General Police Abuse Thread

[Alyrium Denryle]

Imagine you're a minority in the US, especially one prone to "extra police attention" to put it nicely. Add in the abuses of power like those seen in this thread, and systemic issues that have been raised. Why should anyone trust that system, much less the people who work in it?

I empathize with those people but this is an emotional argument. I'm asking for a logical evidence based one.

I see plenty of anarchists who will actively back up and argue the ACAB position (shit, you can't really be an anarchist without holding that ACAB or its slightly softer cousin, Some Cops Are Okay But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard), so I don't get where this idea that people who say it always refuse to do so comes from.

I would love to hear those arguments.

The logical argument is something I've already alluded to (but don't take it as far beyond making jokes about certain unkosher animals). That they haven't given it in multiple posts just... boggles my mind.

But it basically runs as follows: Police serve the interests of the capitalist-dominated state - which anarchists find to be unjustified and evil irrespective of what it does - and are there to break up strikes etc etc as I discussed above. White supremacy is common place and even the personally good cops end up supporting an unjust system and supporting an institution that enables and protects white supremacist cops.

[loomer]

Whoah, look at the big man in a uniform. Shut the fuck up with your histrionics.

You think me insulting you is me flaunting my uniform? LMAO, you should audition for drama theater. How about this. Don't expect people to be civil with you when you start throwing insults their way, got it? Prick. Also, when someone insults you they probably aren't bringing their career into it. They probably just think you are an asshole.

I think it's you coming in with a cop attitude, yeah. By the way - you threw the first personal insult. I said your position was dumb as shit, which is not, in fact, an insult.

Trust is an integral component of why people spout off about ACAB (protip: If we trusted the cops, we probably wouldn't think they're all bastards!), and literally anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure that out.

Like I said in the edit, which I understand you did not read, not trusting the police is a logical position to hold but we aren't talking about that. You understand that the word bastard has a meaning right? Do you understand that when you say something like "No good cops" you are making an absolute declaration?

Sure. But explain how this has anything to do with why the issue of trust is not part of the ACAB statement.

I'm not stalling, either - I'm asking you to explain an epistemic position you've adopted and advanced so I can know how to explain the arguments to you, which again is something someone with two brain cells could figure out. I can make either purely logical arguments or logical and emotional ones against policing from an anarchist perspective, but since the former is incomplete and the latter is preferable, I'd like you to explain why we should magically exclude the issue of trust as 'emotional'.

It looks like you're stalling. I've asked anyone in this thread to justify the position that there are no good cops or all cops are bastards because without logical argument back by evidence it is just self gratification. I never asked anyone to justify why they don't trust the police and is not self gratification. That's just being smart. That is fairly easy to do and the fact that you reduced what I am asking into something so fucking simple is what makes you a coward.

You didn't ask for a logical argument. You inserted that later, and until you justify the exclusion of emotional argument, I feel no need to do so. Call it stalling all you like, but you're the one who decided to arbitrarily and unilaterally exclude emotional argument from an issue in which it is a fundamental component. Justify it, you coward.

You don't feel emotional arguments are acceptable reasons not to trust the police - why? How about you stop stalling, you damn coward, and justify your position.

Not talking about trust. I'm talking about holding an absolute position on a group of nearly a million people. Here's an example. Many politicians in the United States, and the world, have shown themselves to be entirely self serving. That doesn't mean, nor make it OK, for me to declare them all self serving without examining their personal record. It is self gratifying to do so but ultimately inaccurate.

Hell, using your reasoning here I could say "All Humans Are Bastards" but that wouldn't be true at all. Would it?

Again, mate - you need to justify your positions. First, since you seem unclear, that emotional argument is invalid in this arena - which was not part of your initial challenge. Second, that somehow trust is to be excluded from the ACAB argument. 'Using my reasoning here' is pretty fucking dumb as I haven't given you my reasoning yet.

Or are you too used to swaggering around with a badge and a gun to feel like you actually have to justify your epistemic premises when a mere pleb asks?

We're arguing on SDN, son.

Yes we are! And that's why you need to explain why you feel justified suddenly changing the goal posts and the subject to only include logical argument.

We aren't in a police / citizen relationship. My badge, uniform, the gun, authority given to me by the state, and my shiny parker pens (no mustache though so you're lucky) have zero power here and you pretending like my attitude towards you has something to do with that and not the fact that you decided to insult me is just being dishonest or fucking clueless.

Mate, your entire swaggering 'I set the terms! I decide what is acceptable as a position! I get to unilaterally change what arguments can be made!' is part of why people adopt the ACAB viewpoint. If you can't see that, you're being dishonest or fucking clueless.

If you wish to return to a civil discussion I will gladly accept your apology and offer you mine. But regardless drop the "he's a bully cop" nonsense. It is probably one of the most pathetic things I've seen on this board and I don't like seeing you shamed.

I'll speak my mind. You act like one, you get called one. Justify your epistemic position rather than deciding you can arbitrarily and unilaterally shift to a sudden demand of logical positions only.

Isn't it funny how the cop seems to feel he has a right to arbitrarily insert new terms of engagement as and when he pleases and determine 'the subject of discussion' unilaterally, without needing to justify it?

I'm restating what I requested. It is you, and Gandalf, that have altered the discussion.

By the way...will both you and Gandalf tell me your careers so I can declare this a "insert your career" thing. Serious question. Are you like this because you personally had a bad experience with the police?

I haven't altered the discussion in the least - you have by unilaterally insisting that only logical arguments will be permitted and that, for some reason, trust isn't a factor in ACAB. I'm just savvy enough, unlike you, to know that the issue of trust is a fundamental component of both anarchist critiques of policing and the generalized ACAB position. As for my career, I'm a legal academic - I've spent the last eight years of my life watching cops be cops through that lens.

What the fuck are you even on about? I haven't made any switch, numbnuts - I haven't even made an argument yet. I'm asking Mr. Cop to explain his epistemic position on why emotional arguments around trust should be excluded before I do so - that's not changing the subject or scaling anything back, it's asking him to justify a position he has suddenly inserted into the discussion that excludes a range of arguments. Take a break from polishing that boot leather and invest in some literacy classes.

Yeah you did you lying little shit. Kamakazie Sith started by saying that ACAB was childish and counterproductive. Gandalf replied by switching from that to the 'imagine you have a reason not to trust the police' tack and you replied saying that you know all sorts of anarchist justifications for saying that ACAB. Sith asked you to produce them and you refused by switching to the 'trust' approach.

Trust is part of those anarchist justifications, you fuckwit - so no, it's not a switch, it's a demand he explain his epistemic position that excludes trust on emotional grounds. Again - invest in some literacy classes once you've taken that boot out of your mouth.

[loomer]

What the fuck are you even on about? I haven't made any switch, numbnuts - I haven't even made an argument yet. I'm asking Mr. Cop to explain his epistemic position on why emotional arguments around trust should be excluded before I do so - that's not changing the subject or scaling anything back, it's asking him to justify a position he has suddenly inserted into the discussion that excludes a range of arguments. Take a break from polishing that boot leather and invest in some literacy classes.

There is a giant leap between not trusting the police <----------------------------> thinking they are all terrible people which is why doing so makes it an emotional reaction and then declaring it self gratification. I'm asking for logical evidence backed reasoning to bridge that gap.

I didn't suddenly insert this into the discussion by the way. Emotional arguments were never on the table. A discussion about trust was never on the table.

I said "EDIT - Anytime someone brings up those as a serious argument they either completely fail to provide evidence, disappear when challenged, or amend their statement. I have never seen someone actually support these but if you think you can then by all means."

Really? Because I sure as fuck don't see the original position I was responding to insisting on only logical arguments and dismissing a discussion about trust, which is a serious part of the ACAB position. I'm perfectly happy to explain why this is - once you explain your insertion of the demand.

The logical argument is something I've already alluded to (but don't take it as far beyond making jokes about certain unkosher animals). That they haven't given it in multiple posts just... boggles my mind.

In this case I'm still happy to, AD, I just don't cotton to the sudden change in goalposts. Once he addresses that nonsense, then I'll do so.

[Ralin]

Trust is part of those anarchist justifications, you fuckwit - so no, it's not a switch, it's a demand he explain his epistemic position that excludes trust on emotional grounds. Again - invest in some literacy classes once you've taken that boot out of your mouth.

Yes it is dumb dumb, because you started by claiming to have an actual argument and then tossed a hissy fit over being challenged to explain said argument. You expecting everyone to be familiar whatever the hell anarchistic crap you were referencing ahead of time doesn't change that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Here's the problem Loomer. All Cops are Bastards is a logical statement, utilizing deductive reasoning. You can't go from "I don't trust this group due to personal experience etc" which is inductive, to that deductive statement. You can say that the institutions are bad. That lots of cops are bastards etc, but to extend it to all cops personally being bastards is a rather difficult proposition from there. The logic just doesn't work

[loomer]

Trust is part of those anarchist justifications, you fuckwit - so no, it's not a switch, it's a demand he explain his epistemic position that excludes trust on emotional grounds. Again - invest in some literacy classes once you've taken that boot out of your mouth.

Yes it is dumb dumb, because you started by claiming to have an actual argument and then tossed a hissy fit over being challenged to explain said argument. You expecting everyone to be familiar whatever the hell anarchistic crap you were referencing ahead of time doesn't change that.

Mate, I'm still happy to explain it - and I make no assumption people will be familiar with my 'anarchistic crap'. I'm just not going to do so before Mr. Cop explains his sudden insertion of a 'logic only' clause into a previously open-ended discussion and his insistence that we can't discuss trust as part of the issue. If he wants to revise his initial position prior to responses but after the discussion has begun (which is what these two claims boil down to, incidentally - his initial position being that no one ever explains/justifies their belief that ACAB, it's just emotional masturbation, a sudden shift to emotional arguments and arguments around trust cannot be used to explain/justify that ACAB, is a revision of his initial position) then he can damn well defend why that revision is an acceptable one.

Here's the problem Loomer. All Cops are Bastards is a logical statement, utilizing deductive reasoning. You can't go from "I don't trust this group due to personal experience etc" which is inductive, to that deductive statement. You can say that the institutions are bad. That lots of cops are bastards etc, but to extend it to all cops personally being bastards is a rather difficult proposition from there. The logic just doesn't work

Certainly, and I intend to explore that issue. The issue with what Mr. Cop is insisting on is that it does in fact erase large parts of the anarchist position that ACAB/Some Cops Are Okay But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard (which I feel entitled to continue to defend, having initially embarked with it) by its insistence that trust is not a relevant factor and emotion cannot be considered as part of the problem.

[K. A. Pital]

On ACAB and confrontation with the system.

I think the logical argument to be made here is the one that police is an institution of state power and its primary objective is to maintain that power (monopoly on violence, maintenance of relations and laws that cement the power relations, ie private property and so on).

Thereby even if personally a police person is not motivated towards morally bad actions, he or she would be implementing immoral policies.

The penal code foresees brutal punishment for even petty theft, so undeniably most of the time the police would be destroying the lives of the poor by initiating criminal cases against them. Penal codes mostly originate from a system of brutal inequality and are slated against the majority, often meting out harsh punishments for victimless crimes, but punishing borderline-acceptable legally, but morally bad actions leniently or not at all.

As such, actively seeking to become a part of this system and contribute to the maintenance of social hierarchy, which some mistake for the only form of order possible, is itself a morally bad choice regardless of other personal qualities of the police person.

I have said this in a way which mostly excludes emotions and only explores dry factual statements. If someone would disagree, very much welcome.

[MKSheppard]

From Joshua Brown's attire during the Botham case (A dragonball Z shirt? really? In a murder case?) and his given profession "managing Airbnb rental properties"; I think there's a solid case to be made for someone watching the trial, and going:

*points to TV*

"ISN'T THAT THE SON OF A BITCH WHO SET US UP BEFORE?"

We'll see as the Brown murder case progresses.

And i was right. From another forum:

"Mr dragon ball z was shot up 2 years ago at a Dallas strip club over a drug deal dispute.

Last year he was suspected in a homicide involving one of the guys who allegedly shot him.

And now he’s dead."

So basically him being in the trial gave the guys from two years ago an idea where he lived, and they followed him to find out where he lived now... and once the police protection from being a witness in a controversial trial was over with, they made their move.

[Ralin]

And i was right. From another forum:

"Mr dragon ball z was shot up 2 years ago at a Dallas strip club over a drug deal dispute.

Last year he was suspected in a homicide involving one of the guys who allegedly shot him.

And now he’s dead."

So basically him being in the trial gave the guys from two years ago an idea where he lived, and they followed him to find out where he lived now... and once the police protection from being a witness in a controversial trial was over with, they made their move.

...Source?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think it's you coming in with a cop attitude, yeah. By the way - you threw the first personal insult. I said your position was dumb as shit, which is not, in fact, an insult.

LOL, Ok. You have some serious biases if you think this is a "cop thing".

If you don't intend to be insulting then you shouldn't word and format it in such a way that is intended to offend. You were being a dick and you know it. Don't pretend to be naive.

Sure. But explain how this has anything to do with why the issue of trust is not part of the ACAB statement.

I'm sure trust is part of the ACAB statement and it is arrived at logically but it becomes emotional if that is all they have to bridge the gap from distrust to justifying an absolute declaration. Gandalf opened with the trust argument, and the reasoning behind the distrust of police, which is a sound argument if asked why people don't trust police. However, when bridging the gap between trust and an absolute declaration that isn't about trust but declaring all people in the profession as bad or evil or whatever it comes up short and that seemed to be his only argument. The fact that you identified it as one of your arguments but then decided it would be better to go off on this tangent makes it seem like it is your only argument as well. It's weak reasoning to justify that kind of declaration.

You didn't ask for a logical argument. You inserted that later, and until you justify the exclusion of emotional argument, I feel no need to do so. Call it stalling all you like, but you're the one who decided to arbitrarily and unilaterally exclude emotional argument from an issue in which it is a fundamental component. Justify it, you coward.

I have to ask for a logical argument on this forum? LMAO, are you being serious? Alright, I had half a mind to tell you to go pound sand but I am genuinely curious in what you actually have to say so hopefully your ego will be satisfied and you will provide your argument before we all die of old age. On a side note if I ever bring this up again I will have to add stalling to my list of outcomes if your answer is poor. Lucky for you several others have already given excellent responses.

It comes down to this I want the logical reasoning because I understand the emotional. People form all sorts of radical ideas off of emotion so I understand how one can bridge that gap from trust to absolute declaration when they are pissed off. I have never heard someone bridge that gap logically on this subject.

Again, mate - you need to justify your positions. First, since you seem unclear, that emotional argument is invalid in this arena - which was not part of your initial challenge. Second, that somehow trust is to be excluded from the ACAB argument.

It comes down to this I want the logical reasoning because I understand the emotional. People form all sorts of radical ideas off of emotion so I understand how one can bridge that gap from trust to absolute declaration when they are pissed off. I have never heard someone bridge that gap logically on this subject.

Using my reasoning here' is pretty fucking dumb as I haven't given you my reasoning yet.

You said "Well, before I launch into them, you just dismissed one of those arguments as 'emotional' rather than logical."

You gave part of your reasoning and then forgot about it. Pretty fucking dumb indeed.

Yes we are! And that's why you need to explain why you feel justified suddenly changing the goal posts and the subject to only include logical argument.

Eh, I would call it clarification rather than a goal post move. I asked for evidence and a supporting argument on this website, which to my knowledge, has never put much stock in emotional positions.

Mate, your entire swaggering 'I set the terms! I decide what is acceptable as a position! I get to unilaterally change what arguments can be made!' is part of why people adopt the ACAB viewpoint. If you can't see that, you're being dishonest or fucking clueless.

You're being hysterical. Next time don't allow your personal biases to project on what others are saying.

I'll speak my mind. You act like one, you get called one. Justify your epistemic position rather than deciding you can arbitrarily and unilaterally shift to a sudden demand of logical positions only.

At this point I'm not sure how anyone avoids acting like a bully cop around you. You seem to have some deep issues that make you interpret normal conversation behavior with "bully cop". I didn't demand anything. I did not announce any ultimatums. I did get snippy with you but because you got snippy with me.

I haven't altered the discussion in the least - you have by unilaterally insisting that only logical arguments will be permitted and that, for some reason, trust isn't a factor in ACAB. I'm just savvy enough, unlike you, to know that the issue of trust is a fundamental component of both anarchist critiques of policing and the generalized ACAB position. As for my career, I'm a legal academic - I've spent the last eight years of my life watching cops be cops through that lens.

You have though. As the OP of this sub-discussion I feel it is totally reasonable for someone in my position to set the parameters, including clarification, if necessary. That doesn't make it authoritarian it is just is part of regular conversation. If someone clarifies their posts that doesn't mean they're being unilateral or any other hysterical way you can think of describing it. It is them just making sure the subject that they want to talk about is discussed.

However, let me be clear at this point. This side discussion has run its course. It is time to get back on topic. I look forward to hearing your argument. If you aren't going to respond with your argument then this will be my last post to you in regards to this topic. Hopefully that wasn't too stern.

A legal academic? So you teach law at a university or am I mistaken?

But it basically runs as follows: Police serve the interests of the capitalist-dominated state - which anarchists find to be unjustified and evil irrespective of what it does - and are there to break up strikes etc etc as I discussed above. White supremacy is common place and even the personally good cops end up supporting an unjust system and supporting an institution that enables and protects white supremacist cops.

That makes sense coming from you and anyone else with your political position. However, not all ACAB people belong to your political group so that leaves us with the enforcing of laws that they view are unjust which logically makes sense to have that position. Does a country exist with laws and enforcement that you view as 100% just?

Ultimately, this becomes a question is who is the real bastard. The cop? The law maker? Or the citizen that voted for said law maker? Or the country as a whole for producing a population that would vote in enough numbers to elect said law maker. This might be a case of anger once again directed at the lowest man on the poll which ultimately isn't very logical because those people are just trying to survive...like you and me. Think about who you work for?

On ACAB and confrontation with the system.

I think the logical argument to be made here is the one that police is an institution of state power and its primary objective is to maintain that power (monopoly on violence, maintenance of relations and laws that cement the power relations, ie private property and so on).

Thereby even if personally a police person is not motivated towards morally bad actions, he or she would be implementing immoral policies.

The penal code foresees brutal punishment for even petty theft, so undeniably most of the time the police would be destroying the lives of the poor by initiating criminal cases against them. Penal codes mostly originate from a system of brutal inequality and are slated against the majority, often meting out harsh punishments for victimless crimes, but punishing borderline-acceptable legally, but morally bad actions leniently or not at all.

As such, actively seeking to become a part of this system and contribute to the maintenance of social hierarchy, which some mistake for the only form of order possible, is itself a morally bad choice regardless of other personal qualities of the police person.

I have said this in a way which mostly excludes emotions and only explores dry factual statements. If someone would disagree, very much welcome.

Like I said above to AD that logically makes sense but I'll raise the point with you as well. Who is the real bastard...the cop, the law maker, the voting citizen, or the country as a whole. Assuming you're a US citizen then does it make you a bastard because you are paying taxes and supporting that system?

[K. A. Pital]

Good question about responsibility. I have no personal beef with the police officer who opens a criminal case on me. A baseless case, one founded purely on the deficiencies of the penal code, and the ability of spiteful people to use the penal code to their ends. He is just doing his job and it is nothing personal, and I have no personal antagonism, yes.

But do you think I would support individuals working within such a system?

I mean, if you accede to the idea social relations are voluntary and in a way I support the police by supporting the government and not running away into the Amazon to live „off the grid“ - by the way, one can ask the indigenous people about how‘s that working out for them, with logger death squads and forest fires - if one accepts this, then yes, those who support the functioning of the government and do not actively resist or work for improvement are also guilty. But not all people accept that this social contract of sorts is voluntary. For many (indigenous, for example) it isn’t voluntary and never was, they were forced into an alien society and onto the lowest rung, nothing less.

How many cops argue for reforming the penal code, I wonder, and create organizations to that end? Do any?

[loomer]

I think it's you coming in with a cop attitude, yeah. By the way - you threw the first personal insult. I said your position was dumb as shit, which is not, in fact, an insult.

LOL, Ok. You have some serious biases if you think this is a "cop thing".

If you don't intend to be insulting then you shouldn't word and format it in such a way that is intended to offend. You were being a dick and you know it. Don't pretend to be naive.

When the subject is ACAB and the cop starts swinging? Yeah, I think it's a cop thing. I'm perfectly happy to own being a dick, but in this case, you really are the first one who started throwing personal insults.

Sure. But explain how this has anything to do with why the issue of trust is not part of the ACAB statement.

I'm sure trust is part of the ACAB statement and it is arrived at logically but it becomes emotional if that is all they have to bridge the gap from distrust to justifying an absolute declaration. Gandalf opened with the trust argument, and the reasoning behind the distrust of police, which is a sound argument if asked why people don't trust police. However, when bridging the gap between trust and an absolute declaration that isn't about trust but declaring all people in the profession as bad or evil or whatever it comes up short and that seemed to be his only argument. The fact that you identified it as one of your arguments but then decided it would be better to go off on this tangent makes it seem like it is your only argument as well. It's weak reasoning to justify that kind of declaration.

Gandalf did open with it of course, and he was right to do so as it is a central pillar of the ACAB statement - you, however, dismissed it as merely emotional, not logical. The problem with this dismissal, which you'd grasp if you had any sense, is that ACAB is advanced primarily not as a logical argument but as a mixed emotional-logical position. Trust is central to both elements.

There is no viable grounds to assume it is my only argument - it's instead quite a reach. The 'tangent' I am on is to do with your sudden shifting of the goal posts, which is bad form on your part.

You didn't ask for a logical argument. You inserted that later, and until you justify the exclusion of emotional argument, I feel no need to do so. Call it stalling all you like, but you're the one who decided to arbitrarily and unilaterally exclude emotional argument from an issue in which it is a fundamental component. Justify it, you coward.

I have to ask for a logical argument on this forum? LMAO, are you being serious?

You do if you want to exclude other forms of argument, yeah. It's not enough to go 'give me a reason' and then answer a reason with 'but it has to be a different kind of reason', especially around an issue that is not usually seen as a strict matter of logic.

Alright, I had half a mind to tell you to go pound sand but I am genuinely curious in what you actually have to say so hopefully your ego will be satisfied and you will provide your argument before we all die of old age. On a side note if I ever bring this up again I will have to add stalling to my list of outcomes if your answer is poor. Lucky for you several others have already given excellent responses.

Again, this is not stalling. This is holding you accountable. I understand you might find such an idea objectionable, but when you shift the goal posts, those who are about to aim for them are entitled to inquire why and how.

It comes down to this I want the logical reasoning because I understand the emotional. People form all sorts of radical ideas off of emotion so I understand how one can bridge that gap from trust to absolute declaration when they are pissed off. I have never heard someone bridge that gap logically on this subject.

Clearly, you don't understand the emotional. If you understood the emotional, then the initial claim - 'why can't anyone support ACAB/tear it all down when questioned' - is invalid. You did not ask 'why can no one bridge that gap'. Answers on the basis of emotion are thus just as valid a response as answers on the basis of logic in this particular issue. For this reason I am unable to accept your position.

Using my reasoning here' is pretty fucking dumb as I haven't given you my reasoning yet.

You said "Well, before I launch into them, you just dismissed one of those arguments as 'emotional' rather than logical."

You gave part of your reasoning and then forgot about it. Pretty fucking dumb indeed.

Well, again. I haven't given you my reasoning yet. You've assumed you understand it, but your conjecture is, as you put it, 'pretty fucking dumb indeed'. The answer Gandalf gave was a perfectly valid response to your initial position of 'why can't anyone support ACAB/tear it all down when questioned', but it is not in fact the entirety or even most of my reasoning, even though the issue of trust forms a central part of ACAB as a position generally and in anarchism specifically.

Yes we are! And that's why you need to explain why you feel justified suddenly changing the goal posts and the subject to only include logical argument.

Eh, I would call it clarification rather than a goal post move. I asked for evidence and a supporting argument on this website, which to my knowledge, has never put much stock in emotional positions.

You did not specify any form of evidence and discarded a valid response. You moved the goal posts to insist only on logical argument, not emotional, in response to a valid reply to your question. And again, this is a fundamentally flawed way to view ACAB, which is not ordinarily used as a purely logical argument.

Mate, your entire swaggering 'I set the terms! I decide what is acceptable as a position! I get to unilaterally change what arguments can be made!' is part of why people adopt the ACAB viewpoint. If you can't see that, you're being dishonest or fucking clueless.

You're being hysterical. Next time don't allow your personal biases to project on what others are saying.

This isn't hysteria. This is me calling out your nonsense for precisely what it looks like: A cop, upset by ACAB, who won't accept an answer and decides to suddenly, unilaterally start changing the question and the terms.

I'll speak my mind. You act like one, you get called one. Justify your epistemic position rather than deciding you can arbitrarily and unilaterally shift to a sudden demand of logical positions only.

At this point I'm not sure how anyone avoids acting like a bully cop around you. You seem to have some deep issues that make you interpret normal conversation behavior with "bully cop". I didn't demand anything. I did not announce any ultimatums. I did get snippy with you but because you got snippy with me.

It's pretty easy, mate. You just avoid acting like a dickhead copper when questioned on your underlying epistemic assumptions after changing a goalpost!

I haven't altered the discussion in the least - you have by unilaterally insisting that only logical arguments will be permitted and that, for some reason, trust isn't a factor in ACAB. I'm just savvy enough, unlike you, to know that the issue of trust is a fundamental component of both anarchist critiques of policing and the generalized ACAB position. As for my career, I'm a legal academic - I've spent the last eight years of my life watching cops be cops through that lens.

You have though. As the OP of this sub-discussion I feel it is totally reasonable for someone in my position to set the parameters, including clarification, if necessary. That doesn't make it authoritarian it is just is part of regular conversation. If someone clarifies their posts that doesn't mean they're being unilateral or any other hysterical way you can think of describing it. It is them just making sure the subject that they want to talk about is discussed.

Mate, you don't get to change them mid-swing. That's where it's objectionable. If you'd wanted it to be purely on the basis of logic you should have said so at the time, not after people started answering. It's bad form, and it's not just clarification: It's goalpost shifting.

However, let me be clear at this point. This side discussion has run its course. It is time to get back on topic. I look forward to hearing your argument. If you aren't going to respond with your argument then this will be my last post to you in regards to this topic. Hopefully that wasn't too stern.

Keep swingin' that dick about, buddy, I'm sure one day it'll be long enough to hit something. Maybe even the goal posts you shifted.

A legal academic? So you teach law at a university or am I mistaken?

I've disclosed quite enough about what I do, thanks. I offer even that much only as a courtesy.

Now, the crux of the logical anarchist position that ACAB/Some Cops Are Okay (individually) But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard, is basically this:
1. The State is a system(s) of oppression;
2. The police enforce the will of the State by force;
3. This is a Bastardly Act;
4. Therefore, all police engage in Bastardly Acts; and
5. Only a Bastard does a Bastardly Act;
6. Therefore, All Cops Are Bastards.

This, of course, is a flippant version - but it's an accurate thumbnail of the logical argument in anarchist theory that ACAB. Cops, by engaging in the systematic perpetuation of the unjust and inequal power structures that form the State, are bastards. All cops do this, and therefore, all cops are bastard. This operates regardless of the personal views or morality of a given cop - they may be the most lovely, wonderful human (indeed, I know several who are), but they nonetheless enforce the State's will and perpetuate the unjust and inequal power structures it consists of, and this act is sufficient to transform them, as a Cop, into a Bastard. And so, ACAB/SCAOBTASTSWIB, which isn't as catchy or easy to spraypaint. We might of course try and argue that it isn't a bastardly act to enforce the State's will or that the State is not a system(s) of oppression, but that is quite another matter (and a common sticking point between Anarchists and Communists, naturally).

The distinction between a cop and an ordinary worker is that cops choose to enforce the State's will by force on others. They are thus not merely subjects of the State but voluntary willing enforcers of an oppressive system, charged and empowered to visit violence of various kinds (whether directly with their own violence or indirectly as part of a broader systemic mechanism of state enforcement and oppression) on others. They are not directly accountable to the population, they form insiduous power cliques that protect their own from discipline, and they operate in the interests of capitalists and bureaucrats rather than the ordinary person in their enforcement of most forms of law.

This differs from non-police, who do not in fact have the freedom to choose whether they are participants in the system and are systematically disempowered of the right to utilize violence and force. You cannot simply go 'well, I think I'm done paying taxes now' or 'I think I'm going to live in this public park' or even 'I want to run away and live in the woods' without the State desiring to pursue you and inflict some form of violence upon you, whether in real or hypothetical terms. Accordingly for subjects of the State merely engaging in the necessary actions of survival under it do not constitute a Bastardly Act. But you can decide to be the guy who puts those who don't want to be part of the state's system in jail, who'll crack heads for the corporations and the bureaucrats, who'll visit the system's inherent cruelty on others. For this reason, the Cop is a Bastard, because they have taken the coin of the masters to oppress the rest on their behalf. How could a cop be anything but?

I won't bother with the rest at this point - including the placement of trust within ACAB sentiment - as I need to sleep, but as you can see, it's a really simple model - if you'd just justified your epistemic goal shift rather than puffing your chest up in a show of bravado when questioned we'd have got here long ago and I wouldn't need to cut this short and revisit the rest later.

[K. A. Pital]

One can argue that in a system of direct democracy the subjects of the State are responsible (indeed, even in representative democratic systems to an extent), because they are willing to inflict state violence on others. Whether it is directly voting for immigration restrictions and detention camps or voting for a candidate (Trump?) who implements such acts, or voting for a candidate who supports extrajudicial violence against indigenous people and their forced dispossession and removal, up to genocide (Bolsonaro? Duterte?)...

Ie such questions are legitimate, these might also be bastardly acts. But the form of this defense is that of a „you too“. In society not every subject of the state would support the will of the state, and some will sabotage, passively or actively resist. So „every“ cannot be applied to generic people.

But can one say All Trump Voters Are Bastards? Based on the political acts of the government, one may effectively advance such an argument.

It does not exculpate the others accused of such acts, however.

[Gandalf]

Since loomer and K A Pital have got this in hand, I'm ducking out to prevent duplication of efforts. Though I'd like to answer this part.

By the way...will both you and Gandalf tell me your careers so I can declare this a "insert your career" thing. Serious question. Are you like this because you personally had a bad experience with the police?

I can't legally go into the career thing online, but I'll answer this part because it's relevant. I've spent my life as an Indigenous Australian, and had the requisite police attention that goes with it. When I was younger I thought it was just police being helpful, but time (and time spent in nicer white people areas) showed that not to be the case. Then I started working in Indigenous community services, as a tutor, and seeing the effect that said police were having on other young cousins, while our elders could only do so much to help. Since the majority of society doesn't care too much, abuses can continue with ease. That's one of the ACAB attitutes permeate here, and similarly throughout the world.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I've disclosed quite enough about what I do, thanks. I offer even that much only as a courtesy.

Understood.

Now, the crux of the logical anarchist position that ACAB/Some Cops Are Okay (individually) But They All Serve The State, Which Is a Bastard, is basically this:
1. The State is a system(s) of oppression;
2. The police enforce the will of the State by force;
3. This is a Bastardly Act;
4. Therefore, all police engage in Bastardly Acts; and
5. Only a Bastard does a Bastardly Act;
6. Therefore, All Cops Are Bastards.

This, of course, is a flippant version - but it's an accurate thumbnail of the logical argument in anarchist theory that ACAB. Cops, by engaging in the systematic perpetuation of the unjust and inequal power structures that form the State, are bastards. All cops do this, and therefore, all cops are bastard. This operates regardless of the personal views or morality of a given cop - they may be the most lovely, wonderful human (indeed, I know several who are), but they nonetheless enforce the State's will and perpetuate the unjust and inequal power structures it consists of, and this act is sufficient to transform them, as a Cop, into a Bastard. And so, ACAB/SCAOBTASTSWIB, which isn't as catchy or easy to spraypaint. We might of course try and argue that it isn't a bastardly act to enforce the State's will or that the State is not a system(s) of oppression, but that is quite another matter (and a common sticking point between Anarchists and Communists, naturally).

The distinction between a cop and an ordinary worker is that cops choose to enforce the State's will by force on others. They are thus not merely subjects of the State but voluntary willing enforcers of an oppressive system, charged and empowered to visit violence of various kinds (whether directly with their own violence or indirectly as part of a broader systemic mechanism of state enforcement and oppression) on others. They are not directly accountable to the population, they form insiduous power cliques that protect their own from discipline, and they operate in the interests of capitalists and bureaucrats rather than the ordinary person in their enforcement of most forms of law.

This differs from non-police, who do not in fact have the freedom to choose whether they are participants in the system and are systematically disempowered of the right to utilize violence and force. You cannot simply go 'well, I think I'm done paying taxes now' or 'I think I'm going to live in this public park' or even 'I want to run away and live in the woods' without the State desiring to pursue you and inflict some form of violence upon you, whether in real or hypothetical terms. Accordingly for subjects of the State merely engaging in the necessary actions of survival under it do not constitute a Bastardly Act. But you can decide to be the guy who puts those who don't want to be part of the state's system in jail, who'll crack heads for the corporations and the bureaucrats, who'll visit the system's inherent cruelty on others. For this reason, the Cop is a Bastard, because they have taken the coin of the masters to oppress the rest on their behalf. How could a cop be anything but?

I have to say this was very well written. Thank you. That logically bridges the gap and answers my question.

Though I wonder, and maybe you know, but does any such system exist in which all the enforced laws are just and by that extension are there any police in the entire world that aren't "bastards". There is also the fact that there is a real legitimate need for police even though unjust laws exist crimes still happen and because of this is it actually realistic to make an absolute declaration of an entire group of people where there is a valid public need for their service?

Another way to think about this is an environmentalist that thinks all people that work in the utilities industry are bastards because they work in an industry that pollutes the environment but the people still need electricity and thus the valid need for it exists.

So, if people took the road desired by these groups and chose not to seek employment then we would have no police to investigate legitimate crimes or respond to matters that endanger the public or we would have no electricity because people chose not to work for a polluting industry.

My point, if you're still following, is I don't think this is an realistic position to hold because a society will demand to have police. Just like it will demand to have utilities even when those utilities pollute. The people that chose to work as police officers do so because the public demands it and those officers are sworn to uphold the law and it is the people that elect those law makers that enact those laws.

I won't bother with the rest at this point - including the placement of trust within ACAB sentiment - as I need to sleep, but as you can see, it's a really simple model - if you'd just justified your epistemic goal shift rather than puffing your chest up in a show of bravado when questioned we'd have got here long ago and I wouldn't need to cut this short and revisit the rest later.

I don't think it is necessary to discuss trust with the ACAB sentiment though by all means please discuss it if you have something to say. I'm not trying to imply that trust is insignificant though. It just seems like to me trust simply isn't realistic because even without the abuses, lack of accountability, etc the police still enforce the state system and unless that system is totally just then all cops will be bastards.

Good question about responsibility. I have no personal beef with the police officer who opens a criminal case on me. A baseless case, one founded purely on the deficiencies of the penal code, and the ability of spiteful people to use the penal code to their ends. He is just doing his job and it is nothing personal, and I have no personal antagonism, yes.

But do you think I would support individuals working within such a system?

No, I wouldn't.

I mean, if you accede to the idea social relations are voluntary and in a way I support the police by supporting the government and not running away into the Amazon to live „off the grid“ - by the way, one can ask the indigenous people about how‘s that working out for them, with logger death squads and forest fires - if one accepts this, then yes, those who support the functioning of the government and do not actively resist or work for improvement are also guilty. But not all people accept that this social contract of sorts is voluntary. For many (indigenous, for example) it isn’t voluntary and never was, they were forced into an alien society and onto the lowest rung, nothing less.

I concede that comparing people to surviving within the system to outright enforcing it are two different things. However, I don't think the expectation that that necessary public service should not be filled until all the wrongs are righted is realistic and in my opinon because it isn't realistic one should be cautious about absolute declarations.

How many cops argue for reforming the penal code, I wonder, and create organizations to that end? Do any?

https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/

These groups do exist but admittedly they are in the minority. Self deception is a powerful psychological process. Many cops sign up to help their communities and to consider that they are harming it is just too much for some to contemplate.

I can't legally go into the career thing online, but I'll answer this part because it's relevant. I've spent my life as an Indigenous Australian, and had the requisite police attention that goes with it. When I was younger I thought it was just police being helpful, but time (and time spent in nicer white people areas) showed that not to be the case. Then I started working in Indigenous community services, as a tutor, and seeing the effect that said police were having on other young cousins, while our elders could only do so much to help. Since the majority of society doesn't care too much, abuses can continue with ease. That's one of the ACAB attitutes permeate here, and similarly throughout the world.

Thank you for sharing. Are things like social media and video being used as a tool for change over there like in the US?

[Gandalf]

Thank you for sharing. Are things like social media and video being used as a tool for change over there like in the US?

People (try to) film police abuses, if that's what you mean. But we've got some archaic practices around filming police, so whipping out a camera doesn't always go well. Also, the worst of Australia's Indigenous abuses tend to happen in custody, where social media isn't going to help.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That makes sense coming from you and anyone else with your political position. However, not all ACAB people belong to your political group so that leaves us with the enforcing of laws that they view are unjust which logically makes sense to have that position. Does a country exist with laws and enforcement that you view as 100% just?

Ultimately, this becomes a question is who is the real bastard. The cop? The law maker? Or the citizen that voted for said law maker? Or the country as a whole for producing a population that would vote in enough numbers to elect said law maker. This might be a case of anger once again directed at the lowest man on the poll which ultimately isn't very logical because those people are just trying to survive...like you and me. Think about who you work for?

As I mentioned, I don't actually hold the position that all cops are bastards. At the end of the day, to an anarchist, you're going to be a bastard no matter how benevolent the state is, because they view the state as inherently unjust and never mind the fact that our technological society would collapse without something that resembles something we might call a state.

In any case, my view is a bit more nuanced. The capitalist state as it exists is bastardly, but what it does is cynically use the good intentions of people inclined to become police officers to it's ends. Most police (not all*) officers don't go to become cops thinking to themselves "You know what I want to do with my life? I want to be an asshole to poor/brown people and trade unionists." No. Most of them are thinking "Hmm. I have a sense of civic duty and want to protect my neighbors." or "I spent four years as an MP keeping drunk PFCs in line and need a civilian job. I know! I can be a state-sanctioned adult in the room.". The god damn capitalists take that, and twist it. They want to protect their communities, but the system is unjust and doesn't actually protect people so they reduce the cognitive dissonance through rationalization. They find themselves in a group-culture that's doing the same thing (*that includes people who went in knowing exactly what they were doing, the white supremacists and fascists) who are nudging them along in how to rationalize it. They end up in fear-based training that ends up exacerbating their pre-existing implicit biases and the explicit biases the racists are priming them with... and down the rabbit hole we go to Blue Lives Matter and people displaying the Punisher logo as fascist iconography.

[MKSheppard]

Is anyone going to talk about the elephant in the room -- that namely more and more police departments are requiring an ever increasing amount of college credits to simply get hired?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is anyone going to talk about the elephant in the room -- that namely more and more police departments are requiring an ever increasing amount of college credits to simply get hired?

Is there a story on this that breaks down the numbers? My opinion might be unpopular but I think college is a good idea for officers wanting promotion. Policing is trade and for that trade you specific training and lots of it, especially now given all the demands. Right now the majority of police training is not long enough to adequate cover any one subject let alone the number they should be proficient in and a college degree won't bridge that gap.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As I mentioned, I don't actually hold the position that all cops are bastards. At the end of the day, to an anarchist, you're going to be a bastard no matter how benevolent the state is, because they view the state as inherently unjust and never mind the fact that our technological society would collapse without something that resembles something we might call a state.

I know you don't. I don't disagree with you about changing our system either. I just have concerns about the actual direction we will go.

In any case, my view is a bit more nuanced. The capitalist state as it exists is bastardly, but what it does is cynically use the good intentions of people inclined to become police officers to it's ends. Most police (not all*) officers don't go to become cops thinking to themselves "You know what I want to do with my life? I want to be an asshole to poor/brown people and trade unionists." No. Most of them are thinking "Hmm. I have a sense of civic duty and want to protect my neighbors." or "I spent four years as an MP keeping drunk PFCs in line and need a civilian job. I know! I can be a state-sanctioned adult in the room.". The god damn capitalists take that, and twist it. They want to protect their communities, but the system is unjust and doesn't actually protect people so they reduce the cognitive dissonance through rationalization. They find themselves in a group-culture that's doing the same thing (*that includes people who went in knowing exactly what they were doing, the white supremacists and fascists) who are nudging them along in how to rationalize it. They end up in fear-based training that ends up exacerbating their pre-existing implicit biases and the explicit biases the racists are priming them with... and down the rabbit hole we go to Blue Lives Matter and people displaying the Punisher logo as fascist iconography.

Well, I think it is more complicated than to say it doesn't protect people. It does but it also harms people as well. For example, when I haul an abusive husband off to jail, which gives the wife time to make arrangements to leave, then the system has protected that person. However, like you and I have discussed before there is the issue with what happens to people once they are in jail like if they get shipped off to fight dangerous wild fires. The system becomes harmful even if it is just abusive husbands.

Blue Lives Matter hijacking the Punisher logo pisses me off. I will admit that I own a Punisher t-shirt because I am a huge Marvel fan and I enjoy it for the same reasons as I enjoy watching John Wick get revenge for his killed dog or Django get revenge on white slavers. It's fun fiction but then those idiots go and adopt it like it is an appropriate symbol for any law enforcement, or their supporters, to have. Now you see t-shirts with the Punisher logo and the thin blue line flag and it's kinda gross.

EDIT - Not to mods. Sorry meant to edit this quicker so I did not double post.

[Darth Yan]

As I mentioned, I don't actually hold the position that all cops are bastards. At the end of the day, to an anarchist, you're going to be a bastard no matter how benevolent the state is, because they view the state as inherently unjust and never mind the fact that our technological society would collapse without something that resembles something we might call a state.

I know you don't. I don't disagree with you about changing our system either. I just have concerns about the actual direction we will go.

In any case, my view is a bit more nuanced. The capitalist state as it exists is bastardly, but what it does is cynically use the good intentions of people inclined to become police officers to it's ends. Most police (not all*) officers don't go to become cops thinking to themselves "You know what I want to do with my life? I want to be an asshole to poor/brown people and trade unionists." No. Most of them are thinking "Hmm. I have a sense of civic duty and want to protect my neighbors." or "I spent four years as an MP keeping drunk PFCs in line and need a civilian job. I know! I can be a state-sanctioned adult in the room.". The god damn capitalists take that, and twist it. They want to protect their communities, but the system is unjust and doesn't actually protect people so they reduce the cognitive dissonance through rationalization. They find themselves in a group-culture that's doing the same thing (*that includes people who went in knowing exactly what they were doing, the white supremacists and fascists) who are nudging them along in how to rationalize it. They end up in fear-based training that ends up exacerbating their pre-existing implicit biases and the explicit biases the racists are priming them with... and down the rabbit hole we go to Blue Lives Matter and people displaying the Punisher logo as fascist iconography.

Well, I think it is more complicated than to say it doesn't protect people. It does but it also harms people as well. For example, when I haul an abusive husband off to jail, which gives the wife time to make arrangements to leave, then the system has protected that person. However, like you and I have discussed before there is the issue with what happens to people once they are in jail like if they get shipped off to fight dangerous wild fires. The system becomes harmful even if it is just abusive husbands.

Blue Lives Matter hijacking the Punisher logo pisses me off. I will admit that I own a Punisher t-shirt because I am a huge Marvel fan and I enjoy it for the same reasons as I enjoy watching John Wick get revenge for his killed dog or Django get revenge on white slavers. It's fun fiction but then those idiots go and adopt it like it is an appropriate symbol for any law enforcement, or their supporters, to have. Now you see t-shirts with the Punisher logo and the thin blue line flag and it's kinda gross.

EDIT - Not to mods. Sorry meant to edit this quicker so I did not double post.

The problem is that a lot of police are actively opposing attempts to be held accountable. In Chicago the FOP is actively trying to protect dirty officers or rewrite history (back in the 70s - 90s Commander Jon Burgeons tortured a large amount of black inmates with charming methods such as electroshock to the balls, russian roulette, suffocating them with a typewriter bag or strapping them to a radiator. In one particularly disgusting case it's disturbingly likely that he and his men manufactured a confession in an arson case where 7 people died.....then when it turned out that their star witness was the one who likely set the fire Burge PURPOSEFULLY LET THE GUY GET AWAY WITH IT AND ACTIVELY COVERED FOR THE GUY because as one of the officers said "ain't nothing but ****ers died in that fire." Fortunately Burge was fired and the guy who was framed for arson successfully sued Burge. Because Burge lied on the deposition the feds were able to charge him with perjury, which resulted in the guy spending 4 years in prison and destroyed what little reputation he had left. But because the FOP doesn't want to acknowledge that Burge was a scumbag they're trying to imply that it's the fault of the EVUL LIBRUL MEDIA rather than admit that no he was just a monster who enjoyed hurting people.)

Obama was making SOME progress before trump rolled it back but if there is to be change than quite bluntly the feds may need to directly force the Unions to accept terms (i.e. if an officer is guilty you show their ass the door and strip them of their pension).

[loomer]

Though I wonder, and maybe you know, but does any such system exist in which all the enforced laws are just and by that extension are there any police in the entire world that aren't "bastards".

In reality, no - at least not outside of very small communes. In theory, this is what all ideologies seek, but few can articulate a form of or path to. Anarchistic frames require it as a baseline, though, but they also exclude police as we currently understand them.

There is also the fact that there is a real legitimate need for police even though unjust laws exist crimes still happen and because of this is it actually realistic to make an absolute declaration of an entire group of people where there is a valid public need for their service?

Another way to think about this is an environmentalist that thinks all people that work in the utilities industry are bastards because they work in an industry that pollutes the environment but the people still need electricity and thus the valid need for it exists.

So, if people took the road desired by these groups and chose not to seek employment then we would have no police to investigate legitimate crimes or respond to matters that endanger the public or we would have no electricity because people chose not to work for a polluting industry.

My point, if you're still following, is I don't think this is an realistic position to hold because a society will demand to have police. Just like it will demand to have utilities even when those utilities pollute. The people that chose to work as police officers do so because the public demands it and those officers are sworn to uphold the law and it is the people that elect those law makers that enact those laws.

This is where most anarchists will disagree with you. Most laws - and thus, police actions - serve only to protect and serve the State and its various unjust systems (e.g. castes, race, capitalism, and so on). Accordingly, most crimes are in fact only crimes because the conditions of living under the State are unjust, and if these circumstances were different, there would be no need for police.

To elaborate, to an anarchist there are usually three categories of crime:
1. Crimes of property
2. Mental illness related crimes
3. Crimes of passion.

Personally, I add a fourth category, which is 'transgression as rebellion' - think teenagers who break the law just to be edgy. It's not a crime of passion, it's not due to mental illness, and it isn't necessarily a crime of property.

All crimes of the first category basically vanish in the hypothetical anarchist endgame, because the necessary preconditions - the inequitable private distribution of wealth leading to social injustice - have ceased to be. Everyone's needs and desires are met, and therefore, there is no need for theft, for smuggling, and so on. There being a number of free associations to live in and move between easily, there is no particular need to import something barred from a particular association into another, and so on. These crimes, then, fade to the level of nuisance - petty individual theft of personal possessions. Such matters do not need a police force to deal with - the other proposed models, which I'll get to momentarily, are largely sufficient.

The second category is, likewise, meant to evaporate. This is a somewhat trickier position as it may still occur regardless, but the basic premise is this: Most crimes spawned by mental illness are a reaction to injustice putting pressure on vulnerable and fragile people, who react badly. In the anarchist endgame, these people are instead protected, helped, and treated - not criminalized. Accordingly, their deeds do not require a police force per se to deal with. This is one I'm uncomfortable with personally to a certain level, but I agree with most anarchist thinkers that the police are extremely poorly placed to prevent or deal with mental illness based crimes.

The third category cannot be eradicated, as humans suck. These are murders in a rage, rapes, assaults, etc - your standard crimes of passion. Policing does very little to actually deter crimes of passion, and can only address it after the fact in most cases. In this sense, police are not necessary to address crimes of passion, largely because, well, they can't. Now, you may be thinking 'but what about the times when I've stopped one?', which is valid, and is where we get into the tricky spot of anarchist self-policing.

Basically, anarchists (who don't reject all forms of communal government, anyway - some go that far) usually propose a body of volunteers who do much of what police currently do. They stop fights, respond to cries for help, gather evidence, and so on. The distinctions between these and the police as they are currently constituted usually (and with anarchism I'm afraid you can't really get more precise than 'usually', with a few exceptions like 'we don't like the state!', since if you ask a room of five anarchists how something should be set up you'll get seven answers) amount to the following:
1. This group is directly accountable to the collective, without an intermediary body;
2. This group is not specially empowered to use force except in the most serious circumstances;
3. This group does not participate in any other form of action - e.g. breaking strikes - and exists solely to prevent what few crimes remain in an anarchist association and gather evidence on those that have taken place.
There's sometimes 4, where the members of this group are held to the highest possible standard and, whenever found to do wrongs, are given the harshest punishments the association has collectively assented to. I maintain that one myself and feel that in every society, police and politicans should be exposed to the most severe scrutiny and treatment they would impose on others.

1 is especially important as a point of distinction, as this direct accountability - manifested usually in the requirement of total disclosure of anything not justifiably non-disclosed (e.g. 'who murdered Tim?' can still be met with 'we can't say just yet - it'd prevent us from taking the proper action') and the ability of the public to discharge, dismiss, and potentially penalize members of the self-policing body. This is a radical departure, and if modern police forces adopted such a policy even under capitalism, I suspect the ACAB position would become less drastic and less popular.

Now, such anarchist endgames also tend to focus on rehabilitative and restorative justice rather than punitive. This is where the evidence gathering role of the quasi-police enters in, but it has to be understood in the following context. These quasi-police exist to figure out why something went wrong and fix it - not just by handing a criminal to the courts, but by arguing that the conditions of life in so-and-so part of the association are unjust and need to be fixed; by identifying weakspots in mental healthcare; etc. In doing so, they interface with the collective and whatever legal experts exist (and any anarchist association worth its salt is full of them - anarchist endgames are, contrary to opinion, not lawless. Rather, they are communities of the utmost lawfulness - and so there must necessarily be experts in how and why this lawfulness is to be constructed within said communities. This is a point of some contention, however - many anarchists feel (wrongly) that lawyers of every stripe are just as bad as cops.) in order to remedy the situation, make good the harm that's been made, and prevent future harms. In this respect, they are not expected to enforce order, but to actually serve and protect - to be, essentially, proper police rather than the running dogs of the masters.

Basically, the service itself still exists but in a radically altered form. The drive to service is indeed admirable when it's genuine - I went into my field out of a similar one, a desire to see justice done in the world and peoples lives bettered - but the issue most anarchists take is that this drive is easily misplaced. It is very easy to feel that one is doing good when working within an awful system (it may even be true - even a lot of ACABbers will agree that the police do some good now and then) but this does not prevent the system being awful. If the system is so awful that it cannot be tolerated, then no matter how noble the subjective goals, they do not suffice to redeem complicity. I don't mean to Godwin, but I will point out that Nazis felt they were doing a great service of noble purpose as well - it is for this reason that we cannot rely on the idea that service to the extant system is, in itself, sufficiently good to ward off moral criticism and turpitude. I use them because they're a constant reference in this matter rather than for shock value - whether it's anarchists calling all statists fascists or natural law theorists accusing us positivists of being somehow helplessly unable to prevent the rise of the Nazis. People's subjective sense of morality and general desire to do good lead, naturally, to the conclusion that their deeds are - on the whole, if not in specific - moral even when they aren't. That same drive to do good and serve the people can, if not adequately directed and restricted, lead to the most horrific outcomes.

We might, if you like, modify ACAB to the following: All Cops Are Bastards, But In An Anarchist Utopia, Their Replacements Are Pretty Okay. Still not quite as catchy or easy to tattoo on your knuckles, though.

[Lonestar]

Is anyone going to talk about the elephant in the room -- that namely more and more police departments are requiring an ever increasing amount of college credits to simply get hired?

Oh no there's an education requirement now before you have the life of others in your hands as your job.

Worried that now you'll never be able to make it into the Montgomery Sheriff's department?

[Ralin]

Is anyone going to talk about the elephant in the room

Are we seriously not going to talk about how you drive-by posted about how according to someone on an unnamed other forum a murder victim who just testified against a cop

was shot up 2 years ago at a Dallas strip club over a drug deal dispute.

Last year he was suspected in a homicide involving one of the guys who allegedly shot him.

And now he’s dead."

So basically him being in the trial gave the guys from two years ago an idea where he lived, and they followed him to find out where he lived now... and once the police protection from being a witness in a controversial trial was over with, they made their move.

Without providing any source and ignoring it when asked to do so? Really?

[MKSheppard]

Without providing any source and ignoring it when asked to do so? Really?

Strip club information hit the wires about a day or so ago:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime ... 6898588010

WFAA has also learned that Brown was a victim of gun violence last year.

Last November, Brown was shot and another man was killed outside the Dallas Cabaret strip club on Walnut Ridge Street in Northwest Dallas.

Kendall Deshonn Morris has been indicted on charges of murder and aggravated assault in connection with the incident. He is currently out on bond.

The Dallas Morning News wrote a story on the incident last December.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2 ... nksgiving/

The DMN cited an arrest affidavit stating that Morris and another man were at the club celebrating a birthday and encountered Brown at the strip club.

The other man wanted to fight Brown and the two men fought in the street, the News reported. When Brown and his friends attempted to leave, Morris pulled a gun out of a car and handed it to another man, the story said.

Nicholas Shaq'uan Diggs was killed and Brown was hit in the foot.

In any case, it's academic now; DPD now has witnesses and suspects for the Brown killing and more detail:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/speci ... 6baf42cacd

Joshua Brown, a witness during the Amber Guyger murder trial, was killed in a drug deal
Brown was shot Friday night at his apartment complex on Cedar Springs Road. Officials say it was during a drug deal.
Author: Tanya Eiserer, Rebecca Lopez
Published: 12:10 PM CDT October 8, 2019
Updated: 1:25 PM CDT October 8, 2019
Updated at 1:23 p.m. with additional details from police.

Police are searching for two suspects in connection with the death of Joshua Brown, who testified at the trial of former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, officials say.

A third suspect is hospitalized and already in police custody.

Brown was shot during a drug deal Friday night at his apartment complex on Cedar Springs Road.

Michael Mitchell, 32, Thaddeous Charles Green, 22, and 20-year-old Jacquerious Mitchell traveled from Louisiana planning to buy marijuana from Brown.

The men got into a fight, and Brown shot Jacquerious Mitchell in the chest, police said. Green then shot Brown. Jacquerious Mitchell told police he heard two gunshots.

Jacquerious Mitchell remains hospitalized. The other two men have not been arrested yet, police said.

Each of the three men faces a capital murder charge, police said.

Investigators found 12 pounds of marijuana and about $4,000 in cash in Brown's apartment during a search, officials said.

And authorities have gone to two houses in Louisiana looking for the suspects, an official said.

Since news of Brown’s death broke publicly, rumors have been swirling about why he was gunned down. Many have said the Dallas Police Department was responsible for the man's slaying.

“I assure you that is simply not true,” Assistant Police Chief Avery Moore said of the rumors during a news conference Tuesday.

Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins tweeted that Brown was not shot in the “mouth or head,” contrary to what some activists were posting on social media.

Jenkins vowed the city and the county would "work to ensure a transparent and thorough investigation of the murder of Joshua Brown."

Brown was shot twice in the lower body, Moore said.

The man had been shot before in November 2018 during an altercation outside a Dallas nightclub. He was one of the targets of the attack, but another man was killed in that incident.

RELATED: Slain witness in Amber Guyger murder trial was prior victim of gun violence, sources say

Brown's death
Lee Merritt, an attorney representing the Jean family, tweeted Saturday that he had spoken with Brown’s mother and she was “devastated” by his death.

Merritt initially tweeted that Brown had been shot in the “mouth and chest.” He tweeted two hours later that where Brown was shot was in dispute and that he had heard from a witness that the wounds were to Brown’s “buttocks and side.”

Merritt also said Brown’s mother told him that Brown had “no known enemies.” He said Brown was ambushed as he was exiting his car at his apartment.

The shooting occurred around 10:35 p.m. at the Atera Apartments near the 4606 block of Cedar Springs Road, police said.

Police say when they arrived at the complex, they found a man in the parking lot with gunshot wounds. Brown was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

After Friday night’s shooting witnesses told police they heard several gunshots and saw a silver four-door sedan leaving the parking lot after the shooting. They were not able to provide a physical description of any possible suspects.

Prior shooting
Brown was a victim of gun violence last year.

Last November, Brown was shot and another man was killed outside the Dallas Cabaret strip club on Walnut Ridge Street in Northwest Dallas.

Kendall Deshonn Morris has been indicted on charges of murder and aggravated assault in connection with the incident. He is currently out on bond.

An arrest affidavit states that Morris and another man were at the club celebrating a birthday and encountered Brown at the strip club.

The other man wanted to fight Brown and the two men fought in the street. When Brown and his friends attempted to leave, Morris pulled a gun out of a car and handed it to another man, records show.

Nicholas Shaq'uan Diggs was killed and Brown was hit in the foot.

There is no indication that Brown’s death was connected to the prior shooting.

Brown was a witness in the murder trial of Amber Guyger, appearing on the stand on Sept. 24. He lived across the hall from Botham Jean.

The men met earlier in the day on Sept. 6, 2018, after an apartment manager knocked on Brown's door and told him about a noise complaint.

Later that night, Brown was returning home when he heard loud voices as he walked down the hall.

He said it sounded like "two people meeting each other by surprise" but couldn't make out what the voices were saying, but heard gunshots.

RELATED: Groups call for independent investigation into Joshua Brown murder case

Nervous to testify
Brown choked up on the witness stand and took a break after testifying about hearing Jean singing every morning across the hall.

On Sunday, Merritt acknowledged that the 2018 shooting made Brown nervous to testify.

“He was concerned that someone would try and come finish the job,” Merritt said.

Despite his reluctance to testify, Merritt said it was his plan to ask Brown to take the witness stand again.

“When we move forward with our civil trial, he was one of the first people we planned on calling,” Merritt said. “And now is no longer available.”

Speaking about the investigation into Brown's murder, Merritt said that "there is no link to law enforcement or to the trial directly, but it’s something worth looking into."

Merritt tweeted Tuesday morning that Brown left for California before the trial began to avoid testifying. He was threatened with jail time if he didn't return, Merritt said.

S. Lee Merritt, Esq.
@MeritLaw
The State knew Joshua Brown didn’t want to testify due to concerns for his safety. He flew to California when the trial began. They threatened him with jail if he didn’t return. He went straight from the airport to the court. Dallas County has a duty to protect him. They failed.

Embedded video
1,835
7:13 AM - Oct 8, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,389 people are talking about this
Dallas police ask anyone with information to contact Detective Jacob White at 214-671-3690 or via email at jacob.white@dallascityhall.com. Please refer to case No. 202433-2019.

Crime Stoppers is offering to pay up to $5,000 for information leading to an arrest. Crime Stoppers can be reached at 214-373-8477.

Nationally known civil rights activist Shaun King tweeted that a $100,000 reward is now being offered in Brown’s death.

So it looks like the early RUMINT I posted had some "phone game" stuff going on; "shot someone in chest" became "suspect in prior homicide" etc, or maybe that hasn't been released yet.