It is interesting and disheartening how this discussion on the CHOP shootings is a microcosm of the discussion around police violence. All the same arguments for and against just shifted to a different group of people using violence.
It is interesting and disheartening how this discussion on the CHOP shootings is a microcosm of the discussion around police violence. All the same arguments for and against just shifted to a different group of people using violence.
Well because it still fundamentally comes down to a failure of rules of engagement. If we trust people to use violence to maintain stability or even civility in society we should at least be forcing them to act only in defense.
Again, security/law enforcement is an occupation, it's a choice, and the rules should be more strict for them than for everyone else.
On CHAZ, I'd say it's just a good example of maybe we shouldn't have basic law enforcement mixed with guns and that current gun culture needs to be told to fuck off and die in a fire. Plenty of countries where their police aren't armed and they don't let any brain dead idiot have a fire arm because of a poorly thought out amendment and oddly they don't seem to have the issues that we have in the US. Yes, some of that is that the US has some really shitty cultures around certain things, but I doubt we'd have a dead 16 year old if security were provided by people not wielding guns.
As for New York. Hard to say whether the cut is a nothing burger or just too damn small. It really depends on how their department of education spends that money. It's bullshit if they turn around and hire cops because we need to get cops the fuck out of our public schools. If they don't hire cops it'll be too small of cut because the NYPD gets way too much of the city budget. It'll be a billion they don't have and I seriously doubt that shit organization spends a billion on putting cops in school, so that probably comes at the expense of something else they do. Though given the stories, they really should reduce that NYPD budget by 50% and maybe that will shut down their ability to run operations outside the city.
At the same time, if statements are to be believed, they were taking fire earlier that night. I don't have an answer here. If unarmed, they're targets. If armed, well...this happens. Fuck if I know what the right answer is.
Defund the police.
"I was shot at earlier" is not free reign to get twitchy and light up any car. If you excuse that you're defacto excusing most police abuse. If they want to be armed they need to know how and when (and when NOT) to use the weapon.
I don't disagree! But there is a long history of unarmed people being fucking lynched, so the answer of "just take away the weapons" rings awful hollow to me. Like I said, I don't know what the right answer is. I don't want more dead kids. I also don't want Proud Boys to feel like they can come in and terrorize and butcher people with impunity. Right now we have one dead child and another one in critical condition and that's not okay.
I don't know what the right answer is here, but it's a bit more complicated than just "take away all the weapons from one side, and hope nobody else tries to run them over".
+11
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
edited July 2020
*meant to save a draft, sorry for the post*
Meeqe on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
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.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+43
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
To be fair, CHOP as an experiment wasn't as systemically supported as defunding the police as an objective goes. Because it isn't just about "no cops," it's about community support and growth. There was a lot of apprehension surrounding CHOP so that had an impact and was not a perfect example of what happens when there are no cops.
+4
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
True, but it's still going to be held up as an example of what happens when there's no cops.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
True, but it's still going to be held up as an example of what happens when there's no cops.
Indeed, because that's what Republicans do. Did you catch that video clip Tucker Carlson's team edited together with the suspense / thriller film music laid over it?
That said, I remain undeterred, as do most everyone else pushing for the goal.
It is interesting and disheartening how this discussion on the CHOP shootings is a microcosm of the discussion around police violence. All the same arguments for and against just shifted to a different group of people using violence.
What I've learned is that a lot of people are not so much against things like state violence.
They just feel the wrong people are being targeted.
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.
It is interesting and disheartening how this discussion on the CHOP shootings is a microcosm of the discussion around police violence. All the same arguments for and against just shifted to a different group of people using violence.
What I've learned is that a lot of people are not so much against things like state violence.
They just feel the wrong people are being targeted.
Ideally, the state should have a monopoly on violence, but use it only when absolutely necessary to protect lives, and to do so equally.
Instead the state uses violence for fun, profit, and subjugation.
Do with the security what we'd want done with cops, imo. Investigate, and punish according to wrongdoing. They can't hold firearms anymore, they can't be security, they go to jail. Ideally, that would be left to the community to decide, but that's not the society we live in right now. But, we can treat them the same way we'd treat misused violence by the police, just to show an example of what's being sought out.
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."
True, but it's still going to be held up as an example of what happens when there's no cops.
it was going to be that no matter what
like, the very existence of a police-free zone was always going to be seen as a monstrous awful hellhole by plenty of people
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.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Do with the security what we'd want done with cops, imo. Investigate, and punish according to wrongdoing. They can't hold firearms anymore, they can't be security, they go to jail. Ideally, that would be left to the community to decide, but that's not the society we live in right now. But, we can treat them the same way we'd treat misused violence by the police, just to show an example of what's being sought out.
The one caveat that makes the obvious thing less obvious is that it feels like delivering that person to get tortured and used as an example by the cops. This is what's kept me from saying "Hey that person should surrender their weapon and turn themselves in."
No. I don't blame the two previous shootings on CHOP - they were personal disputes that took advantage of the environment.
In this case, *CHOP security* lit up a car without a good reason to do so. So yeah, it is the fault of CHOP having a poorly trained set of armed idiots running "security."
Point of order from a few pages ago. This is the 5th and 6th shooting. Not the third.
The first shooting was two separate incidents in a short time period, one gang one right wing (per the victim), the 3rd and 4th was further gang attack (they both were aimed at the family and the vigil for the first victim and separated by 2 days). These are 5 and 6. Current scuttlebutt is that 3-6 are related to a local gang moving in to the area after (or due to?) leftist groups largely pulling out of the zone.
After the first 2, the medics (to mean EMTs, RNs, and docs not just street medics) who had been at Rancho (taco shop that had allowed a rough aid station to be set up on their porch) the previous 3 weeks completely left to focus on the upcoming investigation and protests.
Despite what SPD will tell you, 2, 3, and 4 were all outside of the area they simply refused to respond.
Do with the security what we'd want done with cops, imo. Investigate, and punish according to wrongdoing. They can't hold firearms anymore, they can't be security, they go to jail. Ideally, that would be left to the community to decide, but that's not the society we live in right now. But, we can treat them the same way we'd treat misused violence by the police, just to show an example of what's being sought out.
The one caveat that makes the obvious thing less obvious is that it feels like delivering that person to get tortured and used as an example by the cops. This is what's kept me from saying "Hey that person should surrender their weapon and turn themselves in."
They killed a 16 year old, and put a 14 year old in critical condition. This isn't some kind of weapons charge.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Do with the security what we'd want done with cops, imo. Investigate, and punish according to wrongdoing. They can't hold firearms anymore, they can't be security, they go to jail. Ideally, that would be left to the community to decide, but that's not the society we live in right now. But, we can treat them the same way we'd treat misused violence by the police, just to show an example of what's being sought out.
We as a society cannot trust "the community" to deal with violent offenses in this manner, because when given the opportunity, communities will cheerfully approve of violence as long as it's against the proper people.
These things must be done by an impartial, neutral, uninvolved 3rd party, ideally one with the trust of all sides involved.
+9
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Do with the security what we'd want done with cops, imo. Investigate, and punish according to wrongdoing. They can't hold firearms anymore, they can't be security, they go to jail. Ideally, that would be left to the community to decide, but that's not the society we live in right now. But, we can treat them the same way we'd treat misused violence by the police, just to show an example of what's being sought out.
We as a society cannot trust "the community" to deal with violent offenses in this manner, because when given the opportunity, communities will cheerfully approve of violence as long as it's against the proper people.
These things must be done by an impartial, neutral, uninvolved 3rd party, ideally one with the trust of all sides involved.
Yeah, this would be a lot easier if the authorities weren't garbage. I guess I was thinking about in a more ideal society. As is, I honestly wish this were still a situation where the community were able to enforce itself. Because you're right, whoever did this, justified or not (I'm not informed enough to know for sure, just spitballing) will certainly not be treated well
Do with the security what we'd want done with cops, imo. Investigate, and punish according to wrongdoing. They can't hold firearms anymore, they can't be security, they go to jail. Ideally, that would be left to the community to decide, but that's not the society we live in right now. But, we can treat them the same way we'd treat misused violence by the police, just to show an example of what's being sought out.
The one caveat that makes the obvious thing less obvious is that it feels like delivering that person to get tortured and used as an example by the cops. This is what's kept me from saying "Hey that person should surrender their weapon and turn themselves in."
They killed a 16 year old, and put a 14 year old in critical condition. This isn't some kind of weapons charge.
The issue is that I don't trust the cops to behave appropriately if the person turns themselves in.
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.
There is an argument that the biggest problem with CHOP was that it existed in a situation of perpetual tension due to the siege-like nature of it's creation which is not conducive towards community peace, or indeed anarcho-socialist community development.
The idea is that you allow for self-organisation in an environment where you take away that siege mentality/external pressure etc and you can transition to a better way of doing things. CHOP literally was a place born of "the police violence stops here, but only here" and therefore was just a patch of land. Its not representative of an anarchist ideal of self-organised community. It's not really anything other than a place that the SPD kettled people over and over again.
CHAZ would be a neat idea for a new park where the community could do some community-oriented stuff which was a 100% gun-free zone, cops included barring emergencies, with barriers to keep drive-bys from happening. Using the CHAZ as a protest refueling station would be wonderful.
How is a siege mentality not almost inevitable given how often communities adopt siege mentalities against outsiders even without the police being part of it?
How is a siege mentality not almost inevitable given how often communities adopt siege mentalities against outsiders even without the police being part of it?
Cops showing up with zero weapons and not in numbers and helping out as basically volunteers, with full disclosure, getting to know the community they serve?
How is a siege mentality not almost inevitable given how often communities adopt siege mentalities against outsiders even without the police being part of it?
I disagree with your fundamental premise and can therefore not answer your question to your satisfaction
How is a siege mentality not almost inevitable given how often communities adopt siege mentalities against outsiders even without the police being part of it?
Cops showing up with zero weapons and not in numbers and helping out as basically volunteers, with full disclosure, getting to know the community they serve?
They are still likely to be fearful of boogaloo attacks, militia types, Nazis, etc.
+2
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
CHAZ/CHOP was a beginning. A proof-of-concept. It was never going to last. But it proved what can be accomplished.
Freetown Christiania is probably the proof of concept. Or the Paris commune, though that's going back a bit further, and wasn't exactly great for Reasons. Antigovernment areas aren't exactly new.
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.
While I was mostly being facetious, the people responsible for the deaths of the many people prior to the George Floyd protests HAD been identified, and their families won't see justice either. Heck, if it wasn't for the massive protests, the people responsible for the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breanna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd himself, would have likely skated with no consequence.
While I definitely would like to see justice for the family of that 16yo, it's hard to argue that is any more or less important than the unnecessary deaths caused by police. Death by some dickhead vigilante is not significantly different to death from a dickhead law enforcer.
At least if these vigilantes ARE identified, you can be sure they'll be apprehended*, charged, and prosecutors will put in their best effort to see they're convicted, and they won't have the same presumption of "Oh, I could never convict a cop" that police get if they're ever brought to court.
* Assuming they're not the next extrajudicial murders by police officers.
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.
Anarchism, in terms of the original political ideal, is not "everyone does whatever the fuck they want" it's "there's no Institutional hierarchy in society." In the context of your OG European Anarchists this typically meant "hey maybe we shouldn't let our country be run by a literal absolute monarchy with a government staffed by aristocrats" and despite people slinging a lot of mud their way, in that context? They largely won. Their ideals prevailed, in the sense that absolute monarchies are not the political environment fo 99% of people.
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.
So in that sense, what you are saying is that we need to take the Institutional hierarchy out of society. And that doesn't mean that everyone gets to do what they want! That doesn't mean no laws! You will note that the symbol of Anarchism is an A... inside an O. Because Anarchy is Order. What it means is that your political power is not defined by your membership of a social elite or lackthereof, that your power as a citizen is not dictated by your wealth, race, gender, social class etc. And therefore when we say "we want to build anarchist communities" what we mean is that we want to build communities in which the political process and the exercising of power as legitimately expressed through the democratic involvement of citizens is not placed in the hands of the political class.
Which is why typically you will never, ever, ever see anyone who is part of that class and has an understanding of what Anarchism is, be supportive of it. Ever. Because it's entire existence is there to threaten their position.
Now, the CHOP has overlaps with an Anarchist Commune, in that some systems by which the Institutional Hierarchy is maintained are not present (The Pigs, for example) but it is not an Anarchist community. It is in fact an entity which organically developed out of a situation caused by the SPD. So. When we are talking about the CHOP/CHAZ/who gives a fuck, it is important to remember that it is not an Anarchist Project. It is not emblemic of what Anarchists want to do.
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.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Your description of an anarchic society is just "modern democracy, except prejudice totally will cease to be a thing."
Which, okay, cool.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
True, but it's still going to be held up as an example of what happens when there's no cops.
it was going to be that no matter what
like, the very existence of a police-free zone was always going to be seen as a monstrous awful hellhole by plenty of people
I fully understand that plenty of people were always going to assume it was basically an open-air thunderdome of violence and crime. I work with some of those people. I've heard the propaganda they've internalized, filtered, then repeated.
I think the issue here...and again kinda cross-posting from the WA politics thread...is that once you have maybe-probably "security" personnel pump twenty rifle rounds into a vehicle under not entirely clear circumstances then fuck off like hey, guess that happened then you're going to lose the people who were supportive of the zone. I was supportive of the protests every night (as much as my now-living-a-thousand-miles-away self can be). Both before the cops retreated, and after. I've done what I can to combat disinformation, and support what they were working toward. I would generally consider myself an ally.
But that shooting, as well as the response I saw to it from out of the folks there? Yeah, no. I can't get behind it, and I certainly can't pretend to defend it to anybody else. This isn't just people regurgitating what they heard on Fox News anymore. This is people who want to see SPD torn down and rebuilt from scratch still saying "that shit ain't cool." I look at what happened there, and suddenly I start questioning whether this whole thing is a good idea. Largely moot, it's gone now. But as much as we all know the city was looking for an excuse to do that, I'd argue that they were given a reason instead.
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.
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
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?
+4
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
True, but it's still going to be held up as an example of what happens when there's no cops.
it was going to be that no matter what
like, the very existence of a police-free zone was always going to be seen as a monstrous awful hellhole by plenty of people
yeah, considering all the times they've said London has Islamic control "No-go" areas I don't think the reality of a situation will affect how they describe it.
Posts
Well because it still fundamentally comes down to a failure of rules of engagement. If we trust people to use violence to maintain stability or even civility in society we should at least be forcing them to act only in defense.
Again, security/law enforcement is an occupation, it's a choice, and the rules should be more strict for them than for everyone else.
I don't disagree! But there is a long history of unarmed people being fucking lynched, so the answer of "just take away the weapons" rings awful hollow to me. Like I said, I don't know what the right answer is. I don't want more dead kids. I also don't want Proud Boys to feel like they can come in and terrorize and butcher people with impunity. Right now we have one dead child and another one in critical condition and that's not okay.
I don't know what the right answer is here, but it's a bit more complicated than just "take away all the weapons from one side, and hope nobody else tries to run them over".
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.
That said, I remain undeterred, as do most everyone else pushing for the goal.
What I've learned is that a lot of people are not so much against things like state violence.
They just feel the wrong people are being targeted.
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.
Ideally, the state should have a monopoly on violence, but use it only when absolutely necessary to protect lives, and to do so equally.
Instead the state uses violence for fun, profit, and subjugation.
"Washington State spent $700M on police this year, and all I got was this lousy police free zone that wasn't that much worse."
it was going to be that no matter what
like, the very existence of a police-free zone was always going to be seen as a monstrous awful hellhole by plenty of people
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.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The one caveat that makes the obvious thing less obvious is that it feels like delivering that person to get tortured and used as an example by the cops. This is what's kept me from saying "Hey that person should surrender their weapon and turn themselves in."
Point of order from a few pages ago. This is the 5th and 6th shooting. Not the third.
The first shooting was two separate incidents in a short time period, one gang one right wing (per the victim), the 3rd and 4th was further gang attack (they both were aimed at the family and the vigil for the first victim and separated by 2 days). These are 5 and 6. Current scuttlebutt is that 3-6 are related to a local gang moving in to the area after (or due to?) leftist groups largely pulling out of the zone.
After the first 2, the medics (to mean EMTs, RNs, and docs not just street medics) who had been at Rancho (taco shop that had allowed a rough aid station to be set up on their porch) the previous 3 weeks completely left to focus on the upcoming investigation and protests.
Despite what SPD will tell you, 2, 3, and 4 were all outside of the area they simply refused to respond.
They killed a 16 year old, and put a 14 year old in critical condition. This isn't some kind of weapons charge.
pleasepaypreacher.net
We as a society cannot trust "the community" to deal with violent offenses in this manner, because when given the opportunity, communities will cheerfully approve of violence as long as it's against the proper people.
These things must be done by an impartial, neutral, uninvolved 3rd party, ideally one with the trust of all sides involved.
When you find one of those please let us know.
The issue is that I don't trust the cops to behave appropriately if the person turns themselves in.
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.
The idea is that you allow for self-organisation in an environment where you take away that siege mentality/external pressure etc and you can transition to a better way of doing things. CHOP literally was a place born of "the police violence stops here, but only here" and therefore was just a patch of land. Its not representative of an anarchist ideal of self-organised community. It's not really anything other than a place that the SPD kettled people over and over again.
CHAZ would be a neat idea for a new park where the community could do some community-oriented stuff which was a 100% gun-free zone, cops included barring emergencies, with barriers to keep drive-bys from happening. Using the CHAZ as a protest refueling station would be wonderful.
CHOP is.. a protest.
Cops showing up with zero weapons and not in numbers and helping out as basically volunteers, with full disclosure, getting to know the community they serve?
I disagree with your fundamental premise and can therefore not answer your question to your satisfaction
Stonewall Jackson getting carted off in Richmond
They are still likely to be fearful of boogaloo attacks, militia types, Nazis, etc.
While I was mostly being facetious, the people responsible for the deaths of the many people prior to the George Floyd protests HAD been identified, and their families won't see justice either. Heck, if it wasn't for the massive protests, the people responsible for the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breanna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd himself, would have likely skated with no consequence.
While I definitely would like to see justice for the family of that 16yo, it's hard to argue that is any more or less important than the unnecessary deaths caused by police. Death by some dickhead vigilante is not significantly different to death from a dickhead law enforcer.
At least if these vigilantes ARE identified, you can be sure they'll be apprehended*, charged, and prosecutors will put in their best effort to see they're convicted, and they won't have the same presumption of "Oh, I could never convict a cop" that police get if they're ever brought to court.
* Assuming they're not the next extrajudicial murders by police officers.
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.
Anarchism, in terms of the original political ideal, is not "everyone does whatever the fuck they want" it's "there's no Institutional hierarchy in society." In the context of your OG European Anarchists this typically meant "hey maybe we shouldn't let our country be run by a literal absolute monarchy with a government staffed by aristocrats" and despite people slinging a lot of mud their way, in that context? They largely won. Their ideals prevailed, in the sense that absolute monarchies are not the political environment fo 99% of people.
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.
So in that sense, what you are saying is that we need to take the Institutional hierarchy out of society. And that doesn't mean that everyone gets to do what they want! That doesn't mean no laws! You will note that the symbol of Anarchism is an A... inside an O. Because Anarchy is Order. What it means is that your political power is not defined by your membership of a social elite or lackthereof, that your power as a citizen is not dictated by your wealth, race, gender, social class etc. And therefore when we say "we want to build anarchist communities" what we mean is that we want to build communities in which the political process and the exercising of power as legitimately expressed through the democratic involvement of citizens is not placed in the hands of the political class.
Which is why typically you will never, ever, ever see anyone who is part of that class and has an understanding of what Anarchism is, be supportive of it. Ever. Because it's entire existence is there to threaten their position.
Now, the CHOP has overlaps with an Anarchist Commune, in that some systems by which the Institutional Hierarchy is maintained are not present (The Pigs, for example) but it is not an Anarchist community. It is in fact an entity which organically developed out of a situation caused by the SPD. So. When we are talking about the CHOP/CHAZ/who gives a fuck, it is important to remember that it is not an Anarchist Project. It is not emblemic of what Anarchists want to do.
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.
Which, okay, cool.
I fully understand that plenty of people were always going to assume it was basically an open-air thunderdome of violence and crime. I work with some of those people. I've heard the propaganda they've internalized, filtered, then repeated.
I think the issue here...and again kinda cross-posting from the WA politics thread...is that once you have maybe-probably "security" personnel pump twenty rifle rounds into a vehicle under not entirely clear circumstances then fuck off like hey, guess that happened then you're going to lose the people who were supportive of the zone. I was supportive of the protests every night (as much as my now-living-a-thousand-miles-away self can be). Both before the cops retreated, and after. I've done what I can to combat disinformation, and support what they were working toward. I would generally consider myself an ally.
But that shooting, as well as the response I saw to it from out of the folks there? Yeah, no. I can't get behind it, and I certainly can't pretend to defend it to anybody else. This isn't just people regurgitating what they heard on Fox News anymore. This is people who want to see SPD torn down and rebuilt from scratch still saying "that shit ain't cool." I look at what happened there, and suddenly I start questioning whether this whole thing is a good idea. Largely moot, it's gone now. But as much as we all know the city was looking for an excuse to do that, I'd argue that they were given a reason instead.
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.
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?
yeah, considering all the times they've said London has Islamic control "No-go" areas I don't think the reality of a situation will affect how they describe it.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious