The Great Hippo wrote:Conceptually, police should exist to protect everyone. Arrests should be a measure of last resort; a way of addressing a situation in which no other solution can protect us. Instead, prison is mostly just a place where we punish people for being poor, or smoking pot.
Yes, but police are not the same as prison, not all police encounters result in arrest, and not all arrests result in jail. Don't make that equivalence. It is false. Deliberately and disingenuously so.
When police misbehave, it is mis
behaviour. And when people call the police inappropriately, this is also abuse - of the police force as well as of the target. This is so because of
what you say.
If it helps, think of this in computer terms. You download an app to do word processing on your phone. The app also scoops up your contact list and sends it to the Mother Ship. Do we conclude that word processors are a Bad Idea?
The Great Hippo wrote:Arresting or shooting someone is an exception you throw when there's no other adequate way to protect human life. But police, as an application, was built to shoot and arrest people first.
Either police.app needs to be rewritten, or police.function is being called inappropriately. Simply removing police.all would let bad.guys run malware, and that is also a Bad Thing.
Thesh wrote:So, because people are anti-social, we should create a system that rewards people proportionally to how much property they acquire and then use violence against anyone who violates their property rights. Your post doesn't make sense.
Because some people are anti-social, we should create a system that protects social people from anti-social acts. Police are part of that system. That system of course needs constant supervision; it won't be Good just because it exists. But it isn't Bad just because it exists either, even though it's bad that such a system needs to exist.
The Great Hippo wrote:...The number of people killed by police every year in Canada doesn't break double digits.
Per capita figures would be much more appropriate. Even so, I don't quarrel with the statement that police inappropriately kill far too many people in this country. I merely say that this is not due to the very idea of having police in the first place (as evidenced by the other countries where police brutality is lower). And that is the thing I am talking about.
Yes, it's been claimed here that police are inherently
Bad and should not exist.
I claim that this is false.
I further claim that police policies are in many cases Bad. Those policies need to change. But also, society in America is very varied. There is a lot of conflict, ideological, economic, racial, intellectual, and otherwise. We have a leader who is taking this up to eleven, and a significant part of the populace is solidly behind this. In the countries where police violence is significantly lower, is the populace itself kinder and gentler? If so, that is where one ought to focus.
natraj wrote:my ideas on whether a grocery store is Good or Bad are completely irrelevant.
That should be true, but it is not true. A grocery store is a place where you are punished for taking vital food if you do not fork over enough money for it. You claimed essentially that the police prioritize property over life. Well, that's also what a grocery store does. So your ideas about a grocery store are relevant to the discsussion, as it serves as the foundation for your claims.
Yes, part of the job of the police is to protect property, and that requires that property itself be a meaningful concept. I do have an issue with police killing somebody who is stealing bread because they are starving. I have less of an issue with police killing somebody in the course of protecting the grocery store itself from a firebomb attack. I certainly have an issue with police killing people where there are better ways to protect, but sometimes that is not the case.
And sometimes it's bad (or corrupt) judgment on the part of the police. I have an issue with that (but again, that's not an issue with the idea of having police in the first place).
natraj wrote:you're clearly not on the same page as the rest of us, who are very specifically talking about the idea of police as implemented in a fundamentally corrupt society. i.e., the one we live in.
No, "the rest of us" are not talking about that. Some have issues with the very idea of police existing in the first place. That
is what I am addressing. There will always be a last resort. If it's the state, you have police. If it's not the state, it's the strongest warlord in the area.
natraj wrote:if we were living in a just society...
...we wouldn't need police at all. As long as everybody agreed with you as to what was "just".