this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
973 points (84.6% liked)
Memes
45601 readers
1267 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, no, fuck all cops. And please lets not pretend like shit isn't getting mighty fasc-y all over Europe too..
https://www.enainstitute.org/en/publication/mark-neocleous-capitalism-was-created-by-the-police-power-interview-at-ena-institute/
ALL cops you say?
I have many friends and family who have joined the Scottish Police and given years of their lives to serving their communities, risking their own lives and health. Should I say fuck them too?
I joined the police for six months before deciding it wasn’t the career for me and got back into charity work. Are you saying Fuck Me now or just for the six months I was in? Did my fuckery expire?
How can thousands, millions of people doing a job be reduced to such a binary sentiment.
The reason why most people (including myself) say ACAB is because of the system of policing, not the merits of any given police officer. Systems are inflexible and adverse to change. Individual good cops can exist, but once again, the system itself is the problem. A good cop can never fix the system, nor could a hundred, or a thousand. A million could, at best, give the illusion of a good system. People often say a rotten apple spoils the bunch, and I think that looking at policing from the perspective of individual rotten cops, or rotten cops “spoiling the bunch” is problematic when the system itself is rotten. And for participating in the system, yes, all cops are bastards.
Okay I agree with the idea of a rotten system as think that generally many legal or government institutions are rotten and self serving for the rich.
But the flaw in the argument from my perspective is that if all the decent people don’t go into the police, the ones with integrity, a moral compass who genuinely try to help people and do the right thing, then that leaves the bad apples.
So for going into a system and hoping to change it for the better, help/protect their community from criminals and the bad apples and make a real difference in lives, by that logic those people striving for better are still bastards and that just doesn’t feel right to me.
Again no hate here just a genuine conversation
Good cops get punished for being good cops.
Yes, in the US. The commenter above was talking about more than just one country.
Here an example in the UK.
Here's an example from Germany
Here's an example from France.
and
I think this is flawed. The policing system is built in such a way that it protects the bad apples at all costs. From police unions making it difficult to get rid of the bad cops, to the laws, legal precedent, and cultural norms which make it impossible to prosecute them. In the US, police are allowed to lie to people, but they are often trusted in court, regardless if they regularly lie. The police often form a Blue wall of silence in order to protect other cops when literally perjuring themselves in the process. Qualified immunity makes it impossible for people to seek damages from individual cops when they violate their rights. While good cops might break the blue wall of silence (and they might get punished for it) and they don't violate other's rights and therefore are not protected in court by qualified immunity, the participation of these good cops does nothing to address the system in the first place.
You and I both agree that there are many legal or governmental institutions that are rotten, but police fundamentally protect them and enforce their will. It is police who break strikes. It is the police that arrest protestors and activists. It is the police that hold the power to call legal protests illegal by declaring them riots. Fundamentally, the police protect the system that lets them be corrupt, and make it difficult to change it outside the impossible task of making change within electoral systems.
Police are often an ineffective force at catching criminals. One of the best examples of this is sexual assault and rape. 70% of survivors do not involve the police. All the survivors I know did not call the police. They have good reason not to, 24% of them are arrested after doing so! If a person belongs to a group that is often oppressed by the police, such as gay and trans people, or a group that is criminalized, such as sex workers, there is nowhere for these people to turn in order to get justice.
In the event these people do call the police, odds are there will be no arrests. Only 5% of cases will result in arrest. Fewer will result in convictions and incarceration. (WATR Zine (this is a download link))
On a more ironic note, Policing increases crime. After NYC cops went on strike and reduced proactive policing, major crime reports fell.
While I wholeheartedly support trying to make a change for the better, and protecting and building community, I think police are a terrible way to do so. I think working outside the system is a much better way to materially help people's lives. Organizations like Food Not Bombs helps people with food insecurity eat. Instead of joining the police which might make you destroy homeless encampments and make them worse off, you could instead volunteer at soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Joining an antifascist organization can help protect communities from fascists, but joining the police might make you side with the fascists and protect people with demonstrably harmful rhetoric, or worse, oppressive and murderous, fascist, intent
I still think it is fair to call them bastards. While it sucks to call someone with good intentions a bastard, ACAB points out that police as a whole is a flawed institution, and participating in it does not change that, it reinforces the legitimacy of it, and brings erroneous hope to people that it can be fixed from within, when in reality it needs drastic change if not total abolition.
I genuinely appreciate this, ngl. I live in a very conservative area and when speaking about this, I'm used to discussion quickly devolving into meaningless argument
Even though I agree with all of this, it seems like this speaks more to an american perspective than to any other given country, and all your citations are from an american perspective as well. Though I think you could maybe make an argument on how the police are conventionally leveraged to protect private property, and private property is bad, and how if you were to take away the "protecting private property" element of their job description, you'd basically be abolishing the police. You could make that argument, along more universal lines, but that's kind of contingent on people agreeing that both private property is bad, and that police are exclusively the protectors of private property, and nothing else.
In any case, I wouldn't really be willing to make so certain of a statement on the police departments of other countries. I've never really heard anyone say anything bad about, say, finnish police, for example. British cops, they wear funny hats, they go "oy", and shit, I've not really heard anything good about them, but finnish cops? Never heard bad about them. I also think a lot of what makes the police in america bastards, is because the prison system here is so fucked up and so punitive, and so particularly bad, compared to a lot of other countries.
I also kind of like, as an aside point. What do we do about park rangers? They're technically cops, but you wouldn't really hear anyone thinking that we shouldn't have them, or that they should be actively abolished. I say this to mean, you know, as with the first paragraph, what do we really mean by "police"? You've given a pretty good description of the fact that the police suck, but not really why, or how they could be fixed.
The counter is that the system can’t be changed due to its inherent flaws and foundations in racism and elitism. The system needs to be replaced wholesale, which as big of a proposal as that is is more realistic than changing the existing system.
I’m not gonna pick a side here as I don’t wanna fan the flames, but I will say that I have a good deal of bones to pick with police oversight systems (or lack thereof).
However, this got me thinking: would you say the same thing about restaurant servers? By becoming a server in the U.S., are you not perpetuating a tipping paradigm that has systematically denied the working class billions of dollars of wages that un-tipped employees are entitled to? It’s fairly clear that a “good server” cannot fix the system by participating in it, and given that a server makes the same amount of money as a cop—if not more—it isn’t really fair to say that one group “needs” the job while the other does not.
It’s a curious predicament.
No, I don't think that participation in tipping culture is a good comparison to participating in the policing system.
The only accurate comparisons are: The system is harmful, a good server cannot fix it by participating in it, and servers materially benefit from it.
First, as shitty as it is to not participate in as a customer, tipping culture is, for the most part, optional. When a server indirectly asks me to tip as a customer, I could easily hit the custom tip button and enter 0.00$. That would be shitty on my part as I would be reducing the income of waitstaff who rely on tips. If I tip, I now have a few dollars less, and the waitstaff have a more livable wage. If a police officer asks me to get on the ground with my hands on the back of my head, I don't have much of a choice. If I do, the police officer will likely arrest me, and this compliance is only coming at the threat of what happens if I don't. If I refuse, then the police officer could shoot me (if he deems me a sufficient threat), taze me, pepper spray me, or otherwise physically force me to the ground and possibly injure me. Further, I could get in significant legal trouble for not following the orders, most often in the form of resisting arrest, or possibly getting charged with assaulting a police officer if I act in self defense, regardless if I act within the law. This problem here lies in the fact that there is hierarchic authority that a police officer has which waitstaff lack.
Second, there is something that servers can do to make the system better outside of participating in the system laid out by their boss. While not easy, and with some risks attached, waitstaff can unionize and demand better pay, such that no tips are needed. Obviously, it isn't super likely that the union would remove tips because waitstaff like their tips, but this act will fix one part of the system, being the part that they are not paid living wages before tips. While unlikely, widespread unionization could cause people to want to tip less knowing that waitstaff are able to subsist on wages alone and therefore impact tipping culture.
Cops don't have this ability. I'd argue that police unions are not the same as a typical labor union. Like a normal union, they provide the workers protection from being fired, and have a positive impact on wages. Unlike a police union, police officers are called to break up the strikes of labor unions. If the police union went on strike, the only theoretical way for their employer, the state, to break it up would be using another militaristic arm of the state, be it the state reserve militia, if it exists in that state, or the military in other cases. Unlike calling the police, there is significant political capital being expended when doing this.
Another point to consider with that is which cops are fired, what leads to that happening, the impact of it, and how they are protected. Often, it's "bad cops" rather than good cops, though both is possible. The union often steps in to protect even the worst cops from being fired. The impact of a bad cop is significantly more harmful than a bad server. A bad cop is violent, often kills or maims people, and terrorizes communities. A bad server might spit in my food, let it get cold/warm, or not deliver it at all. Short of physically hitting me (which a union will not protect them for), the most harmful thing they could do is steal my credit card details. Bad cops are fully and legally able to do much worse through civil asset forfeiture.
Lastly, and most importantly, the context of the system is vastly different. I'd argue the most harmful system that is held up by a server working a job isn't tipping culture, but wage labor (and capitalism) itself. Just like police, anyone participating in this system cannot fix it by participating in it. Unlike police, those participating in wage labor lack the power to directly reinforce it through violent action because they lack the state's monopoly on violence that the police lovingly wield. Any harm done by a person reinforcing this system can be offset by various acts, such as creating and participating in labor unions, creating co-ops, protesting and agitating for socialism, etc.
Police, on the other hand, not only indirectly reinforce this system by being payed wages, but they also directly reinforce this system by making it difficult to combat wage labor by breaking up strikes, protecting private property, terrorizing and killing protesters, killing organizers, etc.
Worse yet, police also directly support the hierarchic structure of the state, an unjust hierarchy, and the unjust hierarchies of white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism and cisheteronormativity. Police have always been the arm of the state that has had their literal boot on the neck of black people, suffocating their communities. When the police are not the ones to harm these communities, they often don't do that much to prevent it from happening, or prevent it from happening in the future. Let's not forget that about 50% of those killed by cops have some sort of disability, or their historic violence against LGBTQ people, and how LGBTQ rights were only taken by clashing with the cops at Stonewall and demanding rights. While police aren't the sole people upholding these hierarchies, they are one of the most arms of the state doing it.
While acab is probably too generalized a term to apply to ALL police forces in the world..... Interpreting acab in absolutes is also kinda silly and needlessly pedantic.
If I were to say all Nazi are bastards...... Would we be making the same arguments? Surely there were Nazi that were forced to join the party, surely there were Nazi giving years of their lives to serving their communities, risking their lives and health.
The point of ACAB is to highlight the inherent and institutional failures of policing actions native to the vast majority of western democracies. Where police are primarily utilized to protect property and institutional power, rather than protecting the most disadvantaged communities in our society.
Trouble with that theory is that I think regular people won’t hear something like ‘All Cops Are Bastards’ and immediately think ‘well they probably don’t mean all cops’. It literally says it there.
Maybe because I’m Scottish living in Scotland I’m separate from the US side of the movement/argument but knowing so many good people in the service who have probably done more for their communities than some people spray painting on walls it just sounds so blatant. If it was a different slogan then I doubt people would have an issue with it but not everyone hears all the details about what it apparently means online or whatnot, they just see the words.
No desire to be pedantic at all, just explaining why a lot of folk won’t get behind the message.
ACAISAETOSOOSBTNOTPI or All Cops Are Inherently Supporting And Enforcing The Opressive Systems Of Our Society By The Nature Of The Policing Institution doesn't quite have the same ring to it though.
I mean I get it, "ACAB" sounds a bit like an over-reaction and I wouldn't use that term to talk about Belgian cops, but within leftist circles like lemmy I think it's an acceptable shorthand since 90+ percent of people already understand The Discourse™ on some level.
Haha that acronym gave me a chuckle.
Yeah I get it, I just don’t like when things are reduced to all x’s are y’s, think that kind of polarised thinking isn’t helpful when the world has a whole lot of grey in it. Equally if someone is happy to post a comment like that online I don’t think there is anything bad about chatting it through like reasonable humans.
I'm very left wing and I hate the ACAB slogan.
I’ve never heard a progressive, liberal or democrat call themselves “left wing” before
Thanks for expanding my world view!
I'm not American so labels like democrat and liberal mean nothing to me. Consequently I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate
It was a legitimate thanks for being you
I'm sorry - I'm a bit dense sometimes when it comes to interpreting comments on the net.
Follow up question: is left wing a loaded term in US politics? It doesn't seem to me that US conservatives mind being called right wing?
No need to apologize haha
And I don’t think so, it’s just another word for progressive or any other number of synonymous words which equate to “we want to push society out of stale behaviors and encourage constant reevaluation and adjustment.
Some people just can’t handle that sort of thing for one reason or another
PEB
Policing Enables Bastards
Meanwhile, “ACAB” is obviously wrong and disrespect to anyone who signs up to get fired for being a good cop.
Don’t need to say literally wrong things that have to be re-explained, even if it is catchy. Be The Change!
AACABAL! (All ACAB’rs Are Lazy!) :)
See, that expresses that it's a systemic issue and that consequently some cops are bastards without damning everyone who is part of a large diverse group. It's even a simpler acronym. Brilliant
Must be the third time I’ve shared it in the past year or two… first compliment! :)
As a New Zealander, I feel the same way about ACAB as you. I definitely have issues with the Police and I definitely think they're a racist institution (NZ stats back that up) but ACAB is a shitty slogan IMO
So what's the alternative to police? Just getting rid of them would just lead to militias taking their place which would be much worse.
Defunding them and diverting those resources into social services that have been shown to actually give back in meaningful ways to the communities and safety/effectively deescalate tense situations without committing atrocities while perpetuating systemic hate-based violence.
There does need to be someone with a gun I can call if someone is literally breaking into my home intent on murdering my family. But outside of those extreme and fringe outlier circumstances, society would be much better served by well-funded social workers and emergency first responders who are trained to resolve conflicts while actually helping those in need of it without threat of eminent deadly violence.
Reality is and always should have been cops do cop things. Locally. Traffic shit should be department of transportation. etc. etc.
Make local cops walk local beats and only focus on the community safety and suddenly things get better. 'Us vs Them' is a pretty easy thing to spin when they only are a corrective force with a chip on their shoulder.
Proper training, education, and being held accountable for your actions will filter out the bad blood quickly enough.
Defund is frankly a word that was selected poorly. It implies punishment. It only amplifies the 'Us vs Them' narrative on both 'sides.'
ACAB? No. Problem with corruption and a system that spits out at best tight lipped accomplices and at worst zealots brandishing 'might makes right' ideals? Yep.
Fix the system and the problem fixes itself.
Isn't that basically how it is in the UK where most cops don't have guns?
We have this many places in Europe. The police are not even allowed to wear guns in Norway (and frankly do not need them) unless there is some special intelligence or something making a reason for it. That does not absolve the need for state controlled monopoly on violence. It only means that is should be limited and wielded with the utmost care.
If we do things properly, then no one should have a need to break in to your house (because everyone's material needs would be met), and if you've given someone reason to kill you, calling someone with a gun to kill them isn't going to solve anything. If they're mentally unwell, calling a person with a gun is even worse.
The second option you gave is more than enough 99.99% of the time.
Some degree of community defence might be imperative, but it should never be one person with one gun who is in charge of "enforcement", but everyone would be trained and everyone would have access, and in a time of real need (like an external and violent threat to the community) those ready and available can do what is needed, but again - killing someone isn't it 99.99% of the time.
I do not disagree
Much worse for who? Who does the police actually benefit today? and who is it harming? do you care about those people? The police are not even legally required to protect you, and don't in practice, why do you think they do anything to benefit society? Why are you so desperate to maintain the boot on your neck?
Thousands of people and organisations have answered your question in great depth over the years, all you have to do is be willing to set your obvious existing bias aside, and look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-manifesto-for-the-abolition-of-the-police
https://abolitionistfutures.com/latest-news/9m1jx98mayqvorjm7ij8x0zv9g5f85
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rose-city-copwatch-alternatives-to-police
https://gal-dem.com/how-does-police-abolition-work/
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/may-day-collective-solidarity-defense-12-things-to-do-instead-of-calling-the-cops
My point is: if police were completely abolished, conservatives and the far right would feel very unsafe and immediately form militias that enforce their values. That would be much worse for everyone who doesn't share their values, of course.
I get that in many countries, police is badly regulated and you might say that this wouldn't actually change much, but I'd rather seek more accountability for police, compared to a complete abolishion, leaving a power vaccum that'll be filled by right wing militias with zero accountability.
Divesting seems good to me though, much of the police is certainly overfunded (due to law and order populism) and does useless shit (like the war on drugs), while education, social workers and programs against poverty are severely underfunded. Changing this would surely help a lot with crime reduction and other issues.
Thanks for the links by the way, I will look more into them when I have more time to see if my concerns regarding abolishion are addressed.
Not saying the concept of police is bad, but the situation here is that some cops have been such assholes that all the good cops quit. Now only the worse individuals remain, and they protect each other so they fear nothing
Robert Peele's Nine Principles of Policing are a good start:
Yeah nah. This is such an American way to look at the world