StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Really. Promoting the blanket statement that all cops are evil racist petty tyrants who revel in casual cruelty to be avoided and despised is a useless and counterproductive attitude. They are one of the best tools society has to deal with crime as is well established by history. Needlessly antagonizing them on a large scale to tensions between police and the people they're serving, a decrease in efficiency due to a pointless lack of cooperation between police and the general populace and making a very stressful job more stressful, which will lead to an increase of instances in which the human beings doing it snap. The same applies to the belief that police are automatically working for 'The Man man' or for 'Big Government Encroaching on our Freedums!' and similar anarchist bullshit be it of "A in Circle T-Shirt" or "Atlas Shrugged Evangelicalism" flavors.

Please note that this is not saying police should have a carte blanche in the application of force or should operate without oversight or any such nonsense. Bad Cops, among them being bigoted cops should be identified and culled from the ranks. Nor does this presume that police forces can't stand some improvement, but said improvement needs to be done with proper reforms which actually involve extensive audits of performance and behavior and addressing specific issues. Also this is dealing with police in modern democratic first world countries, not underdeveloped regions/petty dictatorships.

Zor

My wife and discussed it the other day and we are baffled by the idea that going out and deliberately hunting cops is somehow going to make them friendlier and more tolerant...

I'd really like to see more "good cops" calling out inappropriate behavior. End this blue wall bullshit. Not all cops are evil monsters bent on killing all them black folk or whatever strawman you care to name, but you cannot deny - at least without abandoning all traces of honesty - that abusive behavior is too rarely punished.

If you defend shitty behavior it means you're kinda shitty, too. A thing I like about Kamikaze Sith is that he does decry bullshit.

I've seen very little in the way of "all cops are bastards." On the other hand, I've seen a lot of justified "A given cop could be a rat bastard, and given their authority that can end very badly for you." Enough cops are rat bastards that if you're in one of the groups that are profiled there exists the possibility you'll encounter a power-tripping dickcheese that can fuck up your life for years to come, and there won't be a goddamn thing you can do about it.

The damage that can be done by a bad cop warrants caution around all cops.

Napoleon the Clown wrote:I'd really like to see more "good cops" calling out inappropriate behavior. End this blue wall bullshit. Not all cops are evil monsters bent on killing all them black folk or whatever strawman you care to name, but you cannot deny - at least without abandoning all traces of honesty - that abusive behavior is too rarely punished.

If you defend shitty behavior it means you're kinda shitty, too. A thing I like about Kamikaze Sith is that he does decry bullshit.

I've seen very little in the way of "all cops are bastards." On the other hand, I've seen a lot of justified "A given cop could be a rat bastard, and given their authority that can end very badly for you." Enough cops are rat bastards that if you're in one of the groups that are profiled there exists the possibility you'll encounter a power-tripping dickcheese that can fuck up your life for years to come, and there won't be a goddamn thing you can do about it.

The damage that can be done by a bad cop warrants caution around all cops.

Which does not nullify the fact that hostility/unwarranted aversion to the police in general A: makes police less effective at their job and B: makes a stressful job more stressful as people in general don't like having cooperation, and people, even generally good people who are under a surplus of stress are liable to lash out.

Zor

Borgholio wrote:My wife and discussed it the other day and we are baffled by the idea that going out and deliberately hunting cops is somehow going to make them friendlier and more tolerant...

It won't, but it might make them scared to pull their guns on a black guy unless they're really sure he has a weapon and intends to use it.

And yes, I am aware that angry young men with AR-15s and Molotovs are a lousy way to go about that, but if various police disciplinary organisations were doing their damn jobs then this wouldn't be happening.

That particular sentiment going around is largely, I have found, being promulgated by people with another agenda entirely: Anarchists. Anarchists who dont want to actually solve the problem of police brutality and racism, but who reject the concept of civic police forces in entirety.

Borgholio wrote:My wife and discussed it the other day and we are baffled by the idea that going out and deliberately hunting cops is somehow going to make them friendlier and more tolerant...

I doubt that's the point. I think the people who are doing this are past the point of wanting real reform. They want a war. They want vengeance, not progress.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:That particular sentiment going around is largely, I have found, being promulgated by people with another agenda entirely: Anarchists. Anarchists who dont want to actually solve the problem of police brutality and racism, but who reject the concept of civic police forces in entirety.

I'm reminded of how Dave Barry described first hearing about the death of Martin Luther King. The leader of the Campus Radicals at his university came up to him and said, "Martin Luther King got shot! The blacks are really going to riot now!"

"He was actually happy about this. He explained that it would be the flash point that could set off The Revolution, which would be good for the People. The Campus Radicals talked about the People a lot, which was odd since the only people they ever seemed to spend time with were the other Campus Radicals."

Seems pretty applicable today. I have no doubt that there are a bunch of mostly white anarchists and far-leftists who are just itching for riots to break out at a Black Lives Matter protest so they can have a pretext to live out their internet Maoist fantasies.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:That particular sentiment going around is largely, I have found, being promulgated by people with another agenda entirely: Anarchists. Anarchists who dont want to actually solve the problem of police brutality and racism, but who reject the concept of civic police forces in entirety.

Given that the history of civic policy forces in this country can be traced pretty directly to Slave Patrols and similar, I don't blame them. I don't agree with them, but I can understand whence some of them are coming.

Surely you are not trying to suggest that the entire idea of having a civil police force is illegitimate? Its pretty much a constant in any modern, civilized society, and whatever its drawbacks, is pretty clearly preferable to anarchy, vigilantism, or martial law, the main alternatives humanity has thus far come up with.

Zor wrote:Which does not nullify the fact that hostility/unwarranted aversion to the police in general A: makes police less effective at their job and B: makes a stressful job more stressful as people in general don't like having cooperation, and people, even generally good people who are under a surplus of stress are liable to lash out.

Zor

When one bad apple of a cop can fuck up your entire life without legal justification, and could easily get away with it? I think distrust for the police is very rational and justified.

Being hostile to police is definitely a bad idea, both because any given cop you're dealing with probably isn't a power-tripping asshole and because it'll make it harder for police in general to do their jobs well. But cops have to make an effort to improve relations, and step one is coming down hard on the bad apples. Show that a single bad cop won't be able to fuck up someone's life at a whim and get away with it.

Shooting random cops is rightfully a crime. Telling a random cop to get fucked is a massive dick move, and could certainly make your life worse.

There are segments of the population that have done absolutely nothing wrong, yet they must assume that any given LEO they encounter might assume a benign act is actually a criminal act. It's dishonest to claim that the police have absolutely nothing to do with poor relations with much of the public. Until their accountability reflects their authority, things will not improve.

Terralthra wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:That particular sentiment going around is largely, I have found, being promulgated by people with another agenda entirely: Anarchists. Anarchists who dont want to actually solve the problem of police brutality and racism, but who reject the concept of civic police forces in entirety.

Given that the history of civic policy forces in this country can be traced pretty directly to Slave Patrols and similar, I don't blame them. I don't agree with them, but I can understand whence some of them are coming.

You should consider London between 1800 to 1900. London was rife with crime in 1800 but it had been significantly reduced over the 19th century. Why? Because in 1829 Robert Peel created the London Metropolitan Police.

A system which worked so well everyone from New York to Tokyo replicated it.

Zor

Zor wrote:

Terralthra wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:That particular sentiment going around is largely, I have found, being promulgated by people with another agenda entirely: Anarchists. Anarchists who dont want to actually solve the problem of police brutality and racism, but who reject the concept of civic police forces in entirety.

Given that the history of civic policy forces in this country can be traced pretty directly to Slave Patrols and similar, I don't blame them. I don't agree with them, but I can understand whence some of them are coming.

You should consider London between 1800 to 1900. London was rife with crime in 1800 but it had been significantly reduced over the 19th century. Why? Because in 1829 Robert Peel created the London Metropolitan Police.
[snip image no one cared about]
A system which worked so well everyone from New York to Tokyo replicated it.

Police forces in the South predate Peel's police force by nearly a hundred years, and were created to police, control, and instill fear in Blacks/Slaves.

"Complexion has influenced the focus of law enforcement from this nation's very beginnings; the first organized police forces, according to police historian William Geller, were the varied slave patrols," Muwakkil wrote. "Policing in this country has always had the dual purpose of maintaining social order and enforcing the racial hierarchy."

And in any case, not all the London Met's imitators have been good at replicating its mission statement, aka the Peelian Principles of Good Policing:

• To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
• To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
• To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
• To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
• To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
• To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
• To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
• To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
• To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Source, found via Wikipedia. Bolding mine.

Terralthra wrote:

Zor wrote:

Terralthra wrote:Given that the history of civic policy forces in this country can be traced pretty directly to Slave Patrols and similar, I don't blame them. I don't agree with them, but I can understand whence some of them are coming.

You should consider London between 1800 to 1900. London was rife with crime in 1800 but it had been significantly reduced over the 19th century. Why? Because in 1829 Robert Peel created the London Metropolitan Police.
[snip image a projecting Terratha didn't care for]
A system which worked so well everyone from New York to Tokyo replicated it.

Police forces in the South predate Peel's police force by nearly a hundred years, and were created to police, control, and instill fear in Blacks/Slaves.

"Complexion has influenced the focus of law enforcement from this nation's very beginnings; the first organized police forces, according to police historian William Geller, were the varied slave patrols," Muwakkil wrote. "Policing in this country has always had the dual purpose of maintaining social order and enforcing the racial hierarchy."

And they predate their existence in the South. The first organization called police was formed in 1667 in Paris, which was a government funded groups to deal with crime and (among other thing) hired a few informal guards to try to deal with crime. It should be noted that in premodern china and ancient Rome and Greece there were dedicated law enforcement organizations. If not as developed as police forces.

Even so, slave patrols were not Police. They were not engaged in general law enforcement. They'd be more akin to bounty hunters or Edwardian "Thief Takers", privately hired thugs who to patrolled rich neighborhoods to keep the riff-raff out, only with the distinctions of class being more pronounced. The sort of bodies the Met replaced.

To say that that police exists to enforce racial hierarchy is dishonest. To say modern police services (which employ many black officers) are fundamentally bad because someone said that that was the case is stupid.

Zor

So you've got a cop who straight-up murders a civilian on camera, as has happened way too often. What do you call a cop who lets that murderer not only go free, but continue to carry a badge and a gun? They might not all be murderers, but they're all bastards, at least in those departments.

Good

cops would arrest a murderer even if he were wearing the same uniform.

There may still be some more or less okay police departments in the US; I don't know.

Zeropoint wrote:So you've got a cop who straight-up murders a civilian on camera, as has happened way too often. What do you call a cop who lets that murderer not only go free, but continue to carry a badge and a gun? They might not all be murderers, but they're all bastards, at least in those departments.

Good

cops would arrest a murderer even if he were wearing the same uniform.

There may still be some more or less okay police departments in the US; I don't know.

Cops do arrest other cops. But there is a limit to what cops can do. A blatant murderer is of course arrested (usually) but they cannot do the same for muddled affairs like many police shootings are. Alot of police shootings are he said she said bullshit, snipped videos, and rarely anything blatantly illegal. Most of those aren't just cut and dry "straight-up murders a civilian".

But some are. That kid in Cleveland I believe was a murder. So what is the cops to do? Of course arrest the offending cop. But that ain't so easy. There is chain of command, there is conflict of interest, there is concern for the safety and working future of the cop who decides on his own initiative to arrest the dirty cop. Its not so simple as to just slap cuffs on the fucker and toss him in the slammer.

But moving beyond the arrest or investigation stage, cops can only do that. Arrest and or investigate. The actual part of making sure a murderer doesn't go free is not up to the police. Good cops can't do shit when some district attorney or whatever lets off a dirty cop for insufficient evidence or because they just feel like it.

What is the good cop to do then? Re-arrest the dirty fuck? Lock him up in a basement? Extra-judicially kill him like he's an unarmed black guy or mentally ill person? I'm going to bet a shiny penny the answer to all that is no.

Again, there are limits to what cops can do (with good reason). Cops are not judge, jury, or executioner. After a point its out of their hands if it was ever in their hands to begin with thanks to shit like chain of command and jurisdiction.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Surely you are not trying to suggest that the entire idea of having a civil police force is illegitimate? Its pretty much a constant in any modern, civilized society, and whatever its drawbacks, is pretty clearly preferable to anarchy, vigilantism, or martial law, the main alternatives humanity has thus far come up with.

Given the encounters I, my family and several of my friends have had with the local power-tripping gestapo wannabes and their friends in the courts, I'd rather hold my own. It's not like police prevent crime or protect people anyway. All they do is show up to make sure the evidence gets picked up and the bodies sent to the morgue.

Highlord Laan wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Surely you are not trying to suggest that the entire idea of having a civil police force is illegitimate? Its pretty much a constant in any modern, civilized society, and whatever its drawbacks, is pretty clearly preferable to anarchy, vigilantism, or martial law, the main alternatives humanity has thus far come up with.

Given the encounters I, my family and several of my friends have had with the local power-tripping gestapo wannabes and their friends in the courts, I'd rather hold my own. It's not like police prevent crime or protect people anyway. All they do is show up to make sure the evidence gets picked up and the bodies sent to the morgue.

Your avatar is how I feel about this nonsense you just spouted.

A bit of a history lesson:

Police derives from policey (old spelling). This (back then) meant not only law and order, but also moral order. Regulating behaviour and all that. You can see this in the way police enforce behaviour like indecent exposure etc. Crime fighting was a secondary concern at first and gradually evolved into the main job.

However, despite a lot of muddled pasts police forces are absolutely essential to society. You need them. There needs to be a force the state can call up to deal with crimes that is NOT the military, because we know what happens when the military enforces criminal law. And yes, police absolutely prevent crime.

Highlord Laan wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Surely you are not trying to suggest that the entire idea of having a civil police force is illegitimate? Its pretty much a constant in any modern, civilized society, and whatever its drawbacks, is pretty clearly preferable to anarchy, vigilantism, or martial law, the main alternatives humanity has thus far come up with.

Given the encounters I, my family and several of my friends have had with the local power-tripping gestapo wannabes and their friends in the courts, I'd rather hold my own. It's not like police prevent crime or protect people anyway. All they do is show up to make sure the evidence gets picked up and the bodies sent to the morgue.

Police forces are human institutions and human institutions can have problems. That does not mean anarchy is a preferable alternative. How many people are considered guilty of a crime, only found by actual evidence collected by actual professionals to be completely innocent? A large number. Vigilantism is almost always unjust,while reliance upon the legal system is only sometimes unjust.

For a lot of crimes, the presence of police in an area also prevents those crimes from being committed. They can root out criminal organizations as well.

But probably their most important function is acting as cogs in the gears of our society. Contracts can be enforced because ultimately there is recourse to the police (if someone does not pay rent, or tries to remove you from your apartment even though you HAVE paid rent). They can help resolve disputes without having to go to court (ex. freeloading roommate argument, neighbors call police, officer calms everyone down). In the event of a breakdown in public infrastructure, they are available to direct traffic, or help evacuate civilians.

Plus, if you think you can "hold your own", you are a deluded moron. Everyone who would prefer anarchy always assumes they will somehow be OK. But in an anarchy, you have only those rights you can defend, and I guarantee you when the fabric of civilization collapses, you wont be able to defend much.

I think seeing convictions for officers who break the law, and, just as importantly, sentences comparable with or harsher than (due to breaking public trust) what a civilian criminal would get would go a long way in repairing relations.

Trials involving police officers may also need some sort of special public access so that when a verdict comes back "not guilty" for an officer who is shown on video doing something questionable and "everyone knows he's guilty" people can see a reason for it.

Jaepheth wrote:I think seeing convictions for officers who break the law, and, just as importantly, sentences comparable with or harsher than (due to breaking public trust) what a civilian criminal would get would go a long way in repairing relations.

Trials involving police officers may also need some sort of special public access so that when a verdict comes back "not guilty" for an officer who is shown on video doing something questionable and "everyone knows he's guilty" people can see a reason for it.

This.

Part A is important because there's a powerful perception in the public opinion that cops can get away with practically anything. And when they see shootings right and left, and the only thing that happens is the cop gets a slap on the wrist, that perception is reinforced. Even if the cop is quietly let go/resigns from the service, he/she is still not punished.

Part B is also vital because when shootings do go to trial, frequently the evidence ends up being sequestered and sealed away by the DA; the only thing the public sees is a cop who shot someone getting off scot-free without knowing *why*. And, especially if the evidence indicates strongly that the verdict was wrong, a mistrial could be declared.

A great problem is that usually when a cop has to interact with a civilian while on duty, it's often because the cop has to confront a civilian about either they have done something wrong or something bad that involves them ("hi, an asssosiative of yours is dead, we would like to bother you for information that might tell us: are you the murderer?". Nobody likes the rules, even if they're written laws they actually agree to have, enforced on them.

Which is still only when the cops are just doing their job properly. As someone mentioned, a cop that is abusive of his power can fuck up someone's life royally which adds even greater resentment and tremendous fear over the situation. That they don't and can't is hard to keep up.

An "us versus them" mentality develops between the police and civilians, which makes things worse. The cops start seeing potential enemies among the very people they are supposed to serve. The civilians meanwhile will lose faith in things that are essential for making civilizations run well.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Highlord Laan wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Surely you are not trying to suggest that the entire idea of having a civil police force is illegitimate? Its pretty much a constant in any modern, civilized society, and whatever its drawbacks, is pretty clearly preferable to anarchy, vigilantism, or martial law, the main alternatives humanity has thus far come up with.

Given the encounters I, my family and several of my friends have had with the local power-tripping gestapo wannabes and their friends in the courts, I'd rather hold my own. It's not like police prevent crime or protect people anyway. All they do is show up to make sure the evidence gets picked up and the bodies sent to the morgue.

Police forces are human institutions and human institutions can have problems. That does not mean anarchy is a preferable alternative. How many people are considered guilty of a crime, only found by actual evidence collected by actual professionals to be completely innocent? A large number. Vigilantism is almost always unjust,while reliance upon the legal system is only sometimes unjust.

For a lot of crimes, the presence of police in an area also prevents those crimes from being committed. They can root out criminal organizations as well.

But probably their most important function is acting as cogs in the gears of our society. Contracts can be enforced because ultimately there is recourse to the police (if someone does not pay rent, or tries to remove you from your apartment even though you HAVE paid rent). They can help resolve disputes without having to go to court (ex. freeloading roommate argument, neighbors call police, officer calms everyone down). In the event of a breakdown in public infrastructure, they are available to direct traffic, or help evacuate civilians.

Plus, if you think you can "hold your own", you are a deluded moron. Everyone who would prefer anarchy always assumes they will somehow be OK. But in an anarchy, you have only those rights you can defend, and I guarantee you when the fabric of civilization collapses, you wont be able to defend much.

Yeah, if the apocalypse comes, most people aren't going to be Mad Max. They're going to be slaves, canon fodder, refugees, rape/murder victims, or some combination of the preceding.

I think a problem is that problems with the police end up being the end people experience problems that are deeper in nature. Corrupt politicians, bad social services, deep problems with the neighborhood and community, problems with the local economy and so on. Failure of the leaders and politicians that were supposed to serve the people. Things that lead to incremental, invisible changes that are hard to realize for an average person who's busy with their life until it has all gone to the point where crime is frequent and the police end up trying to solve problems that the police are not supposed to solve. Police can't solve poverty, extremism, sick cultures developing, people that want to be addicted to drugs, etc. These are complicated problems that politicians (and other leaders) would have to take risks to solve, risks that they are not willing to take or cannot take. So they repeat the popular demagog, that they will be "tough on crime" to solve the surface problems (crime) while not taking any risks by attacking the deeper problems that cause them (poverty).

The police can be fed bullshit ideas too. Again, us versus them. That there is a them that will shoot them dead to get money and there is no wonder that cops will be paranoid and reaching for their gun.

Yeah, if the apocalypse comes, most people aren't going to be Mad Max. They're going to be slaves, canon fodder, refugees, rape/murder victims, or some combination of the preceding.

Or just dead. That's the problem with apocalypses. Most of the people die. That's something people also often forget.