Do we really need the Police?

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

check this out as a reference real fast... kinda goes to show what would happen I think

en.wikipedia.org...

I think you are right. That is exactly what has happened to the Police.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Text Police came into existence to fill a void created by weak men. Hell, they made it illegal to act in any way shape or form like one of them. That tells you right there theyre scared of being discovered as useless.

reply to post by DrNotforhire


The government is Zimbardo

Police are the guards.

We are the prisoners

It must still be the first day

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Punishment most definately is a deterrent, along with sound moral reasoning. In regards to American prison statistics, one might look at educational achievement, employment prospects - you will find that it is actually societal factors, lack of opportunities etc that case offending / re-offending...though thats starting to get off-topic.

Perhaps you could explain how I could prevent someone walking up to me and threatening me with a knife? Any action - of my own, a passer-by, or the police - is a reaction - not a preventative step. The majority of crimes and deviance cannot be prevented. Sad by true.

I know being macho online can give people that warm, fuzzy feeling inside, but do you REALLY think that moving to a state without law would in any way benefit anyone other than the most selfish and despicable?

It looks like many of the arguments made agains the police are valid in principle - but in reality - and in conflict with actual human nature and behaviour - just wouldn't stand.

Reply to post by ComeFindMe

What's fear of punishment preventing you from doing?

Either you're the kind of person who is willing to violate another human being or you aren't. The vast, vast majority of people aren't.

That small percentage that is is going to and is doing what they want regardless of punishment.

I would much rather abolish all of judiciary and risk the minute chance of becoming a victim to violence than to live with that same risk now while people face arrest for non-violent actions they inflict upon themselves.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

What's fear of punishment preventing you from doing?

Either you're the kind of person who is willing to violate another human being or you aren't. The vast, vast majority of people aren't.

That small percentage that is is going to and is doing what they want regardless of punishment.

I would much rather abolish all of judiciary and risk the minute chance of becoming a victim to violence than to live with that same risk now while people face arrest for non-violent actions they inflict upon themselves.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Interesting point, but doesnt it presume that there is no such thing as self-control? Someone with violent thoughts may not necessarily act upon them - therein lies the problem - if a psychopath fights his will for his entire life and dies a sweet old man, he would never have been known of as a psychopath and could not be contributed to that grouping of people.

Also, your point only works when it concerns physical crime - what about financial crime? There is still punishment for fraud, but it still doesnt mean a fraudster could or would violate or kill someone.

I'm still in the dark on your comment regarding 'preventing' yourself being a victim? Most grateful if you could elaborate.

Fundamentally, I dont think this is so much punishment, but an issue of consequence - when actions have no consequence, how on earth does reason or logic survive?

Do you honestly believe that the abolition of policing / judiciary would lead to a stabilising of / reduction in crime? I would be interested in hearing about how this conclusion has been reached!

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

check this out as a reference real fast... kinda goes to show what would happen I think

en.wikipedia.org...

I think you are right. That is exactly what has happened to the Police.

I see your point in principle, but could the exact same argument not be used from the other perspective?

Specifically, when everyday individuals are provided the opportunity to have power (remember, with no police there is nothing to stop anyone with dubious intentions flexing their muscles) they may seize it? That individuals otherwise care-free and reasonable in nature could become abusive? If there is no seperate tier of law, then we ALL become the law - acting as we will, as we want. The experiment proves the reality of human nature.

I think the criminals are more scared of us than they are of the Police. If vigilante style justice was the norm I think crime would actually decrease. I think there are more good people in the world than bad by a large margin. I think we can look after ourselves. I think we should look at a more libertarian type system of policing..

reply to post by theovermensch


But who determines the level of vigilantism? Do we cut off the hands of a thief, or hang him as an example to others?

Again, vigilantism is acceptable in principle, but not reality. During the London riots, 'the people' bayed for vigilante groups to do to the rioters what the police couldnt - rough justice. But then, groups of vigilantes started forming that were made up of EDL members (a dubious pseudo politcal party to say the least). Agendas - arguably - moved from targeting the rioters per se, to rioters of a certain racial background.

Do the vigilantes - if they act often - and lets all be honest, one act of rough justice would not stop crime in ints tracks - become the new 'police'? What if they do something you don't like? What if your son - caught in the middle of a riot - is accused of thieving and hanged. Who do you go to? If you consider it that way, I cant see any merit above the system we already have - and many reasons why it could be considered worse.

Consider if you will, how assuming the term " Police FORCE " is ? Osha's moto is safety first. So this should be a job for a public safety comission ( Local govt.). Not a police FORCE. There should only be a State Police. Drop
the use off the word FORCE. With depts.in every county, or even more concentrated down to cities and towns
as needed.
It seems to me, that a country that offers freedom and the pursuit of happiness to all, shouldn't assume it
will need to force its people to do anything. Seems like a paranoid rich mans mindset, that wants to protect his
wealth with force and POWER thru the state. Why would a free people have to be forced to do something ?
Why are they also FORCED to pay for the rich mans protection and at the same time ensure their own
tyranny.
If this country is really founded on The U.S. constitution and based on the freedoms described there in ?
Why would it need to arm itself against those it provides liberty too ? When the jackboots are bashing a group of
freedom loving peers peacefully parading, is it because our govt. is forcing them back into their freedoms ?
When you employ a FORCE aren't you expecting dissent ? No, we do not need to be FORCED to do anything .

reply to post by randyvs


Well its suppose to be "protect and serve"

not "give tickets going 5 MPH over the speed limit"

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Originally posted by jjkenobi
WOW what a completely ignorant post. I've never had the fire department help me either, so they must be irrelevant too. But I've also never played World of Warcraft so what do we need that steaming pile of crap for?

Mexico basically has no police, how's that working for them?

How many times do you see the fire department beat homeless people to death for no reason, or peperspray 84 year old ladies in the face for no reason ect ect.....

I missed that. I went with they dont extinguishing non existant fires

But exactly,Police are the most useless of all emergency services. If the Fire Department ,Ambulances, Nurse, Doctors are all essentail. The Police are not.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe

Interesting point, but doesnt it presume that there is no such thing as self-control? Someone with violent thoughts may not necessarily act upon them - therein lies the problem - if a psychopath fights his will for his entire life and dies a sweet old man, he would never have been known of as a psychopath and could not be contributed to that grouping of people.

This is where willingness to commit the act comes in. There is self-control. Some of us have violent tendencies and of that number some have self-control. Most of us do not have violent tendencies at all. Self-control exists outside of punishment or consequence. The real consequence of an act exists despite the artificial consequences imposed by man. Prison time or execution aside the consequence of murder is a lost life. A consequence which happens to have greater value than any man-made consequence dealt out by the justice system.

Also, your point only works when it concerns physical crime - what about financial crime? There is still punishment for fraud, but it still doesnt mean a fraudster could or would violate or kill someone.

No different than a physical crime in prevention and protection. Perhaps even easier to defend against since research can be done to reasonably size-up the investment.

I'm still in the dark on your comment regarding 'preventing' yourself being a victim? Most grateful if you could elaborate.

Using your example of being threatened with a knife. You threw responsibility for your well-being off to bystanders in a reactionary role. That's interesting to me. First, a lunatic simply shouting "I'm gonna cut you" isnt exactly a red zone situation. Lunatics and rambling addicts flood the streets in any urban area. So walk away. Pursuit escalates things. Fight or flight. It's up to you not some bystander. Chances are very good there isnt going to be a cop around within 5 blocks regardless of how I feel. That's just the reality. there's one cop for every thousand people.

Fundamentally, I dont think this is so much punishment, but an issue of consequence - when actions have no consequence, how on earth does reason or logic survive?

But there is always a consequence regardless of man-made consequences. The stove top is hot whether or not your father cracks a belt over your hide. A human being is dead regardless of whether or not you go to prison.

Do you honestly believe that the abolition of policing / judiciary would lead to a stabilising of / reduction in crime? I would be interested in hearing about how this conclusion has been reached!

Things would pretty much stay the same. Whenever restrictions are eased or lifted things either stay the same without the added cost of enforcement of they gradually over-time improve as people become more self reliant. Look at prohibition, firearm legislation, drug decriminalization, the autobahn, etc....

Lifting restrictions and bans and penalties has not yet devolved humanity into some cannibalistic free for all.

In America we have huge swaths of unincorporated land with populations that are days removed from any law enforcement involvement. Though these people could be getting away with murder daily they are not committing such acts.

Originally posted by randyvs
Consider if you will, how assuming the term " Police FORCE " is ? Oshas moto is safety first. So this should be a job for a public safety comission ( Local govt.). Not a police FORCE. There should only be a State Police. Drop
the use off the word FORCE. With depts.in every county, or even more concentrated down to cities and towns
as needed.
It seems to me, that a country that offers freedom and the pursuit of happiness to all ? Shouldn't assume it
will need to force its people to do anything. Seems like a paranoid rich mans mindset, that wants to protect his
wealth with force and POWER thru the state. Why would a free people have to be forcced to do something ?
Why are they also FORCED to pay for the rrich mans protection and at the same time ensure their own
tyranny.
If this country is really founded on The U.S. constitution and based on the freedoms described there in ?
Why would it need to arm itself against those it provides liberty too ? When the jackboots are bashing a group of
freedom loving peers peacefully parading ? Is it because our govt. is forcing them back into their freedoms ?
When you employ a FORCE aren't you expecting dissent ? No, we do not need to be FORCED to do anything .

edit on 6-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Thats awesome.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


I think the English Defense League are nationalists and whilst I do not support them my heart was warmed when I saw them come to the aid of the public.They attempted to provide for the public what the Police had failed to provide. I actually had them in mind when I wrote the thread.

I do not support the EDL or share their views but I feel they are entitled to voice them.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by randyvs

 

Well its suppose to be "protect and serve"

not "give tickets going 5 MPH over the speed limit"

They do protect and serve but what are the chances of that actually coming to fruition for me or any commoner ?
They protect and serve those they're supposed to directly. The rest of us, if and when they can, or if they even want to.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by ComeFindMe

Interesting point, but doesnt it presume that there is no such thing as self-control? Someone with violent thoughts may not necessarily act upon them - therein lies the problem - if a psychopath fights his will for his entire life and dies a sweet old man, he would never have been known of as a psychopath and could not be contributed to that grouping of people.

This is where willingness to commit the act comes in. There is self-control. Some of us have violent tendencies and of that number some have self-control. Most of us do not have violent tendencies at all. Self-control exists outside of punishment or consequence. The real consequence of an act exists despite the artificial consequences imposed by man. Prison time or execution aside the consequence of murder is a lost life. A consequence which happens to have greater value than any man-made consequence dealt out by the justice system.

Also, your point only works when it concerns physical crime - what about financial crime? There is still punishment for fraud, but it still doesnt mean a fraudster could or would violate or kill someone.

No different than a physical crime in prevention and protection. Perhaps even easier to defend against since research can be done to reasonably size-up the investment.

I'm still in the dark on your comment regarding 'preventing' yourself being a victim? Most grateful if you could elaborate.

Using your example of being threatened with a knife. You threw responsibility for your well-being off to bystanders in a reactionary role. That's interesting to me. First, a lunatic simply shouting "I'm gonna cut you" isnt exactly a red zone situation. Lunatics and rambling addicts flood the streets in any urban area. So walk away. Pursuit escalates things. Fight or flight. It's up to you not some bystander. Chances are very good there isnt going to be a cop around within 5 blocks regardless of how I feel. That's just the reality. there's one cop for every thousand people.

Fundamentally, I dont think this is so much punishment, but an issue of consequence - when actions have no consequence, how on earth does reason or logic survive?

But there is always a consequence regardless of man-made consequences. The stove top is hot whether or not your father cracks a belt over your hide. A human being is dead regardless of whether or not you go to prison.

Do you honestly believe that the abolition of policing / judiciary would lead to a stabilising of / reduction in crime? I would be interested in hearing about how this conclusion has been reached!

Things would pretty much stay the same. Whenever restrictions are eased or lifted things either stay the same without the added cost of enforcement of they gradually over-time improve as people become more self reliant. Look at prohibition, firearm legislation, drug decriminalization, the autobahn, etc....

Lifting restrictions and bands and penalties has not yet devolved humanity into some cannibalistic free for all.

In America we have huge swaths of unincorporated land with populations that are days removed from any law enforcement involvement. Though these people could be getting away with murder daily they are not committing such acts.

But how do I prevent myself being confronted by a knife wielding maniac? I cannot. Some crimes can be prevented - advanced knowledge of something occuring, treatment of an instable person. Some crimes however are spontaneous. Some people mask themselves well.

Prohibition, gun laws are one thing. Removal of the entire justice system is quite another. In any case, drinking alcohol is perfectly legal. Drinking it and behaving in an abusive way is not. This is a major issue in the UK - one relaxation can quite easily cause another problem, that then requires tightening.

I do appreciate your points, but to think 300 million or 3 billion people could ever self-legislate is flawed.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


But I agree. Complete anarchy wont work. I think its an interesting topic considering the whole 'war on terror'. We are losing more and more liberty all the time. There is a happy medium somewhere.

reply to post by theovermensch


The "happy medium" is probably in tothetenthpower's post on page 1 www.abovetopsecret.com...

Namely you have actually harmed someone. Violated their life, liberty or property in some way.

So many crimes have no victims whatsoever. Sure, you could extrapolate some abstract societal damages but you could do that for any action taken by any living thing at any point.

Governments like to make up crimes then they get all bent out of shape saying committing those made up crimes hurts the system. Most of these crimes are in effect attempts at "pre-crime" charges. They lower "legal limit" to the point that cold medicine will get you charged. This is an attempt to limit vehicular manslaughter and reckless operation incidents but it also lands a lot of otherwise innocent people in trouble. This carries over to basically all probationary laws and most permit laws.

The greater laws against rife violation didnt/have not/will not work so year after year society piles on more and more until eventually owning a computer becomes cause for computer crime charges and owning a car becomes cause for vehicular charges.

Here's a pretty blatant example of what I'm talking about:

Last week the DCist blog published the search warrant affidavit for a recent raid of the popular Capitol Hemp store. In it police allege that water pipes and other smoking accessories sold there were intended for illegal use. Their evidence includes the fact that the store sold Flex Your Rights DVDs!

Read more strange details about this on my blog post.

Needless to say, it's disturbing that DC police see our educational DVDs as a "tool for deceiving law enforcement." The Bil l of Rights is not a trick or a loophole to protect criminals. It's the highest law of the land. It's also a template for good police work and good citizenship. That's what Flex Your Rights is all about.

link

In this extreme example the proof of pre-crime is knowing the Bill of Rights. How absurd it that?

I'm not a cop lover, and over the years have been given more than a few reasons for my dislike of them. It's sickening to see those whom we are supposed to trust, get up on the stand and deliberately lie! Swear on the Bible? Huh!..they might as well swear on their dicks for all the taking an oath in court means to some of them! I couldn't give a damn what they swear on, just don't get up on the stand and lie! I really believe that many cops nowadays, especially the younger ones, start their shifts with the attitude that it's them against us and that they will win by whatever means it takes! They take it as a personal insult when someone refuses to rat, and were probably themselves the rats we all knew in school! Thankfully not all cops are like this, especially the older and more experienced ones. It's too bad there aren't more of the latter, to at least partially offset the damage done to the public image of police forces across the nation, especially those in the big cities.
I don't like video cameras, but when used to tape cops beating the crap out of someone, they are a useful piece of equipment. I'm sure recording these thugs will soon be against the law, which will be one more of our freedoms taken away.
There are some cops out there who do their jobs as they were meant to. We need the police, and it's too bad the p's among them couldn't be weeded out whilst they were still in police college. Although many changes regarding the way the police operate are long overdue, it's my personal opinion that in all cases of abuse against members the public, no police department should be allowed to investigate them internally!
Even though I'm a great believer in "What goes around, comes around!" and "Paybacks are a bitch!", without the police it would be one hell of a mess on the streets. The criminals would be in control, and ordinary citizens would have to arm themselves. It's a shame we can't get rid of the criminals within the organizations we are supposed to trust. When they breach that trust, they become worse than most of the criminals they were sworn to protect us from!