Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiberius Wenchel]

Most of our ancestors did not have time to consider existence beyond getting their next meal.    Until humanity began intensive agriculture and developed specializations, each person/group unit had to spend the majority of their day pursuing the basic essentials of existence: water, food, & shelter (clothing being mobile shelter).  You know what else pursues those kinds of activities?  Other mammals.

That is simply not true. Please refer to the !Kung ethnography that I mentioned in my previous post. They work toward subsistence about 20 hours a week. They also live an extremely arid and resource poor environment.

You seem to be basing your opinions on a lot of unfounded assumptions.

[orange]

Most of our ancestors did not have time to consider existence beyond getting their next meal.    Until humanity began intensive agriculture and developed specializations, each person/group unit had to spend the majority of their day pursuing the basic essentials of existence: water, food, & shelter (clothing being mobile shelter).  You know what else pursues those kinds of activities?  Other mammals.

That is simply not true. Please refer to the !Kung ethnography that I mentioned in my previous post. They work toward subsistence about 20 hours a week. They also live an extremely arid and resource poor environment.

You seem to be basing your opinions on a lot of unfounded assumptions.

I accept your critic of my first paragraph.  It is possible for a small group (a village) to maintain subsistence living and do so in an egalitarian fashion.   The paragraph was ill-founded and inaccurate.  I mis-wrote and I am peripheral aware of the communities you are referencing.

I do not think it makes the unquoted paragraphs any less valid.

Intensive agriculture and the specialization allows for more technologically advanced human civilization with larger populations.

If everyone is doing the same thing (say farming or hunter/gathering), egalitarian communes do not seem incredibly difficult.  Even small communities with a few specialist (blacksmith, mechanic, doctor, priest) providing useful services to the whole it is still relatively straight forward to pursue a largely classless society.   I do not think it scales up very well.

In the US today (300+M), 2-3% of the working population (working population ~$145M) is employed in agriculture (wikipedia).  This means we have a lot of "specialist."    These specialist range from people working at Walmart (2.1M!) and McDonalds to doctors and lawyers and everything in between.

[Tiberius Wenchel]

I agree that social stratification is unavoidable in industrialized and agricultural societies. I was only trying to make the point that this has not been the norm for the vast majority of human history. It is unfounded to say, as Senn did, that stratification is inevitable due to some inherent flaw in human nature. We are, as all other animals are, selfish by nature. This does not mean we have some instinct to set up complex social strata or castes any time we congregate. The archaeological and ethnographic records show us something quite different.

All that being said, sorry for derailing the thread. I think it was supposed to be about something to do with the occupy movement, which I know little and care less about. So yeah, back to your business I guess.

[Mizhara]

Can someone fucking tell me there's going to be accountability for the atrocities committed by the police forces?

A pregnant woman kicked in the stomach and pepper sprayed after yelling that she was pregnant and just trying to get out. Another young non-violent student was sent to the hospital with chemical burns on her face after being sprayed by police officers, for simply having a sit-down with not a single threatening move displayed by any of the protestors around.

When the fuck are there going to be reports of accountability for atrocious displays of police violence?
I hate to resort to the following term, but this is getting to be Nazi conditions. Jackbooted thugs displaying the worst conceivable actions against non-violent protestors short of fucking shooting them. What the -hell- is going on?!

[orange]

In the case of the pregnant woman, she, or someone on her behalf, has to take legal action, accuse the police in question of a crime and allow for investigation and trial.  The system will not be fast about it, especially if it is doing it right - treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  We also lack the perspective of the officers, what was happening around the incident.  Her voice was sadly probably one among many - the police may not have even heard her.  Is this sad? Yes.  Is it an atrocity? I think that language is overly strong.

Non-violent protestors does not mean the protestors are not endangering others or infringing on the rights of others.  Protestors ignoring police direction to disperse (say from the middle of an intersection) may be very peaceful, but that does not mean they are not endangering others (like drivers & pedistrians milse away who are now in denser traffic).   Non-lethal weapons, Pepper Spray & Tazers are used to gain compliance from non-cooperative individuals.

Do I agree with the technic the officer used?  No,  I think it would have been more than adequate to spray the Pepper Spray into the air and let it disperse - causing irratation to the protestors.  Pepper Spray hurts,  I have been sprayed with it in the face and then had to complete a task.  Just being in the area of pepper spray can cause irratation.

When will there be accountability for crimes committed by the police?  When the victim, or someone on their behalf, accuses the police of the crime within the justice system.  This however requires that people, primarily the victim, have faith in the justice system to actually pursue justice.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I don't think (s)he's all that interested in your reasoned replies, orange, given the words Nazi, jack-booted thug, and atrocity used in the discussion.

[Mizhara]

Are any of those words unapplicable? Even in the service I never saw this kind of blatant abuse of power, nor failure to adhere to 'minimum level of force required'. Is there really anything else that can be said when war-torn countries display better respect for the civilian population than this?

[Misan]

That reminds me of an article I caught a while back, not directly related to this last incident, but close enough. http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-with-crowd-control-training-points-out-oakland-used-methods-prohibited-in-war-zones-2011-10#ixzz1c8ROOQpG

Will leave it at that for now.

[Senn Typhos]

It's part of the beauty of freedom of expression. Nothing protesters do is ever wrong, and anything a law enforcement officer does is an atrocity.

[Mizhara]

I don't think anyone's ever said that, Senn. There's a reason why I've always sided with the uniformed authority in these things in the past and that is because they should be trained in and using the correct amount of force, if and when it is necessary. In my own experience (and from what most media have shown throughout the last few decades) the majority of police actions have usually been justified, or the overstepping of necessary force have usually been through mistaken threat indications and so on. I've -always- considered the police the good guys and at least in my own country I still do.

The force used against the Blitzers in my own country, (a while ago. Basically they're skinheads and hooligans, but with a bit more political idealism in their core values) was appropriate and the two distinct times the authorities overstepped their limitations there were significant repercussions for those responsible.

What you see endless examples of in the various protests and occupations online is needless violence and sudden escalations in force that come out of nowhere. Shock and Awe should not be a term applicable to a police force's actions, ever. Thuggery and bullying of non-violent civilians is an absolute last resort.

With the sheer amount of protests and occupations going on these days, I'm sure there's a grand majority of the police forces out there that do their jobs well and keep applying only the necessary level of force if and when it is necessary. However, it doesn't really excuse the mindboggling amount of footage out there where there's police brutality and violence on levels I never even saw during my days of foreign service in a third world nation.

If all this footage and all these articles had come from North Korea or wherever, there wouldn't have been a single western voice defending the police forces' use of this level of violence. It's rather telling that 'Oh, it's in our own backyard. It's okay. Let's not talk about it.'.

[lallara zhuul]

The odd thing is...

Who does this serve?

I mean, such PR bungles by the police forces of the nation do not serve the nation itself.

Mistrust towards the police is not beneficial for the stability of a nation.

Unless it is used as a propaganda tool to cause mistrust towards the government of the nation.

Which seems to be the agenda of one of the political parties.

I'm not sure how things were in the seventies, but wasn't there also violence towards the protesters in the States?

[orange]

That reminds me of an article I caught a while back, not directly related to this last incident, but close enough. http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-with-crowd-control-training-points-out-oakland-used-methods-prohibited-in-war-zones-2011-10#ixzz1c8ROOQpG

Will leave it at that for now.

Police in the US carry bullets prohibited to US military personnel in war zones due to the Law of Armed Conflict.

The US military routinely reviews its weapons for compliance with LOAC and trains its personnel to be compliant with LOAC.  There is every possibility that a member of the US military, in the performance of their duties, could find themselves tried in an international court or under a court system with political aims counter to those of the United States.  The US military has every interest in ensuring its personnel are trained and operate in compliance with LOAC.  Lastly, failure to follow regulations, instructions, etc can result in UCMJ action, to include Court Martial and military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  Members of the military, under the UCMJ, are not tried by a court of their peers.  All members of the jury are officers of a higher grade.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a requirement.  The individual can be punished without a court case or jury through Article 15s, which for enlisted can include lose of rank, privileges, or pay and confinement to the installation.

Police are not bound by the same fears as the US military.  They do not as a rule operate outside their local jurisdiction.  They are not likely to find themselves in a non-US court system or in the military court system.

Should the Police ROEs be reviewed?  Yes.  Should there be investigations, yes.  All of these things take time.

With the sheer amount of protests and occupations going on these days, I'm sure there's a grand majority of the police forces out there that do their jobs well and keep applying only the necessary level of force if and when it is necessary. However, it doesn't really excuse the mindboggling amount of footage out there where there's police brutality and violence on levels I never even saw during my days of foreign service in a third world nation.

If all this footage and all these articles had come from North Korea or wherever, there wouldn't have been a single western voice defending the police forces' use of this level of violence. It's rather telling that 'Oh, it's in our own backyard. It's okay. Let's not talk about it.

Do you think that these instances of brutality/crimes committed by the police are mostly getting out in the case of the United States?  Or do you think they are indicative of a more rampant abuses of power?

I think in cases like N. Korea or Syria, I think we believe the abuses of power to be more rampant than we do in our own backyard. I hope I have not indicated that I think it is OK or that we should not talk about it.

How brutal/violent do you think the Somali/Afghan/Pakistani/Central African/ warlords are and how many of their victims have camera phones connected to the internet and can upload the video to Youtube within minutes of taking the video?

Again, do you think I have defended the actions of the police?  I hope I have indicated a desire for these instances to be brought to trial.

The odd thing is...

Who does this serve?

I mean, such PR bungles by the police forces of the nation do not serve the nation itself.

Mistrust towards the police is not beneficial for the stability of a nation.

Unless it is used as a propaganda tool to cause mistrust towards the government of the nation.

Which seems to be the agenda of one of the political parties.

I'm not sure how things were in the seventies, but wasn't there also violence towards the protesters in the States?

Both political parties want the people of the United States to trust the government, just in different ways/for different things.  The scary part is that depending on what happens, it could serve the purposes of either extreme, but only serves to reduce overall liberty.

There is a history of violence against protestors/rioters throughout America's history.

Who does this serve...

The idea of Occupy Wall Street was started by a pair of anarchist.  Their stated goal is the destruction of capitalism and the state.  I have heard that both the Nazi and Communist parties of the United States have stated their support for the Occupy movement.

When one segment of the mob (for lack of a better term) attacks and burns down a coffee shop or robs a nearby store, it brings additional police presence, and an associated rise in the environment's hostility.

The desire of the idea's originators is instability.

Lastly, the police are not releasing video from their perspective.  They are likely legally barred from doing so in order to protect the privacy of those taped, including those who took violent action against the police.

[Senn Typhos]

I'm not saying I think it's okay for police to abuse their power. I am saying that I've grown to be mistrusting of accounts of "police brutality," which I will admit is the result of anecdotal evidence that shaped my worldview.

When the Democratic National Convention came to my home city in '08, there was an outcry against police brutality in the streets - like there is with EVERY protest. Some protesters were struck in the face with batons, reportedly, and others were sprayed directly with pepper spray.

As it turned out later, the group responsible for the riot leading up to that police action was a gang of self-proclaimed anarchists, who had agreed to protest peacefully and stay in designated quadrants during the protest. This is typical procedure for volatile protest sites, and is agreed to beforehand by interested parties in order for them to be allowed close to the protest site.

Big shock, the 19-20 year olds dressed in black gear with "Kill the Police" and "War Is Gay" signs in-hand, chanting threats to the riot lineup, didn't take long to break the agreement and storm past the barricades put in place to keep the protest from devolving. The ones reporting police violence were the ones locking arms and trying to ram their way past the riot police in order to get inside the building. More than once, protesters managed to surround solitary riot police and close in on the officers. We really don't know why, they just seemed to think it was amusing to keep their cameras flashing non-stop, and only disperse once the officer was forced to attempt to break free of the circle. This was reported as "police beating protesters."

This is the same nation-wide "anarchist movement" responsible for attacks on the WTO, another "peaceful protest" that ended with anarchists using home-brewed weaponry against riot police and bystanders alike, tearing the letters from the WTO building's face to keep as souvenirs, and setting fire to several squad cars for - again - no real reason.

Do I think police get out of hand now and then? Obviously, there are bad people in every group. Was every protester at the DNC a childish "black bloc" dipstick who read the Anarchist Cookbook one too many times? No, I bet a lot of them were actually there to make a point. My problem is when people only read the evidence that plays into their narrative, which in this case is a world where the police convene every night to prepare their insidious tools of oppression, cackling to themselves in anticipation of the fun they'll have hurting innocent protesters.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

I can't count the number of times I've seen an OWS-related protest march or direct action form human chains to interfere with "black bloc" groups breaking windows or eject troublemakers into police custody.

The night Portland swelled to 8-10,000 people I was really worried when the tense, malevolent voices started stirring.  But a few, slightly overlapping "mic-checks" rang out with calls to "take a deep breath, we are peaceful, stay calm" and the crowd would die down to the point of hearing a pin drop.  They stood nose-to-nose with riot police for hours without a violent incident.

WTO/G8/NATO protests are largely engineered by "professional" or "vacation" protesters.  I'll get a little snooty here and say from my perspective, in a lot of cases these are pampered suburban kids with no real grievance or suffering in their lives that would excuse such violence (they aren't Tibetans forced to poison their own environment with chemical baths, etc).  They want to link a picture of their "brave actions against the tyrants" on their Facebook page.  The de rigeuer example for me is the Vancouver riots earlier this year.  There was even a staged car explosion, packed with Hollywood-style pyrotechnics.  However, the actual residents of Vancouver were, again, forming human chains in front of broken windows to stop looting or would surround trouble-makers and prevent them from fleeing until authorities could apprehend them.  Then, the next morning, they drove in to work early so they could spend an hour or two helping clean up their beautiful downtown.

This is not the same demographic,  these are people who have lost their homes in foreclosures, seen their retirement evaporate before their eyes, their tuitions and loan requirements explode, and more.  Yes, some people see fit to use the protection of a sizable protest group to shield themselves from consequences for negative behavior.

That doesn't excuse violent suppression against the entire movement for the actions of a few (who's goals aren't even really aligned in many cases).  Do real police work, identify the guilty, apprehend them, build a case and prosecute.  Again, there are many people who disapprove of violent elements within the movement and will cooperate with authorities to maintain order.

I'll stop before I get going on the subject of how real community policing has gone missing over the years, but simply put if the community doesn't cooperate, crime doesn't get solved.  So applying punishment for the actions of a few to the entire community results in less effective systems of justice over time as you turn the formerly cooperative elements into adversaries willing to hide and condone the actions of those more dangerous elements as they see them as more "on their side" than the police are.

[kalaratiri]