The Law Australian Police brutality thread.

[Jazny]

Those goalposts keep shifting around. Funny that.

How? Did I mistake when you said "But there's an inherent problem with this mindset: that eventually, there is always someone at the pinnacle who is not being monitored". I was just giving examples of people at the pinnacle who still are being monitored and charged by police.

Argumentum ad populum?

Whether or not the masses would like or dislike something is no reason to dismiss or advocate for an idea as a thought exercise, which is rather what we're doing here.

I'm not dismissing it, I am saying I believe that police forces are better than not having a police force as police forces are not only universally adopted throughout all countries,there is not even much public sentiment to get rid of police forces altogether. People do want to make reforms, but not eliminate it. It seems to be a really good public service. Police forces, schools, hospitals, these things are nearly universally supported and to advocate getting rid of any of them, I think it would take a strong argument for how things could be better. I would much rather live in a country that has police than one that doesn't. Not even something I would have to think hard about.

I don't really feel its worth arguing over whether policing in general came from slave catchers, you can believe it if you want, the evidence is not really strong for that claim and even where it's strongest it only applies to some states in America and says nothing about global policing even if it says anything about police in those states.

 

[Gethelred]

How? Did I mistake when you said "But there's an inherent problem with this mindset: that eventually, there is always someone at the pinnacle who is not being monitored". I was just giving examples of people at the pinnacle who still are being monitored and charged by police.

Because a single counterexample doesn't disprove a trend or the fullness of history.

I'm not dismissing it, I am saying I believe that police forces are better than not having a police force as police forces are not only universally adopted throughout all countries,there is not even much public sentiment to get rid of police forces altogether. People do want to make reforms, but not eliminate it. It seems to be a really good public service. Police forces, schools, hospitals, these things are nearly universally supported and to advocate getting rid of any of them, I think it would take a strong argument for how things could be better. I would much rather live in a country that has police than one that doesn't. Not even something I would have to think hard about.

I mean, you're welcome to believe that provided you acknowledge that it's a belief, not fact.

You've done this in this chat, so not particularly stressed.

I don't really feel its worth arguing over whether policing in general came from slave catchers, you can believe it if you want, the evidence is not really strong for that claim...

... yeah, you've not looked into the claim overmuch and stopped on the first you looked at.

It would take a deeper inquiry than the time we can allot to it to really respond to.

... and even where it's strongest it only applies to some states in America and says nothing about global policing even if it says anything about police in those states.

... which is part of why this question would need greater application/research to really uncover as close to the truth as can be approximated, because you're still basing your opinion on that single source rather than a cross-section.

In short, the study of history requires more verification to determine truth than we have time to argue about it, and a willingness to dismiss a claim based on a single piece of opinion accompanied by supporting facts does not really function as good inquiry.

 

[Jazny]

I mean, you're welcome to believe that provided you acknowledge that it's a belief, not fact.

You've done this in this chat, so not particularly stressed.

There is no experiment we can do to test who is right, or even cross cultural studies because basically everywhere has police. I agree mostly with what Geelong Psycho said and I would need a really strong argument with some real world proof to convince me it would be a good idea to get rid of the role that police play in society.

If you could push a button and get rid of the whole concept of police and policing right now, would you honestly do it? Do you think no system at all would be better than the system we have in Australia?

... yeah, you've not looked into the claim overmuch and stopped on the first you looked at.

It would take a deeper inquiry than the time we can allot to it to really respond to.

... which is part of why this question would need greater application/research to really uncover as close to the truth as can be approximated, because you're still basing your opinion on that single source rather than a cross-section.

In short, the study of history requires more verification to determine truth than we have time to argue about it, and a willingness to dismiss a claim based on a single piece of opinion accompanied by supporting facts does not really function as good inquiry.

Well honestly the arguments that police trace their roots back to slave patrols was kind of flimsy. Modern policing especially in Australia but even in America seems to be far more influenced by the English model and has almost nothing to do with slave patrols apart from the fact that they were also a kind of law enforcement that existed in some states previously. It seems like a very American-centric argument put forward by people who want to delegitimise policing in general.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I agree mostly with what Geelong Psycho said and I would need a really strong argument with some real world proof to convince me it would be a good idea to get rid of the role that police play in society.

!! I love you too, Jizzny

 

[ferball]

So what is your alternative to a police force? Do you have one?

No specialist cops. Everyone does a year of policing based on random^ lottery draws. If investigations need an individual to stay in the job for over a year it gets reviewed. (So it doesn't have to be a year, maybe a three year stint once in everyone's life and the sthree year stints are staggered.

Its based on this idea:

Among the Mandan, Arikara policing appeared to be the exclusive prerogative of the Black Mouth society, but among the Crow, nine different societies took turns as police.

(The quote is from the bottom of P7 in that document.)

But we'd also need a parliament or review system where laws are evaluated regularly and thrown out when not necessary.

^Maybe not random. Maybe some weighting toward people who are traditionally over policed.

 

[ferball]

It was a very existent threat. It was rarer here because quite a few terrorist plots were foiled. Another bunch of bonus points to the police protecting people argument that I made!

Terrorism in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes people did rally to support Muslims which is great. But imagine if this keeps happening over and over! You think that support would last? It would for many of us, but for people on the right it would fracture quickly. Look at Israel and Palestine! We dont want that here. Better to have strong counter terrorism in place to protect everyone from the extreme consequences of constant terrorism.

The first bolded bit - why "imagine if it keeps happening over and over" when it obviously doesn't? That's what I'm talking about with the danger of anti terror hysteria. You're using a non existent scenario as the basis for granting extreme powers that can be used against citizens.

You can't compare Australia to israel and palestine. For all the wrongs we've done ourselves in terms of the abuse of blackfellas and the theft of land we still implemented a one state solution and our society has had periods where it worked hard in an to treat everyone fairly, for example the recognition of deaths in custody, the 1967 referndum.

Far from perfect obviously but nothing like what's happened in the ME wrt Palestine and Israel. The way our society is structure means the terror inflicted on Palestinians by Israelis (and vice versa) is not going to happen here. it may have during the frontier wars but that was a long time ago and our society is different now.

I support the creation of those kinds of units, but the friendlyjordies incident was ridiculous. These powers can be abused, but we just need other checks in place to stop stuff like that happening again.

This is the whole point we're making.

Who watches the custard?

 

[Number37]

We were talking about the Lindt Terrorist. It is boring semantics to try and argue he wasn't a terrorist. He said it was an attack on Australia by ISIL. He wanted an ISIL flag as part of his demands. He was engaged in terrorism.

What a load crap.

 

[Jazny]

What a load crap.

What are you offended over, 37?

 

[Jazny]

This is the whole point we're making.

Who watches the custard?

The point you are making isn't great though, because there are checks in place. We know about the AFP and the ISIS want to be boy because of those checks. The court system rejected the AFP case, politicians are calling for an inquiry. This is how it is supposed to work when an abuse of power happens.

 

[ferball]

The point you are making isn't great though, because there are checks in place. We know about the AFP and the ISIS want to be boy because of those checks. The court system rejected the AFP case, politicians are calling for an inquiry. This is how it is supposed to work when an abuse of power happens.

Yeah but weren't you trying to justify what they did?

 

[Jazny]

Yeah but weren't you trying to justify what they did?

No? What part? I think they should have investigated him, but I never justified how they did it.

 

[Number37]

What are you offended over, 37?

ISIS doesn't define themselves as a terrorist organization and they don't think their actions are terrorist acts.
So basic logic should tell you that ISIS condoning the actions of Monis or Monis claiming he is doing it in the name of ISIS, doesn't make it a terrorist act.

You do understand basic logic, right?

 

[Jazny]

ISIS doesn't define themselves as a terrorist organization and they don't think their actions are terrorist acts.
So basic logic should tell you that ISIS condoning the actions of Monis or Monis claiming he is doing it in the name of ISIS, doesn't make it a terrorist act.

You do understand basic logic, right?

I am so sorry, 37, but that was hands down the dumbest thing I have ever read in my entire life.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

ISIS doesn't define themselves as a terrorist organization and they don't think their actions are terrorist acts.
So basic logic should tell you that ISIS condoning the actions of Monis or Monis claiming he is doing it in the name of ISIS, doesn't make it a terrorist act.

You do understand basic logic, right?

With all due respect quite a few ISIS attacks were purely aimed at killing civilians. That is terrorism.

List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Number37]

With all due respect quite a few ISIS attacks were purely aimed at killing civilians. That is terrorism.

List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If ISIS wash the dishes is that a terrorist act?
No.
What if ISIS wash the dishes and say it is an act of terrorism, would that make it a terrorist act?
No.

Just because a label of terrorist is attached to an entity does not make everything they do, or everything they claim as their doing, an act of terrorism.
Terrorism has a definition.

 

[Number37]

I am so sorry, 37, but that was hands down the dumbest thing I have ever read in my entire life.

Don't be so harsh on yourself. Some people just don't get basic logic. I won't hold it against you.

 

[Jazny]

Don't be so harsh on yourself. Some people just don't get basic logic. I won't hold it against you.

Can you please teach me, 37? Teach me how this point:

ISIS doesn't define themselves as a terrorist organization and they don't think their actions are terrorist acts.

Logically supports this point:

So... ISIS condoning the actions of Monis or Monis claiming he is doing it in the name of ISIS, doesn't make it a terrorist act.

 

[Number37]

Can you please teach me, 37? Teach me how this point:

Logically supports this point:

ISIS: We are not terrorists. We don't do terrorist acts.
Monis: I am like ISIS = I am not a terrorist. I am not doing terrorist acts.
ISIS: We condone Monis' actions because it is like our actions which are not terrorist acts.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If ISIS wash the dishes is that a terrorist act?
No.
What if ISIS wash the dishes and say it is an act of terrorism, would that make it a terrorist act?
No.

Just because a label of terrorist is attached to an entity does not make everything they do, or everything they claim as their doing, an act of terrorism.
Terrorism has a definition.

Yes. Attacks on civilians is terrorism. Attacks on military and security forces and other government agencies and installations is insurgency.

 

[Gethelred]

No? What part? I think they should have investigated him, but I never justified how they did it.

Semantics, and not even funny semantics.

ISIS: We are not terrorists. We don't do terrorist acts.
Monis: I am like ISIS = I am not a terrorist. I am not doing terrorist acts.
ISIS: We condone Monis' actions because it is like our actions which are not terrorist acts.

Stahp, plz.

 

[Jazny]

Semantics, and not even funny semantics.

It's not semantics. Yes he should have been investigated, no they should not have positively reinforced his terrorist fantasies or illegally searched his room.

 

[Gethelred]

It's not semantics. Yes he should have been investigated, no they should not have positively reinforced his terrorist fantasies or illegally searched his room.

If you're going to split hairs, at least make it funny.

 

[Jazny]

If you're going to split hairs, at least make it funny.

Do you think the problem was that he was investigated at all?

 

[Gethelred]

Do you think the problem was that he was investigated at all?

I think your question is a deflection designed to pivot from defense of your own views towards attack of mine.

Before I answer, tell me why I should give you what you want here?

 

[Jazny]

I think your question is a deflection designed to pivot from defense of your own views towards attack of mine.

Before I answer, tell me why I should give you what you want here?

I'm trying to understand what your issue is. I am comfortable believing a boy who was threatening his peers, asking for materials to make a bomb, showing ISIS beheading videos, and wanting to join ISIS should be under investigation. I criticize how it seems to have been done.