BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

* So When Would You Call The Police?

  
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
 
alas
09:48 / 10.01.02
sfd--awhile ago I read a book called cunt by a woman named inga muscio. she argues that instead of kowtowing to (what she sees as) the legal system's patriarchal approach to punishing rape, which often punishes the victim as much or more than the rapist, groups of women engage in what she calls "c.p.r.": cuntlovin' public retaliation. (Note, she doesn't deal with same-sex rape, as I recall--I don't know if that makes a difference.)

I'd be interested in your thoughts on her diy approach to punishing rape. she suggests group activities that don't break too many laws or become particularly violent--which she argues is for stupid unimaginative people. Say, having 200 women show up at the job of the attacker, perhaps with rotten eggs to place strategically on his body. Or forcing the attacker to walk through a crowd of angry, silent, staring chanting women on the way to his car from the supermarket. Filling h car up with rotting fishheads and limburger cheese.

The idea being to send a signal that the community opposes rape and punishes those who practice it--AND that women don't need men or a juridical patriarchy to "do justice" for them. Does this sound like a possibility to you? If the group is big enough and the action is well planned, could this work in a situation like yours?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
10:14 / 10.01.02
This is a bit of a diversion, but this reminds me a bit of somebody on the magic saying that he believed...um...I think it was that his girlfriend's uncle had molested her, and was asking how he should punish him using his magic. Surely this has a similar problem - that without a conviction and without any great accountability, you are pillorying somebody who has not actually been found guilty of rape.

Problem being of course that rape is famously hard to make stick in a court of law, and rape victims receive famously poor treatment from the police and the courts. So perhaps the procedures and processes shoudl be changed, but is their curret inadequacy a good reason to adopt vigilante tactics?

I'm kind of conflicted on this one...
 
 
Fist Fun
10:27 / 10.01.02
An interesting idea, a group of people who apprehend people who they think are bad and punish them. Hmmm, that isn't right though is it. Maybe if we just had a group of people who apprehended people who have done bad things, according to a set of guidelines defined and refined by government, and then handed them over to a court. Would that be a good idea?

[ 10-01-2002: Message edited by: Buk ]
 
 
Shortfatdyke
10:43 / 10.01.02
alas - again, the theory is good. it sounds empowering. but with vigilante action we are always in danger of 'paedeatrician' syndrome, if you recall, i.e. a bunch of fuelled up idiots getting the wrong people.

i would like to denounce this woman, in some way, that's for sure. but i have known people to cry 'abuser!' at women who either a) weren't telepathic and didn't realise that they were doing something the other party didn't like or b) simply split up with someone who couldn't handle it.

gotta be careful with this stuff.
 
 
MJ-12
11:22 / 10.01.02
Also, while this brings attention to someone, it doesn't take them off the streets, and this kind of public scorn could be what drives someone who is already somewhat dangerous completely off the rails. One would have to be really careful about applying this.
 
 
BioDynamo
11:53 / 10.01.02
Ha!

I'm going to answer the original question, five pages of shouting. I will also engage in my typical self-promotion, but you'll just have to live with that.

At the moment I would not call the police for anything, really. Not only, but mainly due to having a largely illegal lifestyle, i.e. squatting (still! 10 weeks and counting..) a house that the police don't know is squatted.

Other reasons for distrusting the police are largely those that have been aired by others: the legal framework the police operates in bases it's legitimacy on upholding the current social and political structure. Therefore it is probable, and has several times been demonstrated, that the police as an institution and as individuals will specifically target those attempting to change or overturn the current order.

HOWEVER, last autumn, when we did a huge public squat, we called the police for protection against private security guards, not once, but several times.

I was not happy about this, primarily because it gave the police a chance to 'play good', walk into the house freely, and prepare for their final eviction, which they knew was going to come. So, they promised us they would let us know in advance of when they were going to evict us so we could move out in good order.. did they? Of course not. Unfortunately several people had believed their promises, and talked a lot to the police.

Why did we call them? Well, I basically prefer some kind of "people's militia", self-organized and so on. However, as for defending the squat, it could have been done with paintbombs or rocks or whatnot, but politicaly and physically, that would probably have been the death of us.

So, when you can have some use for them, why not use the structures that are in place now? But always try to construct your own, better ones, instead.
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:56 / 10.01.02
rosa - I did say that there are, and should be, certain limitations on forced used. reasonable force detaining someone can involve injury. Im not saying the police or a victim has the right to deliberately cause needless harm on someone, or that even a convicted criminal shouldnt be allowed retribution if he has in turn been victimized
 
 
Ganesh
12:12 / 10.01.02
Mm. Yes, until psychic nonce-sniffing courts are properly established, we're stuck with the mundanity of physical evidence-gathering and attempting to prove guilt before actually going on to the more exciting punishment part. Ah well...
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:15 / 10.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Buk:
An interesting idea, a group of people who apprehend people who they think are bad and punish them. Hmmm, that isn't right though is it. Maybe if we just had a group of people who apprehended people who have done bad things, according to a set of guidelines defined and refined by government, and then handed them over to a court. Would that be a good idea?


Well, it would separate those who apprehended them from those who judged whether they were innocent or guilty of the crime they were apprehended under suspicion of committing. Hey, you could even get a jury of their peers in to make the decision comparatively apolitical or non-autocratic. You know, compared to your Judge Dredd paradigm.

[ 10-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Rain ]
 
 
Fist Fun
12:23 / 10.01.02
If only it existed already.

[ 10-01-2002: Message edited by: Buk ]
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:35 / 10.01.02
did someone edit the part where I said "go on and beat the shit out of people you perceive as potential offenders?". because although I certainly dont remember typing it, and I KNOW I didnt think it

heres my point, broken down, tell me which you disagree with, exactly:

1. the police have a responsibility, as part of their job duties, to arrest people that they have a reason to believe has been engaged in committing a crime. this includes putting them in handcuffs, placing them in their car, and taking them to a station. this must occur regardless of the severity and presence (or lack of) violence in the alleged crime

2. if the alleged offender fights against arrest, the officer is still obligated to follow through with the arrest and the subsequent physical transferal of the purported offender. this may involve physically restraining the person, and a struggle may ensue to meet that end

3. if you struggle with someone who has a specific goal in mind, you may very well become injured or injure someone else

4. in the end, the supposed criminal will be arrested as planned. this is regardless of whether the person is actually guilty or not. just as the assumed criminal has the right to be treated innocent until proven guilty, the police and the civilians they have been called to "protect" have the right to have the process followed through with.

5. the police are not psychic. just as they do not know that you are guilty, they also do not know that you are innocent or that you arent a dangerous person. they have the right - and a responsibility - to treat someone who reacts in a violent manner to arrest as someone who is potentially dangerous. this DOES NOT MEAN they have the right to harm you purposely, but in the process of trying to detain you as you fight against them (or flee, or whatever) injury is a very real possibility that youve chosen for yourself by fighting, knowing full well what the definite outcome is (arrest)

on another note, if you break into someones house and trip over a broken step, you shouldn’t be able to file a suit against the homeowner. why? even though it cant be readily, immediately proven you were there with the express purpose of committing a crime, it is a fact that you are there without knowledge or permission of the homeowners permission and are therefore trespassing. you cannot expect the homeowner to have provided you with a reasonable expectation of safety

so which part, exactly is incorrect?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
13:40 / 10.01.02
I think it's the idea that any violence perpetrated by the police on a suspect can be explained away as resulting from the suspect's 'violent attempts to resist arrest/aggression towards a police officer' which is bothering people. You know - as in those stories when it emerges that the police beat up a suspect in an attempt to force a confession or for whatever reason - and yet they were able to claim in court that they were protecting themselves against violence. there have been a couple of cases in the UK in the last five years or so where the suspect has actually died as a result of police beating. I think that's what's making people wary of saying that injury can result from a legitimate process.
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:52 / 10.01.02
I can see that point, too. I have no troubles with criminal charges being filed in reference to injuries met by the hands of police or citizens, but rather with the frivolous civil suits that everyone is throwing around at the drop of a hat. a police officer who is overly rough in handling a potential lawbreaker should at least be reprimanded, if not altogether removed or jailed
 
 
Captain Zoom
16:09 / 10.01.02
Looks like I got to this party late.

I've only ever called the police twice. Once when I was working at a record store and a guy ran out of the store with a handful of CD's and one of the other guys chased him.

The other time was on a Canada Day weekend at my campground. I was out doing rounds and some of the kids on the park had gotten very drunk and very beligerent. After a few exchanges with them, and fearing for my safety, I called the police, who promptly ticketed one of them and made it seem like it would be very inconvenient to drag these guys away. Not a perfect solution, but I was happy for their presence. If only they'd been there the next morning when I had to go and kick the guys out....

A quick thought on people who hurt themselves committing a crime and file suit. If someone breaks into a house and trips on a stair and tries to sue the homeowners, I think the judge should put on a big fucking boot, kick the person in the head, dump them in a ditch and tell them not to be so stupid. As I said, I got here a little late, but why on earth should a criminal have any rights if he/she's violating the rights of others?

I dunno, I'm sure there's absolutely airtight reasons why my above statement is totally wrong, but I can't think of any right now.

Sorry to interrupt.

Zoom.
 
 
Ganesh
16:16 / 10.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Captain Zoom:
A quick thought on people who hurt themselves committing a crime and file suit. If someone breaks into a house and trips on a stair and tries to sue the homeowners, I think the judge should put on a big fucking boot, kick the person in the head, dump them in a ditch and tell them not to be so stupid. As I said, I got here a little late, but why on earth should a criminal have any rights if he/she's violating the rights of others?

I guess it's a question of timing and proof. In your example, it's important in the first instance to establish that the individual in question is indeed a "criminal" (ie. they've forced entry without consent, blah blah) - the whole "innocent until proven guilty thing" - before throwing the case out of court.
 
 
Not Here Still
16:26 / 10.01.02
Just for information - the Spanner (S'n'M) case official website.
 
 
Jackie Susann
07:34 / 11.01.02
Bitchiekittie - I was genuinely asking you to clarify, not attacking you, because it was kind of hard to work out what you were saying, but parts of it sounded potentially dodgy, i.e.

quote:my thought is that a person who is injured in the midst of committing a crime shouldnt be allowed the expectation of reasonable certainty for his safety.

quote:a person shouldnt be held accountable for a persons safety [...] while being detained by the police.

The first one is pretty oxymoronic, since almost by definition everyone is entitled to a "reasonable" certainty for their safety. If they weren't, it wouldn't be reasonable. And I think the idea that criminals routinely sue home-owners for broken steps they tripped over is pretty much a right-wing fantasy - I welcome evidence to the contrary.

The second one, I pretty much figured what you were saying, but I still think it's dodgy. Police are extremely, extremely rarely reprimanded for violence against suspects - at least in Australia, maybe I am underestimating anglo/american cops? However, there is a massively widespread culture of cops beating "suspects" - mainly out of a sense of entitlement to enforce their ideas about social norms. It is utterly, utterly routine for cops to beat petty criminals they don't think they can convict. They do this, largely, because they know the victims won't complain - what would you say? The cops picked me up carrying pot/stealing a purse and beat the shit out of me?

This is what I have a problem with. Saying people should be able to pursue reparations from the cops is useless, because i) cops stick together, and it is virtually impossible to prove (at minimum, you need a witness who saw you immediately before your arrest, and one who saw you right after your release, who can say you weren't injured when they picked you up and were when you came out; then you have to hope the cops won't just say you resisted arrest), and ii) because many of their victims - typically, petty crims, teenagers, and the homeless - don't have great access to the legal system.

What needs to happen is a fucking huge change in police culture, the sense of entitlement and, indeed, obligation to dish out their own ideas of summary punishment.

Edited to clarify - I am not saying that all or even most cops beat suspects. However I am saying that there is both a culture that condones such behaviour and a lack of institutional means for reporting or dealing with it.

[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Dread Pirate Crunchy ]
 
 
bitchiekittie
11:50 / 11.01.02
I completely understand what you are saying, as well - I think my original assertion seemed to point to banning all retribution for suspected criminals for any injury incurred, which is really not what Id meant to convey - sorry, a bit of cloudiness on my part. however, I was instead referring to civil cases brought forth by a convicted guilty party, where the criminal in question sought monetary benefits for the perceived impingement of his rights or safety, rather than any true, deliberate damages done (for example, anything beyond reasonable force for the purposes of detainment). a criminal suit against the parties supposedly responsible for the criminals injury, however, is another matter entirely

and you may be right about the right-wing fantasy. my mind wanders
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:47 / 14.01.02
I would call the police when and only when I was reasonably convinced that a person was going to be harmed in some way. This would include scenarios such as a break-in where a person's home and possessions might be stolen/damaged as this would cause severe distress, which I would characterize as "harm". There are of course grey areas here; I'd be less likely to call if the home was a 12-bedroom mansion and more likely to raise a false alarm if the percieved danger related to a child.

I would certainly agree that the police force as it stands suffers from appalling levels of institutionalized racism and just about any other prejudice one cares to think of (decent individuals notwithstanding). Unfortunately, there are circumstances when they are the only resort left.

[ 14-01-2002: Message edited by: Mordant C@rnival ]
 
 
The Planet of Sound
08:48 / 15.01.02
BK, the idea of any mob sidestepping courts to inflict 'street justice': sounds a bit like those good ol' Klan boys to me. If we have no faith in our legal processes, it's up to us to do everything we can to lobby, demonstrate, publicise.

Personally, I think most police do a great job, God bless 'em. I've been arrested (quite rightly), I've been on demonstrations and I've called the police after being mugged. In all these situations the police involved acted responsibly and professionally. I'm really, extremely happy that some of my tax money goes to pay my own personal set of guards on the street, that I can phone at any time (24 hour service) if I feel I'm in danger. I'd much rather my money went to them than to the Royal family or civil servants, for example.

Brrrr. Not very 'wevolutionary', am I, Rik?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:59 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by The Planet of Sound:
Personally, I think most police do a great job, God bless 'em... I'm really, extremely happy that some of my tax money goes to pay my own personal set of guards on the street, that I can phone at any time (24 hour service) if I feel I'm in danger.

Kind of begs the answer: well, of course you think the police do a great job. They act, as you say, as your own personal security force. The point that has been raised several times already in this thread, is that they do not act as everyone's personal security force (in fact, their actions may often serve to put other people's security and even safety in jeopardy) - and that in an ideal society, should a security force be deemed necessary, they would presumable seek to protect the health, safety and security of all members of that society equally.
 
 
The Planet of Sound
08:59 / 15.01.02
I know, it must be awful for those rich people who live in big houses in the country to know that when they phone the police it will probably take half an hour to an hour longer for them to arrive than if someone were to phone who lived in the middle of a large city. If only the police would offer the same standard of care to rich country dwellers as they do to inner-city dwellers, the world would be a better place.

I also think the police should be paid a lot more.
 
 
Fist Fun
13:57 / 15.01.02
quote:to protect the health, safety and security of all members of that society equally.

Maybe the reasons are personal, maybe the reasons are political, maybe the reasons are even objective. Whatever the reason I honestly feel that this is what the UK policeforce do. I've never experienced, first or secondhand, anything to change that opinion.
If they didn't then I would expect it to be a matter of concern to everyone. I would expect to use my democratic vote to change the system.


"A public force is required to guarantee the [above] rights. It is instituted for the benefit of all, not for the use of those to whom it is entrusted."


Name the quote.
 
 
MJ-12
14:10 / 15.01.02
declaration of the roghts of man
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:21 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Buk:
Whatever the reason I honestly feel that this is what the UK policeforce do. I've never experienced, first or secondhand, anything to change that opinion.

You did read the whole of this thread, right?
 
 
bitchiekittie
14:37 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by The Planet of Sound:
BK, the idea of any mob sidestepping courts to inflict 'street justice': sounds a bit like those good ol' Klan boys to me
what on earth? where did I say anything even approaching this?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
15:58 / 15.01.02
quote:Originally posted by The Planet of Sound:
BK, the idea of any mob sidestepping courts to inflict 'street justice': sounds a bit like those good ol' Klan boys to me.

...except that the Klan is just a small group of dangerous idiots not really at all interested in justice of any kind. I see your point, though. Mobs enforcing "street justice" = bad thing. Just pointing something out...

[ 15-01-2002: Message edited by: Johnny the Zen bastard ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
01:37 / 16.01.02
quote: If they didn't then I would expect it to be a matter of concern to everyone. I would expect to use my democratic vote to change the system.

Is this the best argument ever or what? If there was something wrong we would be fixing it; we are not fixing it; therefore, there is nothing wrong.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
02:13 / 16.01.02
Well, bitchykittie, I'm glad we cleared up our misunderstanding. Sort of. I'm glad you weren't implying what I thought you were implying...

"If they didn't then I would expect it to be a matter of concern to everyone. I would expect to use my democratic vote to change the system."

How do you know who 'everyone' is? How do you know it's not a matter of concern to lots of people already?

Let's just say that 'hypothetically' people *are* getting bashed by the police and/or arrested because of their skin colour, sexuality, gender or class. Are you going to ring up your local member? Are you going to use your vote? How are you going to use your vote?

Like Crunchy said above, the culture of the police meshes with a whole lot of other things (among them the myth of parliamentary democracy) to distribute power in ways that mean the people with 'a voice' don't think anything is wrong with the system at all. It self-reproduces.
 
 
Fist Fun
07:57 / 16.01.02
Perhaps I am naive. Perhaps I am unaware of the facts. If that is the case then I want my eyes to be opened. I want to be informed. I want to get angry.
Is there any system which has an acceptable police presence? Anywhere? I find it worrying that while the concept of police has been called into question, at the same time someone puts forward the idea of vigilante justice and there is no outcry. Posters are conflicted about that, think maybe they should tread carefully on that one.
The NHS is widely regarded as a mess. Are we going to diss the doctors and nurses? Are we going to abandon free, universal healthcare? Are we going to decide to banish disease? Or are we going to improve the service and make it what it should be.
I'm not stating my opinion here to be controversial or argumentative. I don't want it to be brushed aside with a snide putdown. If I am hopelessly wrong on this then I want access to the reasoning which will change my mind.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:00 / 16.01.02
Just answering the question, though my attitude in the argument'll probably come out anyway...
The last time I was mugged, I called the police. I wasn't going to, but I'd just phoned my flatmate at work to tell her what had just happened (starting off in a "you won't believe what the fuck just happened to me" way, but ending up in tears) and when she got home, she made me phone them. They turned up, seemed largely skeptical of the whole thing, spent ages taking notes, told me that if I'd voluntarily handed over the money then no crime had been committed EVEN IF the guy had been threatening me with violence (so the "demanding money with menaces" thing is off the statute book, then, and the advice the cops always give on TV to always give 'em the stuff rather than risk your life is bollocks, yes?). Couple of days later, I get a letter with my name spelt totally wrong from the Victim Support place, and I thought- if they spent twenty fucking minutes taking down information from me, and part of that was me spelling my name out to them letter by letter, and they still get that wrong, then what the fuck was the point of all the rest of it?
I would have come over all smug and "I told you it'd be a waste of fucking time" at my flatmate, but it would have seemed ungrateful given her concern.
Not a big fan of the cops. It's a nice idea, but like most nice ideas, when it's done badly, it's worse than useless. YES, in our current society we need some kind of policing. But the kind we have right now is dangerous, bigoted and deeply unpleasant. (Yes, that's a hideous generalisation, but my local nick is Stoke Newington- the highest record in the country, so far as I know, for black deaths in police custody, as well as the same nick which four years ago saw 37 officers suspended for dealing crack. Ten minutes down the road from my house is the place where Harry Stanley was shot dead for crossing a road with a carrier bag containing a chair leg. He was a carpenter. He was given no warning. Someone had phoned the cops about "an Irishman carrying what looks like a gun". He wasn't even Irish.)
My main run-ins with the cops have been at demos, where, yes, I didn't agree with their actions, but I knew the risks I was taking and was prepared to face the consequences.
I dunno... people keep getting shot by civilians as well... it's a tricky one.
 
 
The Planet of Sound
13:06 / 16.01.02
Sincere apologies, BK; mixing you up with someone else. Whoever it was: point still stands. Instant justice without trial baaaaad...
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:28 / 16.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Buk:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to protect the health, safety and security of all members of that society equally.


Maybe the reasons are personal, maybe the reasons are political, maybe the reasons are even objective. Whatever the reason I honestly feel that this is what the UK policeforce do. I've never experienced, first or secondhand, anything to change that opinion.


Um...not wishing to be rude or anything, but were you in Britain for the Miner's Strike? Or the publication of the Macpherson report? Or the recent vogue for discovering that handy Irish people had been fitted up for terrorist acts of which they were innocent?

Of course, if you're not a striker, or black, or Irish, it's probably easier to see this as equal treatment, but it's a new and exciting idea of equality.
 
 
Fist Fun
13:56 / 16.01.02
Very true. There have been terrible miscarriages of justice. Is that the norm though? That is what I am trying to get my head round. Do the police routinely perpetrate injustice? If so what is the alternative? There must be an example of an incorrupt policeforce somewhere. If there isn't then what do we do instead? If not this, what? If not now, when?
...I just feel like I am asking tough questions here, trying to weigh up the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion, come to the right conclusion, try to cast bias aside...but the tough questions remain unanswered...

[ 16-01-2002: Message edited by: Buk ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:08 / 16.01.02
Actually, you were not asking questions at all. You were *stating* that you had never encountered anything at first or second hand to suggest that the police did anything other than treat every citizen equally. Have you now altered that perception to "The police are in general a good thing"? Very different proposition.
 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
  
Add Your Reply