Are Police for the most part good or bad?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I suspect I'm the inspiration for this thread, so you already know what I think: bad. Police are around to deprive you of your rights and to enforce the states view on the public. You don't join the police force because you have a love of protecting people, you join it because you like the power and authority it gives you over the average citizen.

You there! Stop! I'm need to see your sources!

But seriously, I would like to see some sources. That's an awfully strong assertion to give without evidence.

Which part? Why people join the police force or the function of it?

[Scomagia]

Can we all not indulge the scientific racism derail? Thanks.

[Andsed]

I'm very libertarian, but some type of force must exist to capture and bring criminals to justice.

Why?

Because letting people go around harming others without punishment will not end well?

[Scomagia]

You there! Stop! I'm need to see your sources!

But seriously, I would like to see some sources. That's an awfully strong assertion to give without evidence.

Which part? Why people join the police force or the function of it?

The bolded bit.

[Zhe Furher of Memes]

The police are good for the most part, unless you live in Oakland.

[Confederate Norway]

I'm very libertarian, but some type of force must exist to capture and bring criminals to justice.

Why?

It's not just the justice but when police capture them they are off the streets and cannot commit crimes.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm very libertarian, but some type of force must exist to capture and bring criminals to justice.

Why?

Because then criminals will be free to violate your rights, and not be punished for doing so.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Which part? Why people join the police force or the function of it?

The bolded bit.

Sorry, not your fault at all, but I can't see what's bolded.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why?

Because then criminals will be free to violate your rights, and not be punished for doing so.

But why can't victims just take matters into their own hands?

[Bluelight-R006]

I'm very libertarian, but some type of force must exist to capture and bring criminals to justice.

Why?

Because justice needs to be served as a representative to the law and for the people. The police can do that, at least better than most ordinary civilians and bystanders nowadays.

[Ancapto]

It depends. I don't like police being in the hands of the government but I do think it would be a good idea if police were privatized.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why?

Because justice needs to be served as a representative to the law and for the people. The police can do that, at least better than most ordinary civilians and bystanders nowadays.

That raises the question of whether ordinary civillians would be better prepared if the police weren't around to provide a safety net.

[Emulation White]

Honestly, scientific ramifications of societal initives is not low hanging fruit. Take responsibility for not being able to havd the discussion you want, that is on you and you alone.

Your arguments are debunked supremacist dog whistling. That is low hanging fruit.

Nothing is debunked, you are merely following an idealogy without examining the evidence for yourself, then would you be honest with said evidence? Who knows? And if calling someone a dog whistling supremacist isn't low hanging fruit I don't know what is. Instead I'm fighting for the rights of hated and disriminated groups of humans. Look, I'm talking on like 5 people at once, get on my level.

[Scomagia]

The bolded bit.

Sorry, not your fault at all, but I can't see what's bolded.

Why not? Are you blind and using text to speech? Honest question.

And here you go, this is the bit I would like to see evidence for:

You don't join the police force because you have a love of protecting people, you join it because you like the power and authority it gives you over the average citizen.

[Bluelight-R006]

Because then criminals will be free to violate your rights, and not be punished for doing so.

But why can't victims just take matters into their own hands?

Because victims themselves don’t have a group of detectives to find the suspect? Suspects can be easy to find sometimes, but not all of the times. Say, someone stole your wallet and you happen to find the suspect. But you’re not a representative of the law—who are they to give it back?

[Andsed]

Because then criminals will be free to violate your rights, and not be punished for doing so.

But why can't victims just take matters into their own hands?

Because letting untrained civilians go around attacking whoever they think wronged them is an awful idea.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Sorry, not your fault at all, but I can't see what's bolded.

Why not? Are you blind and using text to speech? Honest question.

And here you go, this is the bit I would like to see evidence for:

You don't join the police force because you have a love of protecting people, you join it because you like the power and authority it gives you over the average citizen.

I am indeed.

I did actually see an anonymous survey in some US city that came to that rather disturbing conclusion, I'll find it for you.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Because then criminals will be free to violate your rights, and not be punished for doing so.

But why can't victims just take matters into their own hands?

Because not everyone can.

It depends. I don't like police being in the hands of the government but I do think it would be a good idea if police were privatized.

They need to be reformed. Just because they're private does not mean they'll be incapable of abusing people. I also don't think justice should be rendered out of reach because someone cannot afford to hire a private company to protect them.

[Kernen]

Your arguments are debunked supremacist dog whistling. That is low hanging fruit.

Nothing is debunked, you are merely following an idealogy without examining the evidence for yourself, then would you be honest with said evidence? Who knows? And if calling someone a dog whistling supremacist isn't low hanging fruit I don't know what is. Instead I'm fighting for the rights of hated and disriminated groups of humans. Look, I'm talking on like 5 people at once, get on my level.

Uh huh.

I'm wearing my nice wingtips. I don't want gutter gunk on them.

[Bluelight-R006]

Because justice needs to be served as a representative to the law and for the people. The police can do that, at least better than most ordinary civilians and bystanders nowadays.

That raises the question of whether ordinary civillians would be better prepared if the police weren't around to provide a safety net.

And you’d think that work. Perhaps for half of the community, civilians would care about taking up necessary crime prevention skills. But another half of the community would go on with their daily lives.

[Nazi Juggalos]

Because then criminals will be free to violate your rights, and not be punished for doing so.

But why can't victims just take matters into their own hands?

It would lead to unchecked violence as well as possible clashes between politically opposed groups, protests could turn violent, etc.

[Nazi Juggalos]

Nothing is debunked, you are merely following an idealogy without examining the evidence for yourself, then would you be honest with said evidence? Who knows? And if calling someone a dog whistling supremacist isn't low hanging fruit I don't know what is. Instead I'm fighting for the rights of hated and disriminated groups of humans. Look, I'm talking on like 5 people at once, get on my level.

Uh huh.

I'm wearing my nice wingtips. I don't want gutter gunk on them.

Too late for that.

[Emulation White]

A scientifically erroneous conclusion from an arbitrary moral perspective. So my counter is why do need a government financed apparatus for that? You could just find like minded individuals like yourself to enforce your morality if you are so committed to virulent hatred of naturally occuring types of humans.

1. It's not "natural," as you claim.
2. Preventing crime protects people, which is the moral thing to do. If it is done by the government, there will be actual order to the enforcement.

Do you believe in killing or incarcerating bears, wolves, etc just because they're predators? That is my ethical stance in people. I see the beauty in many types of life and human predators are no exception. Everyone has something to give when given the chance.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Depends on the area. In my area, they are usually very kind and helpful. Very few cases of brutality, corruption, etc, but that does come up from time to time (That's not an issue specifically in my region). Though, I presume you're not talking about the Omani Police and are talking about them in general. To which, I say this.

Although a perfect society would not need them, we are most certainly not a perfect society. No society is. Governments need people to enforce their laws and mandating the military to inspect everything from mass-murder to some farmer who claims Aasim pissed on livestock again would be expensive, tedious, and overall less effective than a branch of the government mandated to enforce laws internally.

The alternative is vigilantism (which is not as great as the comic books make it out to be), military rule, or some third option that could only exist in the aforementioned perfect society. So, yes, the police are good. They can be bad, but the alternative is far worse.

[Scomagia]

Why not? Are you blind and using text to speech? Honest question.

And here you go, this is the bit I would like to see evidence for:

I am indeed.

I did actually see an anonymous survey in some US city that came to that rather disturbing conclusion, I'll find it for you.

I see. I think I knew that already and forgot. Either that or there's another blind person on NSG.

I'll wait. I will say in advance, though, that one anonymous survey from one city isn't much in the way of evidence.