F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

[TownieDeac]

Very good thread with thorough research on reducing police violence:

 

[WFFaithful]

If you say we could and should continue efforts to save innocent lives, why devalue those lives with the right turn on red comment?

 

[MHBDemon]

WTF

 

[MHBDemon]

“Direct violence perpetrated by the state is insignificant compared to violence due to state negligence, therefore we shouldn’t put too much effort in preventing the former.”

Fucking galaxy brain take.

 

[MHBDemon]

If we simply abolished the police and spent all that money on healthcare we would be safer and healthier!

 

[RJKarl]

If we simply abolished the police and spent all that money on healthcare we would be safer and healthier!

That's batshit crazy. Without a police force, crime rates would explode. There's no rational way to think criminals would stop robbing banks, killing, kidnapping, etc., and act honorably.

 

[Strickland33]

The state isn’t directly perpetrating anything.

In what way?

LEOs are empowered by "the state," granted jurisdiction by "the state," and defended by "the state." It's about as direct of a relationship as exists between laypeople and "the state."

 

[TownieDeac]

Weird response considering the discussion around police brutality usually centers around the state’s allegedly negligent training and supervision. The state isn’t directly perpetrating anything.

Sure it is. Did you read the thread?

There’s a direct link between municipalities that fund a high % of their budget from civil asset forfeiture and high police violence rates

There’s a direct link between municipalities buying military gear and high police violence rates

There are network effects that show that bad apple police spread their bad behavior and high police violence rates are tied to low accountability city govt

Police violence and the lack of efforts to reduce it are direct perpetration of local gov priority

 

[MHBDemon]

Weird response considering the discussion around police brutality usually centers around the state’s allegedly negligent training and supervision. The state isn’t directly perpetrating anything.

We’ve spent how many billions of dollars training police? And how’s that worked out? It’s almost as if training is not the central issue.

 

[PhDeac]

It’s always a mix of sad and amusing when people who presume to hate big government define the active and passive roles governments play in killing their own citizens.

 

[WFFaithful]

I’m not sure how pointing out that the scope of the problem is small devalues lives. Seems like the size of the problem is relevant to resource (and brainwave) allocation, but maybe that’s just me.

It is very callous saying the cause of someone's death isn't as significant as some other cause.

 

[Strickland33]

but all lives matter, right?

 

[MHBDemon]

yep, doing pretty well. nothing to see here. Jesus dude. What a warped fucking perspective.

 

[PhDeac]

I’m not sure how pointing out that the scope of the problem is small devalues lives. Seems like the size of the problem is relevant to resource (and brainwave) allocation, but maybe that’s just me.

The size of the problem is massive. You’re only talking about one part of it and even then it’s over a thousand lives taken without due process with taxpayer money. Not that the lives take with due process are much better.

Beyond that the resources and brainwave allocation toward this problem is even more massive. The resources devoted to the criminal justice dwarf the resources devoting to addressing abuses within that system or disparities in enforcement.

 

[Strickland33]

Considering we are talking about 1,100 deaths per year, the vast majority of which are justified, in a country of 330 million people, I'd say we are doing pretty well.

so #alllivesbut1100livesmatter ?

 

[Strickland33]

It is not the policy of any state to kill people unnecessarily. That is happening because of a combination of negligent training and / or negligent supervision and rouge actors. Yes, the individuals who do the killing are imbued with that authority by the state, but the state is not directly perpetrating these deaths, and the state is not liable for them unless there is proof of negligent training and / or negligent supervision. Just because an officer kills someone, even if he does so intentionally, that does not make his act the act of the state.

If the state imbues the individuals with the authority to kill people on its behalf, then how is the state not directly perpetrating these deaths? Oftentimes, the state is liable for them as evidenced by undisclosed private settlement even without proof of negligent training/supervision. When an agent of the state kills someone, that makes their act the act of the state. I feel like you're twisting yourself into a pretzel when you could just admit that you're obviously wrong about this one.

 

[MHBDemon]

Nice white privilege you got there...

 

[Strickland33]

I mean, this is just dead wrong from a legal perspective. In some sense it true, of course, but not in any sense that matters.

You're not fooling anybody by moving between legality and morality to justify your arguments.

 

[MHBDemon]

If the US hires Blackwater to kill some afghanis, is that violence perpetrated by the state?

 

[Strickland33]

I don’t know what this means.

What is legal is not always moral. What is moral isn't always what is legal. L

egality and morality are the underlying modes of justification on this thread. In a moral sense, the state is culpable when a police officer kills a citizen. What that citizen was doing at the time of the murder is irrelevant to the underlying morality of the situation. In a legal sense, the state is only culpable when a police officer murders a citizen without (ironically) the state deeming the officer's decision-making process as being legally justified.

Defenders of police murdering civilians typically claim that police officers had a reason to believe that the victim was armed or that the victim had perpetrated a crime, which justifies the killing in both a legal and moral sense. The officer's life is morally superior to the victim and their act is legal. When it comes out that the victim was neither armed nor had participated in a crime, most consider that act - an act of state violence against a citizen - to be morally wrong, though are oftentimes split regarding the question of legality and legal culpability.

Further, many people on this thread - myself included - believe that acts of violence on behalf of the state against its citizenry in all but the most dire circumstances (which very few police shootings seem to invoke) are morally wrong, even if they're legally justifiable.

You move between the two, saying that 1100 deaths is morally acceptable and the the state is not legally culpable. It's two different standards of justification, man, and its disingenuous as hell.