[kj] (OT) Police Brutality part 2

[GREG SLAWSON]

I agree Brendan that civilians don't stand a chance against the police force, but I think it's not just b/c they outgun us and that we have no (at least legal) recourse against them. I think it's mainly b/c their job is to back up the status quo--they are used to defend the government, businesses, etc. For ex., the cops ALWAYS attack people on strike (even just for standing in a picket line) but never go beat up the manager for paying the workers too little. And they always go after people demonstating against, for example, a war, but never beat up the people starting the wars (meaning the government of course). I know these examples sound stupid, but it just shows that we're so used to the fact that the cops back up the powerful and don't do much to help the rest of us (remember Public Enemy's "911 is a Joke"?).
 


From: bq at soundgardener.co.nz
To: gathering at misera.net
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:29:01 +1000
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Police Brutality part 2









If police brutality is part of a bigger picture, then so is civilian violence.
 
I agree but police brutality is more onerous than civilian brutality – and judges will take this into account in their sentencing– because they are provided enhanced powers of physical intervention (legal rights, training, equipment, back up from thousands of other cops and civilians etc), in return for the responsibility to defend us. Misusing that privilege to do the opposite is especially wrong…and deserves stronger punishment (insofar as we currently favour punishment as opposed to ‘correction’). They are letting us down more than the random idiots because they are the ones we entrust our security to. In a lot of ways we are more vulnerable to their misuse of power than we are to random idiots, we’ve got no real recourse to resist or defend ourselves. They will just escalate the confrontation quicker and harder than we ever can. Some of us have a chance against randoms, no one really has a chance against the police force, right or wrong.
 
Ever heard a cop describe the police force as the biggest gang in the country? I have. 
 
Most of the people at the G20 conference didn't feel obliged to throw bricks through windows or set fire to building. Anyone who can't manage that should stay at home; they're not needed.
 
That might be a clue as to why they feel like they do and do what they do. I’m not so much defending violent behaviour, as trying to explain it. There was a study I was reading about recently in New Scientist that said schools that fit a certain profile were more likely to have mass killings. The profile included a cliquey, elitist, non-inclusive atmosphere. Again I’m not blaming that alone for the killings, but it could have played a part. Anti-social acts are caused by anti-social people, and there’s a reason why people are anti-social, society bears some blame for that. Like it bears some of the blame for the systemic problems in our police forces. 
 
 




From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net] On Behalf Of Jim Harper
Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 01:45
To: A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Police Brutality part 2
 





 

I'm not inclined to consider the opinions/message of people who see no problem with committing acts of violence and destruction. Their message obviously isn't terribly important to them or they wouldn't compromise it (and the message promoted by legitimate protesters) by behaving like thugs. Basically, the moment you decide that your personal opinion gives you the right to trash and loot other people's property and indulge in casual violence, you stop having anything interesting to say or the right to say it. 

 

Most of the people at the G20 conference didn't feel obliged to throw bricks through windows or set fire to building. Anyone who can't manage that should stay at home; they're not needed.

 

Jim.


--- On Fri, 17/4/09, Brendan <bq at soundgardener.co.nz> wrote:


So let me get this right- the fact that I disagree with violence and
destructive behaviour is simply me thinking what the Establishment *wants*
me to think?

No...that's not my angle at all. I disagree that much focus should go on
the damage caused by a small percentage of rioters, I explained that I
think the big issue is their message(s).

I always though it was a part of my near-total dislike of violence and
destruction in any form. Well, now I know better. I'm just a tool of the
establishment.

I never said that.

I doubt you read that part of the message,

I did :)

but I'm also firmly against police brutality and firmly in favour of
people's right to protest. Guess that's also me just thinking what 'the
establishment' wants me to think.

I am against police brutality too...you're on about me calling you a drone
again. I didn't.

I think you should probably get to know me a little better before you
dismiss me as an establishment drone, thanks.

Shout the drinks and bring along your CV and three references, and you've
got a deal.
 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.11.59/2063 - Release Date: 04/16/09 16:38:00

_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates2_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20090417/e61c8d6a/attachment.html>