State-backed terrorism

[mrswdk]

It is starting to sound like your argument is that as long as we suitably define our objective, and the objective is a laudable one, we can commit whatever atrocity we want to achieve it.

I said absolutely no such thing. All I have said is that I do not think the terrorizing of black people was a reason for the founding of the police and I do not think terrorizing of black people is an objective of the police today.

You can play semantics all you like but the fact is you said this:

mrswdk: Do you think the driving motivation behind the existence of the police and the activities of the police is the prevention of crime or the violent suppression of ethnic minorities?
Metsfanmax: Yes, both of those are reasons for the existence of the police.

and this:

mrswdk: Is everyday law enforcement really intended to provoke a state of terror in the general public?
Metsfanmax: In the US, the answer to that may depend on the color of your skin.

[Metsfanmax]

It is starting to sound like your argument is that as long as we suitably define our objective, and the objective is a laudable one, we can commit whatever atrocity we want to achieve it.

I said absolutely no such thing. All I have said is that I do not think the terrorizing of black people was a reason for the founding of the police and I do not think terrorizing of black people is an objective of the police today.

There's a reason we went off on the tangent, and choosing to ignore that doesn't mean it stops becoming relevant. You have decided to declare that I am wrong because terrorizing of black people is not an "objective" of the police, but since I never declared that it was an "objective" in the sense you are using it, you are making a point that is completely nonresponsive to my point, and which therefore adds nothing to the debate. My argument has consistently been that if police officers knowingly engage in activity that disproportionately harms black people, then they are responsible for those harms. It doesn't matter if the "objective" is some other action like patrolling the streets, for the same reason that the army is still responsible for killing civilians even if they do so while killing a terrorist. In other words, if you would agree that nuking a city to kill a terrorist makes one guilty of mass murder, then you should agree that disproportionately shooting unarmed black people makes one guilty of its known consequences, such as instilling a state of fear in black citizens.

You can play semantics all you like but the fact is you said this:

mrswdk: Do you think the driving motivation behind the existence of the police and the activities of the police is the prevention of crime or the violent suppression of ethnic minorities?
Metsfanmax: Yes, both of those are reasons for the existence of the police.

This is an example of not paying careful attention to the words you're using. I think it's empirically true -- in the U.S. at least -- that these two things are both crucial features of how police functions formed and evolved with our culture. Early police-style actions in the US involved things like massacring Native Americans and stopping slaves from running away from their plantations. These certainly qualify as "violent suppression of ethnic minorities," and in the latter case even coexisted with the idea of "prevention of crime." But this is actually a separate question from this question of terrorism committed against those ethnic minorities.

[mrswdk]

Yes, if a policeman shoots someone (black or white, innocent or guilty) in the course of his duty then he is responsible for the death. I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary.

Do you think the police want black people to be afraid of them?

[mrswdk]

'sides, I highly doubt there are more than 2 or 3 officers in the whole country who actively want to go out and shoot black people. I'm pretty confident the vast majority or all of the 96 shootings of black people by white officers each year happened as the result of some jumpy cop getting excited and over-reacting to the situation, not because the cop was sat in the station one morning and thought 'today I'm gonna go out and shoot me a colored'. And in those jumpy cop cases, I find it hard to identify any point at which the cops meant to do something that would provoke fear in the black community.

[Metsfanmax]

Do you think the police want black people to be afraid of them?

The fact that you've formulated the question this way is precisely why I think we're having a difficult time with this conversation. Because my answer is simultaneously "yes" and "no." I agree with your argument that what we're talking about isn't police officers who are members of the KKK and actively want to kill or terrorize black people. So no, in the sense that "the police" means the sum of "individual police officers on active duty," perhaps not. However, suppose instead we consider whether the collective system of law enforcement in this country, codified in the laws and procedures which determine how law enforcement officers engage in their activities, is designed to make black people be afraid of the police. A case can be made for that argument. I do think that many of these laws and policies are structured in a way that definitely make the lives of black people harder and definitely makes them have a special reason to fear law enforcement. An obvious example is US crack cocaine laws (there are harsher penalties for a drug predominantly used by black people than for comparable drugs used more by white people). Another may be mandatory sentencing laws. It is non-trivial to assign intent in these cases, but given the history of the USA I think it's a fair to assume that at least a subconscious level of racism is involved in the formation of these policies. Now, it is surely the case that many of these problematic actions are defined not at the legislative level but by the police agencies themselves (who often have wide latitude in determining how to enforce laws and police the streets). So, to the extent that this is true, I think it is reasonable to say that "the police" do want black people to be afraid of them.

That is, our difference is in analyzing systemic features versus focusing on individual actions.

[mrswdk]

That's fine, except that just as I believe the vast majority of individual police officers don't want black people to be afraid of them, I also believe the same thing of the police force and legal system as a whole.

Maybe the US is institutionally weighted against ethnic minorities, but that doesn't really relate to wanting to cause fear.

[shickingbrits]

Mrswdk,

The US has the highest prison population in the world and has for quite some time. Why do you think this is?

[Metsfanmax]

That's fine, except that just as I believe the vast majority of individual police officers don't want black people to be afraid of them, I also believe the same thing of the police force and legal system as a whole.

Maybe the US is institutionally weighted against ethnic minorities, but that doesn't really relate to wanting to cause fear.

If you haven't yet, read Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." I don't agree with everything in that book. However, he makes a strong case that creating fear and tension between blacks and whites was a primary concern of law enforcement in early US history. In particular, because black people were poor, law enforcement could be used in such a way as to force poor white people and poor black people to fight for the same slice of the economic pie, making them mad at each other rather than having them both be mad at the wealthier people who were dominating the legal system. In many ways this is still happening today.

[Lootifer]

Nah. You and your NZ terrorists are both terrorists.

The debate is over.

I terrorized your mum.

That's right, game, set and match.

[GoranZ]

Democracy?


Nah...

[DoomYoshi]

To get this back on topic:

It is crucial for U.S. policymakers to understand that supporting the people of Hong Kong in their quest for democracy is not only morally right but also pragmatic. A free and democratic Hong Kong is also an economically prosperous Hong Kong, which makes for better business and stronger partnerships. As noted in the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, “the human rights of the people of Hong Kong are of great importance to the United States and are directly relevant to United States interests in Hong Kong…Human rights also serve as a basis for Hong Kong’s continued economic prosperity.”

[DoomYoshi]

We are at a pivotal moment for democracy in Hong Kong. If there is one thing history has show us, it is this: Authoritarian rule has a limited life span. No matter how hard the CCP may try to quash dissent, outlaw religious belief, control the outcome of so-called elections, manipulate economic prosperity, or control the words and thoughts of its citizens, it is on the wrong side of history. No regime can outlast the inherent appeal of universal values among average citizens, and we must all join in supporting the democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong.
At the moment of Hong Kong’s 1997 handover of sovereignty from the United Kingdom to China, when I was a House leadership staffer working on the issue, the question could rightly be asked, “Will Hong Kong
6
positively infect the rest of China with its freedoms, or will China negatively infect Hong Kong with its lack of them?” This moment some seventeen years later is a crucial juncture in answering that question. It matters to the future freedom of China as a whole. The Chinese people will be watching. It is no time for the United States and self-respecting democratic nations to be coy and muted.

[Phatscotty]

Fine, then 'the police exist to catch law-breakers'.

Sure, like in the US where police arrest people for feeding the homeless-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 5997,d.cGU

Good to see ya around Patchy. That guy arrested for feeding the homeless, actually has been arrested 3 times. But I think the first 2 times he was just closed down and ticketed. Love his attitude 'I don't give a crap what your dumb law says, I'm setting up shop again tomorrow morning and feeding the homeless"

Food for thought - 30,000 new laws/regulations are passed every year on the Federal level, that only increases exponentially when you account for state/local laws. Heck, it's against the law not to have health insurance now. In my state they are talking about banning 'hands free' talking on the phone while driving, since supposedly it's just as dangerous as holding the phone to your ear. I suppose when pulled over they will have the means to search your phone and see if you were on it in the last 5 minutes. And now with pot 'legalization' one of my buddies lost his job, got an $800 fine and had his license revoked for 30 days because they found that he had marijuana in his system, and it didn't matter on bit that it was from splitting a joint 2 weeks prior. "DERR LEGALIZE IT!!!!! DERRRR' pot smokers will one day long for weed to be illegal again'

With all these new laws getting more and more ridiculous, how mundane will the next batch of 33,000 new laws get? Only thing that is certain is the government will grow even bigger based on the need to enforce these new laws. Won't be long before all we are allowed to do is stand, sit, or lay down in a government approved circle, because going outside of the circle is unsafe and bad things happen. Whenever terrorism happens, 'were you in your circle?' 'well. no' 'see, it's your fault and the your incident as a consequence from state-led events was 100% preventable! The only excuse will be if you were outside your circle on your way to or on your way from an activity that generated tax revenues.

'STAY IN YOUR CIRCLE....STAY ALIVE'

[mrswdk]

To get this back on topic

You are quite correct. The protesters in HK wish to force political change by grinding their city to a halt (creating fear of economic ruin), so they can indeed be deemed terrorists.

Singapore is authoritarian, developed, prosperous and content. HK has absolutely no need for universal suffrage.

[shickingbrits]

Doom what happens if China closes the border?

[DoomYoshi]

Doom what happens if China closes the border?

Which border?

[shickingbrits]

Mainland to Hong Kong border.

[DoomYoshi]

Mainland to Hong Kong border.

What, like stop running a ferry?

[shickingbrits]

Thanks for your ringside commentary on the issue.

HK has several land borders with the Mainland. A lot of HK business relies on the constant influx of mainland Chinese buyers. Disney would would become empty overnight, gold shops, tourism companies, hotels, clothes vendors.

[DoomYoshi]

Thanks for your ringside commentary on the issue.

HK has several land borders with the Mainland. A lot of HK business relies on the constant influx of mainland Chinese buyers. Disney would would become empty overnight, gold shops, tourism companies, hotels, clothes vendors.

ok... so...?

[shickingbrits]

So,

HK belongs to China. You suggest they become more prosperous via democracy. What are some very easy and legitimate methods that China could use against HK?

Closing the borders is pretty easy. In 2013 there were more than 40 million mainland visitors to HK.

Putting a tariff on trade through HK. HK isn't a key international port because of what it exports, it is a key international port because of what China exports.

HK is not self sufficient in food, water, energy.

If HK were to utterly disavow China, China doesn't need to harm HK, it just needs to stop helping HK. HK's prosperity is utterly at the whim of China.

[DoomYoshi]

They could also nuke it. What is the likelihood of these events?

[shickingbrits]

Considering it has been widely reported in China as a plot coordinated by the US against China, then 99%.

[patches70]

Good to see ya around Patchy. That guy arrested for feeding the homeless, actually has been arrested 3 times. But I think the first 2 times he was just closed down and ticketed. Love his attitude 'I don't give a crap what your dumb law says, I'm setting up shop again tomorrow morning and feeding the homeless"

Yeah, and as absurd it is to mess with the guy, this sort of thing isn't anywhere near the worst things that the police do "legally". Ignoring the shootings that police do often enough to make people wonder, the little publicized practice of civil asset forfeitures ranks up there as one of the most insidious.

[Lootifer]

Come on P&P (patches and PS), don't you know that if you want to get rid of homeless people you simply just need to ban them?!?! Durrr!

#instinctivereactionsftwright?