Patrol Cop once told me a joke about how he ran over a black kids bike. When got back to the station he saw the kid at the desk trying to report the incident. He'd carried his busted up bike the entire way. The cop behind the desk called out "Hey Rob, did you run over this kid's bike?". "Nope". Case closed. No report filed.
Edit: PS: This was one of the "good ones". He voted Clinton in 2016 because the rival faction in the Union was showing up to Trump rallies in class A's. Took him the entire Trump admin but he works retail now.
How the fuck is that a joke?
Aristocrats!
It was funny to him. It was the moment he realized he could get away with crime.
For some people (and especially the kinds of people who want to become cops) literally just making others suffer is entertainment. He was surrounded by others like him, so for them it was nothing but a "joke" and another day at the office. Cops are truly fucked in the head.
I wish I had an answer
That's the sadism they are best at.
Aren't memes supposed to be funny?
Memes are the political cartoons of the 2000s. Hopefully a bit funny, but more about the message.
People who make politics their identity ain't funny. None of them are. No exceptions.
They are bitter people living in rage. Doesn't matter what faction.
Oh how many comments I have seen on Lemmy from lefties suggesting death or violence upon right wing people. Horse shoe theory is not a theory. Tjeu should just get together and fuck or something.
"Everything I don't like or understand is lefties!!! Objective, verifiable reality is lefties!!! The consequences of my own actions are lefties"
Just yesterday I had a conversation here with a self-described communist who thought the entire American middle class should be murdered by a mob for being part of a capitalist society that exploits poorer nations.
So I would categorize that as a leftist on Lemmy suggesting death or violence on people. Not only right wing, either.
I'm going to guess, reading between the lines here... "Just yesterday I had a conversation (that I didn't have) with a real person (who doesn't exist)"
Yes [the Kulaks did deserve being killed], and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.
I'm glad you linked source. Counter to what I perceive your intentions were, it actually shed light on how dishonest you had been in your representation of that previous comment as a part of the bigger conversation you'd had in that other thread - I'm only left to assume that you had hoped that nobody would read the source conversation in full and would instead see the basic presence of the URL and accept your own POV as fact.
Frankly, I think you should be a bit ashamed that you tried to misrepresent ALL OF THAT INVOLVED CONVERSATION in the other thread with little-no larger context presented. All for an attempt at some minor "win" in this unrelated thread?
To the dishonesty, YOU are actually the one who introduced the original premise of the "middle class being murdered" and in response, this person (in a bit of a passionate response, sure) engaged to reinforce a point they had been otherwise making throughout that fuller conversation - that American "success" in capitalism is zero sum, it always thrives on the backs of a set of conveniently ignored victims (throughout the third world especially). It IS something that we in the US conveniently ignore each and every day in the perceived "success" of capitalism, like averting your eyes and stepping over a houseless person to buy an $8 coffee. On a human level, yes, that is a horrible indefensible choice many of us make consistently to preserve a higher level of personal comfort when we could choose to do otherwise. The quiet guilt that the "wonders" of capitalism rightly have is why reagan had to make that famous speech where he told yuppies something akin to, "You don't need to feel ashamed for owning your own fancy, personal swimming pool"
I don't agree with every position of that other poster, but there is definitely nuance here worth discussion every day - especially as the people who probably benefit the most (are a global level) from this broken system.
It is a truly rare thing that you get someone actually educated and involved enough with a counter position to engaged in meaningful debate - for you to then betray that here by trying to reduce that entire interaction to your singular misrepresentation of a flawed point that you originated yourself ONLY makes the reader walk away with a deeper consideration of your opponent's positions and a dismissal of your own assertions.
You either agree that it's justified to murder the entire American middle class, or you don't. It's pretty simple.
I don't really care if you assessed me as being intellectually dishonest by linking someone's answer to a question I posed. You can call that a flawed point if you want, but they were the ones who -rather shockingly- choose to embrace democide of millions of people - including presumably themselves, their family, and friends - in the name of class warfare.
So yes, the existence of people like that shapes my view of this platform, as does this interaction with you rushing to defend their position (despite the fact that you don't seem to sold on it yourself, since I'm guessing YOU'RE not prepared to be personally murdered for the sake of global justice and eternal class warfare).
It is a truly rare thing that you get someone actually educated and involved enough with a counter position to engaged in meaningful debate - for you to then betray that here by trying to reduce that entire interaction to your singular misrepresentation of a flawed point that you originated yourself ONLY makes the reader walk away with a deeper consideration of your opponent’s positions and a dismissal of your own assertions.
I don't consider it a meaningful debate AT ALL.
I consider it a tiresome debate with someone who is truly fucked in the head. Someone who I later identified as suffering from sociopathy, or antisocial personality disorder.
I could have (and possibly should have) dismissed them based on their earlier comments, when they engaged in genocide apologetics, and denied the existence of the Holodomer (actually claiming conditions in the 30s were somehow "pre revolutionary). Especially after that NUT JOB blamed the Holodomer on American yellow journalism, because no number of first person (primary source) statements from Ukrainians WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE are to be believed.
But I choose to see how they'd respond to my personal litmus test, which was, for me, the final nail in the coffin of communism: The killing of the kulaks. I frame it as the American middle class, because that is the local equivalent of the kulaks. Small time landowners, a few minor landlords, farmers. The American dream involves property ownership, and getting rid of the small time property owners, the somewhat successful peasants whose lives were made worse by communism, was the goal in that particular move.
It is possible to be a communist who believes that dekulikization is a step too far - Trotsky famously was. But that's not the position "our friend" chose to take.
Personally I consider the killing of the kulaks to be a much more appropriate line than the one used to label tankies - which was the use of tanks in Hungary to quell a COMMUNIST uprising by Hungarians who simply wanted communism without the Soviet occupation. In other words, communists who reject stalinism. Personally I prefer PEOPLE who reject MASS MURDER, and communism had failed that test DECADES before the people in Hungary revolted.
Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.
The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H.., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:
Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.
There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:
The study includes as 'violent incidents' a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn't indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c
An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:
The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.
More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, 'Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.' Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862
Yet another study "indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent)." A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to 'getting physical' (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
TL;DR: only ~10% of police are confirmed assailants of domestic abuse!
I'm not exactly sure by what standard you're distinguishing between "survey" and "empirical study," considering all of your cited studies also rely on surveys.
Not prepared to read through over 100 pages of unrelated stuff, perhaps you could add a page number? It sounds like this source is included only for a critique of the original study though, and I'll accept that that study isn't perfect.
Ninety officers returned the surveys for a response rate of 36%.
This type of sampling comes with both weaknesses and strengths. One important weakness of using this convenience sample is that the results generated on the nature of
the police sub-culture and the frequency of interpersonal violence on the part of police will not necessarily be generalizable. Although these results may not be generalizable,
this sample is satisfactory for testing relationships among the variables—traditional police sub-culture, police domestic violence. This sample comes entirely from Central
Florida, which further limits generalizability.
This paper is focused on a link between a domestic violence and a "traditional police sub-culture," it is not intended to be taken as a reliable, generalizable source of overall domestic violence.
This one does reference the studies you mentioned, along with other studies showing much higher numbers. It then goes on to say:
The data on intimate partner abuse by police officers are both
dated and potentially flawed, but in ways that make it more likely
that abuse is being under—rather than over—reported.59 Most of the
studies rely on self-reporting by police officers to establish prevalence
of abuse. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable measure; as one
study noted, “The issue of the reliability of self-reports data is
problematic when considering any socially undesirable behavior.”60
Intimate partner abuse is frequently underreported,61 both by those
who experience it and those who commit it. Underreporting is likely
to be particularly prevalent among law enforcement officers “who
fear, even when anonymity is assured, that admitting their own or
their colleagues’ abusive behavior may jeopardize careers and
livelihoods and break up families."
I love how every acab post inevitably brings out a bunch of uninformed libs in the comments talking about how pigs are only bad in America (as though the term ACAB was invented in America...) or how a society without them is completely inconceivable. As though badges grow on trees, like police are just a natural thing that sprung out of the ground.
The primary function of the police is to protect private property and enforce eviction. They're state agents who are allowed to use violence against working class people, and do so to prevent us from overthrowing the ruling class and redistributing wealth and the means of production. They protect class hierarchy. They attack protestors. They use state violence against the disenfranchised and the marginalized. The "just doing their job" of the police is to protect and preserve the unequal distribution of power in society. They do so by using violence against the working class. The rest of anything else they do is a small fraction of their job and entirely secondary to their primary functions.
Every post i see seems to use lib as a slur
I mean, it's not a slur, but an insult? Sure. Liberals are not allies to leftists, and actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.
Liberals are not allies to leftists
They can be. Using traditional definitions, the Liberal / Authoritarian axis is orthogonal to the left / right axis
actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.
Who are we? Poor non cops?
What are we putting in place of the dismantled system? Anarchy? Different cops? Something else?
The book argues that liberalism has exhausted itself, leading to income inequality, cultural decline, atomization, nihilism, the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies.
Lemmy is a bit further left than center. And most liberals tend to fall around the center to center right.
Most people on the left don’t like liberals because in their desire to be “the adult in the room” by dismissing anything more radical than the status quo, they get in the way of people trying to bring forth important change. As an activist, it’s not very fun to see someone take a milquetoast centrist position and call you radical while continuing to uphold the status quo that we are peotesting against while claiming to despise the status quo. These liberals, though often well meaning, end up being the great stumbling block to freedom MLK was talking about.
From the perspective of the left, if you see someone who is making it harder to make necessary change (ex: ending the war on gaza, stopping police violence/police abolition, being a cop, etc) is a pretty nasty sight.
Is lib a slur? No, but it’s certainly an insult, and it’s aimed at people who aren’t used to being called out for their political positions by someone who isn’t conservative.
Also, as an anarchist, I find it fun to lib bash every once in a while :3
The rich love to make liberal a slur. Because to be liberal means you're against tyrants. So now with more divided factions their minions can exert more power
I'm an anarchist, and seeing someone say "to be liberal means you're against tyrants" is pretty humorous. It's a self-aggrandizing tale that doesn't reflect reality.
Liberals do not oppose tyranny. Liberals opposition to tyrants is done by keeping the offices clean, and the seats of power warm, be it in the oval office, judge's bench, or chairs in the chambers. Liberals vote for the lesser tyrant as an anti-tyranny measure. They oppose tyranny by increasing funding for the police, and giving bombs to fascists the world over while continuing to fund the biggest military budget in the world while giving the district of defense a thumbs-up to defend American interests by invading countries and slaughtering millions.
The so called United States is a liberal democracy. It always has been. And yet this structure is the cause of some of the most violent tyranny the entire world over. Even if you consider the fact that there have been some terrible presidents who might have been the cause for some of the most tyrannical acts of the state, the very act of saying "all men are created free and equal" is tyrannic when said by a slave owner trying to create a government that considers life to be property. And that was said before there were even presidents.
Under a liberal democracy, even with a liberal leader of it, being minoritized is a sentence to feel the tyranny of the state. It doesn't matter if you are a holding a minority political stance and using the liberal-approved mechanisms to oppose the state. It doesn't matter if you are a minority based on religion, sexuality, gender identity, race, or ethnicity trying to peacefully oppose the extermination of their group, or the systematic oppression of it. You will feel the force of a police officer's boot on your back and knee on your neck, tools of the liberal democracy being used to "keep the peace" or maintain "law and order".
Liberals will uphold the fundamental tyrannies of capitalism. Liberals will uphold the fundamental tyrannies of property ownership.
To be a liberal doesn't mean you are against tyrants. It means you are the lesser one.
That kid's getting punted across the street the next second lol
That kid had a gun 🔫
Cops love it when you tell them that they are free to go.
Shame that the kid was such a threat to the cop that he needed to unload several magazines into him.
He wanted a vacation so he pretended he was scared
Partially because he was scared that young people understand the evils of capitalism and he fears that one day he may pay for his decades of evil. He may not be directly threatened by the kid but to him there is no greater threat than those who are willing to challenge the authority of the Capitalists.
Don't talk to cops like this, they will ruin your life or end it. Use that energy to campaign for electoral reform in your state so we can break the bipartisan police state.
Meet the police with equal force.
Words may be powerful but a brick is often more efficient.
Serious question: What's the leftists position on police in the ideal but realistic socialist world? What would make ACAB irrelevant?
Probably some combination of:
Require them to have a 4 year degree
No qualified immunity
Make them also liable to civil suits
Heavily slash their budget
Disarm all of them, save maybe for SWAT
much, much better descalation training (pretty sure they're trained to escalate immediately)
I disagree with points four and five. The rest seem accurate though. Alternatively, cut the budget to fund a seperate but collaborate group for mental health and/or non violent incedent responses. Have police provide backup but have clear rules of engagement, and procecute when the rules are violated.
Can you elaborate on what makes you disagree with those points? Just for clarity, were talking the defunding and the disarming?
Sure!
Disarming: Social studies have shown that it's difficult to walk back changes to the social contract. We already have a society to reliant and accepting of guns to send police unarmed. Right now in the Cal Bay area you are very likely to be shot just for stopping someone who is stealing a catalytic converter. It makes no sense to have a deterent factor that can't actually deter behavior. De-arming would need to be combined or following stricter gun laws and significant cultural shifts. That said, reviewing and revising the arming strategies is something that should occur. That is of course, unless you aren't trying to prevent a potentially substantial rise is polics officer deaths.
Defunding: Removing funding without removing work load really just doesn't work logistically. This has led to breakdowns in everything from the airline to the railroad industry. I'm sure there is a way to better allocate funding, but simply removing it is a problem. Alternatively, may US children had (or have) terrible times in the US school system. Should we defund it as a corrective measure? How does that help?
But I am curious, how do you believe these approaches would help the situation? How do you suggest they get implemented?
I think disarming/defending would be two sides of the same issue. I meant to add to the list for defending, splitting police's workload with some other task force/committees like having dedicated traffic police that only deal with traffic issues/social workers for mental health crises, semi medical personnel (to help paramedics) for injured cases/domestic abuses. If force is necessary, there should be a highly trained specialized force they would call in.
Being a cop carries too many responsibilities, diverting some of those to dedicated teams/positions would create less scenarios where cops come and shoot your dog (or you) and create more jobs.
I don't disagree. My point is the discussion should be stated in a way that is less "shocking" than defund the police. While the goal is to gain traction with the shock value, at this point the narrative needs to be switched to a more nuanced and accurate description.
Also, apologies for being pedantic, but paramedics are already semi-medical personnel. It literally means alongside medic(cal). In truth, we should be also deploying nursing and medical staff into the outside environment that are supported by paramedics. Currently, the problem is cost and public interest isn't there.
I agree, maybe instead it should be "stop over paying police". Then we could change the discussion to shifting some of those tax payer funds to roles/positions that deserve it.
Disarming: I don't think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you're going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I've had it happen to me, and we've all seen videos I'm sure. Let's remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it's escalated.
Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I'd rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.
Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won't work. Again, I don't think that's the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it's reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.
Your comment: “Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. "
Yeah... We fundamentally don't agree with each other. I don't see a point to continuing the discussion. Good chat though!
In the UK, the training requirements for police is still surprising to me, as I had assumed it would take years to train as police.
Either way, our police meet a lot of the criteria here. The budgets are nonexistent, they aren't armed outside of specific circumstances, and they all go through regular de-escalation training.
It hasn't stopped many of the issues we see that are also shared in law enforcement in the states. Our force often uses force unnecessarily, there is institutional corruption and racism, and even in instances where the police have done something bad AND there is evidence it's very hard to find justice.
I think that a degree would help, or a training programme that takes many years and involves extensive training. It's depressing to say, but the demand for good jobs with decent pay and employment protection would probably result in people becoming police just for the pension. I would also add that a good avenue to policing would be for it to link heavily with the law profession. Add a route for police to train part-time to be criminal lawyers, or for lawyers to join the police force.
I would add a measure of public election for every branch of LE, at minimum. If I MUST have a boot on my neck, I may as well get to choose it.
How are you gonna slash their budget if you add so many requirements and remove benefits? By default that will mean there will be less interest in being a cop, which means you'll have to offer a quite substantial increase in pay to compensate. And in most places there already is a shortage of cops.
My apologies, I submitted a comment regarding that elsewhere. By slashing their budget, I meant to say: divert it to other positions like to social workers so issues with mental health crises wouldn't introduce excessive force. I think police really should be focused on the Public Servant part.
The conflict between ACAB and All Vigilantes Are Also Bastards has always been my primary concern with anarchism tbh.
I feel like people who enforce rules are necessary in any society. I note that cops in Scotland or New Zealand manage to do their job without killing lots of citizens. I dont think that being murderous unaccountable over-militarised gang is necessary to do the job.
At least vigilantes aren't above the law. We don't reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.
Who vigilantes the vigilante vigilantes? It seems like in the end you really just need some form of professional rule thug that just has actual public accountability.
At least they're held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it's better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.
I'm not an expert in this field, I don't have all of the answers. I don't think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as "how do we keep society safe" without trying things. I do think the thing we've tried for the last little bit has run its course, it's shown us it doesn't have much merit, and I'm ready for another system.
NGL that doesn't seem very convincing. Lots of what ifs and hypotheticals that sounds like the Office bit.
"Just krrrrsht and then you'll be saved."
Socialism removes the fact that Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people, so this inherently means they aren't class traitors.
There would be an expansion of social programs and services, better access to housing, and overall fewer crimes of desparation.
Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people
Are there common every day examples where this happens? I'll be honest my exposure to the police is extremely limited and from a UK perspective. Do you mean like the police will prioritise responding faster to wealthy people and are more likely to put resources in solving crimes against them than your average person?
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights and enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo.
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights
What does this mean though? Like if someone breaks into my house then they shouldn't be coming over to investigate?
enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo
Is this not an issue with the laws of the country rather than the police? I feel like it would be an even bigger issue if the police just became a law unto themselves and decided on their own what they should laws they should or shouldn't enforce.
No, that's not what I mean. I am not referring to personal home ownership, but the system of Capitalism.
The anti-poor laws and racist laws exist because of class dynamics, not vibes. The issue is Capitalism itself.
I am not arguing that police should just do whatever.
I honestly can't figure out what point you are making. I see a lot of buzz-words like anti-poor, racist, private property rights, status quo, etc. but I don't understand how you think this plays out practically. The person you are replying to was asking for real-world examples of the cops defending rich white people in instances they wouldnt support poor non-white people.
I'm not even saying I disagree necessarily, just that you haven't answered the initial question.
There are systemic issues core to how Capitalist systems are set up, and the violent arm that upholds these is the police.
Does that make sense?
Your comment speaks to high level concepts but you didn't provide an the example to ground it to reality.
Like others have mentioned they aren't seeing these examples of core issues having impacts on their day to day lives/communities. I'm not either. When it comes down to it, laws written to apply to everyone are generally enforced for everyone.
Catching violent perpetrators pretty much always takes priority over non-violent theft. When we see acts of violence get immediate police attention it feels like the image you are trying to portay is inaccurate.
I am not referring to unequal application of the law, but the law itself and the police as its enforcers.
Cool. Now give real actionable examples of this stuff happening. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm fairly sure it does. People keep prodding you for SPECIFIC EXAMPLES though, not just a definition.
The violence of Capitalism is ensured by Private Property Rights, ie Capitalists can exist. Without police, Capitalism would not exist.
Ok, for one example, after the 2008 housing market drop, banks bought the debt from other banks intentionally writing bad loans, which they then resold to third parties. This buying up of the debt of the banks that collapsed during this time lead to banks pushing families out of their homes, many of which were paid-up, but the lending institution behind them had failed, in order to resell the property later, when the market prices had recovered, or use the land for other developments. This was enforced by the police. Bankers did not go around forcing people out of their houses, the police did it at their behest.
Another is laws created specifically to punish people for being homeless. Laws like not being able to camp anywhere near a place they might be able to get themselves out of homelessness, e.g. a place with jobs, and other resources, not some place way out in the forest. These are also only effective because the police use violence to enforce them. Anti-solicitation laws fall into this category. Police often don't realize that (speaking for my country) they are not constitutional at the federal level. Police departments that know about this tell their cops to do it anyway because it's not like homeless people will likely be able to sue them.
A third is the enforcement of petty traffic fines. Things like window tint, or minor violations in situations where the safety concern isn't present. These fines are, often, the brunt of how they fund themselves. Petty violations, like tint, are also used to go on fishing expeditions, so they can either wrack-up more fines, or make an arrest, even if that means intentionally escalating the situation, lying about what happened, and giving false testimony in court. More arrests, more convictions, equals more money for the police, and the legal industry as a whole. If you work with, or around, police, like I have, you will hear them discuss things like testilying. Bouncing ideas off of each other as to how they can make bad arrests, and use illegal levels of force, while having a technicality to maintain their immunity, e.g. screaming quit resisting, while in a position where they know cameras can't really see what is happening. This is just the tip of this iceberg, I would need thousands, upon thousands, of words to detail all the shit I have heard police say, and see police do.
I can go on, but I think I have made my point.
I'm late to reply but thank you for the response, this is the kind of response and examples I was looking for.
Evictions, disproportionately of those most vulnerable, due to Austerity via the Neoliberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher which very much persist today, maximizing, subsidizing the profit of fortune 500 companies while making welfare a slur.
Cops break up people who are just trying to feed the hungry.
ICE; Locking children in cages -- No human is illegal. The Contras were perpetrated by the imperial core, and then the imperial family eats up the propaganda to hate the refugees fleeing those situations.
Prisons, during covid lockdowns, put prisoners in 24/7 solitary. Solitary is torture. It is so bad that is an effective motivator to force prisoners to instead labor for cents a day.
Cops illegally raid safe injection sites, and spread disinformation about People who use drugs, dehumanizing themselves in the process.
Read about the Comstock Raids, as far back as 1860s, the reason that motivated the Stonewall Uprising a century later, and dont think they up and stopped harrassing queer folks of color for doing so much as existing in public.
The origins of the police forces were to chase down runaway slaves.
It is not "a few bad eggs". It's not about a bug of the system, it's the features it was designed for, through Comstocks weaponization of the Post Office to control bodies and autonomy, into modern day surveillance state and militarization.
What we are talking about is Violence. SYSTEMIC Violence.
There is no more violent beast than the Settler-Colonial White Supremacist, with all it's manifest destiny. This Prison System's history is well documented, and evidence of it's violence is more apparent and accessible everyday.
Abolition is a process and it will take time, the two greatest things we can do to obsolete prisons and police are:
encourage and popularize anti-authoritarian parenting methods and 2) build strong community groups and mutual aid networks.
That Dang Dad on YT is a great resource, and that's a starting point, because there is no justice unless you adress the root cause, and the truth is always on the side of the oppressed.
Patrol Cop once told me a joke about how he ran over a black kids bike. When got back to the station he saw the kid at the desk trying to report the incident. He'd carried his busted up bike the entire way. The cop behind the desk called out "Hey Rob, did you run over this kid's bike?". "Nope". Case closed. No report filed.
Edit: PS: This was one of the "good ones". He voted Clinton in 2016 because the rival faction in the Union was showing up to Trump rallies in class A's. Took him the entire Trump admin but he works retail now.
How the fuck is that a joke?
Aristocrats!
It was funny to him. It was the moment he realized he could get away with crime.
For some people (and especially the kinds of people who want to become cops) literally just making others suffer is entertainment. He was surrounded by others like him, so for them it was nothing but a "joke" and another day at the office. Cops are truly fucked in the head.
I wish I had an answer
That's the sadism they are best at.
Aren't memes supposed to be funny?
Memes are the political cartoons of the 2000s. Hopefully a bit funny, but more about the message.
People who make politics their identity ain't funny. None of them are. No exceptions.
They are bitter people living in rage. Doesn't matter what faction.
Oh how many comments I have seen on Lemmy from lefties suggesting death or violence upon right wing people. Horse shoe theory is not a theory. Tjeu should just get together and fuck or something.
"Everything I don't like or understand is lefties!!! Objective, verifiable reality is lefties!!! The consequences of my own actions are lefties"
Just yesterday I had a conversation here with a self-described communist who thought the entire American middle class should be murdered by a mob for being part of a capitalist society that exploits poorer nations.
So I would categorize that as a leftist on Lemmy suggesting death or violence on people. Not only right wing, either.
I'm going to guess, reading between the lines here... "Just yesterday I had a conversation (that I didn't have) with a real person (who doesn't exist)"
If only that were true. But sadly, no. Here's a link, I think: https://lemmy.world/comment/10693493
I'll direct you to the key paragraph:
I'm glad you linked source. Counter to what I perceive your intentions were, it actually shed light on how dishonest you had been in your representation of that previous comment as a part of the bigger conversation you'd had in that other thread - I'm only left to assume that you had hoped that nobody would read the source conversation in full and would instead see the basic presence of the URL and accept your own POV as fact.
Frankly, I think you should be a bit ashamed that you tried to misrepresent ALL OF THAT INVOLVED CONVERSATION in the other thread with little-no larger context presented. All for an attempt at some minor "win" in this unrelated thread?
To the dishonesty, YOU are actually the one who introduced the original premise of the "middle class being murdered" and in response, this person (in a bit of a passionate response, sure) engaged to reinforce a point they had been otherwise making throughout that fuller conversation - that American "success" in capitalism is zero sum, it always thrives on the backs of a set of conveniently ignored victims (throughout the third world especially). It IS something that we in the US conveniently ignore each and every day in the perceived "success" of capitalism, like averting your eyes and stepping over a houseless person to buy an $8 coffee. On a human level, yes, that is a horrible indefensible choice many of us make consistently to preserve a higher level of personal comfort when we could choose to do otherwise. The quiet guilt that the "wonders" of capitalism rightly have is why reagan had to make that famous speech where he told yuppies something akin to, "You don't need to feel ashamed for owning your own fancy, personal swimming pool"
I don't agree with every position of that other poster, but there is definitely nuance here worth discussion every day - especially as the people who probably benefit the most (are a global level) from this broken system.
It is a truly rare thing that you get someone actually educated and involved enough with a counter position to engaged in meaningful debate - for you to then betray that here by trying to reduce that entire interaction to your singular misrepresentation of a flawed point that you originated yourself ONLY makes the reader walk away with a deeper consideration of your opponent's positions and a dismissal of your own assertions.
You either agree that it's justified to murder the entire American middle class, or you don't. It's pretty simple.
I don't really care if you assessed me as being intellectually dishonest by linking someone's answer to a question I posed. You can call that a flawed point if you want, but they were the ones who -rather shockingly- choose to embrace democide of millions of people - including presumably themselves, their family, and friends - in the name of class warfare.
So yes, the existence of people like that shapes my view of this platform, as does this interaction with you rushing to defend their position (despite the fact that you don't seem to sold on it yourself, since I'm guessing YOU'RE not prepared to be personally murdered for the sake of global justice and eternal class warfare).
I don't consider it a meaningful debate AT ALL.
I consider it a tiresome debate with someone who is truly fucked in the head. Someone who I later identified as suffering from sociopathy, or antisocial personality disorder.
I could have (and possibly should have) dismissed them based on their earlier comments, when they engaged in genocide apologetics, and denied the existence of the Holodomer (actually claiming conditions in the 30s were somehow "pre revolutionary). Especially after that NUT JOB blamed the Holodomer on American yellow journalism, because no number of first person (primary source) statements from Ukrainians WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE are to be believed.
But I choose to see how they'd respond to my personal litmus test, which was, for me, the final nail in the coffin of communism: The killing of the kulaks. I frame it as the American middle class, because that is the local equivalent of the kulaks. Small time landowners, a few minor landlords, farmers. The American dream involves property ownership, and getting rid of the small time property owners, the somewhat successful peasants whose lives were made worse by communism, was the goal in that particular move.
It is possible to be a communist who believes that dekulikization is a step too far - Trotsky famously was. But that's not the position "our friend" chose to take.
Personally I consider the killing of the kulaks to be a much more appropriate line than the one used to label tankies - which was the use of tanks in Hungary to quell a COMMUNIST uprising by Hungarians who simply wanted communism without the Soviet occupation. In other words, communists who reject stalinism. Personally I prefer PEOPLE who reject MASS MURDER, and communism had failed that test DECADES before the people in Hungary revolted.
It's funny because the (far) left vilifies the police and then goes all surprised Pikachu when they turn out to not be manned by far left people.
Idealism in all honor, but you're not gonna change the system without being in control of the current power structures.
Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.
The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H.., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:
Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.
There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:
The study includes as 'violent incidents' a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn't indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c
An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:
The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.
More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, 'Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.' Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862
Yet another study "indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent)." A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to 'getting physical' (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
TL;DR: only ~10% of police are confirmed assailants of domestic abuse!
I'm not exactly sure by what standard you're distinguishing between "survey" and "empirical study," considering all of your cited studies also rely on surveys.
Not prepared to read through over 100 pages of unrelated stuff, perhaps you could add a page number? It sounds like this source is included only for a critique of the original study though, and I'll accept that that study isn't perfect.
This paper is focused on a link between a domestic violence and a "traditional police sub-culture," it is not intended to be taken as a reliable, generalizable source of overall domestic violence.
Did not investigate this one because I don't have the means to read floppy disk .iso images readily available.
This one does reference the studies you mentioned, along with other studies showing much higher numbers. It then goes on to say:
I love how every acab post inevitably brings out a bunch of uninformed libs in the comments talking about how pigs are only bad in America (as though the term ACAB was invented in America...) or how a society without them is completely inconceivable. As though badges grow on trees, like police are just a natural thing that sprung out of the ground.
The primary function of the police is to protect private property and enforce eviction. They're state agents who are allowed to use violence against working class people, and do so to prevent us from overthrowing the ruling class and redistributing wealth and the means of production. They protect class hierarchy. They attack protestors. They use state violence against the disenfranchised and the marginalized. The "just doing their job" of the police is to protect and preserve the unequal distribution of power in society. They do so by using violence against the working class. The rest of anything else they do is a small fraction of their job and entirely secondary to their primary functions.
Every post i see seems to use lib as a slur
I mean, it's not a slur, but an insult? Sure. Liberals are not allies to leftists, and actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.
They can be. Using traditional definitions, the Liberal / Authoritarian axis is orthogonal to the left / right axis
Who are we? Poor non cops?
What are we putting in place of the dismantled system? Anarchy? Different cops? Something else?
You're on a site made by Marxists and overwhelmingly some flavor of leftist, outside of Lemmy.world.
Because liberalism has failed.
Liberalism hasn't failed as long as I'm around
John Locke would be proud.
Lemmy is a bit further left than center. And most liberals tend to fall around the center to center right.
Most people on the left don’t like liberals because in their desire to be “the adult in the room” by dismissing anything more radical than the status quo, they get in the way of people trying to bring forth important change. As an activist, it’s not very fun to see someone take a milquetoast centrist position and call you radical while continuing to uphold the status quo that we are peotesting against while claiming to despise the status quo. These liberals, though often well meaning, end up being the great stumbling block to freedom MLK was talking about.
From the perspective of the left, if you see someone who is making it harder to make necessary change (ex: ending the war on gaza, stopping police violence/police abolition, being a cop, etc) is a pretty nasty sight.
Is lib a slur? No, but it’s certainly an insult, and it’s aimed at people who aren’t used to being called out for their political positions by someone who isn’t conservative.
Also, as an anarchist, I find it fun to lib bash every once in a while :3
The rich love to make liberal a slur. Because to be liberal means you're against tyrants. So now with more divided factions their minions can exert more power
I'm an anarchist, and seeing someone say "to be liberal means you're against tyrants" is pretty humorous. It's a self-aggrandizing tale that doesn't reflect reality.
Liberals do not oppose tyranny. Liberals opposition to tyrants is done by keeping the offices clean, and the seats of power warm, be it in the oval office, judge's bench, or chairs in the chambers. Liberals vote for the lesser tyrant as an anti-tyranny measure. They oppose tyranny by increasing funding for the police, and giving bombs to fascists the world over while continuing to fund the biggest military budget in the world while giving the district of defense a thumbs-up to defend American interests by invading countries and slaughtering millions.
The so called United States is a liberal democracy. It always has been. And yet this structure is the cause of some of the most violent tyranny the entire world over. Even if you consider the fact that there have been some terrible presidents who might have been the cause for some of the most tyrannical acts of the state, the very act of saying "all men are created free and equal" is tyrannic when said by a slave owner trying to create a government that considers life to be property. And that was said before there were even presidents.
Under a liberal democracy, even with a liberal leader of it, being minoritized is a sentence to feel the tyranny of the state. It doesn't matter if you are a holding a minority political stance and using the liberal-approved mechanisms to oppose the state. It doesn't matter if you are a minority based on religion, sexuality, gender identity, race, or ethnicity trying to peacefully oppose the extermination of their group, or the systematic oppression of it. You will feel the force of a police officer's boot on your back and knee on your neck, tools of the liberal democracy being used to "keep the peace" or maintain "law and order".
Liberals will uphold the fundamental tyrannies of capitalism. Liberals will uphold the fundamental tyrannies of property ownership.
To be a liberal doesn't mean you are against tyrants. It means you are the lesser one.
True, if there is no police it's not like cops just appear.
The mafia does.
That kid's getting punted across the street the next second lol
That kid had a gun 🔫
Cops love it when you tell them that they are free to go.
Shame that the kid was such a threat to the cop that he needed to unload several magazines into him.
He wanted a vacation so he pretended he was scared
Partially because he was scared that young people understand the evils of capitalism and he fears that one day he may pay for his decades of evil. He may not be directly threatened by the kid but to him there is no greater threat than those who are willing to challenge the authority of the Capitalists.
Don't talk to cops like this, they will ruin your life or end it. Use that energy to campaign for electoral reform in your state so we can break the bipartisan police state.
Meet the police with equal force.
Words may be powerful but a brick is often more efficient.
Serious question: What's the leftists position on police in the ideal but realistic socialist world? What would make ACAB irrelevant?
Probably some combination of:
I disagree with points four and five. The rest seem accurate though. Alternatively, cut the budget to fund a seperate but collaborate group for mental health and/or non violent incedent responses. Have police provide backup but have clear rules of engagement, and procecute when the rules are violated.
Can you elaborate on what makes you disagree with those points? Just for clarity, were talking the defunding and the disarming?
Sure!
Disarming: Social studies have shown that it's difficult to walk back changes to the social contract. We already have a society to reliant and accepting of guns to send police unarmed. Right now in the Cal Bay area you are very likely to be shot just for stopping someone who is stealing a catalytic converter. It makes no sense to have a deterent factor that can't actually deter behavior. De-arming would need to be combined or following stricter gun laws and significant cultural shifts. That said, reviewing and revising the arming strategies is something that should occur. That is of course, unless you aren't trying to prevent a potentially substantial rise is polics officer deaths.
Defunding: Removing funding without removing work load really just doesn't work logistically. This has led to breakdowns in everything from the airline to the railroad industry. I'm sure there is a way to better allocate funding, but simply removing it is a problem. Alternatively, may US children had (or have) terrible times in the US school system. Should we defund it as a corrective measure? How does that help?
But I am curious, how do you believe these approaches would help the situation? How do you suggest they get implemented?
I think disarming/defending would be two sides of the same issue. I meant to add to the list for defending, splitting police's workload with some other task force/committees like having dedicated traffic police that only deal with traffic issues/social workers for mental health crises, semi medical personnel (to help paramedics) for injured cases/domestic abuses. If force is necessary, there should be a highly trained specialized force they would call in.
Being a cop carries too many responsibilities, diverting some of those to dedicated teams/positions would create less scenarios where cops come and shoot your dog (or you) and create more jobs.
I don't disagree. My point is the discussion should be stated in a way that is less "shocking" than defund the police. While the goal is to gain traction with the shock value, at this point the narrative needs to be switched to a more nuanced and accurate description.
Also, apologies for being pedantic, but paramedics are already semi-medical personnel. It literally means alongside medic(cal). In truth, we should be also deploying nursing and medical staff into the outside environment that are supported by paramedics. Currently, the problem is cost and public interest isn't there.
I agree, maybe instead it should be "stop over paying police". Then we could change the discussion to shifting some of those tax payer funds to roles/positions that deserve it.
Disarming: I don't think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you're going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I've had it happen to me, and we've all seen videos I'm sure. Let's remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it's escalated.
Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I'd rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.
Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won't work. Again, I don't think that's the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it's reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.
Your comment: “Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. "
Yeah... We fundamentally don't agree with each other. I don't see a point to continuing the discussion. Good chat though!
In the UK, the training requirements for police is still surprising to me, as I had assumed it would take years to train as police.
Either way, our police meet a lot of the criteria here. The budgets are nonexistent, they aren't armed outside of specific circumstances, and they all go through regular de-escalation training.
It hasn't stopped many of the issues we see that are also shared in law enforcement in the states. Our force often uses force unnecessarily, there is institutional corruption and racism, and even in instances where the police have done something bad AND there is evidence it's very hard to find justice.
I think that a degree would help, or a training programme that takes many years and involves extensive training. It's depressing to say, but the demand for good jobs with decent pay and employment protection would probably result in people becoming police just for the pension. I would also add that a good avenue to policing would be for it to link heavily with the law profession. Add a route for police to train part-time to be criminal lawyers, or for lawyers to join the police force.
I would add a measure of public election for every branch of LE, at minimum. If I MUST have a boot on my neck, I may as well get to choose it.
How are you gonna slash their budget if you add so many requirements and remove benefits? By default that will mean there will be less interest in being a cop, which means you'll have to offer a quite substantial increase in pay to compensate. And in most places there already is a shortage of cops.
My apologies, I submitted a comment regarding that elsewhere. By slashing their budget, I meant to say: divert it to other positions like to social workers so issues with mental health crises wouldn't introduce excessive force. I think police really should be focused on the Public Servant part.
They wouldn't exist in this form under anarchism at all. However they're still very much bastards under ML-regimes as well.
The conflict between ACAB and All Vigilantes Are Also Bastards has always been my primary concern with anarchism tbh.
I feel like people who enforce rules are necessary in any society. I note that cops in Scotland or New Zealand manage to do their job without killing lots of citizens. I dont think that being murderous unaccountable over-militarised gang is necessary to do the job.
At least vigilantes aren't above the law. We don't reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.
Who vigilantes the vigilante vigilantes? It seems like in the end you really just need some form of professional rule thug that just has actual public accountability.
At least they're held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it's better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.
I'm not an expert in this field, I don't have all of the answers. I don't think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as "how do we keep society safe" without trying things. I do think the thing we've tried for the last little bit has run its course, it's shown us it doesn't have much merit, and I'm ready for another system.
NGL that doesn't seem very convincing. Lots of what ifs and hypotheticals that sounds like the Office bit.
"Just krrrrsht and then you'll be saved."
Socialism removes the fact that Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people, so this inherently means they aren't class traitors.
There would be an expansion of social programs and services, better access to housing, and overall fewer crimes of desparation.
Are there common every day examples where this happens? I'll be honest my exposure to the police is extremely limited and from a UK perspective. Do you mean like the police will prioritise responding faster to wealthy people and are more likely to put resources in solving crimes against them than your average person?
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights and enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo.
What does this mean though? Like if someone breaks into my house then they shouldn't be coming over to investigate?
Is this not an issue with the laws of the country rather than the police? I feel like it would be an even bigger issue if the police just became a law unto themselves and decided on their own what they should laws they should or shouldn't enforce.
No, that's not what I mean. I am not referring to personal home ownership, but the system of Capitalism.
The anti-poor laws and racist laws exist because of class dynamics, not vibes. The issue is Capitalism itself.
I am not arguing that police should just do whatever.
I honestly can't figure out what point you are making. I see a lot of buzz-words like anti-poor, racist, private property rights, status quo, etc. but I don't understand how you think this plays out practically. The person you are replying to was asking for real-world examples of the cops defending rich white people in instances they wouldnt support poor non-white people.
I'm not even saying I disagree necessarily, just that you haven't answered the initial question.
There are systemic issues core to how Capitalist systems are set up, and the violent arm that upholds these is the police.
Does that make sense?
Your comment speaks to high level concepts but you didn't provide an the example to ground it to reality.
Like others have mentioned they aren't seeing these examples of core issues having impacts on their day to day lives/communities. I'm not either. When it comes down to it, laws written to apply to everyone are generally enforced for everyone.
Catching violent perpetrators pretty much always takes priority over non-violent theft. When we see acts of violence get immediate police attention it feels like the image you are trying to portay is inaccurate.
I am not referring to unequal application of the law, but the law itself and the police as its enforcers.
Cool. Now give real actionable examples of this stuff happening. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm fairly sure it does. People keep prodding you for SPECIFIC EXAMPLES though, not just a definition.
The violence of Capitalism is ensured by Private Property Rights, ie Capitalists can exist. Without police, Capitalism would not exist.
Redlining as a concept is practiced to this day.
What do you mean a "specific example?"
Ok, for one example, after the 2008 housing market drop, banks bought the debt from other banks intentionally writing bad loans, which they then resold to third parties. This buying up of the debt of the banks that collapsed during this time lead to banks pushing families out of their homes, many of which were paid-up, but the lending institution behind them had failed, in order to resell the property later, when the market prices had recovered, or use the land for other developments. This was enforced by the police. Bankers did not go around forcing people out of their houses, the police did it at their behest.
Another is laws created specifically to punish people for being homeless. Laws like not being able to camp anywhere near a place they might be able to get themselves out of homelessness, e.g. a place with jobs, and other resources, not some place way out in the forest. These are also only effective because the police use violence to enforce them. Anti-solicitation laws fall into this category. Police often don't realize that (speaking for my country) they are not constitutional at the federal level. Police departments that know about this tell their cops to do it anyway because it's not like homeless people will likely be able to sue them.
A third is the enforcement of petty traffic fines. Things like window tint, or minor violations in situations where the safety concern isn't present. These fines are, often, the brunt of how they fund themselves. Petty violations, like tint, are also used to go on fishing expeditions, so they can either wrack-up more fines, or make an arrest, even if that means intentionally escalating the situation, lying about what happened, and giving false testimony in court. More arrests, more convictions, equals more money for the police, and the legal industry as a whole. If you work with, or around, police, like I have, you will hear them discuss things like testilying. Bouncing ideas off of each other as to how they can make bad arrests, and use illegal levels of force, while having a technicality to maintain their immunity, e.g. screaming quit resisting, while in a position where they know cameras can't really see what is happening. This is just the tip of this iceberg, I would need thousands, upon thousands, of words to detail all the shit I have heard police say, and see police do.
I can go on, but I think I have made my point.
I'm late to reply but thank you for the response, this is the kind of response and examples I was looking for.
Evictions, disproportionately of those most vulnerable, due to Austerity via the Neoliberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher which very much persist today, maximizing, subsidizing the profit of fortune 500 companies while making welfare a slur.
Cops break up people who are just trying to feed the hungry.
ICE; Locking children in cages -- No human is illegal. The Contras were perpetrated by the imperial core, and then the imperial family eats up the propaganda to hate the refugees fleeing those situations.
Prisons, during covid lockdowns, put prisoners in 24/7 solitary. Solitary is torture. It is so bad that is an effective motivator to force prisoners to instead labor for cents a day.
Cops illegally raid safe injection sites, and spread disinformation about People who use drugs, dehumanizing themselves in the process.
Read about the Comstock Raids, as far back as 1860s, the reason that motivated the Stonewall Uprising a century later, and dont think they up and stopped harrassing queer folks of color for doing so much as existing in public.
The origins of the police forces were to chase down runaway slaves.
It is not "a few bad eggs". It's not about a bug of the system, it's the features it was designed for, through Comstocks weaponization of the Post Office to control bodies and autonomy, into modern day surveillance state and militarization.
What we are talking about is Violence. SYSTEMIC Violence.
There is no more violent beast than the Settler-Colonial White Supremacist, with all it's manifest destiny. This Prison System's history is well documented, and evidence of it's violence is more apparent and accessible everyday.
Abolition is a process and it will take time, the two greatest things we can do to obsolete prisons and police are:
We must be free from class, from heirarchies of domination. These are inherently violent
That Dang Dad on YT is a great resource, and that's a starting point, because there is no justice unless you adress the root cause, and the truth is always on the side of the oppressed.
"did you used to be"
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses...
"did you used to be"
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses...
The quote is from a child. It's almost like children speak that way sometimes.
I mean, if the line is supposed to be coming from a curious child, poor grammar is excusable
An adult wrote that. That's why it's embarrassing.
I wouldn't necessarily, myself, consider an adult writing the realistically flawed dialogue of a child to be embarrassing.
#1 That does not sound like a child, or someone trying to write like one.
#2 They're adult topics and adult talking points, so we are, again, not quoting a child.
#3 You know this full well and are just arguing in bad faith because you dislike irony being pointed out. You can leave now.
#1 That does not sound like a child, or someone trying to write like one.
#2 They're adult topics and adult talking points, so we are, again, not quoting a child.
#3 You know this full well and are just arguing in bad faith because you dislike irony being pointed out. You can leave now.
An adult wrote that. That's why it's embarrassing.
The question with the bad spelling tells me all I need to know.