The voters have decided that Thatoneduderyan is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also by Thatoneduderyan
+85There's a possibility that guys sound during sex same as they sound when lifting weights. amirite? Also about Jobs & Employment
+126Teenagers with paralyzed arms hav to deal with a constant hornieness that they can't get rid of, amirite?
Also by Thatoneduderyan
+142Law enforcement doesn't really work without the threat of violence, amirite? Also by Thatoneduderyan
+116The difference between something hard and something crunchy is succeeding. amirite?
Your are correct. Law enforcement doesnt work without the threat of violence, but this is universal to all things. Nothing works without threat of consequences. Most of us pay our bills on time because if we dont there is a penalty. Most of us show up to work on time because being habitually late we could lose our job. etc... etc...
There is a threat of consequence in pretty much every aspect of life.
I was literally assaulted by an office for a sucide attempt 4 days ago, no police do not need threats they need to be abolished.
Government in general only exists by maintaining a system where it's the only entity that can legitimately use violence.
Thats how gangs keep control of a territory. You are right.
I always say I work for the biggest criminal organization in my province.
"Don't steal that!"
"What are you going to do if I do?"
"Ask nicely a second time."
I can legitimately use violence to protect myself though.
...Only because the government recognizes a few special cases in which your use of violence is legitimate
They'll try and say it wasn't self-defense.
Not against the government though, although you should if it was taken over by fascists or something
Rephrased:
Government in general only exists by maintaining a system where it's the only entity that can legitimize the use of violence.
I'm glad this is the case.
Historically that wasn't true at all.
You're absolutely right, until more recently than you'd think, and still in some places, more than one entity claims to be the government.
I look forward to the peaceful, civilized conversation this will almost certainly become.
I'm sincerely open to anyone's ideas on how lawful order is maintained here without the threat of violence from police.
I don't think it's possible.
There used to be an unwritten contract between everyone certain behaviors were not tolerated. Self interest became paramount and that was the end of that
You are correct although the scale is bigger. The entire world is held together by the threat of violence. In fact once you boil down any society situation far enough it's all ultimately do this or violence. IMHO.
Homogeneous societies and/or societies that support the lowest classes
It's about the attitudes of the citizens. I've lived in multiple places where the police aren't armed.
If we had some sort of UBI, lower level laws could be enforcement by docking whatever amount of UBI.
I suppose some sort of similar privilege-revocation that does not leave compliance up to the person being penalized (i.e. using the UBI example, they can't choose noncompliance, they just don't get the payment) would also work. Again, it only makes sense for lower level crimes. I'm hard-pressed to think of too many other examples, but speaking conceptually.
I agree that the degree of crime and violence determins how violent the police needs to be. In a country with little violence snd few firearms, the police might not need a firearm at all times. Nor do they need to be on edge and agressive.
If you want to reduce the need for police violence you need to work on prevention. Reduce access to firearms and the causes that drive crime and violence.
Such as honor culture, high income inequality and a lack of education and job oppertunities. Also access to social safety nets and affordable healthcare is important.
Once someones needs are met and they arent seen as vermin for being poorer. But can live with dignity. They wont have such a high drive to achieve higher social status through violent crime.
Sounds silly, but it was a mafia movies and TV that pointed out to me that the police aren't that different than organized crime sometimes.
Look man for real, whatever it is that makes you feel safe, it's not real. Just a construct of the mind, if someone wants to hurt you they will. At best the police are a piss poor reactionary force.
This reads… I've got an idea, and I don't care or wish to know if that idea is true.
Law enforcement doesn't work, they have an 11% case closure rate with a 2% conviction rate, that's literally the lowest in u.s. history. You're 4.5× more likely to either not have enough evidence against you to convict or innocent than to be convicted of a crime.
A monopoly on violence is basically the foundation of any government or justice system. Outsourcing revenge, etc.
I'm glad it is.
Why?
Imagine a "free market" of violence where everybody can attack/kill everyone. You could kill someone for no reason, then their friends could kill you. The only reason that doesn't happen is because you go to jail if you kill someone. You go to jail because if you resist you either get more jail or get killed by police. By having a monopoly on violence a government is able to control, and thus limit the amount of violence occurring in society.
I do agree. In reality, I'm not gonna listen to a mf who really cant do anything to me. In the US, I can be armed. If the police cant use violence to detain me, then wtf can they do? Even if I wasnt they still couldn't do much. However, the system needs to 100% change and be reformed so the mess of widespread police incompetence is fixed.
I think it depends on your definition on violence really. But there are a couple of cops that take that power they think they have and try to bully people because they think they can get away with it. While some do try and protect others. Not all things need violence but require some sort of authority, it's just more of the matter of what is going on in the situation at hand more than anything. Violence might not solve an answer but neither will asking someone to step down from doing something with evil intent.
When I talk about the threat of violence I'm specifically talking about that police have guns that they could kill you with.
I don't think they can actually protect and serve anything without this built-in threat.
I mean, they can kill civilians in all sorts of ways without using a gun.
People who are genuinely anti police as a concept are a very very tiny minority and also probably not old enough to drink, so they're not really worth talking about and only really serve to distract from more important conversations on how we can reform and improve policing and public safety
I think you underestimate how prevalent anti-police sentiment is these days. I assure you it is not just angsty 12 year olds.
I see a lot of people talking about the abuse of power problem and I believe that's a problem. A problem that no matter which way we tackle it or which group we remove it from, it will find itself somewhere else to stay.
It's not just police that only works with the threat of force. It's all of government.
I'm glad this is the case.
In my country ‘the threat of violence' is the police beating their ass not shooting them.
As someone who lives in Japan, it certainly is possible to have a society without a police force which operates on the threat of violence. For America, however, it's a pipe dream.
This is true for every police system and government, not just the US, but the threat of violence does not mean you need the threat of death, so some countries like the UK don't give normal police guns to shoot shop lifters.
Social revolution doesn't happen without the threat of violence either but we ve been brainwashed into being pacifists, so our corporate overlords can gouge us with impunity.
"Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived." -Mr. Rasczak
As dark as that sounds, it's probably true.
I'd argue yes and no.
Violence alone isn't enough. Violence without a brain behind it is just a toddler with a gun. Sure, he'll put some rounds in people, maybe even convince a few to get them their sippy cup and turn on their favorite show, but the power is fleeting because they have no control over it. They don't know how to exercise that power in a way beyond, 'bang, bang.' Sooner or later, they're going to be stupid and someone will smack that gun out of their hand.
I would say that's the major problem with the American police atm. They have the tools of violence, they can use them, but they aren't trained to use them correctly.
Too many officers in our police force work like the toddler. Bang, bang - problem solved. That does not work long term. They should understand the law, be masters of gun safety and trigger discipline, understand the situation, and have a mental arsenal of how to deal with that situation. But they don't. They aren't trained for that. They're just given a gun and told to shoot if they feel threatened.
So we now have a policing force with plenty of violence but little understanding of how to use it.
Policing doesn't work anywhere without the threat of violence.
Police exist to protect the public, that's why they have guns.
The police are under no obligation to protect you. Like it or not this is why many people carry guns. Police are there to draw with chalk and write reports.
The US Supreme Court says otherwise.
See DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales.
I think the use of violence by police is far from their biggest problem. Their willingness to enforce unjust rules and regulations, and protect bad members of the force, are far worse than their use of violence.
While I generally agree, my suspicion is your definitely of "unjust" is not rooted in law but in emotion or something.
In my country, Britain, it works with the threat of not having a license.
The entire law enforcement system in the US need to be dismantled, be given an enema, and completely overhauled. First and foremost is raising the standards of applicants. In Canada, they are required to have a college degree and the US needs to follow suit. I'm not sure if the exact number but I do know that candidates above a certain IQ are not admitted. Thorough background checks and a barrage of psychological tests need to be required. It's a joke here that you can get fired from one department and just pick up your badge at the next town over. Basic ethics need to be standardized and human empathy needs to be proven to weed out the rash of cops with full blown psychopathy.
These cops we have are under vetted, under qualified and undertrained. Psychology and sociology classes should be part of academy curriculum.
We have a militia of trigger happy, racist, blatantly stupid band of morons out here with severe anger issues and no interpersonal skills. I want nothing to do with them and I certainly don't support them.
I don't think that the argument is that police should never use violence but that they use it too casually and checks and balances don't work properly.
This is what's known as "uniquely stupid" argument. Sort of last resort argument that Americans, especially the conservative ones use against any attempt to make things better. That out of all developed countries only US is so uniquely stupid and dysfunctional that things working everywhere else would not work there. It is weird contrast to common jingoism.
That's what the threat of prison is for
And violence in terms of self defence or defence of others (armed / dangerous suspects) by police should be the only violence police cause.
And no it doesn't matter how other countries do things you're just an idiot if you don't see the extent of violence as an actual issue
You're insane. Many other ways to keep people in line. Hit them in the wallet. And the threat of losing freedom. Jail is violent sometimes, but that's the other inmates' fault usually.
I would agree that punishment is necessary, but it doesn't always have to be violent. Order is kept in society mostly because people don't want to ruin their reputation and relationships. Governments that run purely on force usually don't last that long. Violence is necessary for specific threats like terrorists, bandits, or escaping violent felons.
Th main complaint isn't against the existence of armed police, it's that they're not held accountable. Put another way, the government generally fails to use enough "necessary violence" against its own police.
But the traditional American political-legal system seems basically unable to hold police accountable. So people get frustrated and call for abolition. Such a radical step wouldn't work in the short term, but traditional government and police are obsolete. Police are a tiny community with specialized values, relatively separated from the rest of the population, managed by sham democratic city governments. That's not a position where they can credibly serve a diverse public.
what if it was, like, a really loud whistle?
You have my attention.
Because he blew that whistle
A loud enough whistle is violence though. High sound pressures cause extreme pain in your ears and can rupture your eardrums.
So like training people like dogs?
Violence is the ultimate authority , from which all other authority is derived.
I think you're 100% wrong. There are definitely peaceful ways to protect the public.
The idea that nobody will behave or do the right thing if there are no consequences is an archaic cocnept at best. And well, you see how that has worked out.
That's not the idea. I would behave without consequences. I suspect most people are like me.
But what about criminals? What do you do with them. I'll tell you what you do: suppress them as much as possible with the threat of violence (being shot by police).
To what extent?
Just this week I wanted to drag some asshole out of his car window and give him a beating. No repercussions then I would have done it.
That being said I would behave normally and within the guidelines set by society... For the most part.
I mean is it working with the threat of violence...I'm not saying the whistle idea would either but there has to be a middle ground...police are easily escalating tons of situations prematurely drawing weapons, people fight or flights are kicking in and nobody is really trained how to deal with cops and with the fear of retaliation, most are just doing what there instincts are saying...nobody needs to die over a counterfeit bill or a misunderstanding and the government doesn't deserve the power to get away with it
I agree with your observation. However, because I'm an anarchist that opposes the current ruling authorities, that enforce the law. I disagree with your implication.
Most countries are not democratic, nor do they represent the will of the majority. So instead, a ruling class makes decisions and manages society under very little influence of the public. Therefore, the laws are representative of the ruling class, and the police that enforce them are representing their rule. Police can be interpreted as their violent thugs, carrying out their orders
I'd like to share the libertarian "Non Aggression Principle" with you if you don't mind
Yeah, sure seems like OP stumbled into the LIbertarian "never pass a law unless you accept the endgame of breaking it is you being killed by the police" position.
I could not be more antagonistic to libertarian ideas, I think libertarians are the worst of the worst people.
And I also question whether you understand what libertarianism is since wanting armed and dangerous police is about the LEAST libertarian position imaginable.
I'm familiar with this idea and I think it's absolutely insane.
The problem is escalation of violence.
Police in the US are given too much power to escalate violence without a check on that power.
Giving the police the power to play lethal Simon Says is not a great policy
It isn't just the police force, it is the entire system of government.
You should read Violence and The Word by Robert Cover. Doesn't take about law enforcement (i.e. the police), but it does cover the notion that the law must rely on violence in order to function.
The problem is that police are required.
Our society is so unjust that people feel the need to commit crimes to survive.
There are brain issues that also cause bad outcomes, but many of these can be prevented.
A compassionate society would see almost no crime because it wouldn't be necessary.
The strongest wins, always...
You happened to live in a civilized and democratic country.
But if you live in country like china, the situation might be different
Agree.....the shopping cart theory shows rather well how people behave with choices that carry no consequence.
What if the cops use force whe they don't need to. Then, to cover their asses, they convince the librarian to press trespass charges at a public library, to justify their brutality, which by the way, is illegal to get the trespass after the arrest, which had no grounds for arrest?
That's why it doesn't work. cops lie.
The tricky part is judgement, when does an officer use force and when not to.
Obviously. That's why law enforcement has the term force in it.
Even threat of violence doesn't work. As an European I could never imagine anyone who isn't mentally challenged flailing hands, shouting and tackling a Police officer.
Yet Americans do that over a speeding ticket while being under a gun point of the other cop. The fact that every US citizen could be having a deadly weapon makes it also impossible for Police to chill out.
I have no idea what's wrong and how to change it, but it's baffling cultural phenomenon
It's because they don't trust the police, because their police routinely abuse their power and are unaccountable. The first step to change it is to reform the police and hold them to a higher standard
But it does work. American society is relatively stable. There are not roving gangs and bank robbers and car thrives and rapists running around with impunity.
What we are experiencing is security.
Depends on where you live. There are isolated pockets of this country where it's more dangerous to live than an active war zone.
And yet people do it all the time. Then people cry when those people get shot.
One of the biggest problems with America's police is that they're looking for a reason to use their firearm, they're looking for a reason to arrest someone, etc.
It's pretty well documented from other countries that law enforcement can work without the threat of deadly violence. Saying you don't care how things work in other countries just makes you look like you're trying to lazily get rid of the biggest fault in your opinion.
The threat of violence only makes things worse.
People are worried that interactions with police will turn violent and be a risk to their safety (and possibly their very lives). That's when people start running from police, lying to police, not cooperating with police… generally doing things that can either add charges or get them arrested if they weren't in trouble already, or that can make things turn violent (or more violent).
People can experience violence from the police even when they do everything right. Which discourages people from calling the police when they need them. Crimes go unreported, crime rates go up, communities don't get the protection they need and deserve. All because the people have to weigh the risk of calling the police against the risk of being the victim of unchecked crime.
Our justice system is already set up with deterrents and punishments in place for people who break the law. Police beating, shooting, and killing people is not a part of that.
I guess my point is people should be worried. This is an incentive to remain civil.
Without the worry you describe, what incentivizes anyone to remain civil and not harm others?
What are the deterrents the justice system has that can be enforced without violence? And naturally, if my plan is to resist the enforcement of the justice system with lethal force, how could it possibly be enforced without the threat of violence?
I suppose we are getting into a bit of semantics when it comes to a threat of force versus the potential use of force. There is an implicit threat of force against me if I just start going down a row of restaurants and rob all the customers at gunpoint one at a time, and anyone who doesn't want armed police (or at least a vigilante) showing up to respond is an idiot. We are clearly talking about something categorically different when a guy who runs from the cops gets tackled then receives a flurry of knees to the head, so perhaps op wasn't very clear about the threat of what force under what circumstances, but you weren't either.
Explain how we expect people to remain lawful/civil when there is no fear of the police? Do you think it would work on the honor system?
Is it better to be loved or feared?
If this is a serious question: I would rather be loved as a parent than feared.
But police are not our parents. They are people tasked with keeping lawful order in our society. I don't think police can use love to do this.
Have you ever read the prince?
No. Should I?
Absolutely should.
Why?
You will have to find out.
You really think those are the only two options?
Threats of violence from the police, or the honor system?
Yeah. Give me some more options.
Prison probation criminal records fines. Anything a court orders after a trial. Extra judicial beatings by the police are not the way.
And some people still dont care. Remember the mass shooter who just got freed before he got a gun and started killing?
why aren't you a thief, a rapist, and a murderer? just because you're scared of retaliation?
if so, that's sad. most people aren't like you. most people are not anti-social.
We live in a society with monsters. A lot of monsters.
I dont do those things because I have emotions like guilt and empathy.
But enough about me. What about the scumbags? Or do we want to pretend that human beings are fundamentally good? We all know this isn't true.
Kinda disagree but great job on the unpopular opinion part, OP.💯💯