4 ms·

Monopoly on legal violence is the job description. Don't want things smashed, don't use a hammer. Don't want violence, don't send a cop.

by donatj 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago
Such grasp of the point - monopoly of legal violence - completely perverts it. Who is given powers to perform a function, plainly must not abuse them. The police is entrusted with a power to use violence, which means it is given a special responsibility associated with the special power: to abuse it is corruption, which is treason against the mandate, against the role and against the Entity empowering and entrusting. One is given a hammer, one is entrusted not to smash things. Don't want thing smashed, hire reliable personnel. If a cop is sent and you get gratuitous violence, that individual is unfit for its job, its behaviour is corrupt and it is treason.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  You're speaking from the position of how it should be, while everyone else is talking about how it is. It's not hard to find plenty of instances of police abusing their power and getting away with it. In many departments, "Internal Affairs" works FOR the police, rather than as a neutral 3rd party. The "We investigated ourselves and found no wrong-doing" is a common meme because it's often true.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Where that is tolerated (including accepted as a fact, or put aside as a background fact), the involved societies have a much bigger problem to deal with first. And if that fact is forced to fit into someone's mind through monstrous excuses for thought (with reference to that involving undefined association with violence), to problem (1) - the corruption in the state -, and problem (0) just above - the corruption of the members of society -, you get an even bigger damage (-1) - thought pollution, the corruption of clear cognitive function.
atoav 5y ago
Weirdly enough in Europe I would be not even remotely afraid when a cop stops me. The likelyhood they would do something weird or violent is pretty slim and most traffic police is quite friendly. Then again police school is harder to get into, takes much, much longer than in the US etc.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  From what I understand weapons is the main cause. I literally know 0 people of my friends who own a gun in Europe. How many cops are getting killed in US vs Europe? They kind of have the right to be super cautious.
  - atoav 5y ago
    I grew up in a city with a major Glock factory and a thriving gunsmith industry, with every other person being a hunter. My father showed me how to shoot when I was 10. The idea that the unique problems the US has in with guns are a simple result of the numbers of gun owners is wrong. There are tons of gun owners in the Alps and in Scandinavia, and not a single region has comparable problems. Over here if at all guns are usually used in suicides and domestic murders, someone robbing you at gunpoint is so rare that it is newsworthy. I'd say this has more to do with how we deal with poor, sick and/or criminal people than with the existence of guns.

Monopoly on legal violence is the job description. Don't want things smashed, don't use a hammer. Don't want violence, don't send a cop.

by donatj 5y ago

Monopoly on legal violence is the job description. Don't want things smashed, don't use a hammer. Don't want violence, don't send a cop.

mdp2021 5y ago

Such grasp of the point - monopoly of legal violence - completely perverts it. Who is given powers to perform a function, plainly must not abuse them. The police is entrusted with a power to use violence, which means it is given a special responsibility associated with the special power: to abuse it is corruption, which is treason against the mandate, against the role and against the Entity empowering and entrusting. One is given a hammer, one is entrusted not to smash things. Don't want thing smashed, hire reliable personnel. If a cop is sent and you get gratuitous violence, that individual is unfit for its job, its behaviour is corrupt and it is treason.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
You're speaking from the position of how it should be, while everyone else is talking about how it is. It's not hard to find plenty of instances of police abusing their power and getting away with it. In many departments, "Internal Affairs" works FOR the police, rather than as a neutral 3rd party. The "We investigated ourselves and found no wrong-doing" is a common meme because it's often true.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Where that is tolerated (including accepted as a fact, or put aside as a background fact), the involved societies have a much bigger problem to deal with first. And if that fact is forced to fit into someone's mind through monstrous excuses for thought (with reference to that involving undefined association with violence), to problem (1) - the corruption in the state -, and problem (0) just above - the corruption of the members of society -, you get an even bigger damage (-1) - thought pollution, the corruption of clear cognitive function.

atoav 5y ago

Weirdly enough in Europe I would be not even remotely afraid when a cop stops me. The likelyhood they would do something weird or violent is pretty slim and most traffic police is quite friendly. Then again police school is harder to get into, takes much, much longer than in the US etc.

dzhiurgis 5y ago
From what I understand weapons is the main cause. I literally know 0 people of my friends who own a gun in Europe. How many cops are getting killed in US vs Europe? They kind of have the right to be super cautious.
- atoav 5y ago
  I grew up in a city with a major Glock factory and a thriving gunsmith industry, with every other person being a hunter. My father showed me how to shoot when I was 10. The idea that the unique problems the US has in with guns are a simple result of the numbers of gun owners is wrong. There are tons of gun owners in the Alps and in Scandinavia, and not a single region has comparable problems. Over here if at all guns are usually used in suicides and domestic murders, someone robbing you at gunpoint is so rare that it is newsworthy. I'd say this has more to do with how we deal with poor, sick and/or criminal people than with the existence of guns.