Seven Myths About The Police

Going to an Occupation? Perhaps you need to know what you're up against. Know your enemy. Of course, if he/she happens to get a clue, welcome them:

Seven Myths About The Police

:wow:

And we're so trained to obey.

Yeah - thank God that the young people of our country have awakened. Hopefully soon enough!

SOLIDARITY!

really has an anger problem.

Well, I guess it's not surprising that nearly everybody needs an "enemy" to fight.

For some, the "enemy" is Satan...

Others, Republicans...

Others, Teabaggers....

And for some others, cops.

It's really pretty sad that people can't come together and find a common cause without turning another group into The Enemy. It's what many DUers have complained about ever since Bush left the White House. The common enemy was gone...now there's nobody left to hate, so people go after each other.

And I want to comment on a sentence in that article:

"The role of the police is to serve the interests of the ruling class; anyone who has not had a bad experience with them is likely privileged, submissive, or both. "

Which I think is mostly a crock of shit.

I've had far more positive experiences with cops than negative. I'm not privileged, and I'm not submissive.

I'm respectful. I give people the same respect I would like back from them. People can FEEL disrespect. And they will usually respond in kind.

And as far as the idiot who wrote that article believing that nobody needs the cops because there are things they do that we, as regular people, could, that is also, IMO, bullshit. Nobody could pay me enough to fish a dead body out of a river...swollen to the point of bursting. Nobody could pay me enough to scrape some poor kid's brains up off the road after he wrapped his car around a telephone pole. Nobody could pay me enough to deal with drunks and wife beaters and kids with bruises on them.

And anybody who thinks they could should put his money where his mouth is and go out and DO it for a while. Have a blast, people.


Anyway, unrec for posting an article that smears an entire group of people.

...pointing out what over-the-top crap that article is.

...which I most certainly do, and this irrational "fuck the police!" anarchist BS, pushing the idea that there should be no police at all.

3rd parties investigate the police abuse and not the police themselves.

We do need to screen them better, and not allow people with severe emotional problems to be on the police forces.

We also need to cut through the culture of shame that prevents cops from seeking therapy/help when they need it. It's not good to keep a lot of that stuff inside, but a lot of them do, and the emotions are often expressed in some very inappropriate ways.

I'd also add that we need to stop para-militarizing the police. SWAT tactics are terribly overused.

but that doesn't mean the WHOLE profession is riddled with it.

This article is nothing more than an attempt to brainwash people into believing that all cops are scum.

I have no doubt that the person who wrote it may have had some negative experiences with a couple of bad cops at some point. However, I also have little doubt that those few negative experiences completely colored his attitude to the point where any subsequent experiences he had turned out negative due to his fear and contempt.

And I'm betting there was a LOT of contempt on his part.

This article is no more valid than one written by a person who, having been mistreated by a couple of people from a minority group, goes on to write negative...hateful...things about that whole minority group.

Complete and utter bullshit.

at some point. Either harassing a person for no reason or arresting someone just to cause them a hassle.

EVERY officer I knew at some point arrested a citizen for disorderly conduct just to shut them up. And KNEW they charges would be dismissed later. Find me one cop who has never arrested someone for disorderly conduct and had the charges never dropped! And there is never punishment for cops who have 10-100 DO charges dismissed.

People like you are naive and are the type that gets on a jury and always side with the police because you have this "Hill Street Blues" fantasy that the police are flawless and lever lie.

You do not understand the police investigate their own wrong doings. You do not understand the prosecutors do not like charging police with legit crimes because it hurts them down the road since they need the police for legit crimes.

Hard for people like you to see the reality since the cops have never harassed you.

in your post's title is "most".

As in "most cops..."

That does not equal ALL cops, which seems to be the point that idiotic article is trying to make.

Oh, and I am hardly naive. I am married to a retired cop, and have a cousin who is also a retired cop.

Here is the type of cop Mr Pipi was when he was on the force...

even most of the people he arrested, to this day, do not hold a grudge against him.

We live close enough to the city where he used to work, and when we go there, we often run into people he arrested in the past. Not once have I ever heard any of them say something shitty to him now that he's retired and doesn't even have "power" anymore.

One of those people he's arrested is his older brother's best friend, and the guy has been to our home many times.

And when he sees cops on TV abusing their "power", he is the first one to express disgust.

So maybe you have run into a lot of shitty cops. They are out there. But they are not ALL cops, and the article in your OP is over the top and filled with unbridled hatred and contempt.

I started this thread yesterday to get a discussion going on this...
Do you think it is possible for the cops to switch sides and support Occupy and the 99% ?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2371500

this video captures the idea that they actually can be educated...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAKq6Cnnu0

if anyone wants to help pass this video around I would be very thankful

I've always hated the broadbrush smear of police officers here and never figured out why it was allowed.

My local police officers are wonderful, and it's one of the reasons I don't want to move out of this area even though it's really too expensive for me anymore.

It's not a myth that "We need police to protect us".


That's this guy's idea of how the world would get along with out police? That we'' somehow just "learn" to coexist peacefully, as if the problems of crime and violence are purely educational matters?


I wouldn't let this guy get away with shifting the burden of proof this easily. I'd say it's up to him to show real-world examples of modern communities larger that a couple of dozen grass huts which have managed to simply educate crime and violence away, or a least reduce it to similar or lower levels than we have in policed communities. Real-world communities who have to accept all kinds of people within their boundaries too, not communes with mutually selected members. In a hypothetical world without police, you couldn't just leave all of the trouble makers "out".

told that post-revolutionary Cuba significantly reduced a lot of crime that had been prevalent during the Batista regime, mainly through education. I do not stay as current as I should on events down there and I know Cuba still has some sort of constabulary, so I'm not sure this is a sufficient example to meet your burden of proof point.

...for the purposes of this discussion, as does having a military force that essentially performs policing duties. You don't get the kind of compliance with political orthodoxy that exists in Cuba without the threat of force being a big part of what keeps people in line.

and read that the revolution raised the overall literacy rate through education and reduced some crime also. But I think I agree with your larger point, fwiw.

if the author of that article said that crime exists because we have police.

:eyes:

Honestly, I would love to see these fools form a little closed community devoid of police. No law enforcement whatsoever. What an experiment that would be. Some families can't even get together for a couple of holidays out of the year without police intervention, for crissakes...

Nothing happened.

I see the point but it really goes over the cliff. Advocating violence against the police is pretty self-defeating.

Some people simply don't get that non-violence is a long term strategy, while violence just perpetrates violence ad infinitum. Violence is just an end in itself to be repeated again and again and doesn't change the problem. It is the problem.

It's not about being better than them or just like them. It's about changing the vicious cycle of repression that's so prevalent in the world.

defeating Southern traitors during the U.S. Civil War and defeating Hitler during World War II.

Creating the ambiance that would let people like Hitler take power is what caused the death of millions and millions. Of course it was necessary to get violent to end it. But when the world starts to think in terms of creatively pursuing peace as part of all government activity by focusing on solutions to the problems that lead to war then violence won't be the never questioned solution to everything. As it stands now governments prepare for war, so naturally war happens. If they prepared for peace maybe peace would happen.

edited for spelling

have tried to prove in court that citizens have no right to be protected from crime by the police.

Many times the police have failed their duty to protect the public and won court cases saying they did not have to .

all the deleterious effects of 10 years of fellating the police since 9-11.

Which kind of sums the guy up.

But in his or her function as security for the 1%, that person does not represent himself when wearing a badge

Yes, I do know some good cops.
"Perhaps some police officers have good intentions, but once again, insofar as they obey orders rather than their consciences, they cannot be trusted"

Unrec for continuing the "us vs them" argument rather than trying to solve the problems by advocating more training, better screening, investigations by NOT the police.

:D

"Police are people too, and deserve the same respect due all living things. The point is not that they deserve to suffer or that we should bring them to justice. The point is that, in purely pragmatic terms, they must not be allowed to brutalize people or impose an unjust social order. Though it can be empowering for those who have spent their lives under the heel of oppression to contemplate finally settling the score with their oppressors, liberation is not a matter of exacting revenge but of rendering it unnecessary. Therefore, while it may sometimes even be necessary to set police on fire, this should not be done out of a spirit of vengeful self-righteousness, but from a place of care and compassion—if not for the police themselves, at least for all who would otherwise suffer at their hands."

Is this taken out of context? Sure, strictly speaking. Is it a very poor justification for murder? Yes. Sorry, no sale.

Murder in the name of "the revolution" is still murder. Even if you murder a person out of "compassion", you're still a murderer.

may have considerable relevance to his experiences, after all, how many of us haven't been in trouble for quite some time . . .

... just read the thread about the 61 year old bicyclist murdered by NC taser-happy cops.

Fuck!