|
U-Know! Forum » police thugs |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 12:02
|
||
|
But they won't be found and kicked out. It's what they were there for. x
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 12:11
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: "But as there is a requisite level of moral bankruptcy required to do the job" Where do you get your facts from? The job is to enforce the law, any law, with the requisite intimidation and violence that ensures obedience. It is not their job to question the validity of the law. If the law changes - even to the polar opposite of the law they previously enforced - they use as much force as it takes to ensure compliance. The same cops that were busting queers in 1966 were busting queerbashers in 67. This works well as long as those inventing laws have our best interests at heart and are infallible. But even then, it requires the officers themselves to ignore what they feel about the laws. To use whatever violence it takes to ensure obedience with rules, any rules as long as they're handed down from above, is moral bankruptcy. machineryelf wrote: this seems a bit harsh, I suspect most of the police force joined as innocent youths expecting to do good for the general public. I've no doubt of that either. But that's not the way it goes and their main task becomes assertion of authority rather than public good or even obeying the law. It would help if they went along with their sworn duty 'to uphold the law without fear or favour'. machineryelf wrote: I suspect your vision of the police is probably skewed by the fact that your involvement with them is generally in a situation that is in some way confrontational. There's a good chunk of that, but so what? Anyone can be nice in situations where there's no real problem. As people who are in charge of confrontational situations and meant to pacify them, it's their behaviour when anything challenges them that they should be judged on. I used to be someone who argued for engagement with the police but I've been worn down by being around them so much and seeing what they do. The same officer who is all 'you'll find a lot of us agree with you, my daughter's a vegetarian you know' will, 20 minutes later, put on a helmet and batter the head of anyone who happens to be near them. It's not just from that stuff, though. I've also seen several friends join up and seen what it's done to them (interesting variety of responses; one playing along for a while but then becoming disillusioned and leaving, another becoming more and more bigoted and really getting into it). It's not just protests either, it's in seeing stop and searches, and just standard city centre stuff. Their capacity for escalation is astonishing, and its chief engine is their will to enforce obedience above all other concerns. machineryelf wrote: all that said, the video you posted of the police action at G20 was appalling, there were numerous completely pointless batterings of innocent bystanders and I would hope the police responsible would be identified and kicked out, there is no justification for actions like that. But - and this is the point I'm really trying to make - the police in that video aren't making an 'error of judgement' or being the occasional rogue officer. They are enacting a predetermined plan that they have practiced. None of those officers will be disciplined, they obeyed orders and the situation worked well for the police. They will go home, job well done, and they will do it again another day. Those who designed the operation will be pleased and promoted. It doesn't matter if deep inside they have moral feelings. Pretty much everyone does. It's how you act on those feelings that counts. How many police officers, ordered into a situation like the one in the video, would refuse to do it? How many who did it would refuse to do it again? Any that don't - and my guess is that's all of them - should correctly be branded as scumbags.
|
|||
sttomas 1123 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 12:16
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: It's not a matter of mistakes (which are inevitable) or the occasional bad officer (ditto). It's the overarching vision they have of needing to maintain authority at all times, no matter if it does more harm than good. The police violence at the G20 was not about 'mistakes', it was deploying a tried and tested strategy. Certainly, we have a need for people who track down rapists and burglars and whatnot. That does not in any way balance out the brutality and repression they mete out as standard. I think that's exceedingly over reactionary and a very misguided statement to make, well done for tarring the whole Police force with the same brush, I'm sure they'll appreciate that when you need them! Just because you've had one or two bad experiences it doesn't mean that the whole police employ the same action. What you experienced is probably the decision of a over reactionary officer in charge, not the decision of the whole police as you are clearly implying. Tried and tested strategy? From where? To be honest, apart from a few demonstrations I've not seen or heard of any police brutality whatsoever, and I know a lot of activists very well who are involved with a lot of marches which have all ended up very peacefully. Maybe it's just the one's you attend? Protest violence can be very similar to football violence, it only takes one or two antagonists to kick it all off, the thing is is that no one ever knows who starts it as both sides are too busy blaming each other for it!
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 12:20
|
||
|
This is the problem, obviously someone in the metropolitan police believes that this is the way to deal with riots, quite why I do not know as it obviously alienates a general public who otherwise have no contact at all with the police ,other than seeing them on the TV battering innocent bystanders As for individuals in the police, in the video merrick posted i think at about the 3 & a half minute mark you can see one of the riot police having a look round then without any provocation hit with a great deal of force a man with his arms in the air and his back to him, no obvious justification for his actions, no warning , nothing If it had been at a football match and a football fan had acted in a similar manner his picture would have been all over the papers with suitably vitriolic tabloid headlines to accompany it The police need to take and be seen to take somer sort of positive action because otherwise the general public will lose faith in them. I know it's the sameold thing that they do a difficult job in difficult circumstances yaddah yaddah but if they continue to erode public confidence in themselves they will end up doing an impossible job in an impossible situation whilst an uncaring public look on and don't care.
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 12:23
|
||
|
"Protest violence can be very similar to football violence, it only takes one or two antagonists to kick it all off, the thing is is that no one ever knows who starts it as both sides are too busy blaming each other for it!" Yeah - well put. 8)
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 12:42
|
||
|
" The same officer who is all 'you'll find a lot of us agree with you, my daughter's a vegetarian you know' will, 20 minutes later, put on a helmet and batter the head of anyone who happens to be near them." I think your tone is incredibly patronising and condescending here and is a gross generalisation - as if all cops are like the keystone ones! I've met many police officers who are helpful, understanding and more freethinking than you give them credit for. There's some bad ones yes and I'm not making any excuses for those incidents which may eventually fall against them at G20 but you have to understand that there will be a few who lose their cool in dangerous and confrontational situations. I don't believe, as you appear to suggest, that they purposefully go out of their way to knock people around. 8)
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 15:41
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: I think your tone is incredibly patronising and condescending here and is a gross generalisation in describing a group as large as the police force we are obviously all generalising. However, there are certain things that remain true of their actions and role irrespective of their personal motivations. The application of whatever necessary force it takes to impose their will is one. The enforcement of whatever laws the present politicians dream up is another. dave clarkson wrote: There's some bad ones yes and I'm not making any excuses for those incidents which may eventually fall against them at G20 but you have to understand that there will be a few who lose their cool in dangerous and confrontational situations. And I'm saying - for the third time on this thread - that it's not to do with 'some bad ones', 'mistakes' or 'losing their cool'. Nor is it just about the G20 protests. It is a premeditated strategy of violence against unarmed and peaceful people. They seal them in, baton the people at the edges, an angry and violent response is provoked, the police - better armoured, better trained, better armed and with the media on their side - win out, the media get the salacious riot story, everyone's a winner. (Except those whose heads were batoned, those who are intimidated from coming on demonstrations through fear of being attacked by police and those who expect the police to behave as protectors of the public). The good, kind police you and I have met would readily be part of that. Not one of them would disobey the order. The thing is, if you rounded people up and penned them in with riot cops, not letting anyone leave and not explaining why, batoning the ones at the edge, they'd get increasingly angry. Someone would throw something. If you used that as an excuse for baton charges and setting dogs on them, they'd throw more stuff. You'd get a riot. You could do that anywhere - a railway station, a football match, a shoppping centre, anywhere - you'd get a similar response. it's happened so many times that it is impossible that the police haven't seen the pattern. That they choose to deploy in such a way draws us towards one meaning - they want that pattern. (Anyone who disagrees, please give an alternative explanation). The problem they've faced with their incursions at the last two climate camps and again at the climate camp thing last Wednesday is that the crowd there don't behave like the mobs in the textbook. When police attack they neither disperse nor riot. They stand their ground militantly but refuse to be violent, even as they are batoned. You can clearly hear the chant of 'this is not a riot'. Makes it harder for the police to justify what they do, and harder for the media to get their snarling mohican chucking beercans photo. when they moved in to clear the north end of the climate camp demo they were pressure-pointing the student group at the front, forcing fingers into their mouths and dragging them away by their heads. A chant went up of 'would you do this to your kids?'. Made a few look shifty for a minute, but none of them stopped it. dave clarkson wrote: I don't believe, as you appear to suggest, that they purposefully go out of their way to knock people around. Watch this and say that again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJRi7YR1bU
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 15:44
|
||
|
Hear Hear to you and St Tom. If it was the case that every police officer we see is going to bash your face in then we'd all be hobbling along like the walking wounded, as they do in some countries where institutionalised police brutality means what it sez on the tin. I think it's an insult to that sort of thing to casually blurt these things out, and it's no good obssessing over one or two examples to justify a rather wooly attitude to something. Make a valid point and be serious FFS, else any real problems that do arise (which should always be addressed) will not be taken as seriously as they should. I do see a bit of problem with ineptidude though, I must say, but I don't know if that's paperwork or the system or what to blame. x
|
|||
|
sttomas 1123 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 16:00
|
||
|
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/u_know/topic/52492/threaded/655032 Just in case you missed my point earlier, or just chose to ignore it! The thing is is that you are still talking about a minority (for wont of a better word) in the police, some of the police you refer to as not disobeying an order to attack a crowd will strongly disagree with you, and knowing these officers personally I'll disagree with you myself. You are generalising, as you've admitted to but tarring everyone with the same brush, which is greatly unfair to the members of the police who are horrified by the actions of a few of their colleagues or the decision of one misguided officer! To be perfectly honest I think you're generalisations are quite misguided and irresponsible, you really do come across as anti police. Police brutality in this country is by no means on anyone's agenda, but an important point which you've ignored is that no one knows who starts the violence as both sides will inevitably blame the other side.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 07, 2009, 16:18
|
||
|
sttomas wrote: Just in case you missed my point earlier, or just chose to ignore it! I only read it after posting the reply above, and felt what i'd just posted covered a lot of the ground. No disrespect intended! sttomas wrote: The thing is is that you are still talking about a minority (for wont of a better word) in the police Are you really saying that it's only a minority who obey an order to attack a crowd? That I've just been unlucky in seeing total compliance whereas in some other places the majority of coppers refused? sttomas wrote: You are generalising Indeed. When people behave with unanimity that's a fair thing to do. sttomas wrote: horrified by the actions of a few of their colleagues or the decision of one misguided officer to restate - I am not talking about a few officers who behave badly or a one-off bad decision. I'm talking about a repeated strategy and universal compliance with it. To be perfectly honest I think you're generalisations are quite misguided and irresponsible, you really do come across as anti police. sttomas wrote: an important point which you've ignored is that no one knows who starts the violence as both sides will inevitably blame the other side. Explain how this applies to instances where the only violence is from the police.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
