Welcome to Nazi Germany, people. This is real. This happened in our country. In our state (California). Recently. The police seem to think this is OK and, worse, the people are not objecting. This is how it happens. One incident at a time. The people cower and let it continue.
Nina
That video is all over Facebook, etc. I, along with many others, at least on my Facebook, just do not understand it. What did the dog owner think was going to happen besides the tragedy that did happen? What did the police say (I could not hear on the video) to cause the dog owner to walk toward the police, and apparently just offer his hands for handcuffing? Did the police not see that the car window was open, with a Rottweiler trying to jump out to defend his owner? Poor dog became tragically collateral damage in the hands of stupid police and strangely-behaved dog owner.
As a postscript, according to more recent articles, the dog owner was playing his car radio loud, and the police asked him to turn it down because the music was interfering with communication at the crime scene (the robbery the police were there to investigate to begin with); it is not clear whether he complied. Irrelevant to this particular case, but some perspective -- the dog owner had a record of prior confrontations with police.
Marcy
A record of behavior other than abject submission, maybe a learning disability? Gotta get rid of that!!
But on the other-hand, a record of confrontations with police is a barometer of police misconduct. Now we are the most imprisoned nation on earth. This is inescapably an artifact of that police misconduct.
Hi John,
Gotta judge more objectively what we see!!
Sorry, but I cannot follow the logic in the second sentence at all.
Marcy
In every other country we recognize the police "went bad" to produce high rates of incarceration, widespread police-confrontations, beatings, killings, etc.
But here, there is a fallacy promulgated, that the people have somehow "gone bad" to explain the epidemic of these conditions.
Police confrontations are a barometer of police misconduct not citizen misconduct.
A "record of confrontations" does not accurately rerflect any problem with any citizen. Instead it should ask the question, "What did the police do to create this record?"
John,
Excellent point. The nature of the police/prison system is indeed a blind spot with many Americans. The mere fact of the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate should be ringing alarm bells with anyone in the country who cares about freedom. Then when you dig a little deeper and realize that a significant portion of those individuals are basically political prisoners who have committed no real crimes against other persons or property, and another significant portion of those behind bars have not pled guilty to or been convicted of *anything* but are simply there because they are too poor to afford bail, as well as the degree to which police officers are profiling people, ignoring constitutional rights, using excessive force, and otherwise acting arrogantly and abusing their power -- people need to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt and taking their assertions about criminal justice matters at face value. In some cases a person with a police record clearly is individually at fault, but we can no longer assume this just from the fact of such a record existing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
YES. alarm bells, civil defense sirens, claxtons, horns, flashing lights, red alerts, devcon max, church bells,.....Most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...
Well, John and Starchild, no one is naive about "bad cops" or having "a blind spot." What I would love to see, as I have said a gazillion times on this list, is more reasoned, objective discussion. Speaking of which, I came across this article this morning, titled "How Did America's Police Become a Military Force on the Streets?", on the July 2013 issue of the ABA Journal Magazine.
A lot to read, and not as exciting as a two-minute video of a poor dog being shot dead; but good material to focus on specific problems with policing today -- federal funding probably being the most salient, in my opinion.
The article mainly focuses (eventually) on SWAT teams, and cautions that violent folks would be attracted to violent organizations, including SWAT. Here is an excerpt:
"Although there are plenty of anecdotes about bad cops, there are plenty of good cops. The fact is that we need cops, and there are limited situations in which we need SWAT teams. If anything, bad cops are the product of bad policy. And policy is ultimately made by politicians. A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops. The good ones will never enter the 4257;eld in the ï¬rst place, or they will become frustrated and leave police work, or they'll simply turn bad. At best, they'll have unrewarding, unfulï¬lling jobs. There are consequences to having cops who are too angry and too eager to kick down doors, and who approach their jobs with entirely the wrong mindset. But we need to keep an eye toward identifying and changing the policies that allow such people to become cops in the Ê57;rst placeand that allow them to ï¬ourish in police work."
Marcy
YES. alarm bells, civil defense sirens, claxtons, horns, flashing lights, red alerts, devcon max, church bells,.....Most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/3/2013 3:39 pm
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming themJohn,
Excellent point. The nature of the police/prison system is indeed a blind spot with many Americans. The mere fact of the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate should be ringing alarm bells with anyone in the country who cares about freedom. Then when you dig a little deeper and realize that a significant portion of those individuals are basically political prisoners who have committed no real crimes against other persons or property, and another significant portion of those behind bars have not pled guilty to or been convicted of *anything* but are simply there because they are too poor to afford bail, as well as the degree to which police officers are profiling people, ignoring constitutional rights, using excessive force, and otherwise acting arrogantly and abusing their power -- people need to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt and taking their assertions about criminal justice matters at face value. In some cases a person with a police record clearly is individually at fault, but we can no longer assume this just from the fact of such a record existing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
More fundamentally the conversation is about the difference between a police-state and the free state of the second amendment. That difference is why the citizenry are the armed forces of a free state.
Otherwise, it becomes how to make a more perfect police-state. In a free state, it's not about who should be policing us, it's about making sure no one else is.
The purpose of the police is to prevent the lynchings that characterize a lawless society. A lawless society has no criminals. They are immediately killed...or worse, along with others who are suspected to be criminals.
< -- The message is truncated. -- >
--- Sent with mail@metro, Real Life Real Time Mobile ---
No, to me it is not a question of fundamentals that often degenerate into soundbites. The article discusses specific policy instituted by specific agencies for specific purposes. From my point of view, if we want to bring about any change from the status quo, we need to focus on these specific policies. So, no, the conversation is not about something so ethereal as police state vs. free state.
Marcy
More fundamentally the conversation is about the difference between a police-state and the free state of the second amendment. That difference is why the citizenry are the armed forces of a free state.
Otherwise, it becomes how to make a more perfect police-state. In a free state, it's not about who should be policing us, it's about making sure no one else is.
The purpose of the police is to prevent the lynchings that characterize a lawless society. A lawless society has no criminals. They are immediately killed...or worse, along with others who are suspected to be criminals.
< -- The message is truncated. -- >
--- Sent with mail@metro, Real Life Real Time Mobile ---
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/5/2013 11:47 am
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming themWell, John and Starchild, no one is naive about "bad cops" or having "a blind spot." What I would love to see, as I have said a gazillion times on this list, is more reasoned, objective discussion. Speaking of which, I came across this article this morning, titled "How Did America's Police Become a Military Force on the Streets?", on the July 2013 issue of the ABA Journal Magazine.
A lot to read, and not as exciting as a two-minute video of a poor dog being shot dead; but good material to focus on specific problems with policing today -- federal funding probably being the most salient, in my opinion.
The article mainly focuses (eventually) on SWAT teams, and cautions that violent folks would be attracted to violent organizations, including SWAT. Here is an excerpt:
"Although there are plenty of anecdotes about bad cops, there are plenty of good cops. The fact is that we need cops, and there are limited situations in which we need SWAT teams. If anything, bad cops are the product of bad policy. And policy is ultimately made by politicians. A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops. The good ones will never enter the ï¬eld in the ï¬rst place, or they will become frustrated and leave police work, or they'll simply turn bad. At best, they'll have unrewarding, unfulï¬lling jobs. There are consequences to having cops who are too angry and too eager to kick down doors, and who approach their jobs with entirely the wrong mindset. But we need to keep an eye toward identifying and changing the policies that allow such people to become cops in the ï¬rst placeÂand that allow them to ï¬ourish in police work."
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@...m, "javlin@" <javlin@> wrote:
YES. alarm bells, civil defense sirens, claxtons, horns, flashing lights, red alerts, devcon max, church bells,.....Most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/3/2013 3:39 pm
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming themJohn,
Excellent point. The nature of the police/prison system is indeed a blind spot with many Americans. The mere fact of the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate should be ringing alarm bells with anyone in the country who cares about freedom. Then when you dig a little deeper and realize that a significant portion of those individuals are basically political prisoners who have committed no real crimes against other persons or property, and another significant portion of those behind bars have not pled guilty to or been convicted of *anything* but are simply there because they are too poor to afford bail, as well as the degree to which police officers are profiling people, ignoring constitutional rights, using excessive force, and otherwise acting arrogantly and abusing their power -- people need to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt and taking their assertions about criminal justice matters at face value. In some cases a person with a police record clearly is individually at fault, but we can no longer assume this just from the fact of such a record existing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Marcy,
Did I say something below that you feel was not reasoned or objective? Or were you just alluding to the video of the police shooting the dog? I agree that such videos are not a substitute for a reasoned argument, although they can certainly give weight or practical evidence in support of such an argument. I believe it's common knowledge -- and I've both personally and indirectly heard it taken into consideration by judges and lawyers during jury selection -- that most people tend to give police officers the benefit of the doubt in believing them over someone who they've arrested. I think *that* shows a lack of reasoning or objectivity -- too much uncalled for trust in authority figures, given the nature of the system, and I think it's fair to call it a "blind spot". Do you disagree?
I mostly agree with the article excerpts you've posted below. The real problem is the system, not the individual police officers. Just as I think it is a conservative attitude, not a libertarian one, to blame homeless people for being individually lazy or whatever instead of acknowledging that government policies *create* homelessness, I also think it is a liberal attitude, not a libertarian one, to ignore or minimize the role of the political authorities in *creating* bad policing and see it as just a matter of too many individual officers being racist or whatever.
I would question only the assertion that there are "plenty" of good cops. That statement would appear to be belied by a statement that follows it -- "A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops." It seems clear that a bad system loaded with bad incentives exists -- incentives against whistleblowing, for example -- and "unfailingly" means "without fail", which means "always".
What approximate percentage would you say is "plenty", and how would you define the threshold for being considered a "good cop"?
If an officer is honest, does his job diligently and professionally without behaving arrogantly toward the public, and strictly follows departmental rules regarding the use of force, is that enough for him to count as "good"? What if he (or she) still arrests people, or is willing to makes such arrests, for victimless "crimes" -- in other words kidnapping and imprisoning people on behalf of the State? If someone not working for the State kidnapped or imprisoned innocent people or was credibly willing to do so, would you be willing to accept that person as essentially "good", if they were similarly otherwise honest, diligent, and law-abiding? If so, is that being objective, or is it an unreasonable double standard?
I don't go quite as far as our friend Anthony Gregory, who makes a good case for completely abolishing the police -- http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html . I accept the proposition that the system *could* be reformed so that truly good cops would be the norm, and bad apples few and far between. However, I'd take zero government police in a heartbeat over the situation that exists now. The price that society is paying for their existence is unacceptably high.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild,
I stand guilty of persnickity picking; but "political prisoners", for example, to me means something more specific than pot dealers serving time. The point of my original comment on the video was that such videos may NOT be helpful, as I indicated by the questions (which remained ignored) the video raised in my mind. Equally unhelpful are emotion-charged words that tend to push discussion of specific policies into the camp of diffuse rhetoric void of specific purpose.
For example, the article on militarization of local police brings up some very specific horrendous policies, which activists could focus on in order to overturn. The resulting response to the article -- police states, creating homelessness, percentage of good vs bad cops, whistleblowing -- promptly moves the conversation away from any possible specific action.
In summary, you are in total agreement with me and the article regarding the need to reforming the local policing system. Our only disagreement seems to be approach and language.
Marcy
In the fifth paragraph below, I wrote, "If so, is that being objective, or is it an unreasonable double standard?"
That sentence should have read, "If one would not give an ordinary individual who behaved this way a pass, yet consider a police officer doing the same while working for the State to be a 'good cop', is that being objective, or is it an unreasonable double standard?"
In my third paragraph, I wrote, "-- incentives against whistleblowing, for example --". That thought was better expressed with the following language: "-- see for instance the part of Radley Balko's excellent article that discusses the Byrne grant program, or consider the usual police department treatment of whistleblowers --".
I've made these changes and fixed one other minor typo in the copy below.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Marcy,
It certainly is not my intent to move the conversation away from specific action, and I don't think radical language is in any way incompatible with seeking specific changes. I have often talked about specific police reforms, speaking at the rally captured in this video for instance -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDXeUW-7ukU&feature=player_embedded -- and more recently in speaking with SF sheriff Ross Mirkarimi about addressing the injustice of pretrial detention.
But I stand by referring to incarcerated non-violent drug dealers as "political prisoners". Would you agree that a business owner imprisoned for resisting the seizure of his or her property via eminent domain is a political prisoner? If so, what is the difference? If not, when can someone legitimately be called a political prisoner, in your view? Only in cases where the reasons for a person's incarceration have nothing to do with his or her attempting to earn a living?
More broadly, there is great value in speaking truth to power. When protester Mario Savio gave his famous Free Speech Movement address at UC Berkeley's Sproul Plaza while standing atop a police car, he used very radical language:
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
But Savio's speech was also about very specific university actions and policies that the protesters were seeking to change:
As noted by editors at FSM: Mario Savio's Speech before the FSM Sit-in - December 3, 1964, Berkeley, California , "The beginning of Savio's talk -- about the technical details of the failed negotiations and the administration's reprisal -- has never been transcribed." Whether or not they are correct that the first part of his speech has never been transcribed (I've seen video of it, and find the claim that no one ever bothered to write it down a little hard to believe), they are clearly correct that it did not have the impact that his radical language above did, and is not generally remembered today. There's a lesson there!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Starchild,
Of course you are correct that at times speaking truth to power and using radical language can be important agents of change -- as long as they are accompanied, as Savio's speeches were, with calls for specific changes in policy. Otherwise, in my view, the shouting becomes counterproductive.
To extend my argument (and thereby in a way contribute to my own point that as discussions expand outward they move away from the possibility of action), I ask whether there is a real comparison between, say, the Free Speech Movement, in which activists stated their case, went after their targets, and accomplished their changes, and the libertarian movement still apparently solely shouting abut "liberty" for the past 40 plus years.
On the question of who is a political prisoner, I prefer to reserve the term to describe the individual who is incarcerated even when he/she did not brake any law currently on the books, but instead spoke out or exercised an action against a government entity. And, no, I do not buy the argument that "victimless crimes" are not crimes. Laws rendering consensual actions between/among adults as crimes may be stupid, misguided, expressions of greed, etc. But, they are laws, and those breaking them are potential criminals (not real criminals until declared so in a court of law). Would I encourage police or courts or juries to ignore these dumb laws? I have always done so.
Marcy
That language is not particularly radical. It's operational.
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming themMarcy,
It certainly is not my intent to move the conversation away from specific action, and I don't think radical language is in any way incompatible with seeking specific changes. I have often talked about specific police reforms, speaking at the rally captured in this video for instance -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDXeUW-7ukU&feature=player_embedded -- and more recently in speaking with SF sheriff Ross Mirkarimi about addressing the injustice of pretrial detention.
But I stand by referring to incarcerated non-violent drug dealers as "political prisoners". Would you agree that a business owner imprisoned for resisting the seizure of his or her property via eminent domain is a political prisoner? If so, what is the difference? If not, when can someone legitimately be called a political prisoner, in your view? Only in cases where the reasons for a person's incarceration have nothing to do with his or her attempting to earn a living?
More broadly, there is great value in speaking truth to power. When protester Mario Savio gave his famous Free Speech Movement address at UC Berkeley's Sproul Plaza while standing atop a police car, he used very radical language:
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
But Savio's speech was also about very specific university actions and policies that the protesters were seeking to change:
As noted by editors at FSM: Mario Savio's Speech before the FSM Sit-in - December 3, 1964, Berkeley, California , "The beginning of Savio's talk -- about the technical details of the failed negotiations and the administration's reprisal -- has never been transcribed." Whether or not they are correct that the first part of his speech has never been transcribed (I've seen video of it, and find the claim that no one ever bothered to write it down a little hard to believe), they are clearly correct that it did not have the impact that his radical language above did, and is not generally remembered today. There's a lesson there!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Hi Starchild,
I stand guilty of persnickity picking; but "political prisoners", for example, to me means something more specific than pot dealers serving time. The point of my original comment on the video was that such videos may NOT be helpful, as I indicated by the questions (which remained ignored) the video raised in my mind. Equally unhelpful are emotion-charged words that tend to push discussion of specific policies into the camp of diffuse rhetoric void of specific purpose.
For example, the article on militarization of local police brings up some very specific horrendous policies, which activists could focus on in order to overturn. The resulting response to the article -- police states, creating homelessness, percentage of good vs bad cops, whistleblowing -- promptly moves the conversation away from any possible specific action.
In summary, you are in total agreement with me and the article regarding the need to reforming the local policing system. Our only disagreement seems to be approach and language.
Marcy
Marcy,
Did I say something below that you feel was not reasoned or objective? Or were you just alluding to the video of the police shooting the dog? I agree that such videos are not a substitute for a reasoned argument, although they can certainly give weight or practical evidence in support of such an argument. I believe it's common knowledge -- and I've both personally and indirectly heard it taken into consideration by judges and lawyers during jury selection -- that most people tend to give police officers the benefit of the doubt in believing them over someone who they've arrested. I think *that* shows a lack of reasoning or objectivity -- too much uncalled for trust in authority figures, given the nature of the system, and I think it's fair to call it a "blind spot". Do you disagree?
I mostly agree with the article excerpts you've posted below. The real problem is the system, not the individual police officers. Just as I think it is a conservative attitude, not a libertarian one, to blame homeless people for being individually lazy or whatever instead of acknowledging that government policies *create* homelessness, I also think it is a liberal attitude, not a libertarian one, to ignore or minimize the role of the political authorities in *creating* bad policing and see it as just a matter of too many individual officers being racist or whatever.
I would question only the assertion that there are "plenty" of good cops. That statement would appear to be belied by a statement that follows it -- "A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops." It seems clear that a bad system loaded with bad incentives exists -- incentives against whistleblowing, for example -- and "unfailingly" means "without fail", which means "always".
What approximate percentage would you say is "plenty", and how would you define the threshold for being considered a "good cop"?
If an officer is honest, does his job diligently and professionally without behaving arrogantly toward the public, and strictly follows departmental rules regarding the use of force, is that enough for him to count as "good"? What if he (or she) still arrests people, or is willing to makes such arrests, for victimless "crimes" -- in other words kidnapping and imprisoning people on behalf of the State? If someone not working for the State kidnapped or imprisoned innocent people or was credibly willing to do so, would you be willing to accept that person as essentially "good", if they were similarly otherwise honest, diligent, and law-abiding? If so, is that being objective, or is it an unreasonable double standard?
I don't go quite as far as our friend Anthony Gregory, who makes a good case for completely abolishing the police -- http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html . I accept the proposition that the system *could* be reformed so that truly good cops would be the norm, and bad apples few and far between. However, I'd take zero government police in a heartbeat over the situation that exists now. The price that society is paying for their existence is unacceptably high.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))> Well, John and Starchild, no one is naive about "bad cops" or having "a blind spot." What I would love to see, as I have said a gazillion times on this list, is more reasoned, objective discussion. Speaking of which, I came across this article this morning, titled "How Did America's Police Become a Military Force on the Streets?", on the July 2013 issue of the ABA Journal Magazine.
>
> How did America's police become a military force on the streets?
>
> A lot to read, and not as exciting as a two-minute video of a poor dog being shot dead; but good material to focus on specific problems with policing today -- federal funding probably being the most salient, in my opinion.
>
> The article mainly focuses (eventually) on SWAT teams, and cautions that violent folks would be attracted to violent organizations, including SWAT. Here is an excerpt:
>
> "Although there are plenty of anecdotes about bad cops, there are plenty of good cops. The fact is that we need cops, and there are limited situations in which we need SWAT teams. If anything, bad cops are the product of bad policy. And policy is ultimately made by politicians. A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops. The good ones will never enter the ﬙eld in the ﬙rst place, or they will become frustrated and leave police work, or they'll simply turn bad. At best, they'll have unrewarding, unful﬙lling jobs. There are consequences to having cops who are too angry and too eager to kick down doors, and who approach their jobs with entirely the wrong mindset. But we need to keep an eye toward identifying and changing the policies that allow such people to become cops in the ﬙rst placeâ•"and that allow them to ï¬≠ourish in police work."
>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > YES. alarm bells, civil defense sirens, claxtons, horns, flashing lights, red alerts, devcon max, church bells,.....Most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...
> >
> >
> > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: 7/3/2013 3:39 pm
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming them
> >
> > John,
>
> Excellent point. The nature of the police/prison system is indeed a blind spot with many Americans. The mere fact of the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate should be ringing alarm bells with anyone in the country who cares about freedom. Then when you dig a little deeper and realize that a significant portion of those individuals are basically political prisoners who have committed no real crimes against other persons or property, and another significant portion of those behind bars have not pled guilty to or been convicted of *anything* but are simply there because they are too poor to afford bail, as well as the degree to which police officers are profiling people, ignoring constitutional rights, using excessive force, and otherwise acting arrogantly and abusing their power -- people need to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt and taking their assertions about criminal justice matters at face value. In some
cases a person with a police record clearly is individually at fault, but we can no longer assume this just from the fact of such a record existing.
Marcy,
Is radical language only productive when accompanied by calls for specific changes in policy? What evidence is there to draw such a conclusion? Did Mario Savio's speech standing on a police car in Sproul Plaza inspire and endure only because he called for specific changes in policy? I can't imagine that to be true.
Often the goal of radical speech is implicitly, rather than explicitly stated. In many cases, "Remove the current government from power!" is the unstated goal. And there are often good reasons for not explicitly stating such radical goals -- because if one does so, he or she might be "breaking the law", and thereby earn if not condemnation then at least something less than unqualified support from people like yourself!
While there is disagreement over the definition of who counts as a "political prisoner", the idea that only people who have not broken any laws belong in this category is a new one to me. With all due respect, I don't think it makes any sense, because political prisoners having broken laws is the rule, not the exception! Governments routinely seek to criminalize threats to their power, and speaking out or exercising an action against government entities is often illegal. As one commenter points out ( http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2011-07-16-what-kumi-naidoo-did-was-not-heroic-it-was-simply-right/#.Udd_RM25i0g ):
"The list of examples where civil disobedience improved the lot of humankind is long... In all of these cases, people of conscience -- from Mahatma Gandhi to Nelson Mandela, and from Rosa Parks to Aung San Suu Kyi -- broke the law; those laws either actively defended injustice, or intimidated people from being able to stand up against injustice."
Would you argue that Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi was not in fact a political prisoner, since she broke the law*?
When Adam Kokesh was arrested in May, he was charged with assaulting and impeding officers. It's pretty obvious from the video (see video and article at Adam Kokesh, Iraq Veteran And Libertarian Organizer, Arrested At Marijuana Rally (VIDEO) | HuffPost Latest News ) that those officers specifically went after him in the first place because he was speaking out forcefully against the laws against marijuana and encouraging people to violate them. But someone unaware of the context and not knowing who Kokesh is might only hear only a vague statement in the news such as, "A man at a marijuana rally today was arrested and charged with assault on a police officer and obstruction of justice." If this hypothetical member of the public had the bourgeoisie mindset that breaking the law is wrong, and your notion that real political prisoners don't break the law, Adam Kokesh would be transformed in his or her eyes from who he actually is -- a brave libertarian activist standing up for freedom -- into a common criminal.
Many government statutes in the United States are unconstitutional, and therefore themselves illegal and supposed to be null and void! Why should we respect as "law" a statute that is plainly illegal under the highest law of the land? Even when a statute is actually legal, there's nothing wrong with breaking the law when the law is wrong. As Martin Luther King (who was arrested for marching without a permit) reminded us, "Unjust laws deserve to be broken."
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
* "Burma's 1975 State Protection Law allows authorities to order detention without charge or trial of anyone they believe is performing or might perform any act that endangers the sovereignty and security of the state or public peace and tranquility." (see Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2010 )
You mean Savio's language? I would call it radical, based on the definition of radical as essentially anything that represents a drastic change from the status quo (see in particular the second and third definitions here -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical?s=t ). Certainly radical language can be operational as well, presuming that by "operational" you mean practical and related to specific goals. Savio was presumably comparing the status quo of business as usual at UC Berkeley to the smooth operation of a machine, and metaphorically urging students to stop the operation of that machine, by direct physical action if necessary, in order to change specific university policies and practices.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Operational in that it relates to specific operations. It's no more radical than the language at the police briefing, at the beginning of every shift.
The "wheels and levers" of a complex operation are many and varied, say in the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, for example. The lives of thousands of people must be understood and coordinated.
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming themYou mean Savio's language? I would call it radical, based on the definition of radical as essentially anything that represents a drastic change from the status quo (see in particular the second and third definitions here -- RADICAL Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com ). Certainly radical language can be operational as well, presuming that by "operational" you mean practical and related to specific goals. Savio was presumably comparing the status quo of business as usual at UC Berkeley to the smooth operation of a machine, and metaphorically urging students to stop the operation of that machine, by direct physical action if necessary, in order to change specific university policies and practices.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))That language is not particularly radical. It's operational.
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming themMarcy,
It certainly is not my intent to move the conversation away from specific action, and I don't think radical language is in any way incompatible with seeking specific changes. I have often talked about specific police reforms, speaking at the rally captured in this video for instance -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDXeUW-7ukU&feature=player_embedded -- and more recently in speaking with SF sheriff Ross Mirkarimi about addressing the injustice of pretrial detention.
But I stand by referring to incarcerated non-violent drug dealers as "political prisoners". Would you agree that a business owner imprisoned for resisting the seizure of his or her property via eminent domain is a political prisoner? If so, what is the difference? If not, when can someone legitimately be called a political prisoner, in your view? Only in cases where the reasons for a person's incarceration have nothing to do with his or her attempting to earn a living?
More broadly, there is great value in speaking truth to power. When protester Mario Savio gave his famous Free Speech Movement address at UC Berkeley's Sproul Plaza while standing atop a police car, he used very radical language:
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
But Savio's speech was also about very specific university actions and policies that the protesters were seeking to change:
As noted by editors at FSM: Mario Savio's Speech before the FSM Sit-in - December 3, 1964, Berkeley, California , "The beginning of Savio's talk -- about the technical details of the failed negotiations and the administration's reprisal -- has never been transcribed." Whether or not they are correct that the first part of his speech has never been transcribed (I've seen video of it, and find the claim that no one ever bothered to write it down a little hard to believe), they are clearly correct that it did not have the impact that his radical language above did, and is not generally remembered today. There's a lesson there!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Hi Starchild,
I stand guilty of persnickity picking; but "political prisoners", for example, to me means something more specific than pot dealers serving time. The point of my original comment on the video was that such videos may NOT be helpful, as I indicated by the questions (which remained ignored) the video raised in my mind. Equally unhelpful are emotion-charged words that tend to push discussion of specific policies into the camp of diffuse rhetoric void of specific purpose.
For example, the article on militarization of local police brings up some very specific horrendous policies, which activists could focus on in order to overturn. The resulting response to the article -- police states, creating homelessness, percentage of good vs bad cops, whistleblowing -- promptly moves the conversation away from any possible specific action.
In summary, you are in total agreement with me and the article regarding the need to reforming the local policing system. Our only disagreement seems to be approach and language.
Marcy
>
> Marcy,
>
> Did I say something below that you feel was not reasoned or objective? Or were you just alluding to the video of the police shooting the dog? I agree that such videos are not a substitute for a reasoned argument, although they can certainly give weight or practical evidence in support of such an argument. I believe it's common knowledge -- and I've both personally and indirectly heard it taken into consideration by judges and lawyers during jury selection -- that most people tend to give police officers the benefit of the doubt in believing them over someone who they've arrested. I think *that* shows a lack of reasoning or objectivity -- too much uncalled for trust in authority figures, given the nature of the system, and I think it's fair to call it a "blind spot". Do you disagree?
>
> I mostly agree with the article excerpts you've posted below. The real problem is the system, not the individual police officers. Just as I think it is a conservative attitude, not a libertarian one, to blame homeless people for being individually lazy or whatever instead of acknowledging that government policies *create* homelessness, I also think it is a liberal attitude, not a libertarian one, to ignore or minimize the role of the political authorities in *creating* bad policing and see it as just a matter of too many individual officers being racist or whatever.
>
> I would question only the assertion that there are "plenty" of good cops. That statement would appear to be belied by a statement that follows it -- "A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops." It seems clear that a bad system loaded with bad incentives exists -- incentives against whistleblowing, for example -- and "unfailingly" means "without fail", which means "always".
>
> What approximate percentage would you say is "plenty", and how would you define the threshold for being considered a "good cop"?
>
> If an officer is honest, does his job diligently and professionally without behaving arrogantly toward the public, and strictly follows departmental rules regarding the use of force, is that enough for him to count as "good"? What if he (or she) still arrests people, or is willing to makes such arrests, for victimless "crimes" -- in other words kidnapping and imprisoning people on behalf of the State? If someone not working for the State kidnapped or imprisoned innocent people or was credibly willing to do so, would you be willing to accept that person as essentially "good", if they were similarly otherwise honest, diligent, and law-abiding? If so, is that being objective, or is it an unreasonable double standard?
>
> I don't go quite as far as our friend Anthony Gregory, who makes a good case for completely abolishing the police -- http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html . I accept the proposition that the system *could* be reformed so that truly good cops would be the norm, and bad apples few and far between. However, I'd take zero government police in a heartbeat over the situation that exists now. The price that society is paying for their existence is unacceptably high.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
>
>
>
> > Well, John and Starchild, no one is naive about "bad cops" or having "a blind spot." What I would love to see, as I have said a gazillion times on this list, is more reasoned, objective discussion. Speaking of which, I came across this article this morning, titled "How Did America's Police Become a Military Force on the Streets?", on the July 2013 issue of the ABA Journal Magazine.
> >
> > How did America's police become a military force on the streets?
> >
> > A lot to read, and not as exciting as a two-minute video of a poor dog being shot dead; but good material to focus on specific problems with policing today -- federal funding probably being the most salient, in my opinion.
> >
> > The article mainly focuses (eventually) on SWAT teams, and cautions that violent folks would be attracted to violent organizations, including SWAT. Here is an excerpt:
> >
> > "Although there are plenty of anecdotes about bad cops, there are plenty of good cops. The fact is that we need cops, and there are limited situations in which we need SWAT teams. If anything, bad cops are the product of bad policy. And policy is ultimately made by politicians. A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops. The good ones will never enter the ﬙eld in the ﬙rst place, or they will become frustrated and leave police work, or they'll simply turn bad. At best, they'll have unrewarding, unful﬙lling jobs. There are consequences to having cops who are too angry and too eager to kick down doors, and who approach their jobs with entirely the wrong mindset. But we need to keep an eye toward identifying and changing the policies that allow such people to become cops in the ﬙rst placeâ•"and that allow them to ï¬≠ourish in police work."
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > >
> > > YES. alarm bells, civil defense sirens, claxtons, horns, flashing lights, red alerts, devcon max, church bells,.....Most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...
> > >
> > >
> > > From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: 7/3/2013 3:39 pm
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming them
> > >
> > > John,
> >
> > Excellent point. The nature of the police/prison system is indeed a blind spot with many Americans. The mere fact of the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate should be ringing alarm bells with anyone in the country who cares about freedom. Then when you dig a little deeper and realize that a significant portion of those individuals are basically political prisoners who have committed no real crimes against other persons or property, and another significant portion of those behind bars have not pled guilty to or been convicted of *anything* but are simply there because they are too poor to afford bail, as well as the degree to which police officers are profiling people, ignoring constitutional rights, using excessive force, and otherwise acting arrogantly and abusing their power -- people need to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt and taking their assertions about criminal justice matters at face value. In some
cases a person with a police record clearly is individually at fault, but we can no longer assume this just from the fact of such a record existing.
Hi Starchild,
As always, you make excellent points. As always, you and I have different perspectives.
Yes, the goal of productive expression is to bring about specific desired change. No, the goal is not necessarily "Remove the current government from power." For example, The Civil Rights Movement focused on the desired change of ending segregation, as did Dr. King's moving speeches. In spite of the FBI's paranoid response to the Movement, nobody there was planning to overthrow the government, but to reform a part of it.
There is a big difference in my mind, as I have stated a gazillion times, between "breaking the law" and whining about paying for breaking it. Bravery in my mind comes from defying unjust laws, but not defying the rule of law (I am not an anarchist).
Interestingly, I anticipated your response to my description of "political prisoner," given the wide array of reasons why people end up behind bars. For example, dealing in narcotics without a license (big pharma has a license, so totally OK for them to peddle) is breaking the law; no political prisoner there. Some poor 18-year old who sits in Guantanamo without any formal charge is a political prisoner.
All government entities have rules to prevent their demise. I discount those rules, admittedly arbitrarily, for the purpose of my description of political prisoners. As I understand it, Aung San Suu Kye did not break any Burmese laws; she broke the government-self-preservation rule, so she would definitely count as a political prisoner. Regarding Kokesh, what I read was that he was arrested not for speaking against pot laws, but for inciting participants in a "Smoke Down Prohibition" to break the law and light up; so political prisoner he is not.
You are absolutely correct that many laws are unconstitutional and should be null and void. Then what you do is what the folks who initiated the NDAA resolution in San Francisco and the legislation in California did. Or, you break the unjust laws as ML King or Rosa Parks did and expect the consequences.
So, how removed are we now from my original article about federal funding for local SWAT teams? Pretty removed, I would say! Which means that apparently, we are not ready to take any action with our Board of Supervisors regarding the subject! Well, this is the *Discussion* list, so maybe I am expecting what is not intended.
Marcy