|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 06 2020 02:54 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 02:36 Trainrunnef wrote:
Ok so rather than do one example per post as that seems to be as far as we can get i'll bite and hopefully get things rolling.
Things I think police do:
1. Investigate crimes that have already taken place
2. Intervene in crimes currently in progress
3. Apprehend individuals currently wanted in suspicion of a crime
4. Apprehend individuals who have violated the terms of their early release from prison.
honestly when you boil it down that is everything that police are supposed to do. Thats only the criminal law side of things. Police have other duties as well. A few posts back I posted a link to a wiki page that summed it up. My personal rough definition would be: the executive part of government tasked with law enforcement. An important aspect of the police is what we here call the "monopoly on violence".
Ok for arguments sake.... from your wiki link under the section police functions
Textbooks and scholars have identified three primary police agency functions. The following is cited from The American System of Criminal Justice, by George F. Cole and Christopher E. Smith, 2004, 10th edition, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning:
Order maintenance
This is the broad mandate to keep the peace or otherwise prevent behaviors which might disturb others. This can deal with things ranging from a barking dog to a fist-fight.
By way of description, Cole and Smith note that police are usually called-on to "handle" these situations with discretion, rather than deal with them as strict violations of law, though of course their authority to deal with these situations are based in violations of law.
#2
Law enforcement
Those powers are typically used only in cases where the law has been violated and a suspect must be identified and apprehended. Most obvious instances include robbery, murder, or burglary. This is the popular notion of the main police function, but the frequency of such activity is dependent on geography and season.
#1 & #3
Service
Services may include rendering first aid, providing tourist information, guiding the disoriented, or acting as educators (on topics such as preventing drug use). Cole and Smith cited one study which showed 80% of all calls for police assistance did not involve crimes, but this may not be the case in all parts of the country. Because police agencies are traditionally available year-round, 24 hours a day, citizens call upon police departments not only in times of trouble but also when just inconvenienced. As a result, police services may include roadside auto assistance, providing referrals to other agencies, finding lost pets or property, or checking locks on vacationers' homes.
I would add 2 new items to cover the rest of their responsibilities. the items you mention like enforcing civil writs etc. can be more or less covered by the revised #4.
1. Investigate crimes that have already taken place
2. Intervene in crimes currently in progress
3. Apprehend individuals currently wanted in suspicion of a crime
4. Apprehend individuals who have violated some court mandated agreement.
5. Assist members of the community
6. Provide security at large city/state run events
|
Norway28665 Posts
On June 06 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Salem (capital of Oregon) police have been caught on camera explaining their plans to Proud Boys so that they can avoid being tear gased: https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gx3durThis is probably gonna end up huge because it is extremely damning video evidence.
jesus christ shit really is incomprehensibly fucked up..
|
On June 06 2020 03:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Salem (capital of Oregon) police have been caught on camera explaining their plans to Proud Boys so that they can avoid being tear gased: https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gx3durThis is probably gonna end up huge because it is extremely damning video evidence. jesus christ shit really is incomprehensibly fucked up..
You're still just seeing the tip of the iceberg baaaarely beneath the surface (I mean that generically to how ifu it is)
|
Is there a full video? Context? A chance for those involved to explain themselves before judgement gets cast upon them?
Or do we take 20 second tiktok videos that are clearly cut from within a larger conversation, and then form our beliefs and start spreading them?
Oh yeah I said i was going to stop talking. Couldn't help myself. True or not I can't stomach this shit.
And I am not saying it isn't true. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it was true. It's just that that absolutely is not the point.
And lastly I would ask, how many of you watch that video or see that website and go "There is a full video somewhere I could learn from, right?" "Maybe I should try to find out if this shows the whole situation fairly?". I bet very, very few.
|
|
|
On June 06 2020 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 02:23 Sr18 wrote:On June 06 2020 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2020 02:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. This is my interpretation of GH's argument as well. It's the closest I've seen. Which is why I suggested people that want to better understand my position (and police/prison abolition generally) start with this and this so that fruitful discussion can be had. Otherwise I'm not seeing a point. Honestly, I've provided a very simple and concrete example of one of the vital roles that the police perform and have asked you how this role will be performed in the absence of a police force. Your questions regarding the definition of police are not relevant to answering my question, because it is clear that the police play a role in enforcing civil verdicts. So again, in your desired future, where the police has been abolished, who performs this function? And note that this is just an example of one of the many vital functions of a police force. We can go over the other ones next if you'd like, but I'm starting to wonder if you even have an answer to the question. Have you tried googling it? I'm just curious if you've put more effort into badgering me for that answer than actually looking for it.
You've put a lot of effort into evading questions while casting aspersions about lack of effort. I mostly see good faith questions being posed to you that you don't seem to know how to answer. I don't know why this is, and I don't expect you to write a treatise, but you could at least provide a limited answer that advances the discussion rather than repeating the same statements. If people don't understand those statements, repeating them won't help. If you don't want to talk about it then stop responding to all these people. I want to see your answers but I don't want to see 3 pages of people going back and forth saying "what do you mean tho." I take your reluctance to link an easily obtainable google result to be a reluctance to endorse any of the popular google results. And if that's the case, then googling a popular result won't help them figure out what your views are, will it?
I for one think "abolish the police" is a stupid slogan to use in a popular campaign for sociological and political reasons. It might have a well-defined meaning in narrow contexts but tossing it around casually is just a way to stoke conflict and misunderstanding.
Consider: you and others have already pointed out how little (suburban, educated, home-owning, white) people know about "real police work." That implies that "police" already has a flexible semantic content, and that just because people support "the police" there is no logical connection between unqualified support for the determinable content "police" and unqualified support for the determinate content "police" that you want to abolish. So people supporting the "police" (determinable) does not mean they support the "police" (determinate) and the conflation of these two has only led to (sometimes violent) misunderstandings. Look at the limited support libertarian-leaning republicans have given to reducing police budgets and limiting police mission statements recently.
|
First of all, saying that there is no context that make that OK is ridiculous. There's numerous contexts that make that OK.
Secondly, what am I missing. In the video you link, they talk about having to get off the street, because the cops say they don't want there to be the image that whatever that crew is can stay on the street but the protestors can't.
Did you even read the page? I don't get it...
It isn't fair to assume people are liars or bad without any kind of proof or strong evidence. The *group* they are part of is not proof, nor is it fair evidence. That's kind of the point of a lot of what is happening right now. This world is all twisted up and backwards.
On June 06 2020 03:57 Nevuk wrote:
They claim that the officer wasn't briefed. The officer literally says "I have orders to tell you"
Where did they say that? The only place I saw something like that was where the chief said:
Unfortunately, he had not been fully briefed about enforcement of the curfew before he spoke with the group.
Not that this really matters. Sometimes we actually need to start under the assumption that the person communicating is a kind, well intentioned human being.
Does it make sense to be skeptical of them? Absolutely!
Does it make sense to call someone a liar without proof? Absolutely not, that is wrong.
|
Norway28665 Posts
What's the context where it's okay that a police officer tells nazis stay inside during the curfew so you guys don't get tear gassed so it doesn't look like we are favoring you guys over the other protesters?
Just to be clear, in general, I agree with the idea that we should not pass judgment based on small video snippets that might be taken out of context. I just don't have the creative mind to envision a context where this would be okay.
|
On June 06 2020 04:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
What's the context where it's okay that a police officer tells nazis stay inside during the curfew so you guys don't get tear gassed so it doesn't look like we are favoring you guys over the other protesters?
Where is the part where he said all of those extra words, and where is the part where you know how he interacts with and what conversations he has had with other protestors? Where did he say anything about tear gas? The tear gas part seems so important so I must just be dumb and missed it.
So far, the only thing I have seen is a 20 second video where one man is saying completely reasonable things to some other people. Then on the top the of the video it says that he is saying things that isn't in the video. That's the only thing I have seen yet.
Well, other than the other video which also included a bunch of men talking about completely reasonable stuff.
|
That they are talking to the nazi motherfuckers instead of giving them the regular protester treatment of batons, rubber bullets and tear gas is already showing massive favour to the nazi scum. Much more favour than other protesters have recieved during this.
The implication from "we cant talk to the protestors wanting justice for a recent murder-by-cop", yet "we can talk to nazis for common understanding" is deafeningly loud.
|
On June 06 2020 04:03 travis wrote:
First of all, saying that there is no context that make that OK is ridiculous. There's numerous contexts that make that OK.
Like what? There is no context that makes this OK.
|
Are you guys capable of discussing the actual media that you guys linked in the first place? That's what you are willing to damn another person on, right? So where in the media does it show all this other shit you guys are talking about?
|
I think we're assuming the cops are being honest, is the problem. And yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. What makes that ok? "Hey, bet you five bucks you can't make a convincing white supremacist cop impersonation"?
|
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
As an aside I think it’d be nice to have a US Politics Megathread reading list. Plenty of books and articles that have helped inform and alter my worldview from this thread over the years but plenty I’ve missed too.
|
Norway28665 Posts
I am operating under the assumption that the person he is talking to is a member of proud boys. If that was made up, then I guess I have egg on my face.
|
|
|
The Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys, and whatever ridiculous name they come up with are all adorning guns, they're the only groups that show up to protests with guns, especially in Oregon.
|
On June 06 2020 04:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 04:03 travis wrote:
First of all, saying that there is no context that make that OK is ridiculous. There's numerous contexts that make that OK.
Like what? There is no context that makes this OK.
I mean... the bit about "so it doesn't look like we're playing favourites" is pretty terrible, but let me give it a go:
1) His main message is to tell the proud boys to stay inside during curfew. So that is good. He should be telling everybody who asks him to stay inside during curfew, not only because it'll prevent them from getting tear gassed, but because that is the entire point of a curfew. Whether you agree with there being a curfew in the first place is irrelevant: there is, and it's up to the police to enforce it, so good there!
2) There's proud boys in his office. Someone has to talk to them. Maybe it's a strategy where they tell the same script to every organization that comes and asks for how they should behave in the protests and with regards to the curfews. Thus it looks like they're playing favourites, but in reality it's a strategy where every organization walks away thinking the police is on their side, and is thus less likely to throw molotov cocktails at them?
Whether (2) is true, I don't know. I personally doubt it, but it could be. And that would make it okay. But in all honesty, this cop is probably a white supremacist himself and sympathizes with those skinheads looking to start a race war in the streets.
|
On June 06 2020 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that the person he is talking to is a member of proud boys. If that was made up, then I guess I have egg on my face.
Would you have determined they were members of proud boys if the unknown TikTok user hadn't put an arrow asserting that identification?
|
On June 06 2020 04:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I am operating under the assumption that the person he is talking to is a member of proud boys. If that was made up, then I guess I have egg on my face.
Oh and is that helpful for you? Assuming what group people are in, and then deciding what those people are like based on the group?
Hmm. I think there is some other sort of pervasive ideology that uses this premise we are all very aware of right now. Can anyone guess what that is?
But let's get past that. It doesn't matter if he is a nazi or a gangster or a walking turd or whatever else, what does that have to do with anything?
It's simple eri: you are willing to damn a person with a lack of evidence. You have no idea about this person's intentions, nor their actions. You don't know what he has done, and you don't know who he has talked to, and you don't know what he has said to them. And even worse, you show a complete lack of interest in learning about those things.
It's commonplace, and it's shameful. I am not perfect but I will continue to point it out when I see it. And I'll point it out when it's the reverse, too, because the "sides" have nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
