Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yuki the Third
I have noticed something kind of distrubing lately in my debates, and reading about the protests in american and in the middle east. To keep it short and sweet, middle eastern police shoot at and beat on armed citizens, it's seen as an abuse.
American police shoot at and injure american citizens who are NOT armed, and it's the unarmed protesters who are seen as the bad guys.

I can't wrap my mind around this...."oh, they should expect it for civil disobedience"..."they were asked to leave"...they threw bottles".

Maybe so, but does that justify bashing someone multiple times with a lead-filled cane (aka a police baton), shooting people in the head, stepping/kneeling on the windpipe of people, throwing people around like ragdolls, and just generaly trying to hurt anyone and everyone?

Can someone explain to me how this is not only judtified,
but why it's seen by some people as the fault of the OWS protesters?


tl:dr- why is the general concensus that the OWS protesters deserve to be beaten, bloodied, and maimed with zero police repercussion?


You just have to watch out for the police like everyone else.
Agnice

You just have to watch out for the police like everyone else.
watching out is kinda hard when the entire force is coming down on you like hulkamania.
Yuki the Third
Agnice

You just have to watch out for the police like everyone else.
watching out is kinda hard when the entire force is coming down on you like hulkamania.


Sucks. There's no non-police alternative.
Agnice
Yuki the Third
Agnice

You just have to watch out for the police like everyone else.
watching out is kinda hard when the entire force is coming down on you like hulkamania.


Sucks. There's no non-police alternative.
almost every post you have made has been almost incoherent. I have to ask...are you on some kind of drug right now?
Yuki the Third
Agnice
Yuki the Third
Agnice

You just have to watch out for the police like everyone else.
watching out is kinda hard when the entire force is coming down on you like hulkamania.


Sucks. There's no non-police alternative.
almost every post you have made has been almost incoherent. I have to ask...are you on some kind of drug right now?


There's nothing incoherent about anything that I have said. Ever.
grinningjester
When you have Joe Blow trying to sell a carload of weed and he comes up firing because he's not going back to jail, that was his choice.

So if a drug dealer is trying to do his job and shoots a cop, it's his choice and he gets locked up forever. But if a cop shoots a drug dealer, nobody gives a s**t, in fact people will probably cheer for the guy, and he was just valiantly defending his own life in the line of duty, or some such nonsense.

Quote:
In the case of the protests, police must be prepared. To be reactive would be to sit around and watch people do their thing and twiddle our thumbs. Active would be expecting things to get out of hand. Since police are action, not reaction, we bring the shields, large batons, helmets, and all the other fun riot gear. We call it our hats and bats. When nothing happens and the protest is a peaceful one, excellent. But when something happens, we have to keep the peace. You wouldn't be arrested or pepper sprayed or whatever if you didn't earn it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
Quote:
Why would we voluntarily use these "horrible" things on you if we didn't absolutely have to?

Receiving an order from some guy who's in charge of you.

Quote:
And for the fellow who is discussing how people act when they don't have rules vs do have rules, parolees the world over love to enlighten you on this. Just one example, when the doors are closed and the guards are gone, there's no one to police anything. Give me a few guesses on what happens.

Oh, oh, I know! A sampling bias happens~!
Quote:
The vast majority of people are deterred just on the chance that there might be a consequence.

Actually, deterrence only works if consequences are certain, which is why people speed all the time even if they get a lot of speeding tickets.

Why do people make statements like this without even checking to see that they're true?
grinningjester's avatar

Friendly Guildsman

Je Nique vos Merdiers

So if a drug dealer is trying to do his job and shoots a cop, it's his choice and he gets locked up forever. But if a cop shoots a drug dealer, nobody gives a s**t, in fact people will probably cheer for the guy, and he was just valiantly defending his own life in the line of duty, or some such nonsense.

Drug dealing is not a job, it's an illegal enterprise. The difference is that the drug dealer was making choices that are detrimental to society. You are equating the acts to be the same when they are not. When police shoot they have to have a reason, mainly protecting their lives or the lives of the public. They don't up and shoot people for the hell of it. Officer involved shootings are devastating to not just the suspect but the officer.

Je Nique vos Merdiers
grinningjester
In the case of the protests, police must be prepared. To be reactive would be to sit around and watch people do their thing and twiddle our thumbs. Active would be expecting things to get out of hand. Since police are action, not reaction, we bring the shields, large batons, helmets, and all the other fun riot gear. We call it our hats and bats. When nothing happens and the protest is a peaceful one, excellent. But when something happens, we have to keep the peace. You wouldn't be arrested or pepper sprayed or whatever if you didn't earn it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

It would be the height of recklessness to go into an incendiary situation and not prepare for violence. Law enforcement does not organize the protests. They just make sure they do not get out of hand. That's not a self fulfilling prophecy. That's planning.

Quote:
Receiving an order from some guy who's in charge of you.

Do you know how often that happens? Almost never. Most use of force is moment to moment regular calls. In the case of riots and SWAT, yes orders are given to use force but at the end of the day, each officer is responsible for their actions. If they think it's wrong, it's their job to stand up and say so. When they don't, the consequences could be civil litigation, criminal investigation, and/or loss of their job. It would be a rare officer who'd just follow an order.

Je Nique vos Merdiers
grinningjester
And for the fellow who is discussing how people act when they don't have rules vs do have rules, parolees the world over love to enlighten you on this. Just one example, when the doors are closed and the guards are gone, there's no one to police anything. Give me a few guesses on what happens.

Oh, oh, I know! A sampling bias happens~!

Are you advocating anarchy then?

Quote:
Actually, deterrence only works if consequences are certain, which is why people speed all the time even if they get a lot of speeding tickets. Why do people make statements like this without even checking to see that they're true?

Actually, I think you'll find that your article doesn't say that deterrence only works if the consequences are certain but rather that the certainty of punishment increases the deterrence. Those are slightly different things.
Mannequin Harpsichord's avatar

8,300 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Clambake 200
  • Sausage Fest 200
Revolutionary Justice
Mannequin Harpsichord


I've seen those "police brutality" videos and I see the police trying to maintain order during a riot.

What riots? Look at all those people sitting in a park rioting! Really? Come on now. The only time I've seen anything close to rioting(and this "rioting" amounts to things being thrown at police after they fire tear gas/bean bags at protesters and a few instances of spray-paint) was the few times the cops and protesters clashed during peaceful marches. Meaning what turned these events into "riots" was the fact that the police showed up armed to the teeth for a fight.


I'm sure that some of the protesters sat peacefully in the park, but the videos of "police brutality" that I find show a screaming angry mob of people. Link me any videos you find showing police using force on protesters who are sitting peacefully and in a legal place at a legal time please.
Revolutionary Justice's avatar

3,650 Points
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Statustician 100
Mannequin Harpsichord
Revolutionary Justice
Mannequin Harpsichord


I've seen those "police brutality" videos and I see the police trying to maintain order during a riot.

What riots? Look at all those people sitting in a park rioting! Really? Come on now. The only time I've seen anything close to rioting(and this "rioting" amounts to things being thrown at police after they fire tear gas/bean bags at protesters and a few instances of spray-paint) was the few times the cops and protesters clashed during peaceful marches. Meaning what turned these events into "riots" was the fact that the police showed up armed to the teeth for a fight.


I'm sure that some of the protesters sat peacefully in the park, but the videos of "police brutality" that I find show a screaming angry mob of people. Link me any videos you find showing police using force on protesters who are sitting peacefully and in a legal place at a legal time please.
That's a giant leap isn't it? Going from them quelling riots to now quelling a "screaming angry mob of people". Have you ever been to a protest? Then you make another great leap to saying you need evidence of police using force on protesters who are sitting peacefully in a legal place at a legal time. How farther can you backpedal?
Mannequin Harpsichord's avatar

8,300 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Clambake 200
  • Sausage Fest 200
Revolutionary Justice
Mannequin Harpsichord
Revolutionary Justice
Mannequin Harpsichord


I've seen those "police brutality" videos and I see the police trying to maintain order during a riot.

What riots? Look at all those people sitting in a park rioting! Really? Come on now. The only time I've seen anything close to rioting(and this "rioting" amounts to things being thrown at police after they fire tear gas/bean bags at protesters and a few instances of spray-paint) was the few times the cops and protesters clashed during peaceful marches. Meaning what turned these events into "riots" was the fact that the police showed up armed to the teeth for a fight.


I'm sure that some of the protesters sat peacefully in the park, but the videos of "police brutality" that I find show a screaming angry mob of people. Link me any videos you find showing police using force on protesters who are sitting peacefully and in a legal place at a legal time please.
That's a giant leap isn't it? Going from them quelling riots to now quelling a "screaming angry mob of people". Have you ever been to a protest? Then you make another great leap to saying you need evidence of police using force on protesters who are sitting peacefully in a legal place at a legal time. How farther can you backpedal?


I don't know what you call a riot, but a screaming angry mob of people is what I consider to be a riot and not "peaceful protesting." I have been to peaceful protests, they did not involve any screaming, mobs, or "police brutality" (there was one cop but he was there to make sure that no one hurt US). What's wrong with needing evidence before accusing police of unnecessary brutality? You expect me to believe it just because you say it?
grinningjester
Drug dealing is not a job, it's an illegal enterprise. The difference is that the drug dealer was making choices that are detrimental to society.

So a job is only a job if the guys with the biggest sticks say so, eh?
Quote:
It would be the height of recklessness to go into an incendiary situation and not prepare for violence. Law enforcement does not organize the protests. They just make sure they do not get out of hand. That's not a self fulfilling prophecy. That's planning.

It's a known fact that the presence of weapons increases aggression. When you show up heavily armed, you are heavily increasing aggression.

Quote:
Do you know how often that happens? Almost never.

Evidence?

Quote:
Are you advocating anarchy then?

I'm interested to know what giant leap you took from "prisoners are a biased sample" to "I advocate anarchy!"

By the way, the high recidivism rate in prisons is because of the heavy-handed approach the penal system takes. And of course because our prison industry is privatized and they have every reason to keep the prisons as full as possible.

Quote:
Actually, I think you'll find that your article doesn't say that deterrence only works if the consequences are certain but rather that the certainty of punishment increases the deterrence. Those are slightly different things.

No, they are identical.
grinningjester's avatar

Friendly Guildsman

Je Nique vos Merdiers
So a job is only a job if the guys with the biggest sticks say so, eh?

No. A job is a job when it's not illegal. blaugh

Je Nique vos Merdiers
It's a known fact that the presence of weapons increases aggression. When you show up heavily armed, you are heavily increasing aggression.

Study?

Je Nique vos Merdiers
Evidence? (of use of force orders)

Honey, my evidence is thousands of personal work hours on patrol. Swat and riot call outs are frequent enough for us, use of force orders are nill in my (large) department and only once in the last 4 years the nearby large cities. But if you want a study since you're not likely to count that as evidence, this shows a study done in 2000. The complaint ratio result was repeated in a 2002 study that you can read up on here. But if you see, about 1% of interactions result in use of force at all. When you consider that use of force is barely ever ordered by superiors, that number is at best exceedingly small.

Quote:
I'm interested to know what giant leap you took from "prisoners are a biased sample" to "I advocate anarchy!"

Because prisoners without supervision were just an example, one of many that show the result of having nobody to enforce laws. By simply responding "sampling bias" you beg the question if nobody exists to enforce laws, then what? Also, I read your other responses and you condemn law but fail to recognize that without it we have anarchy and all the fallout that goes with that. Just a question: when you are in need, when you get shot or mugged or raped, are you still going to say ******** the police?

Quote:
By the way, the high recidivism rate in prisons is because of the heavy-handed approach the penal system takes. And of course because our prison industry is privatized and they have every reason to keep the prisons as full as possible.

Study? And recidivism is a very complex topic. There are a lot of factors that contribute. You can read up on some of the causes here. Yes, changes need to be made to the system but general consensus is that no law equals all bad.

Je Nique vos Merdiers
grinningjester
Actually, I think you'll find that your article doesn't say that deterrence only works if the consequences are certain but rather that the certainty of punishment increases the deterrence. Those are slightly different things.

No, they are identical.

No actually, they are not. One says people are ONLY deterred if they are CERTAIN to get punished. The other says that people are MORE LIKELY to be deterred if the chances of them being punished are increased. Thus more punishment, more deterrence.
grinningjester
Je Nique vos Merdiers
So a job is only a job if the guys with the biggest sticks say so, eh?

No. A job is a job when it's not illegal. blaugh

Yeah, that's what I said.

Quote:
Je Nique vos Merdiers
It's a known fact that the presence of weapons increases aggression. When you show up heavily armed, you are heavily increasing aggression.

Study?

I forgot to grab the url, it's
Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage, “Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 202–207, 1967.



Quote:
Je Nique vos Merdiers
Evidence? (of use of force orders)

Honey, my evidence is thousands of personal work hours on patrol. Swat and riot call outs are frequent enough for us, use of force orders are nill in my (large) department and only once in the last 4 years the nearby large cities. But if you want a study since you're not likely to count that as evidence, this shows a study done in 2000. The complaint ratio result was repeated in a 2002 study that you can read up on here. But if you see, about 1% of interactions result in use of force at all. When you consider that use of force is barely ever ordered by superiors, that number is at best exceedingly small.

That's really great, also, I'm not a chick, but we're not really talking about overall policing, we have been focusing on protest violence.
Quote:
Because prisoners without supervision were just an example, one of many that show the result of having nobody to enforce laws. By simply responding "sampling bias" you beg the question if nobody exists to enforce laws, then what? Also, I read your other responses and you condemn law but fail to recognize that without it we have anarchy and all the fallout that goes with that. Just a question: when you are in need, when you get shot or mugged or raped, are you still going to say ******** the police?

I hate to be annoying, but I'm not begging the question, I'm raising the question.

I don't know a way to say this that doesn't put you down, but law enforcement and punishment is not as effective at preventing violence as treatment of the victims, all of them, because the aggressor is a victim himself, and having an equal society.
In the above video, Dr. Mate points out that punishment is the biggest cause of violence.
Quote:
Study? And recidivism is a very complex topic. There are a lot of factors that contribute. You can read up on some of the causes here. Yes, changes need to be made to the system but general consensus is that no law equals all bad.

I don't remember the name of the study, it's in my database, so I'll get it to you a few posts later. It is covered by Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Mate in the above video, though.

Quote:
No actually, they are not. One says people are ONLY deterred if they are CERTAIN to get punished. The other says that people are MORE LIKELY to be deterred if the chances of them being punished are increased. Thus more punishment, more deterrence.

Practically it is identical, because certainty is not a boolean, and there aren't going to be any laws with zero chance of consequences. But you can observe this even casually. I've probably already said this, but speeding is a good example. There is a very small chance of punishment for speeding, so lots of people do it. People are more willing to do something with the perception that a punishment is less likely.
Yuki the Third

Can someone explain to me how this is not only judtified,
but why it's seen by some people as the fault of the OWS protesters?


tl:dr- why is the general concensus that the OWS protesters deserve to be beaten, bloodied, and maimed with zero police repercussion?


Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games