4 ms·

>> There were also times it failed. In one incident the guards caught three people trying to jump a fence, they used a disabled toilet in one of the stores as a

by smtddr 13y ago

>> There were also times it failed. In one incident the guards caught three people trying to jump a fence, they used a disabled toilet in one of the stores as a makeshift prison cell and beat the three 'suspects' up and kept them in there for 24 hours. I can't describe how much blood there was on the floor and walls, but the three were eventually released (I was told they 'have to' do this so that other potential thieves go elsewhere, and that the police wouldn't do anything) I hope this doesn't make me sound like a cruel person. I realize sensitivity to this kind of stuff is different depending where you are in the world. But, why do you consider this a failure? I understand it isn't as "civilized, humanitarian, feel-good" as the western-world's perceived standards, but this is absolutely how it's done in areas without reliable police enforcement. Until a stable & reliable law-enforcement can be set up, I honestly believe significant beatings for would-be thieves is the best deterrent for crime. Especially for 3rd-world countries; less things truly fall into complete chaos.

buyx 13y ago
Good point. Mobs beating suspected crooks up is frowned upon by the educated middle class (Rule of Law and all that), less so by the poor (which these security guards probably were), and who are more exposed to police ineptitude. (Not that it makes it right, of course)
sneak 13y ago
Because the rule of law hinges upon the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. Jumping a fence is not sufficient evidence alone that they were going to steal. Furthermore, beating people like savages is not an acceptable punishment even if they were. It seems to me like you've never been accused of a crime you didn't actually commit. The idea here is that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than erroneously punish one innocent. I shouldn't have to explain this.
- shiven 13y ago
  The idea here is that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than erroneously punish one innocent. That idea is awesome. Nay, it is the lynchpin of a successful society. And it is all namby-pamby, Gandhi-an truth-and-justice until you have to live and survive in situations where crimes happen with impunity and go unpunished due to systemic apathy of the law-enforcers. You can spew principles all day from your basement, but they mean naught until you have walked in the shoes of those you criticize. I shouldn't have to explain that.
  - sneak 13y ago
    I grew up in Detroit. Please try again. I'm not talking about apathy, I'm talking about justice. If systemic apathy is the problem, then they won't be beating them, either. It's a straw man argument.
sneak 13y ago
> I understand it isn't as "civilized, humanitarian, feel-good" as the western-world's perceived standards Also, you're using weasel words. They're not "perceived standards", it's simply uncivilized, animalistic behavior. It is unacceptable, regardless of circumstance.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- shiven 13y ago
  It is unacceptable, regardless of circumstance. Weasely hogwash from someone who clearly has no idea of ground reality. Otherwise, I agree with your highfalutin talk, um-hmm.
king_jester 13y ago
This has always been a terrible system and will continue to be. Giving an authority class an unchecked license to beat, harass, rape, and assault persons that may or may have not been intending to commit a crime is a recipe for brutality in a community.
- smtddr 13y ago
  > Giving an authority class an unchecked license to beat, harass, rape, and assault persons that may or may have not been intending to commit a crime is a recipe for brutality in a community. So, other than the rape it's about the same as American law enforcement. ;) I'm sorry, I'm just joking.... _kinda_. To be serious though, I think a community has more power over a hired private security group than the community has power over first-world law enforcement. If the people of Oakland felt there was more negative than positive with the security group being around, they can just stop paying them[1]. To stop the Oakland PD, is a bit more complicated. I also believe the Oakland community would get to know the security-enforcers a bit more if they directly hire them. Perhaps even become friends; then maybe members of the community would join in at which point the line between the defenders & defendees would blur. The community would feel stronger. That feeling, even if not really true, of enpowerment I think counters feelings of hopelessness and could be the beginning of real change in troubled parts of Oakland. Or, I could be very wrong. The private-security-group could try to enforce, get completely gunned down and quit and the whole experiment fails.... 1. They really need to make sure they find the right people though. Hiring the wrong people, then firing them can make things worse than when it started. I think it's important that whoever they hire work closely with community members and befriended.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Well, the police have a deal with the prison guards to let them dole out all the rape. They don't want to encroach on their turf.

by smtddr 13y ago

buyx 13y ago

Good point. Mobs beating suspected crooks up is frowned upon by the educated middle class (Rule of Law and all that), less so by the poor (which these security guards probably were), and who are more exposed to police ineptitude. (Not that it makes it right, of course)

sneak 13y ago

Because the rule of law hinges upon the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. Jumping a fence is not sufficient evidence alone that they were going to steal. Furthermore, beating people like savages is not an acceptable punishment even if they were. It seems to me like you've never been accused of a crime you didn't actually commit. The idea here is that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than erroneously punish one innocent. I shouldn't have to explain this.

shiven 13y ago
The idea here is that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than erroneously punish one innocent. That idea is awesome. Nay, it is the lynchpin of a successful society. And it is all namby-pamby, Gandhi-an truth-and-justice until you have to live and survive in situations where crimes happen with impunity and go unpunished due to systemic apathy of the law-enforcers. You can spew principles all day from your basement, but they mean naught until you have walked in the shoes of those you criticize. I shouldn't have to explain that.
- sneak 13y ago
  I grew up in Detroit. Please try again. I'm not talking about apathy, I'm talking about justice. If systemic apathy is the problem, then they won't be beating them, either. It's a straw man argument.

sneak 13y ago

> I understand it isn't as "civilized, humanitarian, feel-good" as the western-world's perceived standards Also, you're using weasel words. They're not "perceived standards", it's simply uncivilized, animalistic behavior. It is unacceptable, regardless of circumstance.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
shiven 13y ago
It is unacceptable, regardless of circumstance. Weasely hogwash from someone who clearly has no idea of ground reality. Otherwise, I agree with your highfalutin talk, um-hmm.

king_jester 13y ago

This has always been a terrible system and will continue to be. Giving an authority class an unchecked license to beat, harass, rape, and assault persons that may or may have not been intending to commit a crime is a recipe for brutality in a community.

smtddr 13y ago
> Giving an authority class an unchecked license to beat, harass, rape, and assault persons that may or may have not been intending to commit a crime is a recipe for brutality in a community. So, other than the rape it's about the same as American law enforcement. ;) I'm sorry, I'm just joking.... _kinda_. To be serious though, I think a community has more power over a hired private security group than the community has power over first-world law enforcement. If the people of Oakland felt there was more negative than positive with the security group being around, they can just stop paying them[1]. To stop the Oakland PD, is a bit more complicated. I also believe the Oakland community would get to know the security-enforcers a bit more if they directly hire them. Perhaps even become friends; then maybe members of the community would join in at which point the line between the defenders & defendees would blur. The community would feel stronger. That feeling, even if not really true, of enpowerment I think counters feelings of hopelessness and could be the beginning of real change in troubled parts of Oakland. Or, I could be very wrong. The private-security-group could try to enforce, get completely gunned down and quit and the whole experiment fails.... 1. They really need to make sure they find the right people though. Hiring the wrong people, then firing them can make things worse than when it started. I think it's important that whoever they hire work closely with community members and befriended.
- scarmig 13y ago
  Well, the police have a deal with the prison guards to let them dole out all the rape. They don't want to encroach on their turf.