Why the police aren't on our side

[Better Believe It]

Why the police aren't on our side
Amy Muldoon looks at the role of police and their attitude toward political protest.
By Amy Muldoon
October 6, 2011

While individuals may join the force with good intentions, the internal culture and practical experience of implementing policy that is racist and anti-working class either overrides the good intentions, or drives out anyone unwilling to go along. The internal culture of the police depends on separation from, and hostility to, the communities they are meant to "serve and protect." All the light-blue "Community Outreach" windbreakers in the world can't cover this fact.

While the armed forces are trained to dehumanize people of different nationalities overseas, the police are inculcated to dehumanize the domestic population--a much deeper training. The resulting culture of police leads to a kind of self-segregation where cops socialize together, marry, and live together and a kind of impenetrable loyalty keeps dissent out. As a result of an atmosphere saturated with bigotry, every year lawsuits by gay cops, female cops and non-white cops shows that behind the thin blue line is a world where discrimination is not just reserved for "perps."

As capitalism's crises deepen and spread, the antagonisms between the exploited and the exploiters will rise to the surface more clearly, and the 1 percent will call for the use of the police more explicitly as the protectors of property against those of the 99 percent who threaten their hold on power.

Even if the majority of police officers opposed such actions, the police force is not a democracy. The upper echelons of the police force are essentially political appointees, unaccountable to the public, who create policy to legitimize their own continuation and expansion as an institution.
Read the full article at:

http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/06/why-police-arent-on-our-side

[treestar]

1. Baloney

Large groups of people in one place tends to lead to breaking of minor laws

The police are there to enforce the law. If Tea Partiers broke laws while on a protest, what would you say about the police if they ignored that?

How are we supposed to live under a rule of law otherwise?

[Deep13]

3. I think the 1st Amendment trumps petty local land use laws. nt

[treestar]

10. Please cite the case law on that

Thank you.

[Deep13]

32. If we limit our expression to those permitted by the power elites, we have already lost.

Obviously, hegemonic power structure does not recognize it. The whole point of that power is to prevent people for exercising agency outside of that power structure, which means in any way that can threaten the power structure. Power and agency to not exist in any one or few concentrated loci, but pervade society at the capillary level. Those involved in OWS implicitly understand this. The 99% is not an interest group subject to conventional restrictions. It is not an Other defined in opposition to the status quo. Rather than reforming the hegemonic culture, it seeks to supplant it as the embodiment of the nation. As the nation, OWS does not need to point to external authority to justify its actions, not even to the 1st Amendment.

Seriously, it's time to get out of the liberal box--which is really just conservative lite--and get a little radical.

[treestar]

36. Huh? Please explain what law provides that

the First Amendment somehow invalidates all local land use laws.

[Deep13]

47. Well the LAW says that corporations are people and that speech is money.

So again, if we restrict our thinking to what the law allows, we have already lost.

[pintobean]

12. What about the 2nd?

By you're logic, I should be able to carry a gun into city halls, courts, parks, etc.

[Deep13]

33. You're deflecting. And that's not what the 2nd says. nt

[pintobean]

37. Not only is that a cheap cop out

it makes no sense.

[Deep13]

46. ...to you. nt

[Philosopher King]

13. Free speech rights do not trump property rights.

In other words, an individual's right to speak does not require someone else to provide the soapbox.

[Deep13]

30. This is public property nt

[treestar]

38. It can still be subject to regulation

See the First Amendment case law.

We really don't know what happened here. We're all just supposed to support every move of any person saying they are with OWS and be against every government action to try to enforce any law inconvenient to it.

[Philosopher King]

50. Point taken--I stand corrected.

[hack89]

20. Do you think the 2nd Amendment trumps local gun control laws? nt

[Deep13]

34. You're changing the subject. And, does the 2nd say that?

The 1st says (in effect) Government shall make NO law....

[pintobean]

41. Congress. Not government.

Congress shall make no law vs. shall not be infringed.
Here, learn something:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Deep13]

45. "Congress" Really? Are you going to resort to THAT?

I said effectively reads. There are amendments after 1 & 2 yah know. Or are you says that states can restrict free speech.

[pintobean]

48. Yes, I know. Try this one.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We have courts to determine what laws are unconstitutional, ya know.

[hack89]

44. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

the 2nd says (in effect) Government shall not infringe ...

Surely local gun control laws are an infringement.

I am not changing the subject - issue is whether local laws can limit in anyway a Constitutional right.

[xchrom]

4. we don't live under a Rule of Law.

that's why they are applied so unevenly.

like our exceptionalism -- Rule of Law is a myth.

[Webster Green]

6. Bullshit!!

Non violent civil disobedience does not give the pigs the right to use excessive force to make arrests. You are very confused if you think they are justified in using chemical weapons and rubber bullets.

[treestar]

11. Well I'd need the facts

Not just generalization like the OP makes.

Police are equipped with pepper spray. So the local police were authorized to use it under conditions and guidelines. I detect here a predisposition to say they are always wrong.

[Webster Green]

15. If the protesters are just sitting down, there is no need for a violent confrontation.

The police can arrest them, one by one, without using dangerous weapons. This is a no-brainer.

Perhaps I do think most cops are sadistic bullies. So what? They are proving my point with these actions.

[treestar]

17. Why are most of them sadistic bullies?

Do you know most of them? How could a society function with no police force?

True I don't see a problem with just arresting them (though I think they'd be condemned for that, too).

Why is the spray issued to them to use, and when are they authorized by their own guidelines to use it? Their doing so blatantly here makes me think they and their superiors think there is a leg to stand on.

[Webster Green]

22. I would imagine there are lots of reasons they turn into sadistic bullies.

That is irrelevant to the discussion. Chemical weapons are issued to police as a less than lethal alternative to guns when police need to defend themselves from threatening criminals. If cops are using pepper spray (or rubber bullets) on protesters who are no threat to them, they are violating the protocol on using these agents.

[treestar]

24. What's next?

Internal investigation?

Where do you get the protocol for use of them? What it is?

[Rex]

18. And I detect a predisposition in your posts that says cops are always right.

Anyone can play that game.

[treestar]

23. Nope.

Calling them "pigs" however, is a predisposition against them.

Do you cheer when one of them gets shot? Why not, if they are all pigs?

Where's the facts on which to base the improper use of pepper spray here? They are equipped with it. To be in the wrong, they have to have violated some guideline. Yet here we have nothing but that they are 'pigs.'

[baldguy]

26. If it was only about enforcing the "law", then we wouldn't be seeing any violence at all.

Anyway, what laws are the Occupiers supposedly breaking? The police and TPTB they serve don't give a damn about the "law". If they did they wouldn't try to "enforce" laws which didn't exist, or ignore lawful court orders.

Arresting the Occupiers en mass would require too much time, effort, money (and bad press). Instead their objective is to force the Occupiers to shut up & go away - to surrender. Therefore they make it difficult for the Occupiers to continue the protest: stealing (or confiscating) generators, tents, medical supplies, literature, computers, cameras, etc etc etc. Then they attack the Occupiers with pepper spray & rubber bullets.

[blindpig]

31. The 1st 'law' of capitalist society is property.

As we have seen, even suggesting that something is amiss in the distribution of property(the means of production) is offensive to the ruling class and the primary purpose of the police is to preserve the current arrangement.

They can use the current tactics because the numbers are managable, as numbers grow those tactics will change, and it will not be pretty.

[treestar]

39. Interesting question

About what laws they might be breaking. No one has even tried to consider that. We are just supposed to support them no matter what they do.

[The Doctor.]

35. Wow, talk about oblivious.

Most of the protestors who've been beaten and arrested weren't breaking any laws. The cops just said they were as an excuse to engage in brutality.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. Thank You!

:thumbsup:

[ZombieHorde]

49. Do you really believe we have rule of law?

Isn't rule of law a lie?

[snagglepuss]

2. K &R Thanks for posting

[Deep13]

5. Yeah, pretty much. nt

[frazzled]

7. Way easier answer: they are charged with enforcing local laws and ordinances

If there's a law in the city that says you need a permit, or that a park closes at thus and such an hour, or that you may not block a public roadway or bridge, then it's up to the police to enforce those laws. They may agree with the protester's views on corporate malfeasance and influence, on income inequality, etc.--but they are paid to enforce those laws. They can do it nicely if people respond nicely, or they can get ugly--either because they're being met with ugly resistance or because they're just plain ugly themselves.

The police here in Chicago (not known for their Emily Post matters) have been getting along very well with the protesters.

[SixthSense]

8. Or maybe

it could be the millions of direct bribes to the police from the likes of GS and JPM

[Ship of Fools]

9. A pretty good movie that points this stuff out -- COPLAND w/ Stallone ...

An all-star cast in it. I read a review eons ago that said Stallone's
performance out-shined them all (and it did, imo).

[BlueCaliDem]

25. LOVED that movie. I can't stand Stallone, but damn! He showed he can act in COPLAND. eom

[Quartermass]

14. The polcie's job is to keep order, and despite it being peaceful, they are being very disruptive.

Plus, they're owned by the corporations and are not for the people.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. x 1000. They're owned by corporations, but they're PAID by our tax dollars.

A win-win for tax-evading, tax-ducking, and tax code abusing corporations.

The unwashed masses pay to protect the elites' right to keep the boot in our necks.

[Philosopher King]

16. "political appointees, unaccountable to the public, who create policy to legitimize their own

continuation and expansion as an institution.

Isn't that pretty much what these institutions do as well?

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

[snot]

19. Quite plausible; but a little evidence for these important, sweeping assertions would be helpful.

E.g., even if the culture isn't articulated in published police manuals, could more than occasional evidence be found in police chat rooms? Or would it be worthwhile for someone to infiltrate the NYPD?

[Edweird]

21. The police are the enforcers for the ruling class/wealthy. Same as it ever was.

[Rex]

28. The police will always be on the side of authority.

And since the 1% control everything, they are the authority.

[Quartermass]

29. The proof is their actions. If they weren't on the side of the authority, they'd be on OWS' side.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. It's the same reason the Redcoats weren't on the side of the people in 1776.

[KoKo]

43. K&R...only 5 recommends and the time was out...so a Kick!