Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Police

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 0:50

So what do you all think of the anti police riots in Britain?? Thoughts? Stupid or awesome?

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 15:40

>>40
I'm afraid the "REAL vermin" here is you. Your views are destructive and not suited for a developed society.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 15:41

>>40
Check out MDC: "Millions of Dead Cops". Great band.

Name: Greek boy 2011-03-27 15:42

I live 4 blocks away from the road where a cop shot a 15 yo kid. The cop had first chalenged the kids sitting there because the neighbourhood has a bad name. The kids probably yold him something he didn't like so the cop went away (the police center had asked him to disengage). He parked his car, he and his partner walked to the place they saw the kids, chalenged them again, shot alexis in cold blood and walked away like nothing happened without even calling an ambulance. Up to this point, you could say he's a psychopath that somehow managed to get through the police test, but listen to how the police reacted to this.

First of all, they announced that the cop was attacked for no reason with a molotov coctail and that he shot in self defence. Even though they hadn't questioned any witnesses yet and they hadn't searched the crime scene. Of course the trial showed this to be a lie. There were many witnesses since this was a very central part of athens. The police, even though they gave them their names and details themselves refused to question most. Instead they took their colleague's word for granted acting more like an organised gang than 'service to society'. In fact, if it wasn't for the month long riot, that cunt wouldn't be in jail and most greeks wouldn't be aware of how the police actualy operates.

Having lived here for a few years but also in other countries in europe, I can tell you that cops are a big business. They protect the rich from the poor. They keep the crime going to protect their business, and they perform some administrative work by providing you with a crime number where needed. Of course it is worth noting that being given a crime number is protection only for the rich. Only for those who are wealthy enough to have all their property insured so that the compensation proccess can go on.

In a case where I had something of mine stolen in front of a camera (in the UK), the police didn't want to waste any of their precious time to just have a look at the footage, see the licence plate of the vehicle and find his owner (the criminal). Instead they kept giving me excuses. After pushing them, their final word was that it would cost them too much money to look at the footage for a 'simple' (!) robbery because the contractors that have set up and are maintaining the camera system charge them too much for this 'servise'!!!

I could go on and give you thousants of examples but if you didn't get the point with these too, there is no point explaining any more.

On the other hand, I'had cops beat me,gas me for no reason swear at me and take me to court for swearing back and even steal from me. Twice. Luckily I'm still alive as the place I live is very heavily policed. Seriously I don't need any help or 'service' I prefer the crooks. And you know what? I still aknowledge them as humans, but humans who, no matter how dumb or mislead, have made a choice. The corruptive choice of having power. And as honast as I can be, I've never heard of anyone who has power and is not using it for his own benefit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 15:43

>>39
But see, they don't get fired or go to prison in the US. I challenge you to find one case. They get off, over and over. It's like a gang. They watch each other's backs. It's really true, sadly.

Name: Greek boy 2011-03-27 15:49

Bonus question: How many times have you seen the police provoke protesters or even break up peacufull protests?

PS. PEACEFULL PROTESTS that is. I'm not asking you about riots, although riots DO happen when the police tries to disperse a PEACEFULL demonstration.

PS2. Demostrations are the only legal way citizens have to oppose the government. Isn't it the job of the police to abolish this democratic right? Elections happen one day every few years depending on where you live. How do the citizens excercise democracy for the rest of the time?

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 15:50

>>43
Most democratic countries doesn't spend enough money on the police, partly because of ineffectiveness from within the system itself. And if the police doesn't have enough money to retain a acceptable force, why should they pay that private company a lot of money to buy the rights to that video tape?
Those money were better used to keep the police out in the streets.
Even in Norway, the worlds "wealthiest" state, the police doesn't get the resources and money they need. It's unacceptable, but that's how it is.

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 15:59

>>44
A quick search on Google didn't give me any sources to back my statement, which worries me. Perhaps you should take democratic measures to work against police brutality? At the very least, don't sink as low as those who exercise brutality.

>>45
It all depends on where you live. And if there are someplace "better" than yours, you should know that you could make your place that good og even better, too.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 16:04

>>47
Kudos to you for admitting when you're wrong. Not something one sees everyday, and causes me to respect/listen to what you have to say more.
We do try... but as you can see, the courts aren't really just, or helping here. What would you suggest?

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 16:08

>>48
That's most kind of you. :)

I would suggest petitions, peaceful demonstrations and educating the public in a somewhat neutral way. Let them make up their own minds, but broadcast your message to a broad array of people.

I.e. I'm going to our capital on Wednesday to participate in a demonstration against EU directive 2006/24/EF. It will be a peaceful demonstration, just like it should be.
Sensible people don't listen to raging skinheads. That's common sense.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 16:18

>>49
True... raging skinheads, no.
The problem is, these really aren't reasonable people we are dealing with here. Remember George Bush? He had a lot of support, and a lot of people still like him. Reason.... they don't listen to reason. They really truly believe that might makes right, and that crimes are bad just because they are against the law. So that if you break the law (unjust or no), you deserve what you get. Whatever that may be. There are a lot of citizens who feel this way, which is why the police have the support they do.
I'm not sure anymore.... it's been a long hard fight against police brutality here. Every once in a while, a you-tube video comes out, and people get upset, but nothing really ever changes. Maybe our country is just too big...

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 16:24

>>49
What is 2006/24/EF?  When I look for information on it I always get lead back to 2006/24/EC, which is still a few letters away.

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 16:24

>>50
Yes, I certainly remember W. Most of the world do. And it's not a pleasant memory, let me tell you.

>There are a lot of citizens who feel this way, which is why the police have the support they do.

I believe that's because they don't know better. That's where you come in, educating them. It's a long and tough job, but someone's gotta do it, if you want change.

Remember, the law is for protecting the people, not the other way around. The law can be exchanged for new laws, citizens cannot.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 16:33

>>52

>the law is for protecting the people

well, I think around here it's for protecting some of the people...

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 16:33

I apologize for double-posting, but the replies come flying in too fast for me to se them before I click reply.

>>51
I'm sorry, I meant 2006/24/EC. 2006/24/EF is the Norwegian name.
It's better known as the Data Retention Directive. It gives the state authority to collect data from operators about when, where, to whom, how and our identity when we use the internet or (mobile) phone. The collected data may be stored for up to 24 months.

The Norwegian Parliament (Storting) is split about 50/50, and I'm going to demonstrate to try to convince our Conservative Party to let their representatives vote what they personally believe.

In my opinion, it's completely unacceptable and it will severely damage the democracy. In practical life, it won't affect anyone much, but the principles are clear as 95% alcohol: The freedom of speech and the freedom of press will suffer, should we allow our government to spy on us in such a manner.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 16:39

>>50
Okay, it's probably just me but it sounds like there's a trip-up point in the argument.  On one hand, you specify that the police are too loose in their implementation of justice, there is not enough oversight, or that they are hired for their corruption status, and that has lead to decay in the concept of right and wrong, also allowing them to hide behind this draconic rulebook.  On the other hand, here you angst that the structure of society conduct - law - is what makes crimes good or bad, which would mean any official that upheld "true" justice would have to have even more personal discretion in fulfilling his role and less solid accountability.  This roundabouts back to the beginning of the thread with the cult of Justitia reference someone made.  Can you help clarify this point for me, what you mean?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 16:50

>>55
Who, me?
Okay: I mean that just because you, let's say, consume an herb that is currently illegal in some places, that doesn't mean that cops have the right to do whatever they want to you. Like shoot you because you didn't move fast enough or whatever.
I do think that laws should be upheld, but I do not think that once you disobey _ any_ law, you are then "on the wrong side of the law" and ought to be subject to whatever horrific ways of handling you that the current policeman decides on. However, many people do think this.
Many, many people think that if you break the law, even non-violently, them the cops have the right to do pretty much whatever they want to you. I think cops should also be subject to laws, and remember that we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty.
I am not saying i think that they should selectively enforce laws based on their consciences, if that's what you thought.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 16:59

>>56
Yeah, that's what I was misunderstanding from what you said.  Thanks for clearing it up.

>>54
Now that does sound curious.  I admit I that may be me curious in regards to the exact nature of the flow of this identity information, the spirit of the bill, but I agree the operational approach of the act is terribly undesirable.  Best of lucky to you on Wednesday.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 17:09

>>40
Are you really so dense you can't spurt anything but anti-police rhetorics? Man, you really must have a chip on your shoulder or you just want to go mob rush someone's peaceful protest up and don't want cops pulling you away. Either that or you're just paranoid about something.

You just really suck as a troll. Please hand your douchbag facial hair in at the nearest KFC. I'll help you along by saging this thread.

Name: unsage 2011-03-27 17:11

...

Name: Heisann Montebello !6QhW..IDvg 2011-03-27 17:13

>>57
Thanks! There'll be several thousand of us there, so I hope we'll be able to pass on our message. :)

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 17:29

Nr. 60 is me, I just forgot a # in the Name field.

>>58
Come on, don't ruin this thread now that we got it polite and proper. :/

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 17:34

>>61
don't feed the troll. :)

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 17:55

cops are paid to use VIOLENCE. sure, they'll ask politely first but if you don't obey them and follow them to your jail cell they'll fucking shoot the shit out of you even if all you did was steal a cookie. there's no excuses for doing this for a living. ACAB

now, you can say things like: "well over here in lollypop land cops don't even carry guns so whoop-tee-fucking-doo" but you know that's bullshit. you know that if you disobey them they will fucking beat you into submission.

people who don't struggle never notice their chains... seems like nowadays they'll even deny being chained up.

Name: Heisann Montebello !!tEhT3OOs1o8DgT0 2011-03-27 18:19

>>63
Why would I disobey them in the first place? I am familiar with our laws, and I seldom break any of them. And I have enough confidence in our legal system, and there are so few murders of justice, that I to a great extent trust the courts to make decisions according to the law.
It's rather unlikely that I would resist being arrested, should the police or any legal body wish to do so.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 18:29

>>64
But, hypothetically, if you did resist for some reason, or if they thought you did, because you limped, or for some reason did no comply as quickly as they wanted you to, or if you were passively non-compliant (think Gandhi) do you think they should have the right to injure or kill you?

Name: Greek boy 2011-03-27 18:41

>>64
Hey Heisann. First of all thumbs up for being such a civilised speaker.

Look at it this way. The police is a monopoly of violence. It prohibits anyone else from using violence and the do it with more violence. I can understand that you have a much different experience with cops than I have, but I'm not breaking any laws either. It is true that europeans cops are much more civilised than greek cops, but can't you see that they are still playing a submission game? At the UK I noticed that cops were far more polite and professional than greeks, but that was only because they were properly trained to put you into submission in a polite way. Greek cops do it by being loud cunts, british by being polite. The fact is that in both cases, if you don't go by their rules, or try to stir the conversation the way you feel, even if you do it with proper arguements, will usualy lead to violence (unless you're wearing a suit). That's because they are not trained to talk and even if they were, there is no mechanism behind them to support any kind of conversation. It is just a typical procedure were you are being checked for your submission. If you don't accept their authority, that's even if you haven't done anything wrong and they know it, you're fucked. This is what brings violence and hatred for cops. We're not some madmen who hate other people just beccause they are wearing a uniform.

I've posted these before but I think as many people as possible need to see them. These two experiments really show a lot about human behaviour and how we interact with power and authority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmwSC5fS40w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

So yes, I AM contradicting myself. Cops are normal human beings, but they are so fucked up with authority (maybe not from their first year but definately before retiring) and misslead by those they are really protecting.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:02

>>64
>>65
>>66
That's stupid, you are all thinking in terms of collectives like a bunch of illogical socialists. Police are individuals and this is more significant than "only a few are bad, don't generalise, bla bla bla", it means the administrative situation is more complex which also means there are more options than some sliding scale of how much physical force cops should be allowed to use.

We should use a multi-tier solution relying on both rigid command structured policies and flexible guidelines that rely on police initiative and autonomy in combination with new educational techniques, and it should be all based around the political atom, the individual. Science has upgraded to quantum physics, we've discovered classical physics is just an approximation and one not accurate enough to allow us to apply quantum phenomena on our scale, it's time social science caught up.

Take for example the stanford prison experiment, of course we should place limits on police powers, we should also factor in powers which allow them to do their jobs more effectively, on top of these we should take different approaches, we should go right ahead and show them the stanford prison experiment and use the results to prepare them for when they are tempted to show hubris and go on a power-trip. We need to show them that the guards in this experiment were acting like animals, like children and that their job is in large part to overcome hubris, frustration and hate and other emotions as well like empathy, maybe even love though I don't know where that fits in. Just to do their jobs rationally and logically.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:12

>>67
I think I mostly agree with you, but  your "collective/socialist" comment is A: childish, and B: totally unfounded and unrelated. We are not discussing systems of government in this thread. We are discussing the police.

Learn to distinguish.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:17

>>64
people like you, who blindly obey any and all authority... you have this way of angering me to the depth of my soul. you say it yourself... "well whoop-tee-fucking-doo why would you ever disobey a man in a uniform?". i'm pretty sure if they told you to wear a yellow star you'd say "why yes sir yellow is my favorite color, should i put it on my left or right arm?".

please try to realize that the world is bigger than lollipop land. that certain things have happened in this world before you were born. there are legitimate reasons to disobey.

Name: Greek boy 2011-03-27 19:25

(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence )

Max Weber said in Politics as a Vocation that a necessary condition for an entity to be a state is that it retains such a monopoly. His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence (German: das Monopollegitimen physischen Zwanges) in the enforcement of its order."[1] [2]

According to Weber, the state is the source of legitimacy for any use of violence.[citation needed] The police and the military are its main instruments, but this does not mean that only public force can be used: private force (as in private security) can be used too, as long as it has legitimacy derived from the state.

Weber applied several caveats to this basic principle.
Weber intended his statement as an observation, stating that it has not always been the case that the connection between the state and the use of violence has been so close. He uses the examples of feudalism, where private warfare was permitted under certain conditions, and of Church courts, which had sole jurisdiction over some types of offenses, especially heresy (from the religion in question) and sexual offenses (thus the nickname "bawdy courts").
The actual application of violence is delegated or permitted by the state. Weber's theory is not taken to mean that only the government uses violence, but that the individuals and organizations that can legitimize violence or adjudicate on its legitimacy are precisely those authorized to do so by the state. So, for example, the law might permit individuals to use violence in defense of self or property, but in this case, as in the example of private security above, the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state.

One implication of the above is that states that fail to control the use of coercive violent force (e.g., those with unregulated militias) are essentially not functional states. Another is that all such "functional" states function by reproducing the forms of violence that sustain existing social power relationships, and suppressing the forms of violence that threaten to disrupt them.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:25

>>68
Well there are many discussions of those issues on this board, I thought I'd throw it out there. Perhaps I have been ironically hypocritical, by tarring all 3 of you with the same brush I may have tarred an innocent, in the same way the police treat innocents as they treat insane junkies or the same way people tar all police as being power-tripping thugs.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:28

>>69
YES!!! Thank-you!!
I am so tired of people acting like there is never any legitimate reason to break the law!!
But, >>64 seems more naive than powertripping about this.

Name: Greek boy 2011-03-27 19:28

>>49
[quote]Let them make up their own minds, but broadcast your message to a broad array of people.[/quote]

Yup. You're absolutely right on this one. That's exactly what I'm generaly trying to do.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:32

>>71
Remember, all of us (except the Norwegian) are anonymous, so for all you know, we may have agreed with you in the past.

Gotta say though, the extreme anti-socialist agenda does seem a little... lock-step-ish...

Name: 74 2011-03-27 19:33

oh, yeah, also non-anon; greek boy.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:34

>>70
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Lesser evils are awesome, they're not really lesser evils at all! You point your finger and call them evil but morality depends on what is better, not what is best, evil being omnipresent, lesser evil is what is good. Lesser evil is good.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:36

>>76
What is that? Your Bible?
I disagree.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 19:56

There is no such thing as anarchists anymore, these are socialists, marxists and so on. They are rioting over cuts in government funding and immigration. These sorts of liberals are bent on the utter destruction of everything good strong and successful in this world.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 20:00

>>78
Uh, okay: tell that to the anarchists.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-27 21:20

You can smoke marijuana (which is illegal and very rarely is someone charged) or openly be an illegal immigrant (which is illegal although if you're a white illegal immigrant they may take action) in front of most American police officers and they'll do absolutely nothing.

But if you show one the middle finger (which is not illegal), if you say the N-word (which is not illegal), or if you refuse to speak to one (which is protected by the Bill of Rights) they arrest you for some made up charge and the only way out of it is with a million dollar (usually Jewish) lawyer.

Contrary to popular belief with these "small town bumpkin sheriffs" in Hollywood movies the police on average are quite liberal.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List