The Law Australian Police brutality thread.

[SaintsSeptember]

For the amount of protests we seem to have and how rare police brutality is we are doing alright.

Can you imagine going to work and the boss says, " here stick this helmet on and get into the city, people are probably going to throw rocks at you, or condoms full of piss. You have to control them, but you're not allowed to touch them ". ...." But i thought i would be solving crimes "

 

[Chief]

You have to control them, but you're not allowed to touch them

Who ever told a cop that?

 

[Gethelred]

Can you imagine going to work and the boss says, " here stick this helmet on and get into the city, people are probably going to throw rocks at you, or condoms full of piss. You have to control them, but you're not allowed to touch them ". ...." But i thought i would be solving crimes "

By the same token, any given individual's expectations or romaticizations of the role of police in pacifying the population aren't really all that relevant to the required duties they must complete.

The police aren't really there to solve crimes. It wasn't their original purpose, and it isn't now. They, like democracy, are an outlet valve designed to maintain the social contract, and when that contract is threatened their true purpose is returned to.

We exist within a capitalist, nationalist framework with democratic trappings to keep the population under control. We maintain property rights above all else; we work within a capitalist framework to enrich the ownership classes at the expense and through the labour of workers; we have a say only on who the leaders are, not what they do.

If any given police officer doesn't want the repercussions of their choice of occupation, perhaps they could choose to cease being a police officer. If they do not, they need accept the consequences of that choice, and while getting condoms and urine thrown at them is pretty foul it could be much worse.

 

[RedOrWhite]

By the same token, any given individual's expectations or romaticizations of the role of police in pacifying the population aren't really all that relevant to the required duties they must complete.

The police aren't really there to solve crimes. It wasn't their original purpose, and it isn't now. They, like democracy, are an outlet valve designed to maintain the social contract, and when that contract is threatened their true purpose is returned to.

We exist within a capitalist, nationalist framework with democratic trappings to keep the population under control. We maintain property rights above all else; we work within a capitalist framework to enrich the ownership classes at the expense and through the labour of workers; we have a say only on who the leaders are, not what they do.

If any given police officer doesn't want the repercussions of their choice of occupation, perhaps they could choose to cease being a police officer. If they do not, they need accept the consequences of that choice, and while getting condoms and urine thrown at them is pretty foul it could be much worse.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for putting it so succinctly, especially the bolded.

I know because my dad was a cop for 20 years. He did a lot of important work, but also some things that I found pretty abhorrent in his earlier years. Like having the adrenaline rush as a cop when he was stationed at refugee camps for a few pro refugee rallies. Or having to look after multiple PM's and Governor Generals, no matter their politics or actions, including Howard who he hated.

There's also a lot of cases where they're being reassigned and there's nothing they can do about it, or given tasks that are morally questionable. Even if it affects their family lives which it did ours, among other things. So it takes a certain personality type to be compatible with being a police officer. And there are bad eggs among them, even if it's a small minority.

I'm not doubting they do a lot of good, and don't think they should be abolished or anything like that. But I don't have rose-tinted glasses either, and am under no illusions who their true masters are. The average Joe or homeless person comes second to power and capital.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

By the same token, any given individual's expectations or romaticizations of the role of police in pacifying the population aren't really all that relevant to the required duties they must complete.

The police aren't really there to solve crimes. It wasn't their original purpose, and it isn't now. They, like democracy, are an outlet valve designed to maintain the social contract, and when that contract is threatened their true purpose is returned to.

We exist within a capitalist, nationalist framework with democratic trappings to keep the population under control. We maintain property rights above all else; we work within a capitalist framework to enrich the ownership classes at the expense and through the labour of workers; we have a say only on who the leaders are, not what they do.

If any given police officer doesn't want the repercussions of their choice of occupation, perhaps they could choose to cease being a police officer. If they do not, they need accept the consequences of that choice, and while getting condoms and urine thrown at them is pretty foul it could be much worse.

Nice spiel...
I've know people who started businesses and struggled.
I've know people who started businesses that thrived.
At what point do they "jump class "?. I'm well and truly over all that ancient socialist doctrine.

What you've said about police officers , could also be said about your workers. Go and start your own business if you don't like it.

We don't accept abuse to nurses, bank workers, paramedics, etc etc. Yet because someone chose to be a cop its ok to abuse them.?

 

[Gethelred]

Nice spiel...
I've know people who started businesses and struggled.
I've know people who started businesses that thrived.
At what point do they "jump class "?. I'm well and truly over all that ancient socialist doctrine.

Cool. Good for you, good for them. I'm glad it worked out for them in the briefest of snapshots of their entire ****ing lives you've provided for me.

No moments of inquity for those who succeeded? No struggle? Smooth sailing, just a bit of elbow grease? Any of them get to multi millionaire? Any of them get to billionaire?

I also think you're missing the point, but we'll get to that in a mo.

What you've said about police officers , could also be said about your workers. Go and start your own business if you don't like it.

... and this is where the point is missed.

One of the points I made in that post is that by looking at the situation in terms of how an individual officer deals with it misses that across the board they're there to maintain the peace by threat of state authorised violence. A worker could go out and start their own business, but their success doesn't stop the exploitation of workers; it simply makes them complicit in a system that exploits the labour of other people.

Your view has two main issues here: one, that all workers operate within a system where owners exist already. It is the equivalent of private school education; the poor have no access unless they are very, very good where the rich can purchase it. The wealthy go in with a safety net and can expend more wealth to see their idea or business succeed; a poor person who goes in with the precise same idea might stumble early and never recover, losing all their assets in the process.

Two, that it is completely acceptable for you to state that a worker in Australia can just go and make their own business, given the access to welfare and housing commission, crap as they are. Can a poor person in Sumatra do the same thing? Sri Lanka, in the midst of a civil war brought on by post colonial friction and wealth inequality? Does someone who lives in the Republic of the Congo have even the same access to welfare that we use as a safety net here?

So, for all the good the phrase 'just go out and start your own business' might do, it doesn't and cannot address the immense global inequality created by postcolonial, capitalist systems. An individual might change their own stars with tremendous luck, but the heavens move on regardless of their will.

This is a losing argument for you. One wonders why you made it.

We don't accept abuse to nurses, bank workers, paramedics, etc etc. Yet because someone chose to be a cop its ok to abuse them.?

A nurse, a bank worker and a paramedic is not going to protect the system with violence the way a police officer must. That's the difference.

A police officer is expected, at any moment, to serve in defense of the state. When the state is the cause of iniquity, what other recourse is there - that has worked throughout history - other than violence towards them?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Cool. Good for you, good for them. I'm glad it worked out for them in the briefest of snapshots of their entire ****ing lives you've provided for me.

No moments of inquity for those who succeeded? No struggle? Smooth sailing, just a bit of elbow grease? Any of them get to multi millionaire? Any of them get to billionaire?

I also think you're missing the point, but we'll get to that in a mo.

... and this is where the point is missed.

One of the points I made in that post is that by looking at the situation in terms of how an individual officer deals with it misses that across the board they're there to maintain the peace by threat of state authorised violence. A worker could go out and start their own business, but their success doesn't stop the exploitation of workers; it simply makes them complicit in a system that exploits the labour of other people.

Your view has two main issues here: one, that all workers operate within a system where owners exist already. It is the equivalent of private school education; the poor have no access unless they are very, very good where the rich can purchase it. The wealthy go in with a safety net and can expend more wealth to see their idea or business succeed; a poor person who goes in with the precise same idea might stumble early and never recover, losing all their assets in the process.

Two, that it is completely acceptable for you to state that a worker in Australia can just go and make their own business, given the access to welfare and housing commission, crap as they are. Can a poor person in Sumatra do the same thing? Sri Lanka, in the midst of a civil war brought on by post colonial friction and wealth inequality? Does someone who lives in the Republic of the Congo have even the same access to welfare that we use as a safety net here?

So, for all the good the phrase 'just go out and start your own business' might do, it doesn't and cannot address the immense global inequality created by postcolonial, capitalist systems. An individual might change their own stars with tremendous luck, but the heavens move on regardless of their will.

This is a losing argument for you. One wonders why you made it.

A nurse, a bank worker and a paramedic is not going to protect the system with violence the way a police officer must. That's the difference.

A police officer is expected, at any moment, to serve in defense of the state. When the state is the cause of iniquity, what other recourse is there - that has worked throughout history - other than violence towards them?

So you advocate violence towards police. But scream like a baby if one of them is violent back. Based on your arguments i'd suggest police should be able to use any means they like to protect themselves.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Gethelred]

So you advocate violence towards police.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words I didn't say in my mouth. I'm pretty careful where I let other people put their fingers, and most of the time they have to ask first.

Saying that violence between police and wider society is inevitable is not advocating for violence towards police.

But scream like a baby if one of them is violent back.

I'd also be interested to know where precisely I said that. I'm pretty careful with my language, SS.

Based on your arguments i'd suggest police should be able to use any means they like to protect themselves.

Again: then they should expect what is coming back to an excessive degree.

That's the point. They chose to stand between the rulers and the people. If they don't like or want to be living shields or swords for the ownership class, they should get out of the way.

So, to summarise:

• you didn't confront any of post you quoted.
• you made a series of different strawmen.
• and you still failed to disprove or negate anything I've said in any way.

Was there a point to even replying if all you're going to do is try and get me defending things I didn't say?