5 ms·

How does the U.S. differ substantially from a classic "police state"?

jMyles 11y ago
The response I see most often to this question - and one that is clearly inaccurate - is that police don't target people for their politics or their culture. To my way of thinking, the entire concept of drug prohibition is an attack on a particular culture - a particular diet - which is strongly associated with a particular array of politics. I think it's reasonable to assess that the US today is a police state.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  The "Occupy" movement was targeted by police, as one example of a non-violent political group targeted by the police.* I agree that the US is a police state. *And by targeted I mean we had undercover police officer agent-provocateurs trying to encourage our local Occupy group to engage in serious crimes and provided materials for those crimes.
- Someone 11y ago
  "The response I see most often to this question - and one that is clearly inaccurate - is that police don't target people for their politics or their culture." Also, if you acknowledge that ethnic groups can have separate cultures (not a bold claim, IMO) and look at the ethnic distribution of US citizens accidentally (giving them the benefit of the doubt) killed by the police I think that claim is hard to defend.
youknowitstrue 11y ago
Articles like this will likely be censored in 20 years
colechristensen 11y ago
'police state' isn't something well defined. In any case, regardless of the fact that these sorts of incident are not uncommon, they're not particularly frequent either. The term _police state_ has 'taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning" by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities' Which isn't at all the case for most people. More like isolated abuses of power than the pervasive control of civil authorities. It's a problem, and the problem is growing, but "police state" is an unhelpful hyperbole – using terms like that loses you credibility and distracts from the real discussions that should be happening.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Which isn't at all the case for most people. This is a statement of privilege. That doesn't prove that it's wrong, but it does make it quite unconvincing. It amounts to simply ignoring the experience of those who are regularly subject to such a state of living. ...using terms like that loses you credibility and distracts from the real discussions that should be happening. Who are we trying to convince, of what? USA residents who don't fear the excess and caprice of police vote that ignorance; they are part of the problem. The only way to help them is to end their ignorance. Since they only think what they're told to think by the news media, and the news media ignored this issue until forced by mass protests to address it, "hyperbole" is one of the few techniques that has accomplished anything.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  Have you seen this[1][2] 30 page document published by the Australian Government, entitled "Preventing Violent Extremism And Radicalisation In Australia" The title on page 10 is "Violent extremism", followed by a 'Case Study' on page 11 which reads: "Karen grew up in a loving family who never participated in activism of any sort. When she moved out of home to attend university Karen became involved in the alternative music scene, student politics and left-wing activism." The Australian Government associating "university" and "the alternative music scene, student politics, and left-wing activism" with "violent extremism" is an undesirable state of living charactered by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities indeed. > More like isolated abuses of power than the pervasive control of civil authorities. In Australia, first they came for people who listened to alternative music. And I didn't speak up because I didn't listen to alternative music. ... Except, I do. I've also voted for, and been a member of, left-wing political parties in the past. When should I start worrying? Probably not until the current set of primary school aged kids are running the country, because it's them who have been born in to a world where persistent surveillance is normal and listening to alternative music is extreme. Oh well, we tried. 1. https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Documents/preventing-violent-extremism-and-radicalisation-in-australia.pdf https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Docu... 2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/anti-radicalisation-kit-under-fire-from-green-groups-teachers/6803024 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/anti-radicalisation-ki...
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
When they found no evidence, they didn't file charges. That's a pretty major difference.
- eric_h 11y ago
  On the surface that does seem to be a major difference, however given that there was _no_ evidence that anyone in that house would be bearing arms (at least according to the article) the bar for forcing one's way into a house and pointing a gun at someone should be much, much higher.
- youknowitstrue 11y ago
  YMMV but in Chicago they just plant the "evidence" anyway
cryoshon 11y ago
The US is a police state through and through. There's no accountability for the police, and they're constantly used to rough up politically inconvenient groups (the poor, the blacks) and are increasingly smashing their clubs on white, middle classed heads. 360 degree surveillance powers given to local police departments also allow them to manufacture charges or probable cause-- after all, they're the only ones with that privileged information, so they can claim it says whatever they want. The police use a culture of paramilitary raids to stroke their need to feel like soldiers while not being in danger from the civilians whose homes they break into late at night. Oh yeah, and then there's the whole civil asset forfeiture thing, where the pigs steal from people not accused of any crime.
archagon 11y ago
Orders don't come from the top?
dragonwriter 11y ago
A fairly typical definition of "police state" is "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities." Much of the time incidents are pointed to as evidence for the US being a police state -- including the present article -- they involve actions of local police forces that, while unconstrained by the federal government, are also not acts of a national political police force enforcing some centralized policy. Merely having inadequate constraints on a variety of different police forces with different and sometimes conflicting agendas is a distinctly different problem from being a classic police state.

The response I see most often to this question - and one that is clearly inaccurate - is that police don't target people for their politics or their culture. To my way of thinking, the entire concept of drug prohibition is an attack on a particular culture - a particular diet - which is strongly associated with a particular array of politics. I think it's reasonable to assess that the US today is a police state.

wavefunction 11y ago
The "Occupy" movement was targeted by police, as one example of a non-violent political group targeted by the police.* I agree that the US is a police state. *And by targeted I mean we had undercover police officer agent-provocateurs trying to encourage our local Occupy group to engage in serious crimes and provided materials for those crimes.
Someone 11y ago
"The response I see most often to this question - and one that is clearly inaccurate - is that police don't target people for their politics or their culture." Also, if you acknowledge that ethnic groups can have separate cultures (not a bold claim, IMO) and look at the ethnic distribution of US citizens accidentally (giving them the benefit of the doubt) killed by the police I think that claim is hard to defend.

youknowitstrue 11y ago

Articles like this will likely be censored in 20 years

colechristensen 11y ago

'police state' isn't something well defined. In any case, regardless of the fact that these sorts of incident are not uncommon, they're not particularly frequent either. The term _police state_ has 'taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning" by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities' Which isn't at all the case for most people. More like isolated abuses of power than the pervasive control of civil authorities. It's a problem, and the problem is growing, but "police state" is an unhelpful hyperbole – using terms like that loses you credibility and distracts from the real discussions that should be happening.

jessaustin 11y ago
Which isn't at all the case for most people. This is a statement of privilege. That doesn't prove that it's wrong, but it does make it quite unconvincing. It amounts to simply ignoring the experience of those who are regularly subject to such a state of living. ...using terms like that loses you credibility and distracts from the real discussions that should be happening. Who are we trying to convince, of what? USA residents who don't fear the excess and caprice of police vote that ignorance; they are part of the problem. The only way to help them is to end their ignorance. Since they only think what they're told to think by the news media, and the news media ignored this issue until forced by mass protests to address it, "hyperbole" is one of the few techniques that has accomplished anything.
TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
Have you seen this[1][2] 30 page document published by the Australian Government, entitled "Preventing Violent Extremism And Radicalisation In Australia" The title on page 10 is "Violent extremism", followed by a 'Case Study' on page 11 which reads: "Karen grew up in a loving family who never participated in activism of any sort. When she moved out of home to attend university Karen became involved in the alternative music scene, student politics and left-wing activism." The Australian Government associating "university" and "the alternative music scene, student politics, and left-wing activism" with "violent extremism" is an undesirable state of living charactered by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities indeed. > More like isolated abuses of power than the pervasive control of civil authorities. In Australia, first they came for people who listened to alternative music. And I didn't speak up because I didn't listen to alternative music. ... Except, I do. I've also voted for, and been a member of, left-wing political parties in the past. When should I start worrying? Probably not until the current set of primary school aged kids are running the country, because it's them who have been born in to a world where persistent surveillance is normal and listening to alternative music is extreme. Oh well, we tried. 1. https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Documents/preventing-violent-extremism-and-radicalisation-in-australia.pdf https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Docu... 2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/anti-radicalisation-kit-under-fire-from-green-groups-teachers/6803024 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/anti-radicalisation-ki...

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

When they found no evidence, they didn't file charges. That's a pretty major difference.

eric_h 11y ago
On the surface that does seem to be a major difference, however given that there was _no_ evidence that anyone in that house would be bearing arms (at least according to the article) the bar for forcing one's way into a house and pointing a gun at someone should be much, much higher.
youknowitstrue 11y ago
YMMV but in Chicago they just plant the "evidence" anyway

cryoshon 11y ago

The US is a police state through and through. There's no accountability for the police, and they're constantly used to rough up politically inconvenient groups (the poor, the blacks) and are increasingly smashing their clubs on white, middle classed heads. 360 degree surveillance powers given to local police departments also allow them to manufacture charges or probable cause-- after all, they're the only ones with that privileged information, so they can claim it says whatever they want. The police use a culture of paramilitary raids to stroke their need to feel like soldiers while not being in danger from the civilians whose homes they break into late at night. Oh yeah, and then there's the whole civil asset forfeiture thing, where the pigs steal from people not accused of any crime.

archagon 11y ago

Orders don't come from the top?

dragonwriter 11y ago

A fairly typical definition of "police state" is "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities." Much of the time incidents are pointed to as evidence for the US being a police state -- including the present article -- they involve actions of local police forces that, while unconstrained by the federal government, are also not acts of a national political police force enforcing some centralized policy. Merely having inadequate constraints on a variety of different police forces with different and sometimes conflicting agendas is a distinctly different problem from being a classic police state.