[kj] (OT) Police Brutality part 2

[Bette Dillinger]

In my view, and based on reading ALOT on this issue, any antisocial behavior is the result of childhood trauma.  Aggression in men in particular is due to the fact that typically this trauma involved humiliation by a male (therefore locking in the compulsion to be "more powerful" than their victimizer by taking it out on others......repetition formation).

 

If we were a thinking society, we would try to give children a safe haven where they escape this violence and avoid a personality disorder (which is concretized by the age of three).  But, since they are used as commodities and pop stars buy kids like handbags in third world countries, I don't see this level of maturity happening soon.
 


Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:40:03 +0000
From: jimharper666 at yahoo.co.uk
To: gathering at misera.net
Subject: Re: [kj] (OT) Police Brutality part 2






I'm sure there are psychological factors at work in determining their personality types, just like all of us. There isn't anything that *forces* the individual to behave in that fashion, however. There are no doubt a wealth of psychological issues and problems that go into the make-up of a violent policeman- some of which are genuinely worthy of sympathy- but we all know where psychology ends and choice begins. 
 
Jim.

 
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. 

 

 


 



_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Life without walls.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1b_explore_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20090417/954e832c/attachment.html>