will work, so lets hit the streets and trash stuff for the thrill of it, achieving precisely nothing, apart from further polarisation.

I suggest you read up on the death of Ian Tomlinson. You may then realise that your comments - while essentially reasonable - are in this context inappropriate, hollow and perhaps even infuriating.

[sandinista]

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".

[JimC]

I'm not familiar with that particular incident, but if it was clear misconduct by a policeman, there definitely should have been action. I suppose you will cynically say that no action proves that the whole system is rotten; however, where I live there have been police dismissed from the service and charged in cases of assault by police etc.

I will make the point, however, that the G20 protests all around the world have always had a hard core of violent anarchists, who trash cars and private property, throw petrol bombs and stones at police etc. In situations like this (in contrast with escorting peaceful demonstrations), you are going to get a predictably violent reaction from riot police, one that is quite understandable (although it too must be limited to a degree, and involve the use of reasonable and proportional force). I'm sure that you could find me instances where the police response, even faced by violent rioters, went beyond this. I would simply repeat that such cases requires a thorough investigation; at least in western countries some elements of the media will aid this process... If it is being swept under the carpet, then a variety of other legal angles could be explored.

The alternative seems to be to do nothing but vent about how the whole system is corrupt, no normal democratic processes will work, so lets hit the streets and trash stuff for the thrill of it, achieving precisely nothing, apart from further polarisation.

I suggest you read up on the death of Ian Tomlinson. You may then realise that your comments - while essentially reasonable - are in this context inappropriate, hollow and perhaps even infuriating.

I disagree entirely. While it is clear that it is highly likely that his death was the result of unecessary and illegal police violence, and that there were systemic failures in the investigation process, how does that change any of my arguments? A fault appears in the system, and a free press pursues it. Hopefully, the system in the UK of dealing with such situations will improve. The alternative is what, precisely? To return to the streets and engage in riotous destruction? That will clearly prevent anything like this ever happening again...

[Tigger]

advocating absolute subservience to such laws

I simply did not see that suggested by any other poster but if I post again kick my fecking arse - I need sleep!

It was implied, and when I asked for further clarification they ran away. Well, Tigger didn't, but neither of them elaborated on it. If they don't want to that's okay. I took exception to Zilla pretending to be smart when he's really just trying to argue without arguing.

I only meant that if you're aware of the law - no matter how silly it may be, or you perceive it to be - then you can't expect anything but whatever penalty had been agreed in law if you break it, no matter how silly the penalty, or how silly you deem it to be. I think some laws are stupid - the maximum fine of £250 for driving an uninsured car e.g. - but I know what'll happen if I break them, so I don't. This, however, is digressing away from the police aspect of the thread.

My opinion about the police is quite high, to be honest, although I have come across a couple of occasions where they could have done better. Like any profession. I always wonder in cases where there has been an injury in custody, say, why the person was there in handcuffs in the first place. It's not that easy to wind up in cuffs.

You get cuffed if you get arrested in this city always !

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

advocating absolute subservience to such laws

I simply did not see that suggested by any other poster but if I post again kick my fecking arse - I need sleep!

It was implied, and when I asked for further clarification they ran away. Well, Tigger didn't, but neither of them elaborated on it. If they don't want to that's okay. I took exception to Zilla pretending to be smart when he's really just trying to argue without arguing.

I only meant that if you're aware of the law - no matter how silly it may be, or you perceive it to be - then you can't expect anything but whatever penalty had been agreed in law if you break it, no matter how silly the penalty, or how silly you deem it to be. I think some laws are stupid - the maximum fine of £250 for driving an uninsured car e.g. - but I know what'll happen if I break them, so I don't. This, however, is digressing away from the police aspect of the thread.

My opinion about the police is quite high, to be honest, although I have come across a couple of occasions where they could have done better. Like any profession. I always wonder in cases where there has been an injury in custody, say, why the person was there in handcuffs in the first place. It's not that easy to wind up in cuffs.

You get cuffed if you get arrested in this city always !

I thought it was standard procedure for the police to handcuff those they arrest.

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

[Cunt]

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

When the police arrest someone for a fresh crime (as opposed to a breach of recognizance or somesuch), do you think they are all guilty? (careful, this may be a trick question)

[Trolldor]

Jesus. The police are neither omnipotent or omniscient, they will make mistakes but trying to hold an inquisition at every turn and automatically blaming them is just fucking stupid.


There was an incident not long ago where a kid RAN from the police, ended up spearing himself on a fence, and the police where the ones blamed for it.

[Hermit]

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".

The expanded version does not make more sense than your previous one.

[Meekychuppet]

I saw two supposed clear thinkers advocating absolute subservience to such laws I commented.

Where the FUCK did I say anything about "absolute subservience". You really are making this shit up as you go along and it's pissing me off.

Then say what you actually think.

I did. You added shit to it to make me look like a slave of the machine. Idiot.

All you have to do is say what you think. Otherwise we have no option but to guess.

[Meekychuppet]

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.

[Meekychuppet]

I'm not familiar with that particular incident, but if it was clear misconduct by a policeman, there definitely should have been action. I suppose you will cynically say that no action proves that the whole system is rotten; however, where I live there have been police dismissed from the service and charged in cases of assault by police etc.

I will make the point, however, that the G20 protests all around the world have always had a hard core of violent anarchists, who trash cars and private property, throw petrol bombs and stones at police etc. In situations like this (in contrast with escorting peaceful demonstrations), you are going to get a predictably violent reaction from riot police, one that is quite understandable (although it too must be limited to a degree, and involve the use of reasonable and proportional force). I'm sure that you could find me instances where the police response, even faced by violent rioters, went beyond this. I would simply repeat that such cases requires a thorough investigation; at least in western countries some elements of the media will aid this process... If it is being swept under the carpet, then a variety of other legal angles could be explored.

The alternative seems to be to do nothing but vent about how the whole system is corrupt, no normal democratic processes will work, so lets hit the streets and trash stuff for the thrill of it, achieving precisely nothing, apart from further polarisation.

I suggest you read up on the death of Ian Tomlinson. You may then realise that your comments - while essentially reasonable - are in this context inappropriate, hollow and perhaps even infuriating.

I disagree entirely. While it is clear that it is highly likely that his death was the result of unecessary and illegal police violence, and that there were systemic failures in the investigation process, how does that change any of my arguments? A fault appears in the system, and a free press pursues it. Hopefully, the system in the UK of dealing with such situations will improve. The alternative is what, precisely? To return to the streets and engage in riotous destruction? That will clearly prevent anything like this ever happening again...

Yeah, except the police officer not only got away with murder, but also the inquiry was dragged out so that the statute of limitations expired, meaning that when the COPS ruled no murder trial would take place the family could not bring a case for common assault.

I repeat my previous statistic. In the UK 1000 people have died in police custody. Of those, zero prosecutions haver taken place as a result.

ZERO.

Don't tell me that the system has a few failures and that it can be fixed. It fucking stinks, and the police are untouchable.