Skip to main content

How much value you put on your dignity, on freedom, on human and constitutional rights?  Do you agree with this statement: There can't be a greater offense against a human being than someone putting their hands on them in aggression, regardless of who the aggressor is.

Let's push the envelope on that concept, for argument's sake... Let's said you're at your local City Council meeting during a public hearing and some policy of the myriad of policies designed to strip people off of their rights being systematically implemented across the entire country is being discussed, and your emotions get the better of you and you become disruptive and say something like "That is total bullshit!  The community is not going to accept it; we are going to stand against it."

Now, let's say that the outburst makes some people in the room very uncomfortable.  And you continue your "tirade" and utter a few other chosen words in anger... As you are finishing getting whatever you wanted to say off your chest, there comes the deputy or security personnel.

As they approach you, others in the room (many in fact) are actually hoping and waiting for you to be grabbed by your arms, manhandled, and removed from the room.  

Those dynamics right there, I argue, are the reason the increasingly fascist police forces around the country seem to be able to abuse people with total impunity.  It is because of the petty tyrants, system apologists, authoritarians among us that fascism is finding its footing.

Here's my point, again... Before any person sees it necessary to put their hands on another human being in aggression, first of all, there would have to be an extraordinary situation/reason such as an imminent physical threat, and second of all, all possible options (imaginable) should have been exhausted.

And this should apply to any person acting as possible aggressor, including--and especially--the police.

In other words, any person who puts their hands on you to restrain you or to search you, acting under the color of law, without clear probable cause, should not get the approval of one single citizen.  That act instead should be viewed as a major, major affront to human dignity, a grave violation of your constitutional rights, and something that't not going to be tolerated in any way shape or form.

The minute someone puts their hands on another person, under the color law, without proper justification, el pueblo should react with a collective gasp, in disapproval!

Also, within the context of the situation we find ourselves in today, where a tiny group of truly immoral sociopathic and sadistic wealthy individuals have basically captured the levers of (political) power through a system of legalized bribery, and are systematically exploiting and subjugating the citizenry, using a for profit corporate-controlled surveillance/intelligence apparatus and an increasingly brutal, militarized police forces, it is extremely important that we change the narrative of police forces as "heroes" to what they are actually becoming: increasingly fascistic corporate goons.

Now, before I proceed, let me make a distinction here (mainly for my system apologists' readers)... Am I saying that all police officers are corporate goons?  No. Am I saying that there are no cops protecting and serving their communities across the country? No.

What I'm saying is that insofar as the Corporate State cements its increasingly fascistic control (for the purpose of exploitation in the name of corporate profits) on the population, the rich fucks who are doing it are going to use the surveillance apparatus and the militarized police forces to do it.  As a reminder, think about how DHS coordinated with states' and cities' government officials to brutally suppress the Occupy Wall Street movement.

And speaking of the Occupy Wall Street movement, here's I saw it back in 2011, when I wrote the following diary: "Take your hands off me"

We should all, collectively conceptualize the notion that there is no graver offense when it comes to human interaction, than the act of putting your hands on another human being, in aggression.

No one has the right to commit assault and battery against another human being, especially if there is no immediate danger of grave bodily harm, or in self-defense.  And especially, when it comes to police forces, if they find it necessary to use force because of an extreme situation, they must not use unnecessary and excessive force.

Within this context, the surveillance state and the increasingly militarized police forces around the country are tools of oppression, and I argue that we should start viewing them as such.

As many readers know by now, today another outrage was committed by the corporate state: NYT: Court Blocks Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police

When I read about the euphemistically-called practice of "stop-and-frisk" I can't get my head around the idea of me walking, minding my own goddamned business, not doing anything illegal, and having some thuggish cop stop me and put his hands on me, and search my pockets, my briefcase/backpack/bag.

But again, what's even worst than that is that there is a huge number of average folks who actually applaud the practice; the petty tyrants among us.

When I read the comments of people who support the practice, I see that they argue that it is good because it has helped lower violent crime rates, and that since most killings happen in minority communities, it ultimately benefit minority men who are protected from being shot.

What an utter bullshit!  First of all, insofar as there is social dysfunction in many communities of color (I don't like to use that term, but it will do for now), the root causes are related to a systematic imposition of poverty and neglect at the behest of the ruling elite.  Defunding of the social safety net, defunding of education and public housing, institutionalized racism and discrimination.  All these things engender dysfunction, including crime.

So the solution for these fascists is, instead of relenting in their systemic oppression and increasing the flow of resources (housing, public education, jobs), they use these communities as experimental grounds for the imposition of a police state.

And they have the gall, the chutzpah, to say that it is good for them!

Within this context is that I fully understand those who once in a while say "Fuck the police."

And within this context is that I argue that it is time to stop the adulation of authority, of the police, of what has become a two-tired in-justice system.  It's time to rise up and fight back (in peaceful resistance) against the imposition of the police state.

 

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  After reading about the murder of Andy Lopez (43+ / 0-)

    The causes of police brutality have been on my mind too. I think there is truth in what you said in your diary. But at the core of police brutality is simple human cruelty. Remember that experiment where they took an average group of people, split them into factions, the guards and the prisoners, but they had to stop the experiment because the people became so sadistic and cruel. I don't know if I am remembering that experiment correctly, but it strikes me as correct: any group of people, given ultimate unrestrained control over others, insulated from reproach or consequence, can and will have some members who will become violent and cruel.

    So then we should not be surprised that when we do not enforce the rights of individuals to be free of unreasonable searches, unreasonable stops, basic human rights, and we do not punish or prosecute rogue violent officers but instead allow them to be protected, we end up with police officers doing exactly what we have seen lately: killing, because who will stop them?

    We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. --Anaïs Nin

    by CenPhx on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:36:53 AM PDT

  •  If you're professing to be fair minded.... (10+ / 0-)
    Now, before I proceed, let me make a distinction here (mainly for my system apologists' readers)... Am I saying that all police officers are corporate goons?  No. Am I saying that there are no cops protecting and serving their communities across the country? No.
    .....it's best not to throw an insult in along with the disclaimer.
  •  The elites have successfully used 9-11... (23+ / 0-)

    to ramp up existential fear in the population, insofar that collectively we more or less accept the brutality, the loss of civil liberties, and the intrusive surveillance as necessary to make us safe.

    But, it's all an illusion. All that stuff won't make us safe. In fact, it's that very stuff that makes us less safe.

    All the expensive SWAT training and latest technological weaponry employed by law enforcement has to be cost-effective. And since crime in America has been on a gradual decline for years -- justification for increased law enforcement spending must come from other ways -- We the People.

    The only way this will change is if we refuse to put up with it anymore. But first we need to get beyond the fear.

    Then we can demand an end to the police thuggery.

    'Cuz freedom can't protect itself ~~ EFF ~ EPIC ~ ACLU

    by markthshark on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:47:38 AM PDT

    •  I don't believe 'most' people (5+ / 0-)

      are afraid. I think they recognize that they have no meaningful power to do anything about the fear-mongerers. 100% of the people in a given town or small city might see SuperSWATs, mini-tanks, RoboCop gear, etc. as a ridiculous expenditure of tax revenues as well as a totally unnecessary militarization of their police 'public servants'. But if the city leaders get all that for free from Homeland Security plus some extra bucks (like a bribe) they can put into needful things everybody does want, they'll do it anyway and 'most' of the citizens won't loudly complain. Until they and their families become targets of the newly militarized police. By then it's too late.

      Fear serves a specific purpose for the authoritarians among us. But the truth is that fear is just a tool, their shock-device to be used against those they wish to rule. The rest of us just grumble and go about our own business. Nobody I know lives in fear of Middle Eastern cave-dwellers, Hispanics or black people in general, Asians, Europeans, Russians or Canadians, or whoever is being demonized today. It was clear from the amount of ridicule the color-coded "Terrorist Alert System" and TSA received even a dozen years ago that the public isn't nearly as terrified as our Powers That Be have tried so hard to make them.

  •  I don't, actually. (13+ / 0-)
    Do you agree with this statement: There can't be no greater offense against a human being than someone putting their hands on them in aggression, regardless of who the aggressor is.
    Even if you'd actually written it as 'There can be'.

    For instance, I think being shot is a greater offense, being pepper sprayed is a greater offense, etc.

    Simply having someone take you by the arm to escort you out of some place you're actively being aggressive yourself, is not that big an offense, in my books, because those around you can't tell if your violent words and raised voice are about to precede an act of greater violence.

    That's why there's such an emphasis on 'non-violent' protesting.  The idea is not to actually give the police any reason to believe you might be planning violence, so that if/when they themselves escalate into violence (pepper spray, batons, tear gas, whatever) it will be obvious that the fault was entirely with them.

    •  I took Ray's remark as referring to... (20+ / 0-)

      unwarranted aggression, not in self defense, but as an act of asserting unjustifiable authority over another. Such behavior must always be questioned and protested.

      American society really often gets this backwards, far too often siding with aggression of authority, when so often such authority is not really justified.

      As to protests, no matter how non-violent, the press usually sides with police, despite the fact that so often it is the police who are acting illegally and violently.

      How many protests have you attended? All it takes is someone who steps outside the boundaries set by police, such as from the sidewalk onto the street, to provoke a violent police attack. The police then report in the grave, serious tones of authority to the press that the crowd "became unruly" when it is nearly impossible to stay within the areas of demonstration as delineated by police.

      And what is non-violence? Is it violent to defend oneself from attack, to reflexively put up a hand to stop one's head from being beaten to a pulp?

      My partner, who grew up in a small Iowa university town, who never had any interaction with police until she joined the Occupy movement, had rather naive, trusting views of cops until during a peaceful Occupy protest, a line of riot[ing] police pushed her violently into the mud. As a person who sees good in everyone, including police, there are few who would be more peaceful and innocent and respectful than she is, but after that awful experience, where she witnessed comrades with broken noses, broken wrists, injured spines, seeing our friends of color singled out and violently dragged away, then dropped on cold hard concrete and left there face down and handcuffed, she completely changed her mind about the police.

      She now despises the symbol of the officer in uniform. Its a human response. She witnessed television media filming these injuries, and observed that in the evening news the police abuse was not even mentioned, despite having being there first hand to see the media filming interviews of injured persons. The media tends to side with authority whenever possible.

      Yes, she now says "f*** the police" without hesitation.

      No matter how peaceful we demonstrate, they will find a way to blame police violence on protestors.

      The police primarily serve as protectors of the exploitation of the wealthy class. That's their role, what they're paid to do. And this is why their behavior is often outside what can be defended as justifiable authority. There is no real authority inherent to people who rule over society due to the hegemony that comes with a monopoly over wealth and resources. They maintain their authority through force, manipulation, coercion, and when that fails, they bring out the police and resort to violence.

      The game is rigged.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:47:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh, yes: (21+ / 0-)
        No matter how peaceful we demonstrate, they will find a way to blame police violence on protestors.

        The police primarily serve as protectors of the exploitation of the wealthy class. That's their role, what they're paid to do. And this is why their behavior is often outside what can be defended as justifiable authority. There is no real authority inherent to people who rule over society due to the hegemony that comes with a monopoly over wealth and resources. They maintain their authority through force, manipulation, coercion, and when that fails, they bring out the police and resort to violence.

        The game is rigged.

        Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

        by Youffraita on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:56:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'll certainly grant most of what you wrote. (4+ / 0-)

        It was his first example and that sentence I felt didn't work well.  Different things appear 'justified' or 'unjustified' to different people, and maintaining the peace is one of the functions of any sort of security, whether police or mall cop.

        The crank at a meeting screaming is not a good example for what he and you want to say.  (And it's not done in 'self-defense', it's to move the person someplace where they won't have the attention and will hopefully de-escalate the aggression already being shown.  If cops were practicing self-defense, they would simply stay away from screaming cranks.)

        But again, much of the rest of the diary and your comment I can agree with.  I was merely pointing out what I saw as a weak point, not attempting to negate the entire diary.

      •  re: protectors of the exploitation of the wealthy (4+ / 0-)

        Regarding: "The police primarily serve as protectors of the exploitation of the wealthy class. That's their role, what they're paid to do."

        Theoretically, the police's job is to enforce the rules and laws of society and the rules of the society allow them the use of force to do so.   The problem is, as was mentioned in the diary, that certain classes have been writing and rewriting the laws to their benefit and the corruption is so complete throughout the system that the checks and balances, e.g. the Bill of Rights gets ignored, sometimes under the guide (buzzword) of  security.    How many times have you questioned some violation only to be told, "its for security"?  Hence we have things like 'free speech zones' where protestors are effectively quarantined, for security of course.

        I don't know if it is still possible to undo the damage and corruption by working within the system.  If it is possible do "we the people" have a mind to fix things?   I also wonder if there will be some spark that sets things off before the system could even have a chance to work.

        •  The justice system is so corrupt (5+ / 0-)

          that in my view people should think twice before reporting a person committing crimes to police, unless there is no alternative. The punishment and harsh treatment of "criminals" is a worse crime, often, than the offense itself.

          Long sentences, torture, corrupt police practices, the laws which require minimum sentences, taking reason and honest judgment out of the hands of judges, is a worse crime against humanity than the petty crimes being prosecuted.

          And the classism involved, and the racism, wherein the wealthy class is often held to a different standard, and people of color are singled out for worse treatment, all are indicators that justice is absent from the so-called justice system.

          Most crime is in the nature of theft, larceny, fraud, all involving property "rights". The police exist to serve mostly those with wealth and property.

          Imagine how much lower crime rates would be if poverty was abolished, if each person had the right to live, with guaranteed housing, enough to eat, decent income, work, free of debt slavery, free of economic coercion, with an equal voice in community self management. And psychological counseling/treatment, including treatment for drug and alcohol addiction, should be part of universal health care.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:19:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can't help but read your statements: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey338Too, serendipityisabitch
            people should think twice before reporting a person committing crimes to police, unless there is no alternative
            Most crime is in the nature of theft, larceny, fraud, all involving property "rights".
            As inferring that crimes like burglary, theft, fraud, etc are justifiable because it is just the "have not" trying to obtain their fair share.  In the realm of the impersonal, e.g. theft at a store, we all pay for said theft through higher prices.  We pay for it with dollars that are representative of our output and effort, in essence our very selves.  No, these crimes are not just against those with wealth and property.

            At the personal level, e.g. breaking into and stealing from ones home, vehicle, etc, the crime becomes more than just property.  It becomes a personal violation of ones sovereign space.  Often times these crimes take something that can't be easily returned, a base sense of safety and security, which in part is why there are laws like Castle Doctrine.  If someone wants to violate me in this way simply because they feel entitled to what I have earned and obtained, they should expect to forfeit their life because they are in essence trying to steal mine.

            You are correct, though, that if as society we would address the causes of poverty, much crime would disappear, but this does not justify the taking from another individual.

          •  If I saw a crime being committed against you... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            serendipityisabitch

            ... even if I knew you who are and what you wrote here, I would call the police and report it immediately - without giving the consequences to the criminal a second thought.  It has nothing to do with being an apologist and more to do with recognizing who the victim is, and understanding what a crime is.  If you saw a crime being committed against me, I hope that you wouldn't perform some kind of value judgment, comparing my perceived value to the criminal's perceived value in your mind, prior to calling the police.

            Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

            by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:42:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course you behave in the manner (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, Ray Pensador

              you describe. You, more or less, believe in authority without question.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:50:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I understand the difference between a... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                serendipityisabitch, Dopetron

                ... victim and a criminal.  I also know a number of people who have been victims (including myself) of all kinds of crimes (up to and including the murder of a loved one), and understand how they feel and the impact the crimes have had on them.

                You seem to have some innate ability to judge both the victim and perpetrator of a crime.  Maybe you can write one of your dissertations on how you have acquired this ability so that the entire community can gain from your gift.  While I wait, I will call the police if  I see a crime being committed, I will try to help the victim, and I will not - even for a moment - consider the feelings of the criminal.  It's not being an apologist, it's not blind belief in authority, it's being a member of a community.

                Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You exhibit the traits (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador, AoT

                  of an authoritarian personality. People who commit crimes are often victims themselves. They are victims of inequality, economic oppression, systemic poverty, racism, lack of being given personal empowerment by the system.

                  Give them what they deserve, and the crime rate will plummet.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:44:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  More mindreading... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    serendipityisabitch

                    ... yet you still haven't explained how you KNOW that a victim isn't worthy of your involvement in their situation.  If you can simply paint all perpetrators with the broad brush of being "victims of inequality, economic oppression, systemic poverty, racism, lack of being given personal empowerment by the system", what broad brush do your use to paint the actual victims of a crime?  We need to know this so that we can all become as enlightened as you.

                    Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                    by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:07:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The only explanation needed is why you keep (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ZhenRen

                      posting this nonsense.

                    •  And you haven't explained how you KNOW (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador, ZhenRen

                      that a criminal is so unvaluable that they deserve to go into the criminal justice system. Of course, your deference to authority means that you never make your own judgement on the value either way, instead you use the value judgments of authority.

                      •  If I see a crime being committed I don't ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ... think about it.  I go make sure the victim is OK (or not) and I call 911.  It's their job from that point forward.

                        Seriously AoT, are you really making value judgments about people who commit a crime in the moment?

                        Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                        by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:49:56 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You don't think about it, exactly (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ZhenRen, Ray Pensador

                          That's called unthinking deference to authority.

                          Seriously AoT, are you really making value judgments about people who commit a crime in the moment?
                          Yes, definitely. And so do you. You just always make the same value judgement based on what's been handed down to you from on high. Although I doubt even that's true. I'd bet there are plenty of crimes that you wouldn't just call the police.
                          •  Interesting phrasing... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... "unthinking deference to authority".  I guess I've never felt the inclination to be the judge and jury of another person when a victim is involved.  If there are mitigating circumstances for the reason the perpetrator committed the act, let them be know rather than inferred by casual observers.

                            Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                            by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:43:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And yet you are in fact judging (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador

                            Based on the standards handed to you from a racist system.

                            If there are mitigating circumstances for the reason the perpetrator committed the act, let them be know rather than inferred by casual observers.
                            Mitigating circumstances the court doesn't care about, of course. As long as you don't have to think I suppose.
                •  A criminal is declared a criminal by authority (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador, ZhenRen

                  That's how they become a criminal. And yes, when you say you'll always call an authority to deal with a problem you are deferring to authority, pretty much by definition.

            •  Calling the police is a value judgement (4+ / 0-)

              and the fact that you care not at all about some person because they happen to be a thief is appalling. Worship of the law is how we get brutal authoritarian societies.

              •  No, it's a TEST of values... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                serendipityisabitch

                ... do you value the victim or the perpetrator?  It has nothing to do with "worship of the law", it has to do with doing the right thing.  Have we now decided that criminals are victims and due process of any kind should be dispensed with?

                If your mother had her purse stolen while walking down a busy street and 10 people saw the crime occur - do you want the witnesses to say "Fuck it, the guy who stole the purse may be treated badly in the criminal justice system so let him have the purse"?  How about if it's your daughter or wife whose purse is stolen?  Are you going to tell the witnesses that they did the right thing by failing to get involved?  Are you going to tell your mother, daughter or wife that the witnesses did the right thing by not coming forward because the thief may wind up in jail?

                We need to fix the criminal justice system.  But that doesn't mean that we just ignore victims, or not do the right thing to help them.

                Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:46:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The lines between victim and perpetrator (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador, AoT, poco, DeadHead, CenPhx

                  are not as definite and clear as you represent them.

                  Many criminals are victims of social injustice. Many victims of crime are race and class privileged.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:48:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Absurd, prove it. (0+ / 0-)

                    Show me the studies that show that crimes against victims which merit police involvement are related to race and class privilege.

                    Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                    by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:16:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If I thought you would be influenced (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador, DeadHead, CenPhx

                      positively by my efforts, I would spend the time to find the links to studies. The systemic racism is well documented. And the relationship of economic status to crime is also well documented.

                      And the US has the harshest sentences among modern industrialized countries, and much higher incarceration rates, and still allows the death penalty, which most modern nations have abolished.

                      The justice system is a criminal organization, as far as I'm concerned.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:21:04 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Are you okay with criminals from the Wall Street (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ZhenRen, happymisanthropy, DeadHead

                  criminal racketeering cartel walking about free?  Does that offend you, especially when they've caused more deaths and mayhem than any two-bit criminal could do in a lifetime?  About with our war criminals walking about giving speeches?

                •  Which is a value judgement (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador, ZhenRen

                  You can claim that calling the police is an absolute good, but that doesn't make it not a value judgement. You can talk in circles around that all you want.

                  No, it's a TEST of values... (0+ / 0-)
                  ... do you value the victim or the perpetrator?
                  Exactly, you think that the perpetrator should be punished despite the fact that the perpetrator may be essentially tortured for property theft.

                  And no, I don't call the police, even when I'm the victim of a crime. Because I know how our corrupt justice system works and I know that more likely than not there will be a miscarriage of justice. I've personally seen it happen numerous times. Pretending like a stolen purse is something so horrible that I should ruin someone's life over it is brutal and horrible.

                  •  So where do you draw the line? (0+ / 0-)

                    How many stolen purses should a person be allowed steal before action is taken?

                    And again, what about the torture of the victim?  It's amazing to me that we all seem to hate bullies on this site and side with their victims unless something tangible is stolen from the victim.  Then the victim can go pound sand because the bully may have to go to jail or become involved with the criminal justice "system".

                    Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                    by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:32:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think the line should be drawn at ending (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dianna, ZhenRen

                      circular arguments.

                    •  Stealing a purse is torture? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador
                      It's amazing to me that we all seem to hate bullies on this site and side with their victims unless something tangible is stolen from the victim.  Then the victim can go pound sand because the bully may have to go to jail or become involved with the criminal justice "system".
                      Um, what? Where did I side with a "bully"? I said that the justice system is horrible and as such I don't think that it is ethical to send people into it. I'm not siding with bullies. Siding with the police is siding with bullies, that's what you are doing, not me. You are advocating for the violence of the police in every single situation where a crime has been committed. I think that's unethical.
                      •  Guys who steal purses are such nice guys... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        serendipityisabitch, Dopetron

                        ... and they should be allowed to ply their "trade" without recourse, right?  Heaven forbid we call in the "bullies" to try to prevent the nice guys from knocking 73 year old women to the ground in broad daylight to steal their purses.  

                        But hey, you must be right, none of the three witnesses called the police or offered assistance to the 73 year old woman - they went about their business and disappeared within a few minutes.  Their good deed for the day was done.

                        And those that have had their purses stolen should just "forget about it", or "man up", right?  They should simply live their lives like nothing happened, even though the victim may have to walk that block every day to get to the store or the bus.  Just forget about who could be hiding in the bushes or behind the parked cars, and go about their business every day as if nothing happened.  Because thinking about what happened to you, and being afraid to leave the house every day to go shopping mustn't be considered torture.

                        Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                        by Hey338Too on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:32:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  That was just brilliant, and true. I recommend (5+ / 0-)

            people read "Lust for Justice" about the life of activist lawyer Tony Serra to fully understand the reasoning on trying to do everything we can to protect vulnerable people from this unfair two-tiered justice system.

          •  What are the alternatives to reporting a crime? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey338Too, AoT

            What should somebody do if they witness a crime being committed?  Should they just look the other way?  

            •  I have often done just that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, AoT

              I've looked the other way when crimes were committed against me rather than condemn a person to the draconian misery of the judicial system.

              I actually don't think the deterrence is working as advertised. There are better ways to address these social issues than throwing people in private prisons. And the cost of the system is out of hand, and has been for decades.

              Americans have to grow up. This doesn't have to be frontier justice anymore.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:16:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's fine if you don't want to report a crime (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

                committed against yourself, but I think it's absurd to ignore a crime being committed against somebody else. Who does that benefit, except the person committing the crime? Are violent crimes worthy of being reported in your eyes?

                •  Okay, so pick up the phone and call the police (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ZhenRen, happymisanthropy

                  to demand that the biggest criminals in this country, including those from the Wall Street criminal racketeering cartel, who are responsible for more thievery, death and destruction than all low-level criminals put together (multiple times over) be arrested.

                •  Depends on the situation (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador, AoT

                  Sometimes a community (ordinary citizens) can handle crimes on their own, without the need for the excesses of the broken judicial system. The drunk neighbor might be better handled by his friends than the cops. The wayward kid, who burglarizes the neighborhood, could be more effectively handled by the neighborhood community than by calling police.

                  The system we have teaches people to withdraw from participation in dealing with social issues. Easier to call the cops and then forget about it.

                  But I will not turn over petty thieves to cops. The stereo system stolen does not justify putting that person into prison, virtually guaranteeing that the person will be even more hardened when s/he gets out. The treatment of criminal behavior is often worse than the offense, and detrimentally affects society as well as the individual perpetrator.

                  I will not support a broken system that I do not believe in.  A few material belongings matter far less than the life of a human being being flushed down the toilet of our corrupt judicial system.

                  Now, the banksters are another story. If only "justice" lived up to its name, and the wealthy class who condemn the rest of us to poverty and need were given the same treatment.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:05:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  In my opinion (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

                    The situation should be dependent on the harm being done to the victim.

                    •  What is the goal of that? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ZhenRen
                      •  The goal of what? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        Preventing harm to a fellow human being, perhaps?

                        •  How does being dependent on the harm (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ZhenRen

                          done to the victim prevent that?

                          It seems like focusing solely on the harm would mean ignoring preventative methods of harm abating.

                          •  When is it appropriate to look the other way? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT

                            Since you don't believe in the criminal justice system, how do you determine if a crime should be ignored or reported? My argument is that if certain crimes are to be ignored, then that decision should be based on the amount of harm being done to the victim. It's fine that you don't want the police involved, but sometimes contacting the authorities is the only option.
                            Earlier you said:

                            I said that the justice system is horrible and as such I don't think that it is ethical to send people into it.
                            Do you think it's unethical to send murderers and rapists into the justice system? If you witnessed a murder, would you refuse to testify because you don't believe in the criminal justice system?
                          •  I think that's a good way to look at it (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dopetron, ZhenRen

                            And I agree that contacting the authorities is sometimes the only option, especially given the current system we have.  I think that sending rapists into the justice system almost never results in justice, but it seems to be one of the few methods of accountability available and as such is necessary. Although that depends largely on what the victim wants. Having to go through the justice system in those cases can be worse for the victim than for the perpetrator. Although that's a whole other topic.

            •  Sometimes the answer to that question is: Yes. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, AoT

              Think about the theme of Les Misérables.

            •  Sometimes look the other way (3+ / 0-)

              Sometimes get involved and deescalate the situation. Learning non-violent conflict resolution is important and can remove the need for police or other forms of violent response in situations.

              •  Deescalation (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ray Pensador, AoT

                is often a highly effective approach. I found it interesting how occupy dealt with conflicts between members without calling in police using techniques of deescalation.

                I wrote a diary about this awhile back.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:29:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The system is broken; it needs to be shutdown (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, ZhenRen, CenPhx, happymisanthropy

          for repairs.

  •  Your title is an example of "false attribution of (5+ / 0-)

    agency." One man's adulation does not cause another man's assaultive behavior.
    That said, simple assault is considered a misdemeanor in the law, hardly punishable with a reprimand. Aggravated assault, which is a crime, involves visible and/or long-term damage and accounts for the fact that our troops in Iraq and Guantanamo were taught that "enhanced interrogation" techniques should leave no visible marks and the presence of medical personnel insured that they didn't.
    When the law rules, you see, it is not our friend. The rule of law is a harsh mistress.

    •  Well, Hannah, I will take issue with the (8+ / 0-)

      legal analysis in your comment.  Simple assault is the misdemeanor of threatening physical harm to another.  Battery is the misdemeanor of causing any unwanted touching of another person.  Even a tap on the shoulder in some circumstances is a battery.  A police officer putting his or her hands on a person except to effect a lawful arrest is a battery.  Aggravated battery is, as you described, a touching, such as a punch, a hit with a baton, or a kick that causes injury, but long term damage is not a prerequisite for the act to be a felony.  Then there is assault and battery with a deadly or dangerous weapon.  A shoe, a telephone handset and the like, when used to bludgeon someone are dangerous weapons, just as a knife or gun is.
           Ray is right, the slightest unwanted touch is a battery, and is a serious breach of the peace, and should never be tolerated.

      Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

      by StrayCat on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:47:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your right about the difference between assault (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, Hey338Too

        and battery, but a cop touching someone isn't battery if they're not effecting a lawful arrest.

        To me, that's the beauty of science: to know that you will never know everything, but you never stop wanting to.

        by JeremySchro on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:41:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it is, as any touching except stop (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          and frisk, a legal arrest if the reasonable suspicion is present, and not made up, or an arrest, upon warrant or probable cause is a battery.  Police have no privilege to touch a citizen without cause for arrest.

          Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

          by StrayCat on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:58:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No. An officer can use reasonable restraints on (0+ / 0-)

            individuals to prevent any possible escalation of hostilities. So if an officer perceives there is a possible confrontation they have the right to contact that person as long as its not unreasonable or done in a harmful way.

            To me, that's the beauty of science: to know that you will never know everything, but you never stop wanting to.

            by JeremySchro on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:04:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  However (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, AoT

              if a police officer frisks someone without reasonable suspicion, that is a criminal assault.  And if you're wrong 96% of the time, your suspicion is no better than a random guess can is inherently unreasonable.

              Politics means controlling the balance of economic and institutional power. Everything else is naming post offices.

              by happymisanthropy on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:54:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think we're having two different conversations. (0+ / 0-)

                I agree with your point about stop and frisk. I'm talking about a cop removing someone from a public meeting when they interrupt screaming expletives.  

                To me, that's the beauty of science: to know that you will never know everything, but you never stop wanting to.

                by JeremySchro on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:12:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The rule of "law" (4+ / 0-)

      is the rule of the rich, often disproportionately applied to all but the ruling class.

      The ruling class makes the rules. The rest of us follow them, usually having no voice in their creation, enforcement, nor in the judicial process which hands out extremely harsh sentences when we refuse to follow them, while the wealthy class are often held beyond the law.

      Ray was referring to the nature of the unjust act of aggression by one person upon another, and not to the degree of aggression, in my interpretation.

      I read this in the wee hours of the morning... I may have to reread, but that was my interpretation.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:39:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fascism is as Fascism Does (12+ / 0-)

    And it is peachy ok with me because I'm white and male and I would never, ever, ever do ANYTHING bad -- so what's the problem????

    Seriously folks, we are already lwell down the road of fascist oligarchy.  We are just too polite (and maybe too afraid?) to say it out loud.

    Labor was the first price paid for all things. It was not by money, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased. - Adam Smith

    by boatwright on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 04:49:48 AM PDT

  •  Police are ABOVE the law (14+ / 0-)

    The blue wall of silence mandates that police let other police engage in misconduct.

    In court, qualified immunity protects these brutal boys in blue.  The good ol' boy fraternity is strong.

    Sue them in Court and all factions of government will come to their aid.  

  •  The emotions of the authoritarian... (15+ / 0-)

    are wired differently.   Moyers & Company interviewed science writer Chris Mooney who is studying the differences with the liberal and the conservative minds.  Conservatives need authority (one of the reasons they run to God).   If you are disobedient then you should be put into your place.  He goes to an indepth analysis and says, among many things, that liberals put their selves into someone else's shoes and triy to have empathy, conservatives have different emotions like:

    And what really bothers them is somebody not getting what they deserve.

    If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

    by kharma on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:02:13 AM PDT

  •  on support for stop and frisk (8+ / 0-)

    An amNewYork - News 12 poll conducted in NYC October 15-19 gave respondents three choices:

    Which of these statements is closer to your view on the stop-and-frisk policy?

    Stop-and-frisk has made the city safer and should continue as is

    Stop-and-frisk should be modified and improved, but kept as a tool to keep the city safer

    Stop-and-frisk is a failed policy and should be abandoned altogether

    Majorities of white, black, and Latino respondents, majorities of registered Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and majorities in every borough chose the middle answer.

    As in other polls, this one found a racial/ethnic* gap, but not a radical one. For whites, the proportions were 26% "as is," 56% "modified," and 16% "abandoned"; for blacks, the corresponding proportions were 7%, 60%, and 33%; for Latinos, 14%, 66%, and 18%.

    * The actual wording is: "Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish-speaking background? [IF NO] What is your race -- white, black, Asian, or something else?" So, "whites" and "blacks" are those who didn't identify as Hispanic etc., and "Latinos" are those who did.

    I don't think poll results should be taken literally; this one partly shows people's predilection to give the "middle" answer. Respondents probably didn't share a common understanding of what the "stop-and-frisk policy" is; probably a lot of people would "modify" it in a way that would amount to abandoning it. At any rate, it seems that most New Yorkers are ambivalent.

    I lived in NYC for about 11 years. I would not expect that ambivalence to go away regardless of efforts to "change the narrative," and I don't think it should be confused with "misplaced adulation of the police."

    "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

    by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:04:22 AM PDT

    •  oops, forgot to add the link (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      The poll crosstab can be found here.

      "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

      by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:05:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is typical for people who reflexively find (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dianna, happymisanthropy

      every opportunity to apologize for and protect an utterly corrupt and brutal system, to try to spread hopelessness, to say that there's nothing that can be done, that changing the narrative is useless.

      Everything begins with changing the narrative!

      •  that makes no sense (4+ / 0-)

        If you're insinuating that I "reflexibly find every opportunity to apologize for and protect an utterly corrupt and brutal system, to try to spread hopelessness," well, of course I reject that smear. And if you aren't doing that, then it is difficult to understand the point of your comment at all. But setting that aside....

        to say that there's nothing that can be done, that changing the narrative is useless.
        Well, as far as I can see, nobody said either of those things. Maybe you could find better straw. The trouble is that (1) "misplaced adulation of the police" isn't the dominant narrative in New York City now and (2) I doubt that your "increasingly fascistic corporate goons" thing will catch on -- and insisting that that is the only conceivable way of creating positive change, if you were taken seriously, would probably do more to spread hopelessness than anything I've ever said.

        "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

        by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:29:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think you're partially correct (6+ / 0-)

      But I think that the support for the police, and by extension stop and frisk, comes from the valorization of police by every wing of power. They are always well meaning in general according to folks in power, be it the media or politicians, and every time a cop dies he is a hero regardless of what shitty things he or she may have done. That's the adulation I see as the problem, not that everyone adores the police.

  •  Two standards (9+ / 0-)

    Ever wonder why the murder of a cop is raised to a higher level than murder of a citizen.

    Are police that much better than a citizen, why the heightened standard.

    Also note, that virtually are civil rights crimes, i.e. crimes against constitutional rights, are committed by police.  The DOJ virtually never prosecutes police criminals under the criminal statutes 18 USC 241, 242

  •  Fascism -- All the pieces are falling into place (15+ / 0-)

    - A Stasi-like surviellence apparatus (actually Stasi on super steriods)
    - Stop and Frisk spreading to become law of the land
    - Police trained by military consultants
    - Police brutality ignored (ex. recall OWS in NYC, Oakland, etc.)
    - Citizen liberties dissolving -- what f*@king Constitution?
    - I could go on...

    Papers_please


    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle. 🍞 & 🎪

    by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:26:54 AM PDT

  •  School programs (8+ / 0-)

    like 'Red Ribbon Week' begin propagandizing children at an early age. It accustoms them to militarized schools and lifestyles. They promote an atmosphere of shame and shunning about substance abuse instead of getting to the root cause of such issues. They promote 'ratting' to 'help' their friends when instead it just fills juvenile detention facilities to the $$ benefit of those who run them .

    Television shows like COPS routinely start out with the officer talking about 'I was in the military and when I returned home this was a calling' and then proceed to treat citizens and suspects as 'insurgents'.

    "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

    by LieparDestin on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:17:54 AM PDT

  •  You paint vivid word pictures that match (8+ / 0-)

    what I see happening. Keep warning people. Maybe more will listen. When you write things like this

    ...a tiny group of truly immoral sociopathic and sadistic wealthy individuals have basically captured the levers of (political) power through a system of legalized bribery, and are systematically exploiting and subjugating the citizenry, using a for profit corporate-controlled surveillance/intelligence apparatus and an increasingly brutal, militarized police forces...,
    some call you a conspiracy theorist. I call you a realist. Noted scholar Juan Cole said much the same thing in 2008:http://www.juancole.com/...

    Reaganomics noun pl: blind faith that unregulated capitalism can provide unlimited goods and services, that government is bad and it can increase revenue by decreasng revenue. Synonyms: Friedmanomics. Antonyms: common sense. Related Words: Laffer curve

    by FrY10cK on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:21:11 AM PDT

  •  On TV all cops are heroes, (8+ / 0-)

    all doctors are geniuses, and the lawyers are always getting a conviction, not defending the accused.  People in poverty, particularly blacks and Latinos, are portrayed as seedy drug dealers, addicts, prostitutes and petty criminals.

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:38:35 AM PDT

  •  I would add that entirely the wrong people (5+ / 0-)

    become policemen too.

    “Never argue with someone whose livelihood depends on not being convinced.” ~ H.L. MENCKEN

    by shigeru on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:50:29 AM PDT

    •  There should be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilK, happymisanthropy

      a cool down period for military to become police. It does no good for Soldier to return home from a war-zone and immediately be hired onto a police department to 'protect and serve'. Soldiering and Policing are two totally different things and there needs to be a line drawn.

      "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

      by LieparDestin on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:16:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Despite the disclaimers, this paints with a broad (8+ / 0-)

    brush.

    I think if you look at historical trends, the police today are probably an improvement over a few decades ago, and, while there's definitely work to be done, not everything is "fascism."

    As to the Stop and frisk ruling, the actual decision was to stay the decision pending appeal, no judgments on the merits.  But even the district court judge didn't outlaw "Terry Stops," which is the situation of being stopped without breaking the law - all the police need in that instance is "reasonable suspicion."  The point of the S&F lawsuit was that minority males were systemtically disproportionately stopped to a degree that suggested a policy of racial profiling.  It was anti-Bloomberg and anti-Ray Kelly, but not, properly speaking, anti-police.

    I don't adulate the police, especially since i have experience representing victims of police brutality, but I respect them for the hours and risks they endure.  I'll see your system apologist and point out that your comments are exactly the type of navel gazing and intellectual absurdity that distracts from concrete, practical action, to whose benefit?  Not yours.

    You could write the same thing about soldiers, too.  Fwiw, I think the "clap for military" thing they do at airports and having soldiers sing at baseball games is maudlin and tacky, and not really consistent with the military's own ethos, but insofar as hating them is electoral poison, and as most are serving in good faith, I'd stay away from sweeping generalizations, about them or us.  

    I think the problem is not recognizing the service of others like teachers and social workers in equal measure.  Not grasping at whatever you grasp at each day to declare that America is fascist.  

    Meanwhile, I'm gearing up to help protect voting rights next week.  Believe it or not, when I've done that before, I've found the police very helpful in responding to issues of voter intimidation, and to the extent some in certain communities were not, that reflected the politics of the community, not their badge.  If you have a problem with a specific cop, call the ACLU or another lawyer.  If not, stop whining.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 06:59:58 AM PDT

    •  I think you are VERY wrong... (4+ / 0-)

      regarding the trajectory of fascism in this country.

      Your other points are well-made. Obviously, "hating" on the cops and military is, as you say, electoral poison.

      But then riddle me this...how in the HELL did the right get away with doing this regarding teachers and social workers?

      •  it's not always unidirectional (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch

        some forces move one way others, the other.  I think police conduct is better than it was in the heyday of the 80s crack crackdowns, but in other respects, yes, corporate power is getting worse.  I don't really get the connection between one and the other.

        I think the right gets away with demonizing teachers and social workers because they're women often as not.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:25:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No, they kill us because they can; they are (8+ / 0-)

    Agents to protect & serve the greedy rotten rich and lost white girls.

    They are agents of evil oppression, as long as the oppression is done to someone else especially POC since it keeps us in our place.

    FUCK the POLICE.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:01:16 AM PDT

  •  so let's take your example and extend it (3+ / 0-)

    to it's logical conclusion.

    So you're at this meeting and pissed off about whatever is being said and so you stand up and yell whatever it is you yell. But let's say someone disagrees with you and they stand up and yell. And then another and another and another. Eventually the meeting dissolves into a yelling and screaming match and nothing happens. Perhaps that's the end of it, perhaps running high on emotion a fight erupts.

    It's all nice to expose libertarian anarchy but the logical conclusions of it lead to nothing much happening and that's the best case scenario.

    Now maybe you don't mean to expose libertarian anarchy but that seems to be where your sweeping over generalizations seem to be heading. Yes violence is generally wrong and it definitely should be the last of the last options but it has to remain an option. At least till that far off day when we can all live in our Utopian paradise.  

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

    •  The problem is (8+ / 0-)

      'nonviolent' things like Tasers and Pepper spray are now the first resort. Somewhere along the way crisis de-escalation seems to have been replaced with 'beat to submission'. You can see it on COPS, S.W.A.T, and all the other propaganda shows out there.

      "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

      by LieparDestin on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:19:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  true (2+ / 0-)

        and I would even agree with you that so called 'nonviolent' (though less then violent is the prefered named) methods are being relayed on a lot more then is probably preferred. But at the same time I would argue that those methods have made things safer both for the police and those being arrested overall.

        It would be nice if things were simple but they're not. For every abuse of pepper spray or tasers there is almost certainly a time when it saved a life. The issue we have to deal with is balancing that.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:34:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban, CenPhx, serendipityisabitch

          However the penalty for misuse, and especially BLATANT misuse needs to be as severe as the punishment would be if I walked up and Tazed an officer for no reason, or even a 'perceived reason'. Most of the instances we hear of questionable shootings, etc... are from officers who have a history of this kind of thing. It seems a lot of the time departments are too busy protecting their own instead of protecting the community.

          "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

          by LieparDestin on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:40:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  agreed (2+ / 0-)

            I have long argued here that we need more and better police training, some increase in police salary along with a lot more police. The last is probably counter intuitive but with more police departments would have more freedom to fire problem officers.

            Additionally we need a national data base for those fired so that they can't jump to another state and get hired on there.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 07:50:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  "Non-lethal" not nonviolent (4+ / 0-)

        I don't think anyone would call a taser nonviolent.

    •  No, that's actually an illogical conclusion, and (7+ / 0-)

      an asinine comment to wit.

      Even in the unlikely situation where everybody in a conference room starts yelling at each other, there is no justification for anybody putting their hands in aggression on anybody else.

      The "libertarian anarchy" slur is just that, a straw man, an illogical conclusion.

      Once again, just like in my last diary you come in here posting this nonsense.  But as I said many times, it is on you.

      •  Really (2+ / 0-)

        So what exactly is it about the comment that is asinine?

        So what about libertarian anarchy makes it a slur? Straw man? Illogical?

        You know just throwing out everything and seeing what sticks perhaps you could try making an argument? I mean you already did the first half you have your claims, your assertions now why don't you work on the second half and prove it?

        Just because I'm critical of you Ray at times or on certain topics doesn't mean anything other then that.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:32:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your use of the term (7+ / 0-)

          defies its meaning. You've been told this on countless occasions, to the point that I can only surmise you use the term to deliberately incite pie fights.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes I know you arrogantly think yourself (0+ / 0-)

            the sole authority on all things 'libertarian' never mind you've yet to demonstrate an understanding of even half of the topic.

            You got anything new?

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:32:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  hmm (4+ / 0-)

          I'm guessing that, above, you meant "espouse" rather than "expose."

          "Libertarian anarchy" does sound as if it could be a rhetorical dismissal, even though in fact it names a political philosophy (or perhaps more than one). I don't think Ray has committed to a specific political philosophy.

          At any rate, one of the fundamental problems of politics is that -- even when everyone is trying to cooperate -- the norm that everyone should be heard out is in tension with our inability to listen to everybody. That's even before we reach the problem that often people aren't trying to cooperate. I think you're right to draw attention to those problems.

          I don't think many people are rooting to see a disruptive speaker "manhandled," but I'm sure sometimes most are happy to see one led away from the mike or out of the room. Cory Booker recently had authorities remove someone who was disrupting a same-sex wedding in Newark, and people in attendance cheered. Were they "petty tyrants, system apologists, authoritarians"? I suppose I don't know, but I imagine they saw it as a measured intervention in defense of civility. He got to say his piece, and he kept hollering, and they were done. A public meeting is not the same, but there does come a point where one person's speech exercise interferes with everybody else's, and that poses a real conundrum.

          Now, what does this have to do with (e.g.) situations where police officers abuse peaceful protesters? I don't know; I'm not sure there's much relationship at all.

          "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

          by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:03:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Libertarians are not anarchists (4+ / 0-)

            The support the military and the police and as such are not anarchists. It is a rhetorical dismissal

            •  I can't say that libertarian anarchy doesn't exist (3+ / 0-)

              Here's a book about it. I haven't read it, and I'm pretty sure duhban hasn't either.

              I don't think it was intended as a rhetorical dismissal, per se; I think duhban was using the wrong words to get at a real question. Ray's view of the status quo seems so bleak, and his views of possibility seem so hopeful, that one wonders how to get from A to B. That doesn't necessarily reflect on anarchism, libertarianism, or anything else in particular.

              In the end, it's true that a lot of critics of anarchism don't know nearly enough about it -- but it's not necessarily true that they would be less critical if they knew more about it. That would be equally true of many other things (about which I have a wide range of opinions).

              "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

              by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 10:29:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is a European tradition (4+ / 0-)

                that calls anarchism libertarianism. Either way, Dubhan has used this rhetorical device a lot. It's the flip side of the coin of libertarians trying, once again, to hijack a term from the left, in this case anarchism, because they want the trendiness associated with it so they can use it to reinforce their authoritarianism.

                In the end, it's true that a lot of critics of anarchism don't know nearly enough about it -- but it's not necessarily true that they would be less critical if they knew more about it.
                I don't disagree at all. One of the things that frustrates me most is that there isn't more actual criticism of various political ideologies in the US political milieu. It's lots of rhetoric about values and such and little looking at what those values actually constitute. The obsession with "non-violence" being a major frustration for me.
              •  Both of these terms (5+ / 0-)

                Anarchism, and libertarianism, predate the attempt to usurp these terms by the right wing. Both are used just about everywhere except the US to mean anti-capitalist, egalitarian, non-authoritarian collectivism, socialism, sometimes called free socialism of free communism.

                The traditional usage of anarchist dates back to the mid 19th century, coined by the anti-capitalist Proudhon, and libertarian dates back to anarchists of his time, and are still used internationally to mean quite the opposite from what Duhban is referring to.

                Supporters of capitalism are not anarchist, since the term refers to lack of hierarchy. The concept of property rights and a system which allows monopolization of property used in production, thus allowing the owning class to use their capital as a tool to coerce the working class into servitude is NOT any any way a form of egalitarian, horizontal, non-vertical organization of society.

                Thus, so-called "anarcho"-capitalists are not true anarchists, and right wing Libertarians are not truly in support of liberty, since the result of their system is exploitation and economic enslaving of the majority working class by a minority owning class. Using the term this way is supporting the right wing Orwellian usage of these terms, and helps to promote right wing propaganda that they support "freedom" and "liberty" which is anything but the truth.

                Here's soemthing I wrote about the differences between anarchism to contrast it to right wing free market TeaPartiers:

                If only the Tea Party really were anarchist.

                Real anarchists would replace the state with federations of egalitarian participatory communities which socialize property used in the means of production.

                Anarchism, a socioeconomic theory whose name was first coined by Proudhon in 1840, seeks to abolish all forms of unjust authority, and is opposed to all oppression brought about through hierarchical power relations.

                It is thus in favor of women's equality, since patriarchy is hierarchy.

                It supports worker's rights more than any other movement, since it would eliminate workplace hierarchical dominance from the ruling, owning class, and allow workers to freely associate without coercion, with democratic self-management of the collectivized work environment.

                It is against racism, since racism is hierarchy of one race over others.

                It would not allow theocratic interference in individual's choices, since curtailing abortion rights or imposing bigotry and homophobia is using church authority to create hierarchical relationships over others.

                It would provide health care to every citizen, since equality in the workplace, allowing workers to share equally in the fruits of their labor, also extends to economic equality in consumption of resources. The class hierarchy where wealthier citizens' needs are met, while others go without, is economic exploitation by the ruling class, and economic hegemony over the poor and working class.

                Since most people are workers, and want to be productive, then social needs like health care should be available to all. People can't be productive if they, or their loved ones, are sick.

                And it would also provide retirement pensions, and rights to housing, for all the same reasons. Working people (the 99%) can produce enough to take care of the working community, when economic equality becomes a social agreement.

                Oh, if only the Tea Partiers were anarchists.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:40:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  now, return to the context (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  serendipityisabitch, duhban

                  duhban was reacting to Ray's comments about someone becoming disruptive at a city council meeting, and people in the room "actually hoping and waiting for you to be grabbed by your arms, manhandled, and removed from the room," and how those "dynamics right there... are the reason the increasingly fascist police forces around the country seem to be able to abuse people with total impunity."

                  I really don't think that duhban's response to that depends on a conflation of anarchism with right-wing libertarianism. duhban was wondering: if no one can be removed from the room under any but "extraordinary" circumstances such as "an imminent physical threat," then what happens to the room? what happens to the meeting?

                  It's the sort of question one might expect Ray to have thought about, since he opened his diary with that hypothetical. Ray had time to complain about duhban's word choice, but not to address duhban's question. Quelle surprise.

                  "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:12:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dubhan has a history (6+ / 0-)

                    of constantly using just such conflation of meaning that you are denying on his behalf. He actually does use the terms to indicate his notions of some version of right wing chaos he vaguely has in his mind.

                    Ray's point is valid. In Ray's example scenario, the reason someone gets upset and goes on a tirade is precisely because the process is so manipulated and controlled, with severe inhibition of citizen access and ability to have any influence over government policy.

                    People feel as if they are reduced to being bystanders separated from their own self-management, removed from having any effect on their own streets and communities.

                    The moment they get a bit pointed or strident in their speech, or feel normal outrage at their disempowerment, the excuse is used to remove them by threat of force.

                    Understand that all government authority derives from violence, because without the force of violence, there is no authority. When people have to bow their heads, speak in meek tones, and self censor their own speech for fear of having such speech met by force, that is, if they get any opportunity to speak truth to power at all in any meaningful way, the oppression can lead to spilling over of normal human frustration.

                    An enlightened society will give each person a voice, provide vastly more access to community management, and thus diffuse such frustrations by satisfying each person's need for having a say in his or her community.

                    An unenlightened society will suppress such opportunities, and use force to do so.

                    All authority evaporates without violence to enforce it. Equality thus means respecting each person's voice, without using violence to suppress. Thus, the more authoritarian a society is, the more the threat of violence will exist to enforce the authority. Based on that metric, we are becoming a highly authoritarian society. In some localities, you can be arrested for merely giving food to fellow citizens.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:18:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  These three folks contaminating this diary with (4+ / 0-)

                      illogical arguments know what they are doing.

                    •  again, you're assuming away the problem (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      serendipityisabitch, duhban
                      In Ray's example scenario, the reason someone gets upset and goes on a tirade is precisely because the process is so manipulated and controlled, with severe inhibition of citizen access and ability to have any influence over government policy.
                      The problem (or part of it) is that people can, and do, go on tirades -- and do other socially dysfunctional things -- whether or not they are at the mercy of a manipulated and controlled process.

                      I don't think there is any chance that you will take that "whether or not" on board. You seem pretty much committed to assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is from the Dark Side. I think that is another manifestation of the problem that you're assuming away.

                      "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                      by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 07:51:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh, you're back (0+ / 0-)
                        The problem (or part of it) is that people can, and do, go on tirades -- and do other socially dysfunctional things -- whether or not they are at the mercy of a manipulated and controlled process.
                        People can and do go on tirades, and do other dysfunctional things? Really?

                        What a loaded, revealing thing to say. Do you see what you've done there? You've assumed those with authority (maintained by threat of police violence) at the hypothetical town meeting (presumably for listening to the public) are behaving in a "functional" manner, while those who speak up to that authority about issues are "dysfunctional," simply due to increasing the volume of their speech to be heard, when they feel they are being ignored.

                        And you accept this unequal power relationship as if its justification is such an obvious, foregone conclusion, that you don't even bother to support your thesis with any argument, as if authority is always in the right simply because of hierarchical status.

                        Thus, you unquestioningly side with authority.

                        One side simply speaks (even if in a frustrated manner).

                        The other side uses the force of violence to suppress that speech.

                        Your thesis is therefore that frustrated speech is dysfunctional, while violently asserting authority over the frustrations of the citizenry is functional.

                        And you seem to assume (speaking of assumptions) that authority is correct in this example by nothing else except the existence of their authority.

                        This is a great example of authoritarian-based thinking.

                        Ray's story is about public speech, dissent, and speaking up to an authority which does not want to hear that speech.

                        It is not about random tirades. You're changing the context of the hypothetical scenario, and then trying to spin this as if I am "assuming the problem away," as if you haven't completely altered "the problem" to fit your argument.  

                        Did you think I would fall for that? Or perhaps you aren't conscious that you created a strawman?

                        Okay, let's take up your strawman: Let's change Ray's story to any context in which a person goes on a tirade (meaning they use speech with an outpouring of frustration and outrage). It's still just speech. It's still a person who feels his or her issues or needs are not being met. Is your instinct to shut that person down, or to let the emotions diffuse by allowing the outburst?

                        I remember once, at an Occupy gathering, a group of homeless people came up, pushed aside the facilitator, grabbed the mic, complained about not being heard, that they did not like the democratic, horizontal process, that they just wanted to push that aside and take control of the meeting, and thus proceeded to loudly lecture us for about 45 minutes.

                        Guess what? We let it happen. We let them rant. We listened. It was actually quite moving, and I agreed with almost everything the persons said to us. I'll never forget that moment, because that is a community at its best...

                        Now, we would not have allowed that every time we held a meeting, because we actually had a very functional process of giving each person a voice, not just once in awhile, but everyday, every time, at every meeting. But we were willing to give room to these individuals to rant away. They stopped ranting when they got tired of dominating the meeting. They left the platform voluntarily on their own accord, without any force from the rest of us.

                        And they felt as if they were heard. They didn't feel the need for a repeat performance. They simply didn't know of any other way to participate except by the use of force, and we recognized that, and gave them space.

                        It is the authoritarian society that you support that is dysfunctional. The way Ray's hypothetical meeting was conducted was dysfunctional. The suppression of direct democracy and speech is dysfunctional.

                        The ranting people are simply responding in frustration to the dysfunction. They are actually attempting to stand up, in many cases, to the dysfunction imposed upon them.

                        Now, if a person is emotionally disturbed or troubled, mentally ill, or threatening violence upon innocents, that is another story, but that wasn't Ray's scenario.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:57:59 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  uh, no (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          duhban
                          You've assumed those with authority (maintained by threat of police violence) at the hypothetical town meeting (presumably for listening to the public) are behaving in a "functional" manner
                          Not at all. I correctly predicted that you wouldn't take "whether or not" on board.

                          I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

                          "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                          by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:11:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I did in fact take your strawman on board. (0+ / 0-)

                            which is what your "whether or not" argument was.

                            It isn't that your comment was too complicated (nice try), but rather that it was built on a strawman, and I even thoroughly addressed your strawman arguments.

                            Sorry, but you're out of line here. You don't even understand your own argument.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:18:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I actually have not (0+ / 0-)

                but it's now been added to my list of things to read

                I have however read a lot of other things about libertarian anarchism having found it though reading a lot about Locke and those who were influenced by Locke. Which in turn lead to an actual search of libertarian anarchists like Friedman (who is more an anarchist captialist) in an attempt to understand how the libertarian mindset has become so prevalent on both the left and the right in the USA.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:48:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  actually they can be (0+ / 0-)

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:34:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  well libertarian anarchy (0+ / 0-)

            is recognized as an actual philosophy and elements of it have pretty much become part of just about any aspect of libertarianism.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            And it is a philosophy I think that Ray has committed to. Not in so much words but in the actions and philosophies he has espoused and the words he has used. Who knows maybe that's not what he meant to do but that conclusion is the logical extension of what he has been saying.

            Well I would like to see Ray actually take the opportunity to either confirm or deny what his words seem to be saying he instead seems to be more willing to just throw accusations around.

            In point of fact your example is in a way part of what is wrong about this diary. The diary seemingly advocates a 'do whatever you want' approach (which is anarchistic) while either ignoring or being ignorant of the times when 'do whatever you want' not only runs counter to what society needs to function but the common rules and conventions necessary to keep society functioning.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:42:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  lol (4+ / 0-)
          Just because I'm critical of you Ray at times or on certain topics doesn't mean anything other then that.
          The bolded text seems to imply your disagreeing with Ray is more of the exception, rather than the rule, when in actuality, the reverse is true.

          I bet you can't come up with very many examples of where you haven't been critical of Ray.

          I've been in a lot of Ray's diaries. I can't recall ever seeing you agree with anything he says.

          Wait, you almost did, once, but you got hung up on something that somehow prevented you from rec'ing the diary.

          Your self-revisionism is transparently obvious to those of us who've come to know you here, duhban.

          Nice try, though.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 11:15:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "Libertarian anarchy"? seriously? (5+ / 0-)

      You're purposely conflating different things now. You know the difference, it's been explained plenty of times here. Quit this charade. Libertarian anarchy is not a philosophical trend at all and never has been. Libertarians and Anarchists, in the American meaning of the terms, are two distinct and very different things. Please

      And I think you mean 'espouse' not ,expose.

  •  Bush War Blowback (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, CenPhx, happymisanthropy

    Militarization of the police comes from blurring the distinction between the armed forces and police forces. This happens on multiple levels. On an economic level, the defense industry sees municipal police departments as a lucerative market. On the personnel level, many new hires in police departments are combat veterans whose formative experience was serving in an occupying army. It would be remarkable if those habits and attitudes didn't make it onto US streets. Finally, the sales job for the Bush war mainstreamed support for moralistic violence. All sorts of bad behavior can be rationalized in terms of the uniformed perp being a "warrior" or a "hero." Police are civil servants. They're in the legal / illegal business, not the evil-fighting business. Cops need to grow up and behave more like public employees than a bunch of aggressive comic book moralists.

  •  I live in a very small town.... (9+ / 0-)

    about 3,500 residents, and we only have six cops and a couple of dispatchers. Cops around here don't make much money; even the chief only makes about $40,000 per year, so you don't become a cop for the big bucks. I've lived here my whole life, almost 50 years now, and we've had some good cops and some really, really bad ones over the years.

    The bad ones seem to fall into two categories; the kids who were bullies in high school and the kids who were their victims. The bullies like the feeling of pushing people around, making people do what they say, and being assholes without facing any consequences. The power that a gun and badge gives them lets them get away with things that they never could if they were just civilians.

    The victims all have huge chips on their shoulders. They've lived for years with people picking on them, and the gun and badge are an equalizer for them. Nobody will ever fuck with them again as long as they've got the gun and badge. As a rule, they're arrogant pricks, and they treat you like they're almost hoping that you'll stand up for yourself so they can put you in your place.

    I know, pop psychology of the worst sort, but those are just my thoughts about oul local PD from interacting with them over the years. I'm sure people become cops for a lot of different reasons, but I've known many of our local cops before they were cops, and I'm convinced that my theory holds water, at least in our little town.

  •  Let them get away with murder & they can get away (6+ / 0-)

    with ANYTHING.

    NOT COINCIDENTAL, may I say, that this upwelling of intemperate adoration has run right alongside the increasing militarization of local police?  LONG before 9/11, returning gulf-war combat vets were must-hires for state and local police & sherriff's departments all over the country.

    In part, this was fueled by the drug-war/race-war mentality and the loads of extra money available to law 'enforcement' thru seizures, impoundments and confiscations under eminent-domain.

    trying to stay alive 'til I reach 65!

    by chmood on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:49:10 AM PDT

  •  It's also the change in how the police operate. (6+ / 0-)

    My uncle was a beat cop in LA in the 40's.  I remember quite well when chief Gates began the militarization of LAPD.  

    Speak softly and carry a big can of tuna.

    by Cat Whisperer on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 08:59:05 AM PDT

    •  Gates was awful (5+ / 0-)

      and corrupt. And it is difficult to reform and rehabilitate a corrupt force once the rot sets in. The L.A. police, when I lived there, scared my more than my neighborhood gang members.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 09:02:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anyone who (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, Ray Pensador, ZhenRen

        lived in an LA neighborhood/community that was not rich and protected in the Gates era had their eyes opened to what living in a out of control militarized police state was about. We lived in Hollywood a notorious hotbed of police brutality and it was hell. I learned to cross the street and keep my head down walking home from work on Hollywood Blvd when I encountered a policeman keeping the streets 'safe'.        

  •  Everyday it is another story (4+ / 0-)

    of police using excessive force in one way or another. We just had a case here in Jacksonville, FL where a woman bit an officer so in return multiple officers beat her up. The sheriff here totally condones this.."If you bite one my of my officers, you can expect to get punched in the face," said Rutherford. You can tell by her mug shot that it was more than a punch in the face. Now if this had happened out in public, they probably would have just shot her and explained why they felt threatened but I guess since she was in custody they could only beat her. The icing on the cake is in the comments. Most people round here think it was absolutely justified. http://www.firstcoastnews.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site