7 ms·

I hope you're not implying that the logical conclusion of "standing up to the bullies" is police murder. Ever heard of non-violent civil disobedience? It was p

I hope you're not implying that the logical conclusion of "standing up to the bullies" is police murder. Ever heard of non-violent civil disobedience? It was popularized by a little known guy named Martin Luther King Jr. He got it from another guy who went by the name of Mahatma Gandhi.

tremon 10y ago
However tasteless and ineffectual in the long run, I think it is a logical response to the existing problem. Frankly I'm surprised it took this long, given that there is more than 20 years of documented case history of government officials being unaccountable for homicide.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  No it's not. People shooting random police are bullies as much as police shooting random people. Stand up to both. Police aren't the only people who get away with murder.
  - angersock 10y ago
    > Police aren't the only people who get away with murder. Sure, but they are the only people (other than soldiers) endorsed explicitly by the state to commit acts of physical violence. If you cannot see the issues with using the same standards in regards to them as to normal citizens, you do not understand human nature.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      "First take the log out of your own eye..." - Jesus If police violence is the problem (and it is), then my violence isn't the solution. Worse, it removes me from any kind of moral high ground where I can try to help end police violence by trying to change police policy, training, or character. Instead, it leads me in the direction of civil war. Is starting a civil war really your best answer to police violence? Or do you think "just kill a few and things will straighten out"?
      - angersock 10y ago
        > Is starting a civil war really your best answer to police violence? I have not advocated for that position here, because like you I think that there are better ways of fixing the problem--policy, training, and recruitment. That all said, I think we have to acknowledge that we can't use the same moral calculus for officers (read: agents of state violence) that we do for common citizens. You even mention as much when you invoke "the moral high ground", because there is a qualitative difference between an act of violence committed by a citizen on their own (presumably limited to their own resources and defensible only by circumstance) and a one committed by an agent of the state (limited only by the resources allocated by the state and defensible by the blank check of "I'm a police officer"). For what it's worth, I don't have a strong alternative code to present at this time--I merely think that one is necessary. One could make the argument that, for example, officers forfeit the right to appeal in the event of a complaint against them, that they should be imprisoned immediately if found doing wrong and executed publicly if found falsifying evidence. This heavy burden--especially if eagerly applied--would serve to help limit the number of people who merely want to be a thug with a badge. And that's not a great plan for a number of reasons--consider the case where criminals just cry foul to remove officers from circulation. But we have to start thinking beyond the simple idea that an officer is in the same moral calculus as a citizen. It's precisely to avoid civil war that change has to happen: when a private citizen commits murder, it is an isolated tragedy. When an agent of the state that does the same, it is cause to question the validity of that state. A lying citizen is not a sign of societal decay, but a lying officer or agent of the state is.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Police officers and other agents of the state need to be held to a higher standard. On that I think we agree. Criminals will try to game the system. I agree on that as well. > A lying citizen is not a sign of societal decay, but a lying officer or agent of the state is. A lying citizen is a sign of societal decay. A lying officer or agent of the state is a bigger sign.
        angersock 10y ago
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  How is it logical? It is 100% an emotional response, an angry response born of frustration. What is logically gained from dead policemen? You will suffer, since you'll be in prison, or possibly dead. Your community will suffer, since if the police were brutal before, they're certainly not going to hold back now.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Isn't it logical to expect emotional responses after 20 years of not dealing with the problem?
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      It's logical to expect emotional responses, but it's not logical to get carried away by your emotions to the point of murder, and pretend like you're doing something great.
      - tremon 10y ago
        Just to be clear, I am not defending the use of excessive force in any circumstance. But when we ignore the reasons behind the violent reactions, we perpetuate the problem. The first step towards change is acknowledging you have a problem.
angersock 10y ago
I'll reply to you and pavel_lishin and nl in one place here, so we keep the subthread tidy. To dispatch the examples of Gandhi and MLK--please ask yourselves how their civil disobedience would be handled in modern America. Ask yourselves how their messages would be mocked, subverted, and distorted with modern social media, even without state intervention. These are different times, my friends. (Also, mentioning MLK while glossing over the credible threat of armed domestic terrorism posed by Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and many other factions at that time in American history is inaccurate--you miss a lot of the background political pressure brought to bear by people "standing up to bullies".) The reason I asked the parent question was not to be ghoulish or edgy, and I mean that sincerely. The fact of the matter is that the quaint notion of "standing up to the bullies" is completely out of date. You probably imagine telling some guard to fuck off, and when they return with a cop, what then? You'd give the officer (who is probably of less-than-amazing intelligence, because of a court case years ago allowing PDs to discriminate on that) a lecture on the freedom of panorama, and they'd let you be? If not, then what? If you don't resist, you hardly have "stood up to the bullies". If you resist and lose--and remember, resisting can be anything as simple as bleeding on the officer's uniform when they decide to truncheon you--you will then be rewarded with the slow grinding gears of American "justice". At the very least, even if found innocent, you'll be out major court costs and time, while the bullies go about their business unimpeded. If you resist and win--say, by beating the shit out of the bullies--then they'll summon additional forces until you are subdued. Subdued repeatedly. There may be an investigation later, but that'll be of academic interest to you while you're handcuffed to a hospital bed recuperating to be in good shape for your prison sentence. So, again, bearing that escalation in mind, think about my earlier question--because that's the inevitable chain of actions that start with "standing up to the bullies". And that's why when a poster points out that maybe standing up is just not a good idea, we shouldn't downvote them.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > If you resist and lose--and remember, resisting can be anything as simple as bleeding on the officer's uniform when they decide to truncheon you--you will then be rewarded with the slow grinding gears of American "justice". > you resist and win--say, by beating the shit out of the bullies These are not the only two outcomes of resisting, and that is not the only way to win. I reject your false binary of "submit to anyone who might summon authority | murder policemen" as the only possible choices when faced with this scenario.

tremon 10y ago

However tasteless and ineffectual in the long run, I think it is a logical response to the existing problem. Frankly I'm surprised it took this long, given that there is more than 20 years of documented case history of government officials being unaccountable for homicide.

TallGuyShort 10y ago
No it's not. People shooting random police are bullies as much as police shooting random people. Stand up to both. Police aren't the only people who get away with murder.
- angersock 10y ago
  > Police aren't the only people who get away with murder. Sure, but they are the only people (other than soldiers) endorsed explicitly by the state to commit acts of physical violence. If you cannot see the issues with using the same standards in regards to them as to normal citizens, you do not understand human nature.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    "First take the log out of your own eye..." - Jesus If police violence is the problem (and it is), then my violence isn't the solution. Worse, it removes me from any kind of moral high ground where I can try to help end police violence by trying to change police policy, training, or character. Instead, it leads me in the direction of civil war. Is starting a civil war really your best answer to police violence? Or do you think "just kill a few and things will straighten out"?
    - angersock 10y ago
      > Is starting a civil war really your best answer to police violence? I have not advocated for that position here, because like you I think that there are better ways of fixing the problem--policy, training, and recruitment. That all said, I think we have to acknowledge that we can't use the same moral calculus for officers (read: agents of state violence) that we do for common citizens. You even mention as much when you invoke "the moral high ground", because there is a qualitative difference between an act of violence committed by a citizen on their own (presumably limited to their own resources and defensible only by circumstance) and a one committed by an agent of the state (limited only by the resources allocated by the state and defensible by the blank check of "I'm a police officer"). For what it's worth, I don't have a strong alternative code to present at this time--I merely think that one is necessary. One could make the argument that, for example, officers forfeit the right to appeal in the event of a complaint against them, that they should be imprisoned immediately if found doing wrong and executed publicly if found falsifying evidence. This heavy burden--especially if eagerly applied--would serve to help limit the number of people who merely want to be a thug with a badge. And that's not a great plan for a number of reasons--consider the case where criminals just cry foul to remove officers from circulation. But we have to start thinking beyond the simple idea that an officer is in the same moral calculus as a citizen. It's precisely to avoid civil war that change has to happen: when a private citizen commits murder, it is an isolated tragedy. When an agent of the state that does the same, it is cause to question the validity of that state. A lying citizen is not a sign of societal decay, but a lying officer or agent of the state is.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Police officers and other agents of the state need to be held to a higher standard. On that I think we agree. Criminals will try to game the system. I agree on that as well. > A lying citizen is not a sign of societal decay, but a lying officer or agent of the state is. A lying citizen is a sign of societal decay. A lying officer or agent of the state is a bigger sign.
        angersock 10y ago
pavel_lishin 10y ago
How is it logical? It is 100% an emotional response, an angry response born of frustration. What is logically gained from dead policemen? You will suffer, since you'll be in prison, or possibly dead. Your community will suffer, since if the police were brutal before, they're certainly not going to hold back now.
- tremon 10y ago
  Isn't it logical to expect emotional responses after 20 years of not dealing with the problem?
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    It's logical to expect emotional responses, but it's not logical to get carried away by your emotions to the point of murder, and pretend like you're doing something great.
    - tremon 10y ago
      Just to be clear, I am not defending the use of excessive force in any circumstance. But when we ignore the reasons behind the violent reactions, we perpetuate the problem. The first step towards change is acknowledging you have a problem.

angersock 10y ago

I'll reply to you and pavel_lishin and nl in one place here, so we keep the subthread tidy. To dispatch the examples of Gandhi and MLK--please ask yourselves how their civil disobedience would be handled in modern America. Ask yourselves how their messages would be mocked, subverted, and distorted with modern social media, even without state intervention. These are different times, my friends. (Also, mentioning MLK while glossing over the credible threat of armed domestic terrorism posed by Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and many other factions at that time in American history is inaccurate--you miss a lot of the background political pressure brought to bear by people "standing up to bullies".) The reason I asked the parent question was not to be ghoulish or edgy, and I mean that sincerely. The fact of the matter is that the quaint notion of "standing up to the bullies" is completely out of date. You probably imagine telling some guard to fuck off, and when they return with a cop, what then? You'd give the officer (who is probably of less-than-amazing intelligence, because of a court case years ago allowing PDs to discriminate on that) a lecture on the freedom of panorama, and they'd let you be? If not, then what? If you don't resist, you hardly have "stood up to the bullies". If you resist and lose--and remember, resisting can be anything as simple as bleeding on the officer's uniform when they decide to truncheon you--you will then be rewarded with the slow grinding gears of American "justice". At the very least, even if found innocent, you'll be out major court costs and time, while the bullies go about their business unimpeded. If you resist and win--say, by beating the shit out of the bullies--then they'll summon additional forces until you are subdued. Subdued repeatedly. There may be an investigation later, but that'll be of academic interest to you while you're handcuffed to a hospital bed recuperating to be in good shape for your prison sentence. So, again, bearing that escalation in mind, think about my earlier question--because that's the inevitable chain of actions that start with "standing up to the bullies". And that's why when a poster points out that maybe standing up is just not a good idea, we shouldn't downvote them.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> If you resist and lose--and remember, resisting can be anything as simple as bleeding on the officer's uniform when they decide to truncheon you--you will then be rewarded with the slow grinding gears of American "justice". > you resist and win--say, by beating the shit out of the bullies These are not the only two outcomes of resisting, and that is not the only way to win. I reject your false binary of "submit to anyone who might summon authority | murder policemen" as the only possible choices when faced with this scenario.