8 ms·

With regular assholes you have the right to self-defense. With the police you don't.

by deathgrips 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago
Without police or “criminal justice apparatus” your rights are merely theoretical.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  If you feel this insecure, you should purchase firearms and practice using them. Many of your neighbors are doing this.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Or we could keep the police and purchase firearms.
  - liability 6y ago
    Why not have the government hire people to do that for me? Call it "socialized defense" or something.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Your experiences with this may have gone better for you than those of many of your neighbors went for them?
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      American police departments have no duty to protect you. They are law enforcement officers who choose at their own discretion to arrive at your home seven minutes after you dial 911.
      - zaarn 6y ago
        Make it their duty to protect you.
        staticassertion 6y ago
        What do you do with all of the people, and the entire system, that's been built and trained for a century to not do that? I doubt many people are against the idea of a specialized government role that provides protection services. What they are against is: * Thinking we can get that role by reforming existing police systems, given how opposed police systems are to such reform * That these systems need the absurd budgets of police departments * That the role requires absurd levels of protection for violent actions * That the role requires armaments in the majority of cases Going form police to a role that fits those criteria is going to start with not having police.
        zaarn 6y ago
        You fire them all and rehire the ones that are capable of being proper police officers.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It's federal case law that the profession of policing doesn't require what you're asking.
        zaarn 6y ago
        Then you make it law that it becomes required.
        monocasa 6y ago
        I guess I'm just on the side of: if the only thing we think police should be doing is something they already legally don't have to do, achieving the goal of getting that covered is better handled by tearing the entire system down and building a new system with a new name and new members than trying to force reform on orgs that have fought it tooth and nail. The actors that have gotten rulings like Warren v. District of Columbia obviously don't want reform in this area, and I don't see much success in forcing it on them. They have the time, resources, and inclination to fight it at every step, and piecemeal subvert the spirit of the reforms as they occur.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  I have a gun and my right to defend myself is a practical, factual statement. American police have no duty to protect you and are free from legal punishment if they choose to idly wait while you are assaulted and raped.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia#Warren,_Taliaferro,_and_Douglas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia...
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    You missed the point. You can assert your rights all the livelong day, but without a criminal justice apparatus all you have are a gun and some fine words. Given the relatively high mortality among armed gang members in America's underpoliced inner cities, your gun isn't the reason you and yours enjoy relatively low mortality--the difference is either one of policing or fine words, and I'm pretty sure it's not the latter.
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      No, you are missing the point. Without a gun there is nothing keeping you safe aside from a cop's whims. If someone wanted to walk into your house/office and kill you, a cop would (1) stop them, (2) choose not to stop them and not get punished for it, or (3) not get to you in time to be of any help. Defending yourself is the fourth option you exercise with your right to self-defense. If you really think that cops are bad, arrange your life so that your life doesn't depend on their whims. I live in a state where at least two thirds of people own guns (usually multiple guns) and the crime rate is very low.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        I really don't think I'm missing the point. I might be missing your point, since you seem to have misinterpreted the thread and gone off onto your own digression. I'm all for 2A and I don't think cops are bad, but guns aren't keeping the peace, the police are keeping the peace, even if they aren't a perfect institution. There are lots of places with lots of guns and few police, and they are not known for being nice places to live. This conversation has reached the absurd--those of us without guns aren't dying multiple times per day as your "without a gun..." comment suggests. I'm not interested in debating absurdities, so I'll leave you with the last word.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  If anything I would think them even more practical, but require one to be more active in their enforcement. But that is the thing I don't see being recognize. While the current institute that is the police could pass away, society will still have rules and will still want enforcers of those rules (though not all rules are equally enforced). And you see this in any supposedly anarchic community, they still have social standards they enforce, they just do not rely the nearby government for enforcement of smaller issues (though there is still a reliance for larger issues, such as stopping annexation by an entity with a larger force). In turn this makes me think all such communities are actually minarchist instead of anarchist, which is a drastic difference in base assumptions.

With regular assholes you have the right to self-defense. With the police you don't.

throwaway894345 6y ago

Without police or “criminal justice apparatus” your rights are merely theoretical.

jessaustin 6y ago
If you feel this insecure, you should purchase firearms and practice using them. Many of your neighbors are doing this.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Or we could keep the police and purchase firearms.
- liability 6y ago
  Why not have the government hire people to do that for me? Call it "socialized defense" or something.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Your experiences with this may have gone better for you than those of many of your neighbors went for them?
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    American police departments have no duty to protect you. They are law enforcement officers who choose at their own discretion to arrive at your home seven minutes after you dial 911.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      Make it their duty to protect you.
      - staticassertion 6y ago
        What do you do with all of the people, and the entire system, that's been built and trained for a century to not do that? I doubt many people are against the idea of a specialized government role that provides protection services. What they are against is: * Thinking we can get that role by reforming existing police systems, given how opposed police systems are to such reform * That these systems need the absurd budgets of police departments * That the role requires absurd levels of protection for violent actions * That the role requires armaments in the majority of cases Going form police to a role that fits those criteria is going to start with not having police.
        zaarn 6y ago
        You fire them all and rehire the ones that are capable of being proper police officers.
        monocasa 6y ago
        It's federal case law that the profession of policing doesn't require what you're asking.
        zaarn 6y ago
        Then you make it law that it becomes required.
        monocasa 6y ago
        I guess I'm just on the side of: if the only thing we think police should be doing is something they already legally don't have to do, achieving the goal of getting that covered is better handled by tearing the entire system down and building a new system with a new name and new members than trying to force reform on orgs that have fought it tooth and nail. The actors that have gotten rulings like Warren v. District of Columbia obviously don't want reform in this area, and I don't see much success in forcing it on them. They have the time, resources, and inclination to fight it at every step, and piecemeal subvert the spirit of the reforms as they occur.
deathgrips 6y ago
I have a gun and my right to defend myself is a practical, factual statement. American police have no duty to protect you and are free from legal punishment if they choose to idly wait while you are assaulted and raped.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia#Warren,_Taliaferro,_and_Douglas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia...
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  You missed the point. You can assert your rights all the livelong day, but without a criminal justice apparatus all you have are a gun and some fine words. Given the relatively high mortality among armed gang members in America's underpoliced inner cities, your gun isn't the reason you and yours enjoy relatively low mortality--the difference is either one of policing or fine words, and I'm pretty sure it's not the latter.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    No, you are missing the point. Without a gun there is nothing keeping you safe aside from a cop's whims. If someone wanted to walk into your house/office and kill you, a cop would (1) stop them, (2) choose not to stop them and not get punished for it, or (3) not get to you in time to be of any help. Defending yourself is the fourth option you exercise with your right to self-defense. If you really think that cops are bad, arrange your life so that your life doesn't depend on their whims. I live in a state where at least two thirds of people own guns (usually multiple guns) and the crime rate is very low.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      I really don't think I'm missing the point. I might be missing your point, since you seem to have misinterpreted the thread and gone off onto your own digression. I'm all for 2A and I don't think cops are bad, but guns aren't keeping the peace, the police are keeping the peace, even if they aren't a perfect institution. There are lots of places with lots of guns and few police, and they are not known for being nice places to live. This conversation has reached the absurd--those of us without guns aren't dying multiple times per day as your "without a gun..." comment suggests. I'm not interested in debating absurdities, so I'll leave you with the last word.
SkyBelow 6y ago
If anything I would think them even more practical, but require one to be more active in their enforcement. But that is the thing I don't see being recognize. While the current institute that is the police could pass away, society will still have rules and will still want enforcers of those rules (though not all rules are equally enforced). And you see this in any supposedly anarchic community, they still have social standards they enforce, they just do not rely the nearby government for enforcement of smaller issues (though there is still a reliance for larger issues, such as stopping annexation by an entity with a larger force). In turn this makes me think all such communities are actually minarchist instead of anarchist, which is a drastic difference in base assumptions.