How often do violent riots result in a reduction of police powers?
1 Like
Interesting hypothetical. You are saying that people who want tougher anti-crime laws are also in support of the police killing the innocent and abusing the people but I see that as a false equivalency. It seems more reasonable to assume that those supporting tougher anti-crime laws do not support murder and rape and methods for crime fighting and would not support such activity.
The scared grandmother of 80 who wants tougher anti crime laws would reasonably assume that these laws and law keepers are going to not commit murder, rape, and abuse to get the job done. Those people believe in the system which means they also believe that the system will work within its own boundaries and not turn to crime to fight crime.
edit
I donât think itâs a good idea to try to extrapolate the general attitudes of Americans from comments posted on BoingBoing. I donât think this readership is very representative of the people.
I am not saying anyone directly supports that stuff, in the sense that they would opt for murder with all else equal. Iâm saying many people are happy to support it indirectly because they care less about it than the perceived benefits of being tough on crime, or rationalize it away when they see it. I think you would have understood that if you were feeling at all charitable toward me.
And no, I donât think BoingBoing is a representative sample; on the contrary, I think it a sample of people who are unusually informed about thing like police abuses or drone strikes and often care a great deal about them, and you still see people rationalize them here. I hear that from other websites, letters in the paper, callers on the radio, and people in restaurants too. If you think none of it represents the true public, it is time for you to provide some evidence.
Anyway the end result is the same. Whether people support militarized police knowing all the problems it entails, or out of total ignorance of them, that still works out to lots of people supporting it. And that enables politicians and businesses to take advantage in a way that widespread opposition would not.
If the protest is about police violence? More often than youâd think. See Ukraine where increased outrage led to the abandonment of anti protestor laws.
But the general point is that most European and Commonwealth governments wouldnât let it get that far, theyâd capitulate as soon as an extended outcry had been made, or even before one began, lest their party decide that a new cabinet is in order if they want to win an election ever again. Popular riots do happen, but that kind of misjudgement is inexcusable, so it almost always results in the fall of the government, if not immediately than at the next election.
The USA, by contrast, seems to use a combination of ignoring public outcry and relying on their internal security to stifle it. A response more suited to totalitarian regimes.
I had always thought that the ignorant and loud who rationalized such things represented a small portion of the population which still bothers to vote. That being a minority of the country, I had perhaps incorrectly marginalized those people as clueless participants.
There are around 2 million people employed as police in the US not counting federal agencies like the FBA, DEA, and such. Right there you have 2 million people who support the police engaging in criminal activity in pursuit of âjusticeâ. Then you have those working in the prosecution side of the justice system. They generally have no soul either. Then thereâs the DEA, commercial prison workers, drug awareness people, etc etc. Thatâs more than enough to account for the loud crazies out there posting all over the internet. Not to say that sort of thing is limited to these groups, only that they represent a large negatively biased voting block whose livelyhood depends on our fear and complacency. To paraphrase an over used quote, you canât get people whose job depends on the system to change the system.
edit:
You are a big kid. Iâd never insult you with charity.
I know exactly two people in that valley and theyâre beyond fucking awesome, which is all the more sad to see what itâs become.
After thinking about it for a while, I still stand by my original suggestion:
A major reason amongst the many that the pols know they can ignore you is that youâall donât vote. It almost doesnât matter which candidate you vote for, as you pointed out, but the fact is only the Nomenklatura vote.
Aside from the fact that the Tea Party is just Koch Industries under a different name, thereâs a reason the pols are a little scared of them - the Tea Partyâs misguided, uneducated members vote (for the candidate that theyâre told to vote for, but they vote).
Are you kidding? Sometimes out of control Canadian cops donât even say that they are sorry!!! Bloody Fascists!
1 Like
Define âcriminal.â
Now, is that the same definition that the law uses? Maybe you see the problem.
1 Like
I see what you´re getting at, but defining what makes a criminal is not really essential to my statement. I´m talking about people who kill other people without care, and we can probably agree that those people, be they cops or anyone else, could be labeled âcriminalâ.
Had I written âall criminals are sociopathic ulcers of societyâ your criticism would be valid.
I meant that sociopathic murderers who operate under color of authority are not considered criminals, while (for instance) doctors who perform euthanasia at a suffering patientâs request are. This is what makes the label âcriminalâ purely a construct of The Man and orthogonal to any decent system of ethics, and why using it as shorthand for âbad guyâ plays into the hands of those defining the term.
1 Like
No? Whatâs a Mexico?
The guns and the funding for the narcos come from America so Iâd say my point still stands.
@dacree It was foolish of me to expect you to understand that things are connected. Guns are highly controlled in Mexico, so the only way non military and non police get them is from the US. Those guns are used to terrorise law enforcement and government officials into complicity. Sales of drugs to the US fund the narcos and those funds are used to corrupt.
Furthermore, it would be âyouâre just grasping at strawsâ⌠since you canât understand basic grammar, youâll excuse me for ignoring you for the idiot you are.
So, because money comes from US, that means⌠what? That in Mexico "this kind of abuse doesnât happen in other western democracies at levels even close to the regularity of the jaw-dropping abuses in the US. "
Your just grasping at straws now. Mexico has abuse and corruption that far outpace anything happening in the U.S. Your point has no merit.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
