I dunno, my takeaway from CHOP is that having literally no law enforcement at all is only marginally worse than the cops as they exist now.
We were told to expect that the cops disappearing would lead to the whole area up in flames. Instead, it's just kinda shitty.
It seems a reasonable argument that the best solution is a completely revamped, minimalist law enforcement presence. Which I think is basically what the reasonable segment of "defund the police" is arguing.
When "no cops" is barely worse than "yes cops", that's a hefty indictment of the cops. Would like to see that pointed out in the media.
"Washington State spent $700M on police this year, and all I got was this lousy police free zone that wasn't that much worse."
I dunno if I would say not that much worse. Like the people who killed that 16 year are at large in the community and have not been identified, and as the days move on possibly never will be. So his family won't get justice.
Based on this info https://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395799413/how-many-crimes-do-your-police-clear-now-you-can-find-out The Seattle PD clearance rate for murder hovers around 40% - 50% though it's more swingy because there aren't very many murders. Violent crime is like 30%. Aggravated Assault is about 50%. And those are the crimes with the highest clearance rates. Car theft is around 5%. And that's of crimes reported to the police, not all crime.
The current status quo is that most crimes don't get solved while many millions rot in jail. It doesn't work.
Not to disagree, but I am exceedingly uncomfortable with any acceptance of "Our security shot a couple dudes. Oh well." with zero accountability so far. The entire point is being better than that, and demanding accountability for use of force from any body claiming authorisation in its use. If you then--based on stream audio--shoot a car until it crashes, then shoot it 10+ more times, and we don't even know who the fuck you are? That's not cool.
Oh, agreed.
But it's important not to present the options as being between crimes resolving the way we would like and crimes never resolving.
The status quo is not that when someone commits a crime, they are caught and restitution is made to the victim. The status quo is that the vast majority of crime doesn't result in anyone getting caught, and the vast majority of arrests have no detectable impact on crime.
Yep. However, when the offense or act is done by a theoretically known individual (member of a "security" force) in a known location, it is or should be significantly different in outcome. If a security guard does something, there's no case where anyone should go "gosh. guess we'll never know." No, it was fucking Timmy, he's over there.
Edit: And what McDermott said. This is not a hypothetical at this point. This is "you hear "security*" put 15-20 rounds** into a vehicle, both while moving and after it crashed. Then they put pictures of it on Twitter. And people got all proud of how they "murked" those "fascists"." (Including some people I am seriously reconsidering acquaintance with.)
*While I suppose we can't technically say that particular bunch of armed individuals is responsible, it was either them, or someone armed standing right next to them. Either way, not an unknown. And if they do somehow manage to not know who the armed individual was who was in their "secured" area and then shot up a car and then disappeared... I have words.
**I counted. There's video from the streams on the corner. You can go watch it if you wanna. Can even hear the car crash after the first shots, a bit after someone's asking if anyone's seen the "target".
Your description of an anarchic society is just "modern democracy, except prejudice totally will cease to be a thing."
Which, okay, cool.
Not only that, but it turns out that anarchists find it hard to get away from hierarchy as well. The essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, written by a feminist on her experience with feminist anarchic communes, points out that often what happens in such "flat" communities is that informal hierarchies form (because, as it turns out, organization is the force multiplier.) And because they are informal they wind up being hard to deal with.
And since the power structures, not just the hierarchies, are informal and not officially recognized, by definition they are actually harder to be held accountable since they are less transparent, as it was obviously just proven. Like, hell, that was less transparent than the cop abuses documented on this thread! We know more about the cop that killed George Floyd than about the dudes that decided to lit up that vehicle and kill two kids!
And while we are on it, I decided to not enter the discussion in that moment since it was heated, but "we will resist like the Taliban against the US military on Afghanistan" was always pretty goddamn ridiculous. In the second that force was applied, that was going to be it.
Your description of an anarchic society is just "modern democracy, except prejudice totally will cease to be a thing."
Which, okay, cool.
Not only that, but it turns out that anarchists find it hard to get away from hierarchy as well. The essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, written by a feminist on her experience with feminist anarchic communes, points out that often what happens in such "flat" communities is that informal hierarchies form (because, as it turns out, organization is the force multiplier.) And because they are informal they wind up being hard to deal with.
And since the power structures, not just the hierarchies, are informal and not officially recognized, by definition they are actually harder to be held accountable since they are less transparent, as it was obviously just proven. Like, hell, that was less transparent than the cop abuses documented on this thread! We know more about the cop that killed George Floyd than about the dudes that decided to lit up that vehicle and kill two kids!
And while we are on it, I decided to not enter the discussion in that moment since it was heated, but "we will resist like the Taliban against the US military on Afghanistan" was always pretty goddamn ridiculous. In the second that force was applied, that was going to be it.
The SPD and other police departments have been applying force for a while. If anything it's just pissing people off.
In case it's not obvious by the way, I am extraordinarily upset by this. For obvious reasons, but also at the sheer, boneheaded, utter incompetence and thoughtlessness exhibited by people professing to be part of a cause I support.
The only, only reason many many people are not injured or dead is that everything is closed because plague. This occurred on Pride Weekend, roughly a block outside the primary bar district. Like... Holy fucking shit, man.
Dunno, always seemed a straight forward choice here. I can understand the need for the people in CHOP/CHAZ to defend themselves, especially when you're being targeted by right wing groups.
But those right wing groups are often all talk, and the need to use your weapon to kill in defence is never a good thing. It's an unfortunate outcome brought about by a whole load of instigating factors.
So you have to admit you did it, and accept the consequences.
If that's too much of a risk due to the way the system is set up - then guess you're just as much a bastard as the cops are, maybe more as you've definitely killed someone.
Be ready and willing to to what needs to be done, but then also accept that what needs to be done is bad and isn't what the CHOP/CHAZ needs or stands for.
There's enough legal people backing you up that it shouldn't be a straight martyr situation. But if you want a cop to face consequences for a shooting, can't avoid it yourself even if the situation is less than ideal.
If it is human nature to avoid consequences for your actions, then humans must be made to suffer these consequences against their will or we have to accept that sometimes people will get away with it and that's that
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If you've shoot two kids for the greater good, then the greater good also requires it's price from you.
If it was a price worth paying, then fine, be happy with that - if it is too high, then what you did wasn't good and you should be punished so others don't follow in your example.
Your description of an anarchic society is just "modern democracy, except prejudice totally will cease to be a thing."
Which, okay, cool.
Not only that, but it turns out that anarchists find it hard to get away from hierarchy as well. The essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, written by a feminist on her experience with feminist anarchic communes, points out that often what happens in such "flat" communities is that informal hierarchies form (because, as it turns out, organization is the force multiplier.) And because they are informal they wind up being hard to deal with.
And since the power structures, not just the hierarchies, are informal and not officially recognized, by definition they are actually harder to be held accountable since they are less transparent, as it was obviously just proven. Like, hell, that was less transparent than the cop abuses documented on this thread! We know more about the cop that killed George Floyd than about the dudes that decided to lit up that vehicle and kill two kids!
And while we are on it, I decided to not enter the discussion in that moment since it was heated, but "we will resist like the Taliban against the US military on Afghanistan" was always pretty goddamn ridiculous. In the second that force was applied, that was going to be it.
Organization does not equal hierarchy, and it's not all-or-nothing: I think few people who support the idea of dismantling hierarchies have any illusions regarding the fact that hierarchies will attempt to reassert themselves, and the idea is a constant vigilance against the formation of corruptible structures will always be necessary. Yes, the complete elimination of hierarchies is hard to impossible; this holds for essentially every intractable problem we face as a society (sexism, racism, violence, etc), that doesn't mean that working to dissolve them is not the right thing to do. You might as well say "well, we'll never get rid of racism, but if racism is institutionalized at least we always know who the racists are and can watch their movements!" Also, any short-term experiments are going to inevitably suffer from the fact that they are deeply embedded in a pre-existing culture of hierarchies, which means that there is going to be a strong force backing their reconstruction and a ton of work required for people to even simply work through the authoritarian predispositions they've acquired from living their entire lives in the world as it exists. These are not controlled environments or well-designed experiments, these are spontaneous attempts to enact something that is fundamentally opposed to the systems of power and the organization of society as it stands.
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
Yeah, when any organization of armed citizens in a security or law enforcement role display consistently poor judgement and training that end up with the deaths of innocents, the organization should be disbanded and individual members face justice.
So when is that happening to 95% of police departments in this country? It is not? Oh okay.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
Didn't they shoot those teenagers like 2 days ago or something? I've not seen any evidence so far of growth or adaptation here.
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
Didn't they shoot those teenagers like 2 days ago or something? I've not seen any evidence so far of growth or adaptation here.
You're right, an informal community that has developed over the course of a handful of weeks should absolutely be able to handle a case in two days with the deftness of a centuries-old institution.
They had two entire days! As opposed to the state, local, and federal government, which often works to completely clear cases within mere....
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
Didn't they shoot those teenagers like 2 days ago or something? I've not seen any evidence so far of growth or adaptation here.
There was adaptation....in the form of trying to scrub their social media from all statements bragging about the kill. Don't think that counts though. Heh.
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
Didn't they shoot those teenagers like 2 days ago or something? I've not seen any evidence so far of growth or adaptation here.
You're right, an informal community that has developed over the course of a handful of weeks should absolutely be able to handle a case in two days with the deftness of a centuries-old institution.
They had two entire days! As opposed to the state, local, and federal government, which often works to completely clear cases within mere....
Oh wait...
What have they actually done then? What indications are there that anyone there is actually trying to make changes?
Cause the immediate reaction seemed to be a lot of support for riddling those teenagers with bullets while they were in a moving car because "they were coming right for us". And then a whole lot of nothing.
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
Didn't they shoot those teenagers like 2 days ago or something? I've not seen any evidence so far of growth or adaptation here.
You're right, an informal community that has developed over the course of a handful of weeks should absolutely be able to handle a case in two days with the deftness of a centuries-old institution.
They had two entire days! As opposed to the state, local, and federal government, which often works to completely clear cases within mere....
Oh wait...
What have they actually done then? What indications are there that anyone there is actually trying to make changes?
Cause the immediate reaction seemed to be a lot of support for riddling those teenagers with bullets while they were in a moving car because "they were coming right for us". And then a whole lot of nothing.
We will never know, because the police retook the station and arrested 44 people.
Police in LA caught this very stupid person that burned down a restaurant called Sake House in Santa Monica. I think a lot of people are going to start to realize that they did not get away with their very obvious crimes.
Police in LA caught this very stupid person that burned down a restaurant called Sake House in Santa Monica. I think a lot of people are going to start to realize that they did not get away with their very obvious crimes.
*video snip*
You'd think a security guard (or, at the very least, a person who works for a security company) would know better...
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
There's a difference between trying to change the values of a power structure or a hierarchy and trying to pretend than power structures or hierarchies don't exist. The former is very much possible, the latter doesn't work because any organization by definition requires a power structure and a hierarchy.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
Didn't they shoot those teenagers like 2 days ago or something? I've not seen any evidence so far of growth or adaptation here.
You're right, an informal community that has developed over the course of a handful of weeks should absolutely be able to handle a case in two days with the deftness of a centuries-old institution.
They had two entire days! As opposed to the state, local, and federal government, which often works to completely clear cases within mere....
Oh wait...
What have they actually done then? What indications are there that anyone there is actually trying to make changes?
Cause the immediate reaction seemed to be a lot of support for riddling those teenagers with bullets while they were in a moving car because "they were coming right for us". And then a whole lot of nothing.
We will never know, because the police retook the station and arrested 44 people.
Sorry, am I supposed to feel bad for the people involved in shooting two kids and then pretending it never happened by attempting to scrub the internet of how cool their "professional marksmanship" was?
In two days, you can certainly say "Yep, it was Skippy. Skippy, say something for yourself." If Skippy is uncomfortable with so speaking, Skippy should pick something and grow a pair of them, because Skippy made that choice when they picked up a weapon.
If they can't or won't produce Skippy, or Skippy won't produce him, her, or themselves, it doesn't really start looking better for anyone.
The lapel video shows Ranger Mitchell ordered Lorentz to spread his feet and move closer to a railing. Lorentz is seen complying with those orders. But when the ranger orders Lorentz to turn around, Lorentz is seen in the video not complying and dancing to nearby music playing from someone’s vehicle. Ranger Mitchell commanded Lorentz to take his hands out of his pockets, and without warning or an announcement that force will be used; Ranger Mitchell deployed his Taser at Lorentz.
The video abruptly ends when the Taser is deployed. Twenty-six seconds of the video is missing, but when the video resumes, the video shows Ranger Mitchell on top of Lorentz. That’s when the ranger shot him twice with his service gun
The lapel video also shows that after three minutes passes, Ranger Mitchell put a motionless Lorentz in handcuffs and declared him, “under arrest.” Eight minutes after the shooting, Ranger Mitchell removed his first aid kit from his vehicle and four minutes after that he finally rendered aid to Lorentz.
Phoenix-D on
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Every time I think I'm spent of anger and disgust, some new atrocity comes out
+26
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited July 2020
Gee, I wonder if that fucking 26 second includes any sort of clear-cut evidence exonerating the murder victim and implicating the murderer, preventing the ranger from just making up whatever the fuck he wants for why he tackled and shot the man.
EDIT: That ranger clearly was just itching to fuck somebody up. He tells the victim to take his hands out of his pockets, then obviously turns off the body cam without realizing it will keep recording briefly. Thinking it's off and he's in the clear, the ranger IMMEDIATELY jumps into "brutalize civilian" mode. Then camera miraculously comes back on after anything incriminating has happened.
One of my bosses once put it to me that organizational restructuring is necessary either to make the org chart match the reality, or to try to bend the reality to match the org chart. Sometimes both at the same time. Either way, hierarchy matters. Human beings are intensely aware of hierarchies and there's no escaping it.
Self-organization is possible in small groups, but even there, some people will get their way more than others on some topics.
Isn't Valve, a famously flat company, infamous for its informal hierarchies?
You can, and will, have hierarchies in Anarchist society. Formal ones, in fact. Or at least, self-organisation is a key element of Anarchism.
Solar on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Your description of an anarchic society is just "modern democracy, except prejudice totally will cease to be a thing."
Which, okay, cool.
No, it isn't. That's not what I described there
For a modern Anarchist of a practical bent, largely Anarchism means "hey maybe we shouldn't have political dynasties, or corporate interests having influence over the political processes, or a political class who largely dominate the political process." Political power should not largely rest in the hands of a wealthy, elite class and largely be kept out of the hands of those not in this class by socio-economic-state-etc forces. And then you can go further. If we are to democratise society, then we need to get rid of or defang the systems that enforce the focusing on political power into the hands of an elite class. Otherwise it'll just happen again. So the mechanisms by which capital is focused into the elite. The mechanisms by which the violent enforcement of the social order is undertaken. The mechanisms by which race and gender and so on are used as systems to exclude citizens from the political process.
That is essentially the platonic ideal of a progressive democracy.
+10
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
edited July 2020
Sorry, thought this was a SE thread
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Your description of an anarchic society is just "modern democracy, except prejudice totally will cease to be a thing."
Which, okay, cool.
No, it isn't. That's not what I described there
For a modern Anarchist of a practical bent, largely Anarchism means "hey maybe we shouldn't have political dynasties, or corporate interests having influence over the political processes, or a political class who largely dominate the political process." Political power should not largely rest in the hands of a wealthy, elite class and largely be kept out of the hands of those not in this class by socio-economic-state-etc forces. And then you can go further. If we are to democratise society, then we need to get rid of or defang the systems that enforce the focusing on political power into the hands of an elite class. Otherwise it'll just happen again. So the mechanisms by which capital is focused into the elite. The mechanisms by which the violent enforcement of the social order is undertaken. The mechanisms by which race and gender and so on are used as systems to exclude citizens from the political process.
That is essentially the platonic ideal of a progressive democracy.
Debatable. But even if it is, what it isn't is just "democracy without prejudice"
And I note the very catch-all use of the term progressive there, which is currently doing a lot of rhetorical heavy lifting for you. What kind of progressive?
If you're carrying a weapon on behalf of the government and you don't render aid to a disabled person, that's murder. Justified shooting or not.
I think police reform isn't possible, because it doesn't matter how many strictures you place on any individual when the organization as a whole will work as hard as possible to make sure consequences can't happen. "You didn't see it but in the deleted 20 seconds he did render aid, he was just being extra careful at the end" etc. The same way that while bodycams have in some cases opened a window to horrible abuse, in most cases they're just a new tool for exonerating cops when they do something illegal. Also they constantly "fall off" or "run out of batteries". Reform by setting new harsher rules doesn't really work when everyone from the bottom to the top already thinks that rules don't apply.
But this is a fucking park ranger. I feel like maybe park rangers just shouldn't carry guns at all.
Why the fuck does a park ranger have a "service weapon"? How often does a park ranger need to fire a pistol at something?
Posts
Yep. However, when the offense or act is done by a theoretically known individual (member of a "security" force) in a known location, it is or should be significantly different in outcome. If a security guard does something, there's no case where anyone should go "gosh. guess we'll never know." No, it was fucking Timmy, he's over there.
Edit: And what McDermott said. This is not a hypothetical at this point. This is "you hear "security*" put 15-20 rounds** into a vehicle, both while moving and after it crashed. Then they put pictures of it on Twitter. And people got all proud of how they "murked" those "fascists"." (Including some people I am seriously reconsidering acquaintance with.)
*While I suppose we can't technically say that particular bunch of armed individuals is responsible, it was either them, or someone armed standing right next to them. Either way, not an unknown. And if they do somehow manage to not know who the armed individual was who was in their "secured" area and then shot up a car and then disappeared... I have words.
**I counted. There's video from the streams on the corner. You can go watch it if you wanna. Can even hear the car crash after the first shots, a bit after someone's asking if anyone's seen the "target".
Video is in the spoilered comment here: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/42601577/#Comment_42601577
And since the power structures, not just the hierarchies, are informal and not officially recognized, by definition they are actually harder to be held accountable since they are less transparent, as it was obviously just proven. Like, hell, that was less transparent than the cop abuses documented on this thread! We know more about the cop that killed George Floyd than about the dudes that decided to lit up that vehicle and kill two kids!
And while we are on it, I decided to not enter the discussion in that moment since it was heated, but "we will resist like the Taliban against the US military on Afghanistan" was always pretty goddamn ridiculous. In the second that force was applied, that was going to be it.
i feel like modern democracy has a certain amount of institutionalised hierarchies that are not strictly reducible to "prejudice"
The SPD and other police departments have been applying force for a while. If anything it's just pissing people off.
The only, only reason many many people are not injured or dead is that everything is closed because plague. This occurred on Pride Weekend, roughly a block outside the primary bar district. Like... Holy fucking shit, man.
But those right wing groups are often all talk, and the need to use your weapon to kill in defence is never a good thing. It's an unfortunate outcome brought about by a whole load of instigating factors.
So you have to admit you did it, and accept the consequences.
If that's too much of a risk due to the way the system is set up - then guess you're just as much a bastard as the cops are, maybe more as you've definitely killed someone.
Be ready and willing to to what needs to be done, but then also accept that what needs to be done is bad and isn't what the CHOP/CHAZ needs or stands for.
There's enough legal people backing you up that it shouldn't be a straight martyr situation. But if you want a cop to face consequences for a shooting, can't avoid it yourself even if the situation is less than ideal.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If it was a price worth paying, then fine, be happy with that - if it is too high, then what you did wasn't good and you should be punished so others don't follow in your example.
Organization does not equal hierarchy, and it's not all-or-nothing: I think few people who support the idea of dismantling hierarchies have any illusions regarding the fact that hierarchies will attempt to reassert themselves, and the idea is a constant vigilance against the formation of corruptible structures will always be necessary. Yes, the complete elimination of hierarchies is hard to impossible; this holds for essentially every intractable problem we face as a society (sexism, racism, violence, etc), that doesn't mean that working to dissolve them is not the right thing to do. You might as well say "well, we'll never get rid of racism, but if racism is institutionalized at least we always know who the racists are and can watch their movements!" Also, any short-term experiments are going to inevitably suffer from the fact that they are deeply embedded in a pre-existing culture of hierarchies, which means that there is going to be a strong force backing their reconstruction and a ton of work required for people to even simply work through the authoritarian predispositions they've acquired from living their entire lives in the world as it exists. These are not controlled environments or well-designed experiments, these are spontaneous attempts to enact something that is fundamentally opposed to the systems of power and the organization of society as it stands.
Like, is not a "new" or "short-lived" experiment. Communes have been tried since the 19th century. Most failed and had to be denounced by the people that supported them and the rare successes are basically "less than 100 people managed to not kill each other".
So when is that happening to 95% of police departments in this country? It is not? Oh okay.
This is simply false.
Hah! Again, this is not "new". When the Paris Commune imploded and then had to be swept away by the French Army, Marx himself had to come up of an explanation of why "the dictatorship of the proletariat" failed. The answer was....wait for it....that it wasn't organized enough. Sure, as expected, his answer also included more centralization and forced conscription, but even he couldn't deny that organization was needed to make things work and that organization by definition is going to include a hierarchy and a power structure. There was a quite nasty split between Marxists and anarchists about it.
And Bakunin and the anarchists had the exact opposite conclusion, but let's be completely the honest the reason the Paris Commune failed was because it was swept away by the French Army. Anything that is opposed to the power of the state is going to have a state violence problem because the entire point of the state is to use violence to control the populace, which is exactly what happened to CHOP. We didn't get to see CHOP try to grow and adapt to dealing with the security issue or how it would hold people accountable in this situation, because the state cannot possibly abide the idea of anyone else using violence except it or else it has by definition failed. Such experiments are literally an existential threat to the state, which means that every force deliberate, subtle, or subconsciously instilled in the people through propaganda will be acting against them in order to dismantle them.
Want to look at how this develops when the state is not strong enough to quash it? Look at the Rojava. Look at the Zapatistas.
Didn't they shoot those teenagers like 2 days ago or something? I've not seen any evidence so far of growth or adaptation here.
You're right, an informal community that has developed over the course of a handful of weeks should absolutely be able to handle a case in two days with the deftness of a centuries-old institution.
They had two entire days! As opposed to the state, local, and federal government, which often works to completely clear cases within mere....
Oh wait...
There was adaptation....in the form of trying to scrub their social media from all statements bragging about the kill. Don't think that counts though. Heh.
What have they actually done then? What indications are there that anyone there is actually trying to make changes?
Cause the immediate reaction seemed to be a lot of support for riddling those teenagers with bullets while they were in a moving car because "they were coming right for us". And then a whole lot of nothing.
We will never know, because the police retook the station and arrested 44 people.
You'd think a security guard (or, at the very least, a person who works for a security company) would know better...
Sorry, am I supposed to feel bad for the people involved in shooting two kids and then pretending it never happened by attempting to scrub the internet of how cool their "professional marksmanship" was?
In two days, you can certainly say "Yep, it was Skippy. Skippy, say something for yourself." If Skippy is uncomfortable with so speaking, Skippy should pick something and grow a pair of them, because Skippy made that choice when they picked up a weapon.
If they can't or won't produce Skippy, or Skippy won't produce him, her, or themselves, it doesn't really start looking better for anyone.
https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/video-shows-park-ranger-shoot-and-kill-unarmed-carlsbad-caverns-visitor/5777672/
EDIT: That ranger clearly was just itching to fuck somebody up. He tells the victim to take his hands out of his pockets, then obviously turns off the body cam without realizing it will keep recording briefly. Thinking it's off and he's in the clear, the ranger IMMEDIATELY jumps into "brutalize civilian" mode. Then camera miraculously comes back on after anything incriminating has happened.
If you're carrying a weapon on behalf of the government and you don't render aid to a disabled person, that's murder. Justified shooting or not.
No, it isn't. That's not what I described there
You can, and will, have hierarchies in Anarchist society. Formal ones, in fact. Or at least, self-organisation is a key element of Anarchism.
That is essentially the platonic ideal of a progressive democracy.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Debatable. But even if it is, what it isn't is just "democracy without prejudice"
And I note the very catch-all use of the term progressive there, which is currently doing a lot of rhetorical heavy lifting for you. What kind of progressive?
The important thing to realize is that Anarchism cannot fail, it can only be attacked by outsiders who desperately want it to fail.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Tweeter is a rando but this v similar response to what happened after Ferguson - more details in the thread and others chiming in from other states
I think police reform isn't possible, because it doesn't matter how many strictures you place on any individual when the organization as a whole will work as hard as possible to make sure consequences can't happen. "You didn't see it but in the deleted 20 seconds he did render aid, he was just being extra careful at the end" etc. The same way that while bodycams have in some cases opened a window to horrible abuse, in most cases they're just a new tool for exonerating cops when they do something illegal. Also they constantly "fall off" or "run out of batteries". Reform by setting new harsher rules doesn't really work when everyone from the bottom to the top already thinks that rules don't apply.
But this is a fucking park ranger. I feel like maybe park rangers just shouldn't carry guns at all.
Why the fuck does a park ranger have a "service weapon"? How often does a park ranger need to fire a pistol at something?
Pretty sure a rifle or shotgun is the appropriate firearm in that case.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy