Police are scum and beneath our contempt. (1 Viewer)

[Rothbard]

We take the dregs of our society, give them guns and expect them to protect us.

Police only exist to destroy interactions between willing people and 1% of the time actually stop proper crimes against property. They are ill-informed scum that believe they are the thin line between society and anarchy when they clearly lack the intelligence to make even the slightest degree of that analysis.

They are modern-day terrorists who threaten the average citizen with their monopoly on force and are an unreliable group of idiots.

The simplest solution to dealing with their threat to our individual sovereignty is the relaxation of gun laws to allow individuals to protect themselves and their own property.

The police have proven they are not intelligent or capable enough to do so.

 

[BBJ is back]

You're reading too much Murray Rothbard mate.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

what about a healthy justice system that respects and upholds individual sovereignty?

and before you say it a judiciary that is in bed with the cops is a corrupt one and doesn't count

 

[BBJ is back]

Totally agree, fuck the police are mother fucking cunts. FUCK THEM. I hope an Islamic mother fucker kills some cops....just walks right into the station and execute some of our so called finest.

 

[SylviaB]

what about a healthy justice system that respects and upholds individual sovereignty?

what about a world where we all just agree to not kill each other !

doesn't this sound like a good idea too!

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

your sarcasm belies the fact that in many cases the courts do a good job of punishing police brutality

 

[Rasengan2dabalz]

Shit troll is shit.

 

[SylviaB]

I don't think police brutality is the primary concern (though it certainly is a large concern) so much as the fact that police are the individuals responsible for the enforcement of the state's laws

and the states laws are fucking awful

edit: actually reconsidering, given that police are necessarily involved in the violation of property rights, they all necessarily engage in 'brutality', though not as the average person sees it

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

I don't think police brutality is the primary concern (though it certainly is a large concern) so much as the fact that police are the individuals responsible for the enforcement of the state's laws

yes police enforce laws (or at least purport to) but ultimately it is the courts who uphold laws.

Policemen and women are generally not the sharpest tools in the shed and can let prejudices and personal feelings get in the way of doing their job properly. That being said my dad is an ex-cop who became a doctor and our family has had positive experiences with the police in the past, although of course they are inclined to fuck people over when they really want to (often). That is why a justice system is needed to punish abuse of power by the police.

and the states laws are fucking awful

Some are awful but what say you of those laws designed to protect individuals from police abuse?

E.g. laws against excessive use of force, requiring arrests to be recorded and noted etc etc.

In fact the common law protects quite a wide range of individual rights; for instance a police officer cannot remain on property without permission simply because they are a police officer and in fact they cannot do very much at all without some specific statutory authorisation (e.g. a search warrant) which depending on your view may in itself be good or bad law (given your anti-state persuasion i'd guess bad law would be your view).

Imo laws which afford protection to individual rights against the police are good ones and when the police violate those laws, they deserve to get their asses busted and usually do.

edit: actually reconsidering, given that police are necessarily involved in the violation of property rights, they all necessarily engage in 'brutality', though not as the average person sees it

Well that depends on your definition of 'brutality' but w/e, it's not really necessarily part and parcel of police duties as I've said above

 

[Graney]

what about a healthy justice system that respects and upholds individual sovereignty?

There has never been a state backed police force that has been anything less than brutal criminals, with the justice system in every case supporting them.

In fact the common law protects quite a wide range of individual rights

The common law protects and obligates a wide range of violent crimes being enforced upon innocent people by the police.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

There has never been a state backed police force that has been anything less than brutal criminals, with the justice system in every case supporting them.

hi you have clearly never read a newspaper or law report in your life.

this came from the sun herald despite odd web link:

Police ordered to pay $55,000 for wrongful arrest - Investment News

your bullshit assertion is therefore disproven

just to clarify my position, i obviously don't support overzealous cops but the notion that the courts march in lockstep with the police is a barefaced lie

 

[Graney]

ugh, yes the courts are empowered and effective at limiting some forms of police abuse, but there are the litany of other brutal crimes that the state consistently empowers police to commit against innocent people.

WA Police to get greater search powers
Craigie woman charged ov er big drug buist | Perth Now

etc...

The police aren't empowered to commit any crime they like, at any time, I wasn't suggesting anything like that. The justice system is a hopeless failure as a general arbiter of moral good, it perpetuates evil as often as it does good.

 

[SylviaB]

Well that depends on your definition of 'brutality' but w/e, it's not really necessarily part and parcel of police duties as I've said above

I think aggression is better word, when thought about from a property rights perspective.

But yes, it necessarily is a part of police duties, because they are obliged to enforce things like drug laws, which essentially involves kidnapping people for possessing certain chemicals deemed "illegal" by the state.

Like I said before, this isn't simply a matter of police "abusing their powers" (I would contend this is tautological because they shouldn't have those powers in the first place etc), so much as it is that the laws they are required to enforce necessarily involve aggression, even when the police "do things properly" so to speak e.g. reads rights to suspect and doesn't assault them during arrest etc

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

ugh, yes the courts are empowered and effective at limiting some forms of police abuse, but there are the litany of other brutal crimes that the state consistently empowers police to commit against innocent people.

WA Police to get greater search powers
Craigie woman charged ov er big drug buist | Perth Now

etc...

I will concede that 'the state' does possess the power to make laws that are detrimental to civil liberties and often does.

Problems are encountered, however, by adhering too closely to 'the state' as a single homogenous entity. By separating the state into the lawmakers (parliament), enforcers (police) and upholders (courts) some tension within the apparatus of the state becomes apparent. This is because the courts are generally more respective of liberty than other state organs given the prevailing history of the common law; a quick mention of this point can be found for example in the case of Kuru v NSW. The role of the courts in upholding laws against police abuse of power as well as closely interpreting any statute that affords more statutory authority to police (to prevent overextension of that statutory authority) should be praised and recognised as more important than the cursory recognition you provide.

The fact that the courts can do nothing to halt the making of new law by the legislature is a problem that you have implicitly noted, why is why this country could well do with a well thought-out bill of rights or some similar document to demarcate the sort of powers that can be afforded to police. Democratic action is obviously an option for the common citizen as well, though generally not a very good one in terms of promoting civil liberties unless the LDP somehow gets into power.

Also I fail to see how terms such as 'crime', 'innocent' or 'guilty' apply in anything other than a legal sense unless you want to appeal to principles of natural law.

The police aren't empowered to commit any crime they like, at any time, I wasn't suggesting anything like that. The justice system is a hopeless failure as a general arbiter of moral good, it perpetuates evil as often as it does good.

What is 'a general arbiter of moral good'?

 

[SylviaB]

This makes me want to shoot the police

and it really highlights my point of how police abusing their powers isn't the problem; its the fact that they have these powers in the first place

 

[Lolsmith]

Yeah, recording the cops is blatantly so they can't release footage of them doing the wrong thing

 

[aussie-boy]

The police may be the dregs of society (just look at those egos on Police Academy on channel 10)

...but the judiciary is composed of our intellectually elite

 

[jb_nc]

The police may be the dregs of society (just look at those egos on Police Academy on channel 10)

...but the judiciary is composed of our intellectually elite

nah mate its composed of people who went to shore whose dads went to shore

 

[cosmo kramer]

grow up rothbard

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Hurr durr the police protect my interests and aren't generally biased, power hungry beaters of protesters derp