1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why is almost everybody against more police ?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Mar 31, 2019.

  1. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,537
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem is when the police are corrupt and ARE the criminals themselves. Power corrupts, as they say.

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Court-Victims-can-t-make-a-federal-case-out-of-13704610.php

    We don't do that here, at least. We feed people into the prison system so companies can profit by chewing and spitting them out. It only exists to punish; rehabilitation is not a priority and many prisoners will find themselves there again.

    Of course, I like in a country that boasts one of the highest prison populations in the world.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,765
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I'm leaning toward an abolitionist position toward the police as they currently exist in the United States. We need to just tear that particular edifice down and rebuild it from the ground up. Fortunately there are lots of models for how the police could look in this country, e.g:

     
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,037
    How is permanently taking stuff in a case where the person isn't even charged, let alone found guilty, not "unreasonable"? WTF kind of standard is being used for "reasonable"? That's a joke, the kind "law enforcement" that actually encourages crime. If police steal stuff they need to be held accountable.
     
  4. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,537
    Gender:
    Male
    Feel free to fact check this, as I currently am, but as far as I can see, this seems to be a common issue and many are taking the fight against civil forfeiture laws. This seems to be really related to the war on drugs which really broadened the scope of what police can do. I always noted it to have a class and race aspect to it, however, as you can see, now this abuse can extend to anyone.

    But really. Imagine this is a game of Civ. My army force is 100, and yours is 10000. However, I have decided to place my trust in you that you will not invade me if I follow the terms of our agreement. If there are any violations, I will file a complaint to you in your courts.

    What do you think will happen?
     
  5. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,037
    The US deliberately (and ineffectively, apparently) set up a system to have checks and balances precisely so that one authority doesn't just dictate terms.

    Even beyond the laws themselves (and the war on drug nonsense), the court itself failed in this case. Taking people's stuff w/o basis is not "reasonable". It's theft. If we hold that theft is not reasonable/legal, the police behavior in that context was not reasonable.

    It's disappointing when forum posters use incoherent standards for defining "reasonable", to the point where they can't be self-consistent. When it's court rulings using incoherent standards, it's scary.
     
  6. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,537
    Gender:
    Male
    Well Trump didn't declare himself God Emperor yet so something must be working.

    As for the rest, well it ceases to be humorous when people can play god to a degree.
     
  7. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,765
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Can you point to an example of a real-world application of what you call "consistent" or "coherent" standards?
     
  8. Berzerker

    Berzerker Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,067
    Location:
    the golf course
    they had a drug war back then too
     
  9. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,037
    • Every time a soccer ball crosses the line inside a goal a point is awarded.
    • The data captured/conclusion may or may not be useful, but confidence intervals themselves have consistent meaning.
    • Last year Steam declared a policy where they would not censor games so long as they were legal. It turns out they were lying, but it was a coherent standard when stated.
    • Reference ranges for standard lab tests in medicine (if someone is significantly outside these ranges, you want to know why and probably address it).
    • Drivers are expected to stop at stop signs regardless of the presence of other traffic.

    Whether all these standards are met or not is irrelevant. They are not self-inconsistent. I assert that the police/courts could not come up with standards for "reasonable" that would properly anticipate in advance that theft is okay when practiced by police but not in general as "reasonable".

    I make a similar case when someone attempts to call something an "exploit" in a game despite that their own stated criteria implies that their own gameplay is routinely exploitative, to which they arbitrarily don't object while objecting to the "exploit". A similar common misconception happens with "historical accuracy", as pretend "immersion historians" seem to have a preference for events w/o causes, despite that nobody has managed to provide evidence of events w/o causes at macro scales a single time in history.

    As I said, on forum arguments this is annoying. When it lets people *legally* (?) seize huge dollar values in assets without recourse it's less annoying and more scary.
     
  10. inthesomeday

    inthesomeday Immortan

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,798
    Make America 1491 again
     
  11. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,037
    I'm not sure we have solid data on pre-Columbian disease rates. Columbus wasn't the first exposure NA had to Europeans for certain, which might move the needle further back when it comes to "at what point in history was this population most utterly crippled by widespread disease". Portugal/Spain and later England/to a much lesser degree France accelerated this further for sure, but 1491 still might be a comparatively poor choice.

    I also don't think conduct with Aztecs vs Inca should be thought of similarly (Spain was significantly more dishonest with Inca and caught them at a bad time, if not for both of those things Inca probably doesn't get conquered...LOTs of locals hated the Aztecs), though that's a bit tangential to this thread. In NA there was a mix of bad faith interactions, disease washing over the continent, and later straight up dishonesty by the US government.
     
  12. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,765
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Except when they're invalidated. This isn't super-frequent but it does happen regularly.

    Do not know enough about this technical domain to comment.

    So, not actually a real-world example of a coherent standard.

    Again, not competent in this technical domain.

    Yeah, but there are exceptions to this too e.g. emergency vehicles.
     
  13. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,391
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    If someone learned about civil asset forfeiture, this thread has done its job.

    The US is not really as big on property rights as it seems. In the usual disproportionate-by-race-and-class way, of course, but it can actually happen to anyone. Property can be seized on mere suspicion of a drug crime, and it usually costs more than the property is worth to get it back. The proceeds mostly go directly to the police who did the seizure. We can all see the problem.

    I actually realized that this question is a test of how free your society is. If it's so hard to imagine why people don't want more police that you have to ask about it, you live in a really damn free country. Or you're upper-class enough to be almost above the law, of course, but I doubt that's the case here.
     
  14. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,037
    Even these rare events have written rules that must be followed in order for the invalidation to be appropriate. Has a goal ever been invalidated w/o an established basis in the rules? I'd expect this would result in a riot in some cities.

    Having standards does not imply the standards are met.

    Again, these are defined as part of the standard (law in this case). If you pick up a book on relevant laws you will see both when you're expected to stop and when there are exceptions. Same for soccer.

    What would make these rules inconsistent? Let's say for soccer you'd say it only counts for a goal if the goalie felt a goal was reasonable based on the play that led to it. Or in the case of stop signs, either selectively enforce them or have them arbitrarily not require stopping sometimes, making no effort to clearly define when not stopping is okay.

    My complaint is per the above "reasonable" is not defined with the same degree of rigor/thoroughness that we have for traffic law and...a sports entertainment event. As a direct result of that and making no effort to offset it, the court made a ruling that is necessarily arbitrary. Presumably, if there were some *special* reason seizing > 100k was "reasonable" in this particular case comparable to a goal invalidation the courts would have stated that reason as basis for the decision. That didn't happen from what I read.

    Searching this suggests it's much worse than I imagined. Wow. Even the 9-0 recent supreme court ruling in Feb. 2019 still leaves sobering implications. And they're implicating this weakly under "excessive fines".

    Fines for what exactly, in the case of someone who isn't even charged? Police are alleging the seized property was "used to commit a crime". What crime, if you have nobody charged, let alone convicted?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
    Berzerker and Bootstoots like this.
  15. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,084
    A relevant Supreme Court case, I think:

    The New York Times, 20 Feb 2019 - "Supreme Court limits police powers to seize private property"

    A couple of years ago, another case was sent back to the lower court due to a technical issue (the petitioner tried to "jump the line" and go straight to the Supreme Court without first appealing to the relevant Circuit Court), but Justice Thomas wrote an interesting paper on the subject of civil asset forfeiture.
    I include the notations here for the enlightening parenthetical notes.
    Does it speak to the scope of the problem that one of the Supreme Court's noted conservatives took the opportunity to write on the subject, even as he sent the case back to the lower court? I think so.
     
  16. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,391
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Yeah, it's an obvious and flagrant property-rights violation. I'm not surprised Thomas would be really skeptical. It's heartening to know that some SC conservatives do stick to actual principles, rather than simply siding with tough-on-crime types.

    Must-see John Oliver show on civil asset forfeiture:

    Spoiler contains potty words :
     
    Berzerker likes this.
  17. Hrothbern

    Hrothbern Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,986
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    yes
    Word for word true for my country as well.

    The special "wijkagenten" the neighborhood police sergeants we have, are seen by the people as part of their neighborhood and as their (entry to) help in their own neighborhood. It is both frustrating as rewarding work.
    They function between the tribal police department culture and the community-social care civil society. Not a spy but a confidant and counselor, with usually the rank of Brigadier (police sergeant, 4 ranks below that rank in NL) and more freedom than line police sergeants. We have roughly 10 neighborhood police sergeants per average municipality (10 per 50,000 people)

    The other thing now being prepared for testing is bringing judges to the neighborhoods.
    This will help those neighborhood police sergeants, help to get care civil society professionals better directed, and creates pressure upward for more money.

    Not the judge in a (ivory tower) courthouse, with lawyers etc... but the (mobile) judge behind a table in the local community centre, and going to the location of the issue when needed..
    Not for big crimes, but for the multitude of small issues that normally come to nothing and often fester. The treshold to entry as low as possible, the care civil society professionals available.
    Aimed at closing the gap between people and institutions that are more theory for them than working available.

    It is based on the success of a TV program, the mobile judge, for typical domestic quarrels. That program intended as a mixture of educational and reality "show". But the verdicts were official, however informal it happened. Incl house visits for the inevitable "too much noise", the tree of the neighbor, the fence between gardens, the leaking common roof, etc, etc.
    Educational because the judge explained his considerations and his final reasoning in layman's terms. People talked a lot about it. No theological discussion, but common wisdom.
    If I look at the faces of the people involved, often very entrenched in their quarrels, I find it remarkable how much acceptance there is for the judgments.
     
  18. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,765
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    @Hrothbern in the US we have a history, decades-long, of very clearly and deliberately refusing to invest in society and instead investing in an apparatus of coercive social control. No money for a jobs program (employing the unemployed would ruin the economy!) but plenty of money for jails and for the police to buy military surplus weapons.

    This, in a nutshell, is why we Americans don't like the police. Most of us have grown up in the shadow of this campaign. I am a privileged upper-middle-class white boy and I've been beaten by the police, arrested for trivial reasons, and so on. They are not our friends.
     
    Archon_Wing likes this.
  19. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,537
    Gender:
    Male
    The police are here to protect the interests of elites and to punish people that go against it. If doing so protects you, that's cool. If it doesn't, well too bad.

    I mean: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

    They're not here to help you; only punish you:



    A certain person once brought up to me that while even the military has occasionally sided with the people in a revolution, one would be hard pressed to find a case where the police ever sided with the people. At this point, things started to make sense.

    I don't want anyone to hate individuals for being in the police and no doubt there are good police officers. But the institution in and of itself is another thing.
     
  20. Hrothbern

    Hrothbern Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,986
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    I understand that for the US as of now
    Sounds to me as effective as the trench wars in WW1
    many casualties and no progress

    It is BTW no US forum here.
    It's for everybody.
     

Share This Page