10 ms·
Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents sure sounds like something everyone should b
by Pfhreak 6y ago
Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents sure sounds like something everyone should be opposed to, no matter their political camp.
If someone thinks that's a healthy part of a democracy, I'd be real curious about your reasoning.
- 4gotunameagain 6y agoSadly USA seized to be a democracy quite some time ago
- DiffEq 6y agoThe USA was never a democracy and was never meant to be a democracy. The U.S. is a Constitutional Republic.
- Retric 6y agoThe existence of DC and territories means it’s not a Republic either. The US is it’s own thing neither a union of states or any specific type of government, which seems oddly appropriate.
- DiffEq 6y agoSo on Hacker News I know get down-voted for stating a patently true and undeniable fact. This forum has devolved into Reddit.
- brainfog 6y agoIt may be patently true, but it added nothing to the discussion beyond "well, actually".
- kryogen1c 6y agohe corrected wrong information. how exactly is that not adding to the discussion?
- brainfog 6y agoWords don't have to be used literally. Everyone knew exactly what the original poster meant by democracy. Well-actually'ing on obvious things like this is just tiresome.
- enraged_camel 6y agoIt is pedantry of the worst sort: derails the discussion without adding anything of substance to it.
- jakeogh 6y agoIt's not a trivial distinction. A republic protects the _inalienable_ rights of the minority. It's not up to anyone. It's the reason a creator is valuable to even atheists.
- mywittyname 6y agoIt appears that you misunderstand the definition of democracy, which is, a system of government where people may choose their leadership and/or laws, either directly or indirectly. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the USA is not a democracy, but the definition or words is largely determined by consensus. And most Americans would disagree with you and refer to the American system of government as democracy due to their beliefs that voting is the most fundamental determinant of a democracy, and many Americans have first-hand experience voting for leadership, legislators, and laws.
- hef19898 6y agoGermany and France are republics. And democracies. That's a lazy argument to make.
- creaghpatr 6y agoUndercover officers were used to inform on the Trump campaign in 2016 (see Azra Turk), sometimes it's necessary for national security.
- cperciva 6y agoThere's a big difference between undercover police officers and officers who are overtly police but refuse to identify themselves.
- creaghpatr 6y agoSure, and they both fall into this category: >Police who refuse to identify themselves and carry no markings used against an administration's political opponents
- newacct583 6y agoThat's not the only distinction that matters though. Investigators are assigned to specific crimes. Their job is gathering evidence, not enforcing laws. The point to needing to identify police is that without that rule and the accountability that comes with it the "police" become just another gang on the streets. None of that is relevant to investigatory law enforcement. Obviously both kinds of anonymity can be abused, but only one has an easy and obvious solution. Seriously: no one sane thinks that riot cops should be operating in street clothes and refusing to identify themselves. This whole subthread is a ridiculous digression.
- bitwize 6y agoThe famous "We don't need no stinking badges" line was spoken by a character who led a band of Mexican bandits posing as Federales. When bandits become indistinguishable from cops, cops become indistinguishable from bandits.
- csours 6y agoInvestigator vs Enforcer. Enforcers should should be clearly identifiable.
- madengr 6y agoI'd rather they be counterbalanced with a well-armed citizenry, such as the "cosplaying" the article insultingly describes.
- newacct583 6y agoDo you genuinely believe that if the protestors had been armed that we wouldn't have had multiple deaths when the Park Police took the park by force? Or are you arguing that the police wouldn't have moved on the protestors at all? Knowing what happened, I think it's clearly better for all of us that the park was held by hippies with spray cans.
- mywittyname 6y agoHe genuinely believes that "armed protests" are peaceful because his side has been involved in hundreds and they were all peaceful. So he obviously thinks the guns were the differentiator and not the privilege enjoyed by being a bunch of old white men with the support of the authorities. A number of cops were shot at during these recent protest. Our mayor was discussing this very fact this morning. Turn out, all that body armor is highly effective at stopping small arms fire. (There was no elaboration on who did the shooting though, so I guess it could have been friendly fire)
- vorpalhex 6y agoThe black panthers had several armed marches.. and one reason why they took up arms was because they kept getting (illegally) arrested for marching unarmed. They actually sat at the California courthouse while armed.. and everything that day was peaceful. That did inspire Reagan to pass significant gun control laws though, both as Governor and President. Image: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.huffingtonpost.com%2Fasset%2F1910_1000%2F585aebc31800002d00e43f9e.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi...
- icelancer 6y agoSounds a lot like someone who does not know the history of the Black Panthers and Republicans who used to be all about gun control.
- analog31 6y agoI think the principle is pretty broadly recognized. As I understand it, international law would treat them as unlawful combatants. Use of irregular troops against a civilian population falls pretty much smack dab into the middle of what most people recognize as terrorism. The only problem is that international law doesn't govern how a country conducts activities on their own people. But it reflects a widespread consensus nonetheless. Note: I'm not accusing the police of terrorism -- that would be pretty massively inflammatory and not my intent -- but simply giving examples to support a widespread discomfort with using non-uniformed forces.
- bloak 6y agoI thought the whole point about "unlawful combatants" is that the concept does not exist in international law. It's just something that the US government made up as a bad excuse for ignoring international law.
- XOPJ 6y agoGiven this is happening within the US I think it's valid to apply 'made up US law' against itself?
- rgbrenner 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
- andrewla 6y agoAs you note, police are not subject to the laws of war -- they routinely use devices (pepper spray, tear gas, hollow-point bullets) that would be war crimes were they to be used in an armed conflict. This is not problematic on the face of it -- police are expected to use non-lethal tactics whenever possible, and the laws of war are hugely biased towards killing rather injuring because overwhelming your opponent with casualties is considered inhumane in war.
- jki275 6y ago
- 8note 6y agoIf they aren't recognizable, should they be reported for impersonating a police officer?
- closeparen 6y agoThe self-preservation instincts of the United States government would be difficult for the most imaginative fantasy writer to overestimate. This is an institution that kept a fleet of custom-made aircraft on continuous airborne watch for 30 years, just in case all the secret backups to the secret backups of the underground operations centers were simultaneously destroyed, so that it would absolutely never lose the capability to end all life on earth. Do you really think there aren't an infinite number of heavily armed spooks ready to materialize from the ground under Washington, D.C. on a moment's notice? Do you really the think the agencies they work for all officially exist? Do you think they haven't been there since at least Reagan? There were fires near the White House. The leviathan is starting to feel a little bit threatened. Now if these guys are actually mixing it up with protestors I will be deeply worried. But while they are just a small presence on the sidelines, standing at at attention in their G-Man sunglasses and coiled earpieces, I will be reassured that the deep state functions exactly as I expect it to.
- hopfscotch 6y agoYou have a child’s understanding of our government. This isn’t a Tom Cruise movie.
- closeparen 6y agoYou haven't read much about the intelligence community or the nuclear weapons and continuity of government programs. Hollywood has no need to make shit up.
- hopfscotch 6y agoI have read about it. I just don’t fetishize it.
- dang 6y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html