In practice it turns out even worse. The people in command deny giving the orders, and the people hitting you with the stick say that they weren't given the proper support or tools. Everybody in the chain of command claims to be weak or hamstrung, yet you're the one on the ground bleeding.
True. But while I don't disagree that Police is often as culpable as the ruling class, I'm weary of these methods.
You don't doxx police officers and paste their IDs online. The chance you're taking, the certainty indeed, is that someone will follow through (perhaps even an agent provocateur) providing the justification for waves of ruthless revenge.
Nope, you bring your dossiers to a higher court and ask for Justice (EU, ICJ, UN.)
Edit: unless of course the situation has deteriorated so badly that the prospect of civil war with all its casualties and pain is on the table.
Have you noticed how ridiculously long it takes to get anything done by the institutional route, and how this is partly because reactionaries expend effort on undermining those very institutions (the US, for example, has gone from proposing the establishment of something like the ICJ, to refusing to take part in it, to threatening sanctions against it)?
> the US, for example, has gone from proposing the establishment of something like the ICJ, to refusing to take part in it, to threatening sanctions against it
You seem to be confusing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the International Criminal Court (ICC).
> Nope, you bring your dossiers to a higher court and ask for Justice (EU, ICJ, UN.)
The EU isn't a court, and European institutions (including European courts like the ECHR) are particularly not "higher courts" over police in the US. The ICJ hears only cases between state parties, not between states and their subjects, and the UN isn't a court at all, and, again, is only a forum for state parties, not for disputes between individuals and states, though sometimes you can get a state party to stand up for subjects of another state; but, that's not really much of a practical option if the offending state is the US, both because of its Security Council role (which Uniting for Peace, in theory, provides a route around through the General Assembly), and because of its hyperpower status (which means that there is, in practice, no way to enforce a decision against it, even if one was reached through UfP.)
Sure - but only if you picture an innocent peaceful protestor being smashed to the ground by a mindless thug of a police officer who loves his job and has no family and nothing to lose.
Clean or not, people need to be held accountable for their actions. I mean if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, right? These are supposed to be public servants (although that's obviously not the case).
So no, I still don't feel bad about it, even if that cop needs the job to feed his family. Maybe they should fight the system that doesn't support their citizens in need (people with health problems, people who don't have money for food, people who don't have homes) instead of being willing participants against those fighting for a better government that actually serves the needs of its people?
I agree with your premise of equality - that you can't have it both ways. My point was if the government uses that power against its people, the people should be able to use that power against their government.
However in this case it's actually different, as police officers are meant to be public servants.
I disagree. People paid by the public must be accountable to the public and all their (paid) actions should not be private. (Exceptions may apply to this general rule, though they are debatable)
What do you suggest to do here? Either you allow the oppressors to beat people and stay anonymous, not get punished or you create a community trying to deanonymize them with all the consequences.
If you can be sure that the protestors are all trying to make a better government for everyone, then I’d agree.
But that’s never the case. There is always a mixture of people with good motivations, people who just want to get into a fight. This is just as true for the protestors as it is for the police.
If it was so clear what was right, then it would be simple to overthrow the government since the vast majority of people would be in agreement.
So you believe the police should police themselves?
Honestly I'd prefer vigilante justice over that.
Dox the cops, 100%. I'd rather a cop be hurt unfairly in the line of duty than a protester fighting for what he believes in. This country was founded on overthrowing tyrrany. If the cops don't accept the risks of the job then they can quit. Cops need to be held to a higher standard, not lower or even equal. The government (and police) should fear the people, not the other way around.
The police need to be held accountable, full stop. The police need to be held to a higher standard than the people, full stop. Even if that means an angry mob it's still preferable to no accountability.
It's clean because the police should be held to higher standards than the public, and they can quit if they don't want that responsibility.
You're right - it's just you baiting people into this false dichotomy to make it seem like people are anti-police. I was just calling your bluff. I'll take an angry mob over lack of police accountability, and the police cannot police themselves so the public needs to do it by whatever means necessary even if that harms innocent police officers.
I will always choose the people over the police, even if the people are violent. A public mob is better than a police mob.
Until the police are held accountable to the public, I feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
I’m not baiting people into anything, and you aren’t calling any bluff. You are free to engage in this dialog without using false dichotomies if you choose.
As to making people “seem like they are anti-police”, why would I need to do that? I don’t think people have a problem with being seen as anti-police. Is there something wrong with being anti-police? It seems like an entirely valid position to hold.
Being anti-police as an institution doesn’t automatically mean being in favor of mob violence against individuals. You can be strongly against a structure, without hating the individuals who occupy the role.
It is possible to want to hold the police accountable without believing that the only way to do this is to dehumanize them, or to doxx them.
All you have done here is double down on an extremist position.
“The police” is a very large and diverse group of people. You have said you feel no remorse for anything that happens to them.
You have said that you are willing to completely dehumanize all police, and support violence of any kind against all of them and the killing of innocent people in the name of your cause, which is an unspecified ‘accountability’.
You are therefore a politically violent extremist, or at the very least someone who supports politically violent extremism if such a distinction can be made.
Whatever you say dude. You're obviously trying to label everyone that disagrees with you as a violent extremist - you end every one of your comments like that. I don't know why you'd do that and I don't care it's just obvious and that's why everyone is downvoting you.
I’m labelling you a violent extremist, because you said you don’t care if innocent people die as a result of your cause. I’m not sure why you think I’m labeling anyone else.
Can you find one other comment where I have labeled anyone anything? It should be very easy if I end every one of my comments like that.
Nobody else here has said they don’t care about innocent people dying. That is only you.
Yep - I stand by all that because I choose the public over the police. I don't care what happens to the police doesn't mean I want anything bad to happen, it means I don't care. If I say I don't care about you it doesn't mean I wish you harm it means I'm indifferent.
Nope, it does happen exactly like you described. The repression of Genova G8 by the Italian riot police and the Carabinieri was an example of "lovin' it".
Some of the participants in the brutalities called it a "mexican slaughterhouse" and several trials came to the conclusion that massive human rights violations have occurred.
Unfortunately the commanding officers have been promoted for not maintaining order and not exercising the authority over their men that their role demanded. They too loved it though and throughout.
At least for the case of Belarus discussed here I see no other possibility, because the oppressors hide their faces and do not present any identification.
#1 is a link to another place where you don’t answer the same question.
#2 if you can identity the police using ML, then you can use those identities for any legitimate purpose that a badge number would be used for, such as collecting evidence against them, and clearly doxxing is not the only thing you can do.
I have seen video of similar (arguably worse) behavior from police in the US.
I’ve also personally witnessed a policeman on horseback in the UK striking a peaceful and stationary protester in the head with a baton resulting in profuse bleeding.
If it’s true in Belarus, then it’s also true in the UK, and US.
But, what isn’t clear is that a Telegram group doxxing officers is a clean way to deal with it.
How do we know which officers were doxxed and for what reason? How do we know what will happen to them? Would you feel comfortable if the officer in your video was killed?
When? Your approach is to limit political autonomy to zero and offer an institutional solution that will probably not be available. What if the compilation or possession of such a dossier is treated as evidence of conspiracy to commit sedition?
Doxxing might well be used as evidence of a conspiracy to commit sedition, but by distributing the information widely it's strategically superior to holding it in isolation. It's easy to act with impunity against a lone individual, but if some unknown number of people are possession of the same information the marginal benefit of arrest is vastly reduced.
“Your approach is to limit political autonomy to zero and offer an institutional solution that will probably not be available.”
That is a straw man argument, undeniably so. It in no way represents my position.
I agree with you distributing information widely is superior to holding it in isolation, and I agree with you about reducing the benefit of arrest. Nobody said anything about just one person holding all the dossiers.
There are many ways to accomplish this which are not doxxing if the goal is real accountability.
