6 ms·
This is similar to the "just following orders" defense. I mean, if they are physically oppressing you, it's hard to say they aren't really culpable.
by Judgmentality 6y ago
This is similar to the "just following orders" defense. I mean, if they are physically oppressing you, it's hard to say they aren't really culpable.
- zepto 6y agoSure - but only if you picture an innocent peaceful protestor being smashed to the ground by a mindless thug of a police officer who loves his job and has no family and nothing to lose. It’s rarely that clean.
- Judgmentality 6y agoClean or not, people need to be held accountable for their actions. I mean if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, right? These are supposed to be public servants (although that's obviously not the case). So no, I still don't feel bad about it, even if that cop needs the job to feed his family. Maybe they should fight the system that doesn't support their citizens in need (people with health problems, people who don't have money for food, people who don't have homes) instead of being willing participants against those fighting for a better government that actually serves the needs of its people?
- zepto 6y agoIf you can be sure that the protestors are all trying to make a better government for everyone, then I’d agree. But that’s never the case. There is always a mixture of people with good motivations, people who just want to get into a fight. This is just as true for the protestors as it is for the police. If it was so clear what was right, then it would be simple to overthrow the government since the vast majority of people would be in agreement.
- Judgmentality 6y agoThis is about accountability, not right vs wrong. The courts can decide that (in theory, anyway).
- zepto 6y agoDoes accountability mean retaliation to you?
- Judgmentality 6y agoI already made it clear it's about greater transparency so people can be held accountable by the courts. Whether or not the court system is about retaliation is a completely separate debate. I'm exiting this thread as you've shown no interest in listening to anyone that has disagreed with you.
- zepto 6y agoExit whenever you like. This is not about ‘disagreement’, it’s about understanding distinctions. Doxxing doesn’t equate to transparency or holding people accountable in court, and it certainly can mean retaliation. That brings us back to my original point - if you believe in accountability you don’t necessarily believe in doxxing cops. It’s not that clean.
- MegaButts 6y agoSo you believe the police should police themselves? Honestly I'd prefer vigilante justice over that. Dox the cops, 100%. I'd rather a cop be hurt unfairly in the line of duty than a protester fighting for what he believes in. This country was founded on overthrowing tyrrany. If the cops don't accept the risks of the job then they can quit. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, not lower or even equal. The government (and police) should fear the people, not the other way around. So no. It is that clean.
- zepto 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862215 Nobody said anything about the police policing themselves. That doesn’t mean the only alternative is doxxing. That is a false dichotomy. It’s only ‘clean’ if you can only see two options, and think there are no alternatives.
- josephcsible 6y ago> I mean if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, right? You can't use that line on groups of people you don't like while also wanting privacy for groups of people you do like.
- Judgmentality 6y agoI agree with your premise of equality - that you can't have it both ways. My point was if the government uses that power against its people, the people should be able to use that power against their government. However in this case it's actually different, as police officers are meant to be public servants.
- fsflover 6y agoI disagree. People paid by the public must be accountable to the public and all their (paid) actions should not be private. (Exceptions may apply to this general rule, though they are debatable)
- zepto 6y agoYes, but you haven’t said whether you think this means that the names, photos and home addresses of all police should be made public. Just because someone does public work doesn’t mean they should be denied a private life.
- fsflover 6y agoWhat do you suggest to do here? Either you allow the oppressors to beat people and stay anonymous, not get punished or you create a community trying to deanonymize them with all the consequences.
- zepto 6y ago“not get punished” Are you saying the goal of de-anonymizing is to punish the police? Earlier it seemed like you were interested in trials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24862054
- fsflover 6y agoIt's rarely that clean, but it is clean for the case of Belarus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fYwA4xinyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fYwA4xinyA (Warning: Contains video some may find distressing)
- zepto 6y agoI have seen video of similar (arguably worse) behavior from police in the US. I’ve also personally witnessed a policeman on horseback in the UK striking a peaceful and stationary protester in the head with a baton resulting in profuse bleeding. If it’s true in Belarus, then it’s also true in the UK, and US. But, what isn’t clear is that a Telegram group doxxing officers is a clean way to deal with it. How do we know which officers were doxxed and for what reason? How do we know what will happen to them? Would you feel comfortable if the officer in your video was killed? Doesn’t seem clean to me.
- fsflover 6y agoKnowing who breaks the law and applies violence to civil protesters will allow to have a fair trial later.
- zepto 6y agoI completely agree. Keep a dossier, have a trial. Doxxing is not that. Indeed I could see it even being raised as a defense against future culpability. “The officer was in fear for his life because he was being personally targeted by protestors.”
- anigbrowl 6y agoKeep a dossier, have a trial. When? Your approach is to limit political autonomy to zero and offer an institutional solution that will probably not be available. What if the compilation or possession of such a dossier is treated as evidence of conspiracy to commit sedition?
- eecc 6y agoNope, it does happen exactly like you described. The repression of Genova G8 by the Italian riot police and the Carabinieri was an example of "lovin' it". Some of the participants in the brutalities called it a "mexican slaughterhouse" and several trials came to the conclusion that massive human rights violations have occurred. Unfortunately the commanding officers have been promoted for not maintaining order and not exercising the authority over their men that their role demanded. They too loved it though and throughout.
- zepto 6y agoI said rarely. Not never.
- fsflover 6y agoSo what's your point? If it's rare than we should not hold the police accountable?
- zepto 6y agoWell I’d say the video you posted shows something quite different from the ‘Mexican slaughterhouse’ described by the parent. Are you saying doxxing and random retaliatory violence equates to ‘accountability’?
- pessimizer 6y agoIn practice it turns out even worse. The people in command deny giving the orders, and the people hitting you with the stick say that they weren't given the proper support or tools. Everybody in the chain of command claims to be weak or hamstrung, yet you're the one on the ground bleeding.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- eecc 6y agoTrue. But while I don't disagree that Police is often as culpable as the ruling class, I'm weary of these methods. You don't doxx police officers and paste their IDs online. The chance you're taking, the certainty indeed, is that someone will follow through (perhaps even an agent provocateur) providing the justification for waves of ruthless revenge. Nope, you bring your dossiers to a higher court and ask for Justice (EU, ICJ, UN.) Edit: unless of course the situation has deteriorated so badly that the prospect of civil war with all its casualties and pain is on the table.
- anigbrowl 6y agoHave you noticed how ridiculously long it takes to get anything done by the institutional route, and how this is partly because reactionaries expend effort on undermining those very institutions (the US, for example, has gone from proposing the establishment of something like the ICJ, to refusing to take part in it, to threatening sanctions against it)?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> the US, for example, has gone from proposing the establishment of something like the ICJ, to refusing to take part in it, to threatening sanctions against it You seem to be confusing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
- anigbrowl 6y agoGood catch, I made a careless mistake. Thanks. On the other hand, I think my point about national attacks on supranational institutions remains relevant.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Nope, you bring your dossiers to a higher court and ask for Justice (EU, ICJ, UN.) The EU isn't a court, and European institutions (including European courts like the ECHR) are particularly not "higher courts" over police in the US. The ICJ hears only cases between state parties, not between states and their subjects, and the UN isn't a court at all, and, again, is only a forum for state parties, not for disputes between individuals and states, though sometimes you can get a state party to stand up for subjects of another state; but, that's not really much of a practical option if the offending state is the US, both because of its Security Council role (which Uniting for Peace, in theory, provides a route around through the General Assembly), and because of its hyperpower status (which means that there is, in practice, no way to enforce a decision against it, even if one was reached through UfP.)