The American police state

[Neomega]

When people think police state, they think it has to have a gestapo or stasi, a national police to enforce laws. It doesn't. A police state is when everything is illegal, and those who oppose the police state are the only ones charged or arrested for these minor "crimes".

Arrested for feeding the homeless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQZjXDuGh6Y

Arrested for wearing a jacket with a "political message":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkA-rffPVaw

People talk about occupiers trespassing, but I happen to know many of these people actually have campers set up in the county right of way in front of their house, or plants, even political yard signs on pubic property in front of their house on the right of way, yet no charges are ever brought against them, because they are not challenging the police state in their actions.

In both of these videos, I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who have done the exact same "crime" and were never arrested. Why?

Who gave the orders for these arrests? The beat cops? No, the orders came from higher up, by people who were afraid of the message being brought.

It also must be noted, that an arrest for "crimes" like these often carry fines ranging from $300 - $3000 and legal fees, as well as community service and/or probation, in addition to the day or two spent in jail, as well as the money needed to get bailed out. Not that it matters, as even $1 is really to much to have to pay to a system for the crime of "trespass with intent to feed".

[Formaldehyde]

Arrested for merely documenting protests:

http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/f...ice_letter.pdf

May 3, 2012

Dear Attorney General Eric Holder:

The First Amendment has come under assault on the streets of America. Since the Occupy Wall
Street movement began, police have arrested dozens of journalists and activists simply for
attempting to document political protests in public spaces. While individual cases may not fall
under the Justice Department’s jurisdiction, the undersigned groups see this suppression of
speech as a national problem that deserves your full attention.

The alarming number of arrests is an unfortunate and unwarranted byproduct of otherwise
positive changes. A new type of activism is taking hold around the world and here in the U.S.:
People with smartphones, cameras and Internet connections have been empowered with the
means to report on public events. These developments have also created an urgent need for
organizations such as ours to defend this new breed of activists and journalists and protect their right to record.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of access to information are vital whether you’re a credentialed journalist, a protester or just a bystander with a camera. In the digital age, these freedoms mean that we all have the right to create and share information using all manner of devices and lawful means.

In this new environment, we must guard these rights and protect the networks that give so many the means to connect and voice their political beliefs. The First Amendment’s protections must extend to everyone.

The right to record is an essential component of our rights at a time when so many of those
witnessing public protests carry networked, camera-ready devices such as smartphones.
Continuous access to the open Internet and social media — over both wired and wireless
networks — is also essential.

We the undersigned call on authorities at the local, state and federal level to stop their assault on people attempting to document protests and other events unfolding in public spaces. We must protect everyone’s right to record.

Sincerely,

Access
American Civil Liberties Union
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Press
National Press Photographers Association
New America Foundation
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Reporters Without Borders
Witness

[luiz]

What you describe is a very old tactic of authoritarian regimes. Cuba does it all the time: everyone steals from their jobs, because the wages aren't enough to buy even food. But only political opponents are arrested for theft, so the regime can claim they are in jail for being common thiefs, not dissidents.

There's even a saying: "to our friends, everything. To our enemies, the law".

It's a bit scary that this selective application of justice is happening in the US, though.

[taillesskangaru]

Originally Posted by luiz

There's even a saying: "to our friends, everything. To our enemies, the law".

Sharp.

It's a bit scary that this selective application of justice is happening in the US, though.

When has it not been happening.

[AlpsStranger]

<snip>

Why the hell can't we delete posts anyhow?

[warpus]

Calling America a police state is over the top, but there are some worrying things going on in that ex-leader of the free world.

[Lord of Elves]

Originally Posted by warpus

Calling America a police state is over the top, but there are some worrying things going on in that ex-leader of the free world.

Based off its usage on the Internet, I gather the definition of police state is "Anywhere people I agree with are locked up"?

[Save_Ferris]

It's easy to complain, but how do we fix this? We need the police.

[woody60707]

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Arrested for merely documenting protests:

http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/f...ice_letter.pdf

TLDR ver: Plz stop! Or don't, we'll still vote for you!

[Formaldehyde]

Do you really expect the Republicans to stop the police from openly defying the First Amendment in such cases?

Do you support this activity?

[Neomega]

Originally Posted by warpus

Calling America a police state is over the top, but there are some worrying things going on in that ex-leader of the free world.

It's not a police state for those who obey. For those who defy, it is.

Who has the worlds #1 incarceration rate? The United States!

I listed two videos, from those videos, you can watch hundreds more of ridiculous arrests, such as arrested for selling lemonade and arrested for dancing.

When I was occupying, I was arrested for refusing to give my name. Others were arrested for "making protest signs" and "placing a mat on the street (the guy started to do yoga, Lt. Folette of the SPD had him arrested)" "having an illegal structure (a woman sat down with an umbrella)"

Not only did I see arrest, the police routinely would snatch up property and throw it away, (esp if it was people's signs) or take it to evidence (bookbags, backpacks, etc).

Who has the number one incarceration rate? The United States! But it's not a police state. No no no. Just the country with the number one incarceration rate, (and rising). Why? Because it's not Nazi Germany.

[Save_Ferris]

Jailing a lot of people does not make you a Police State.

Also, you somehow ignored my post asking what we could do to fix this.

[Neomega]

Originally Posted by Save_Ferris

Jailing a lot of people does not make you a Police State.

Ok, how about
1) cameras on every corner
2) Police have immunity from prosecution for things like shooting houses full of holes, killing people's dogs, tearing up houses for searches. And please do not tell me they can be sued, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, unless it is proved they violated the people's civil rights. If it was a mistake, the owner has no recourse!
3) Not only that, but how about that police are allowed to do such things?
4) "border checkpoints" that are 100 miles from the border, such as in the Gila mountains of Arizona that I had to go through.
5) the glorification of the militarization of police. Look at how news and television constantly glorifies the militarization of our police forces.
6) scanners that show your naked body to some random TSA agent, (just watch this technology spread beyond airports, and people will keep justifying it, "well dun' go to a football game if ya dun' wanna be scanned!" "dun' fly if ya dun' wana be scanned" "dun ride a bus, if ya dun wanna be scanned!")
7) the myth of "false arrest". People seem to think that if you are falsely arrested or imprisoned, you can sue. This is true, but it hardly ever works. Most of the time, you do not get squat, you hardly will ever even get an apology, much less any kind of monetary compensations. Some states, like Texas, now require compensation for false imprisonment... $10,000 a year. Yeah, how gracious.
8) civil asset forfeiture: the police can seize any amount of cash or property they deem fit if they believe it is connected to a crime, and seize it as evidence. Getting this property back can be difficult, and require hiring a lawyer, many times which will cost more than the property trying to be reclaimed. Int he meantime, the police may auction of the property , or use the cash, to help their department, including things like pay salaries and benefit packages.

Also, you somehow ignored my post asking what we could do to fix this.

For one, we could start prosecuting officers themselves for the crimes they do. It's a lot like the lynchings of the early 1900's - 1940's. There were "only" a dozen to a couple hundred a year. But the terrifying thing to black people was, there was never a conviction, or even charges pressed.

But i ignored your post, because it showed a complete lack of understanding of what a police state is, I mean seriously:

It's easy to complain, but how do we fix this? We need the police.

What do you mean, how do we fix it? There is no fixing it. Welcome to the police state. You don't get a say in the police state, you just do as you are told, or else.

[Bootstoots]

Is there any country where the police force doesn't treat protesters violently - tear gassing them, kettling them, arresting them on spurious charges, etc? It seems to me that the main difference between a "police state" and "not a police state", in terms of the response to protests, is how often the police actually kill protesters instead of just attacking them using nonlethal means - and even then, it's a difference of degree.

The astronomical incarceration rate of the USA, as well as the level of police violence relative to other developed countries (even after adjusting for differences in homicide rate), leads me to believe that the US has a higher level of "police state" behavior than most other countries in the developed world. Of course, there is a relatively high level of protection of free speech and some other civil liberties. This makes the analysis complicated enough that people on both sides of this issue can each emphasize correct statements about the behavior of US institutions to make their points.

[Traitorfish]

Gas anyone ever actually formulated a coherent theory of the police state? It's just that the definitions we usually encounter, including those here, seem largely rhetoric, so it's pretty hard to actually argue about them one way or the other.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by Neomega

Who has the worlds #1 incarceration rate? The United States!

True, you guys have private for-profit prisons and 25% of the world's prisoners behind bars.

That is pretty worrying for a country that was once hailed as the "leader of the free world", but it's not a reason to call it a police state.

Originally Posted by Neomega

I listed two videos, from those videos, you can watch hundreds more of ridiculous arrests, such as arrested for selling lemonade and arrested for dancing.

When I was occupying, I was arrested for refusing to give my name. Others were arrested for "making protest signs" and "placing a mat on the street (the guy started to do yoga, Lt. Folette of the SPD had him arrested)" "having an illegal structure (a woman sat down with an umbrella)"

Not only did I see arrest, the police routinely would snatch up property and throw it away, (esp if it was people's signs) or take it to evidence (bookbags, backpacks, etc).

Who has the number one incarceration rate? The United States! But it's not a police state. No no no. Just the country with the number one incarceration rate, (and rising). Why? Because it's not Nazi Germany.

Yeah, your cops have no oversight, so obviously they are going to be abusing their powers. It's unfortunate, but sorry, it's not a police state.

[Save_Ferris]

Originally Posted by Neomega

Ok, how about
1) cameras on every corner
2) Police have immunity from prosecution for things like shooting houses full of holes, killing people's dogs, tearing up houses for searches. And please do not tell me they can be sued, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, unless it is proved they violated the people's civil rights. If it was a mistake, the owner has no recourse!
3) Not only that, but how about that police are allowed to do such things?
4) "border checkpoints" that are 100 miles from the border, such as in the Gila mountains of Arizona that I had to go through.
5) the glorification of the militarization of police. Look at how news and television constantly glorifies the militarization of our police forces.
6) scanners that show your naked body to some random TSA agent, (just watch this technology spread beyond airports, and people will keep justifying it, "well dun' go to a football game if ya dun' wanna be scanned!" "dun' fly if ya dun' wana be scanned" "dun ride a bus, if ya dun wanna be scanned!")
7) the myth of "false arrest". People seem to think that if you are falsely arrested or imprisoned, you can sue. This is true, but it hardly ever works. Most of the time, you do not get squat, you hardly will ever even get an apology, much less any kind of monetary compensations. Some states, like Texas, now require compensation for false imprisonment... $10,000 a year. Yeah, how gracious.
8) civil asset forfeiture: the police can seize any amount of cash or property they deem fit if they believe it is connected to a crime, and seize it as evidence. Getting this property back can be difficult, and require hiring a lawyer, many times which will cost more than the property trying to be reclaimed. Int he meantime, the police may auction of the property , or use the cash, to help their department, including things like pay salaries and benefit packages.

1. The cameras are so cops can catch people running red lights.
2. Police rarely do this. These are just a few isolated incidents.
3. Probably because they need to do these searches and find whatever they can?
4. The border checkpoints are to catch illegal immigrants, which are common hundreds of miles from the border.
5. Glorifies? The media only talks about police pepper-spraying, killing innocent people, and falsely arresting others, and then applies it to every cop.
6. The TSA don't scan peoples bodies because they're perverts they do it because it's their goddam job. Airport security is a bit high, but that's because the police are doing everything they can.
7. So? If you're falsely arrested, you're not in jail. I don't see why you'd need more.
8. Australia, the UK, and Canada have these laws, I assume they're police states too? Besides, they can't take whatever they want; it needs to pass the standard of proof first.

Yes, your points made sense, and were even true to a degree, but it doesn't make the US a police state. Oh, and one more thing:

What do you mean, how do we fix it? There is no fixing it. Welcome to the police state. You don't get a say in the police state, you just do as you are told, or else.

Then why did you write about it? So that you appear to be a rebel and say that everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the government?

[Neomega]

Originally Posted by Save_Ferris

1. The cameras are so cops can catch people running red lights.
2. Police rarely do this. These are just a few isolated incidents.
3. Probably because they need to do these searches and find whatever they can?
4. The border checkpoints are to catch illegal immigrants, which are common hundreds of miles from the border.
5. Glorifies? The media only talks about police pepper-spraying, killing innocent people, and falsely arresting others, and then applies it to every cop.
6. The TSA don't scan peoples bodies because they're perverts they do it because it's their goddam job. Airport security is a bit high, but that's because the police are doing everything they can.
7. So? If you're falsely arrested, you're not in jail. I don't see why you'd need more.
8. Australia, the UK, and Canada have these laws, I assume they're police states too? Besides, they can't take whatever they want; it needs to pass the standard of proof first.

Yes, your points made sense, and were even true to a degree, but it doesn't make the US a police state. Oh, and one more thing:



Then why did you write about it? So that you appear to be a rebel and say that everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the government?

A police state apologist, ladies and gentlemen. Look at this list of justifications for injustice. It's pathetic.

Originally Posted by warpus

Yeah, your cops have no oversight, so obviously they are going to be abusing their powers. It's unfortunate, but sorry, it's not a police state.

because it's not Nazi Germany?

[Save_Ferris]

You can't have police state apologists without a police state, which no one thinks there is.

[Bootstoots]

Originally Posted by Neomega

because it's not Nazi Germany?

If I had to guess, it would actually be because it's not Communist Poland. Which is a fair point - if you compare the United States against 1980s Eastern Bloc regimes, or any other regime commonly thought of as authoritarian, freedom of expression is a lot better protected here.

Of course, our political system is designed in such a way that it doesn't really matter if dissidents are allowed to express their dissent. Even on issues where the majority of the population agrees in principle (e.g. that our healthcare system is deeply flawed and needs reform), the system is incapable of producing anything better that isn't designed as a subsidy towards the major corporations involved in the issue (in this case, health insurance companies). Even this reform may be struck down in the next few days.

Suppose there is a state that allows a relatively high degree of freedom of expression. This expression is essentially useless because the political system is deeply flawed in such a way that it produces a two-party system with no effective competition even when both parties are extremely unpopular. Certain interests within this system successfully arrange for aggressive military spending and the incarceration of a large proportion of the population. Very few of these prisoners are political; nearly all are there due to draconian sentencing on laws that nearly all countries have, particularly drug laws. The police are indeed quite brutal relative to other industrialized countries, but they also aren't easily bribed individually and they rarely harass political dissidents outside of major protests.

Is this a police state? If it is, it's a very sophisticated one that has learned not to bother political dissidents because it's more effective to structure the system so that they aren't a threat even if they aren't crushed. It can pride itself on its "freedom" for not doing this, even though it incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other country on the planet, "police states" included.

I would tend to call the US a police state, but it is hard to compare it to other widely-accepted examples of "police states" because it does have some significant elements of a free society.