Police: Heroes or Villains?

[American Legionaries]

It wouldn't, your continued insistence that everyone is a vile murderer waiting to kill if only the police would get out of the way is absurd

It only takes one murderer to murder someone. Also, burglaries are less common in areas that spend more on the police.
Most house burglaries are committed by a minority of people who commonly commit more than one burglary in their lifetime.
If they’re in prison they can’t burgle houses.

Do you want a random stranger to break into your home at the dead of night and steal whatever device your accessing the internet with?


What if you were a little old lady, do you really think there are no advantages in age and sex when it comes to average strength?

If I were an orphan paralyzed from the waist down, I would shoot the attacker while sitting in a wheelchair and lamenting the fact I had never known my parents.

Based! But what if there are ten of them all armed.

And even in one major city there are more than ten people who would be prepared to burgle houses with children inside.

You keep making these scenarios as if police are a relevant part of the equation. If I am subject to a home invasion, I would either fight off my attacker, or I would be killed or incapacitated in my attempt to do so. The existence of police officers would do nothing to change the relevant scenario.

[Ifreann]

Because policing doesn't serve the public good. They don't keep us safe, they keep us in line.

They also keep in line muggers, home invaders, benefit cheats and the black cab rapist.

All examples of people actually arrested by the police.

Yes, the police do arrest benefit cheats. People in financial need, people who are no danger to anyone else, people who are not in any way helped by being locked up. The police will clap them in irons and throw them in a cell, maybe beat them up a bit, maybe strip search them.

[The Cheltonian Republic]

It only takes one murderer to murder someone. Also, burglaries are less common in areas that spend more on the police.
Most house burglaries are committed by a minority of people who commonly commit more than one burglary in their lifetime.
If they’re in prison they can’t burgle houses.

Do you want a random stranger to break into your home at the dead of night and steal whatever device your accessing the internet with?


What if you were a little old lady, do you really think there are no advantages in age and sex when it comes to average strength?



Based! But what if there are ten of them all armed.

And even in one major city there are more than ten people who would be prepared to burgle houses with children inside.

You keep making these scenarios as if police are a relevant part of the equation. If I am subject to a home invasion, I would either fight off my attacker, or I would be killed or incapacitated in my attempt to do so. The existence of police officers would do nothing to change the relevant scenario.

They can make it less likely you’ll be burgled because the perps of previous burglaries are in prison that’s potentially 5 years they can’t burgle you for.

Yes, the police do arrest benefit cheats. People in financial need, people who are no danger to anyone else, people who are not in any way helped by being locked up.

Are you saying there should be no punishment for thieves because they might not physically hurt anyone?

You realise what inflation is?

If there was an infinite amount of money it wouldn’t be worth anything.

So they steal finite money from both the taxpayer and honest benefit claimants who genuinely can’t work.

If manual labour or service sector work isn’t good enough for them why didn’t they work harder in school?

[Floofybit]

Why?

Because policing doesn't serve the public good. They don't keep us safe, they keep us in line.

Even if they were perfect?

[Uiiop]

Because policing doesn't serve the public good. They don't keep us safe, they keep us in line.

Even if they were perfect?

One doesn't have to be against an perfect husband or wife to want an divorce from their current spouse rather than assume they're going to stop being an abusive assholes. Your problem is that you're stuck conflating the two. Though it's more like like asserting an husband has to be an full time shrink to their wife or you hate marriage. It's frankly insulting to the public and the police.

[American Legionaries]

You keep making these scenarios as if police are a relevant part of the equation. If I am subject to a home invasion, I would either fight off my attacker, or I would be killed or incapacitated in my attempt to do so. The existence of police officers would do nothing to change the relevant scenario.

They can make it less likely you’ll be burgled because the perps of previous burglaries are in prison that’s potentially 5 years they can’t burgle you for.

Yes, the police do arrest benefit cheats. People in financial need, people who are no danger to anyone else, people who are not in any way helped by being locked up.

Are you saying there should be no punishment for thieves because they might not physically hurt anyone?

You realise what inflation is?

If there was an infinite amount of money it wouldn’t be worth anything.

So they steal finite money from both the taxpayer and honest benefit claimants who genuinely can’t work.

If manual labour or service sector work isn’t good enough for them why didn’t they work harder in school?

Right, but as previously established a police force capable of successfully apprehending the perpetrators of crimes doesn't serve my interests. A pervasive and present police force is a bigger threat to me than the burglars they would theoretically inhibit.

[The Cheltonian Republic]

They can make it less likely you’ll be burgled because the perps of previous burglaries are in prison that’s potentially 5 years they can’t burgle you for.


Are you saying there should be no punishment for thieves because they might not physically hurt anyone?

You realise what inflation is?

If there was an infinite amount of money it wouldn’t be worth anything.

So they steal finite money from both the taxpayer and honest benefit claimants who genuinely can’t work.

If manual labour or service sector work isn’t good enough for them why didn’t they work harder in school?

Right, but as previously established a police force capable of successfully apprehending the perpetrators of crimes doesn't serve my interests. A pervasive and present police force is a bigger threat to me than the burglars they would theoretically inhibit.

What if the laws were just and the police force were trained properly?

Let’s say they were also all educated, nice to women and children and raised well.

Or are you saying some things you want to do would be illegal anywhere?

[American Legionaries]

Right, but as previously established a police force capable of successfully apprehending the perpetrators of crimes doesn't serve my interests. A pervasive and present police force is a bigger threat to me than the burglars they would theoretically inhibit.

What if the laws were just and the police force were trained properly?

Let’s say they were also all educated, nice to women and children and raised well.

Or are you saying some things you want to do would be illegal anywhere?

Well there's no truly universal laws. The only relevant fact is that things I want to do are illegal in the place I live.

[Uiiop]

Right, but as previously established a police force capable of successfully apprehending the perpetrators of crimes doesn't serve my interests. A pervasive and present police force is a bigger threat to me than the burglars they would theoretically inhibit.

What if the laws were just and the police force were trained properly?

Let’s say they were also all educated, nice to women and children and raised well.

Or are you saying some things you want to do would be illegal anywhere?

Unless you can prove such an proper training and such just laws are possible in the current status quo i don't see the point in asking such questions.

Y'all are just angrily debating what everyone here mostly agrees on and not anything in dispute. Enough of the ought let's talk practicals

[Ifreann]

Yes, the police do arrest benefit cheats. People in financial need, people who are no danger to anyone else, people who are not in any way helped by being locked up.

Are you saying there should be no punishment for thieves because they might not physically hurt anyone?

I am saying that the police do nothing to make society safer by arresting benefits cheats.

You realise what inflation is?

If there was an infinite amount of money it wouldn’t be worth anything.

So they steal finite money from both the taxpayer and honest benefit claimants who genuinely can’t work.

Throwing people in prison won't reverse inflation.

If manual labour or service sector work isn’t good enough for them why didn’t they work harder in school?

I don't care.

[Watedorpley]

I would love to think that police are hero's but not all are doing the job for the right reason. I personally stand behind the police if we didn't have police this world would be crazier than it it. I do think there are some officers that are truly in it for the wrong reason. The "villain' cops in my opinion are the ones who are beating the "criminals" or killing to kill. Those in my eyes think they can do that because they are police and that they will not get caught for it. Luckily there has been a few of them that have gotten caught. Now on the other side of things the "hero's". I think those officers truly go out every shift to protect the people of their area and I appreciate that so much.

[Floofybit]

What if the laws were just and the police force were trained properly?

Let’s say they were also all educated, nice to women and children and raised well.

Or are you saying some things you want to do would be illegal anywhere?

Well there's no truly universal laws. The only relevant fact is that things I want to do are illegal in the place I live.

You want to be a bloodthirsty murderer but that's illegal, is that what you're saying?

[West Bromwich Holme]

The police are often criticized for brutality, but what about black-on-white police brutality, as seen from 19:05 to 20:58 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLGcNljZp0U in this clip from 1996.

I can't find much about the incident online, but I'm surprised this sort of thing isn't mentioned in police brutality, that it's not just about race. Yes, the officer involved in that clip was black, but that was secondary to the main thing; the woman not sure the officer was a genuine one.

Had this happened in today's era, wouldn't it have been a 24-hour news story and we'd have endless debate over it?

As I remember it, 1996 was when 24-hour news was in its infancy, and CNN hadn't acquired the "FAKE NEWS!" reputation just yet.

But the police could be seen as heroic in the clip from 14:45 to 15:44 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjQ-ehO4C2c as the youths were obstructing local residents with their car cruising in high-performance cars.

[The Cheltonian Republic]

If manual labour or service sector work isn’t good enough for them why didn’t they work harder in school?

I don't care.

You realise that they’re stealing money that could be spent on you?

Because, in the quote you took out of context, I was explaining why the government would never be able to have infinite money.

[American Legionaries]

Well there's no truly universal laws. The only relevant fact is that things I want to do are illegal in the place I live.

You want to be a bloodthirsty murderer but that's illegal, is that what you're saying?

Yup, the entire penal code of my state only outlaws murder, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[Ifreann]

I don't care.

You realise that they’re stealing money that could be spent on you?

Because, in the quote you took out of context, I was explaining why the government would never be able to have infinite money.

I didn't take your quote out of context. The context of your post is this thread and I responded to it in this thread. And I don't care why people are on benefits. No matter the reason, locking them up does nothing to protect society.

[Uiiop]

The police are often criticized for brutality, but what about black-on-white police brutality, as seen from 19:05 to 20:58 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLGcNljZp0U in this clip from 1996.

I can't find much about the incident online, but I'm surprised this sort of thing isn't mentioned in police brutality, that it's not just about race. Yes, the officer involved in that clip was black, but that was secondary to the main thing; the woman not sure the officer was a genuine one.

Had this happened in today's era, wouldn't it have been a 24-hour news story and we'd have endless debate over it?

As I remember it, 1996 was when 24-hour news was in its infancy, and CNN hadn't acquired the "FAKE NEWS!" reputation just yet.

But the police could be seen as heroic in the clip from 14:45 to 15:44 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjQ-ehO4C2c as the youths were obstructing local residents with their car cruising in high-performance cars.

Bitching about media coverage without taking account the literal whitewashing and mouthpiece work the vary same outlets give the police seems incomplete. Besides it's not like people haven't ran out black police chiefs because of their own complicity and because they hurt white people protesting.

The rest is an one person sample that's ignores the very stats posted here that they suck at their jobs.

[The Cheltonian Republic]

No matter the reason, locking them up does nothing to protect society.

Protecting property is normally counting in protecting society.
You have some device by which you access the internet, would you be happy for someone to steal it?

Moving on to property with purely transactional value would you be happy for someone to steal from your wallet?

Don’t you think some people would rather work jobs that don’t pay well than risk 10 years in prison?

And if it saved you money to do this by discouraging some of the less reasonable welfare claims why would you object?
It is, after all, their fault.

[Uiiop]

No matter the reason, locking them up does nothing to protect society.

Protecting property is normally counting in protecting society.
You have some device by which you access the internet, would you be happy for someone to steal it?

Moving on to property with purely transactional value would you be happy for someone to steal from your wallet?

Don’t you think some people would rather work jobs that don’t pay well than risk 10 years in prison?

And if it saved you money to do this by discouraging some of the less reasonable welfare claims why would you object?
It is, after all, their fault.

People make an distinction between private propriety of the bank and personal propriety of an internet device and therefore think theft of either have separate economic and other ethical costs. Asserting they're the same and it's an slippery slope to chaos by itself is going to get you anywhere without proving it.

Edit: We have already posted proof that police currently suck at thefts right now with stats. So this is just an implicit denial that they totally are stopping those bad guys or just saying they're actively stopping something worse. Or you should just prove these two things instead of discussing things.

[The Cheltonian Republic]

People make an distinction between private propriety of the bank and personal propriety of an internet device and therefore think theft of either have separate economic and other ethical costs

That may be true but the money in your wallet is private property.

You value it because it gets you something you want more than that particular note or coin at least at the time.


Similarly, I might value a factory (private property) because it gets me money.

And if the money in your pocket doesn’t count why does the money the taxman takes and spends on various things- some great, some completely ridiculous.

[Ifreann]

No matter the reason, locking them up does nothing to protect society.

Protecting property is normally counting in protecting society.
You have some device by which you access the internet, would you be happy for someone to steal it?

Moving on to property with purely transactional value would you be happy for someone to steal from your wallet?

Don’t you think some people would rather work jobs that don’t pay well than risk 10 years in prison?

And if it saved you money to do this by discouraging some of the less reasonable welfare claims why would you object?
It is, after all, their fault.

I don't care whose fault it is. I don't care if it theoretically costs me money. Benefits cheats are not a danger to me or anyone else, it accomplishes nothing worthwhile to imprison them.

[Uiiop]

People make an distinction between private propriety of the bank and personal propriety of an internet device and therefore think theft of either have separate economic and other ethical costs

That may be true but the money in your wallet is private property.

You value it because it gets you something you want more than that particular note or coin at least at the time.


Similarly, I might value a factory (private property) because it gets me money.

Money for all it's problems by itself is just personal property. It's whether or not you got from people under you or not that's the difference.

Rather than derail this chat into being offended people treat rich businessmen worse than everyone else I'll return to the elephant in the room that the police right now aren't the ones who saved these banks so it's pointless to just go "Theft is bad, you need these people to stop them" when you they can't do it and you offer no evidence that they can just fix themselves with just one more check.

Assuming what an person ought to reasonably do with enough to ignore the fact just giving larger and larger budgets sounds pretty much like an unreasonable welfare claim and therefore should just be blamed on that person, No?

[Uiiop]

Protecting property is normally counting in protecting society.
You have some device by which you access the internet, would you be happy for someone to steal it?

Moving on to property with purely transactional value would you be happy for someone to steal from your wallet?

Don’t you think some people would rather work jobs that don’t pay well than risk 10 years in prison?

And if it saved you money to do this by discouraging some of the less reasonable welfare claims why would you object?
It is, after all, their fault.

I don't care whose fault it is. I don't care if it theoretically costs me money. Benefits cheats are not a danger to me or anyone else, it accomplishes nothing worthwhile to imprison them.

I assume we're just supposed to believe that welfare can't be limited and the police must be already be doing their jobs if we haven't ran out of other people's money. Stats be damned.

[Spirit of Hope]

A property/economic argument for the police is a terrible one.

First police are bad at closing such crimes. In the US the historical closure rate for robberies is 30%, for larceny theft it is 20%, and for motor vehicle and for burglary it is 13-15%. 2017 2018 2019

Second police themselves are a threat to your personal property, through civil asset forfeiture. Through which the various police and law enforcement agencies of the US have seized billions of dollars from citizens without the need for a trial.

Third the largest type of theft is wage theft by businesses against workers, something police don't deal with.

[Greater Marci]

Police protect and serve us. What would society be without a strong police force? anarchy! and nobody would be safe!