Hating Police

Jul 9, 2001, 3:40 PM ET25 posts by 6 posters
25 posts
Fong Chih

A member of this newsgroup has expressed his *ahem* dissatisfaction with the way the police are performing their duties. Since that person includes this fact in most of the arguments he makes, I will attempt to reply to them collectively, rather than to each individual topic.

A word of history first. I am a 19 year old Chinese male, American born, living in Hawaii but fortunate enough to get accepted to the University of Southern California. My parents were born in Taiwan, and emigrated to the United States as students. My grandparents fled from China to Taiwan with the Nationalists, and my Great-grandparents were actively fighting first the Japanese invasion, and later the Communists. Therefore, neither I, nor my parents, nor my grandparents, nor my great-grandparents can be guilty of racism as it exists in America.

Of course, I really can't offer any proof of the above. You'll just have to trust me and frankly, we have to start trusting sometime.

As for political ideology, I range from moderate on some subjects (gun control) to very liberal (religion and gay rights, don't get me started on those). My personal morals ans ethics are based on the conservative Chinese ethics, though they have been altered to deal with the American.

All this may seem superfluous, but I simply wanted you to understand by background, so you can see where my arguments are coming from and hopefully, understand my point of view. I'll see if I can understand yours.

There is no doubt that the police are a perfect organization, or almost perfect for that matter. In the police, as in any organization, will have those which will abuse their power. That has generally been the fall of empires, not by forces from without, but from corruption within. The police are no different than any organization, and the fact that the individual members wield tremendous power leads to many cases when this power can be abused, often with tragic results.

However, when the writers of the Constitution wrote it, they had just escaped from what they believed was a tyrannical government. They did put safeguards in the Constitution to protect their citizens from such abuses. Now though they technically protected everyone, they were not available to everyone for quite some time, and still not very available now. Why?

The answer, of course, is society. This government is made of nothing more than a collection of individuals. The individuals in power are the ones who make the government run. Back then, only white males were in charge, and it was the general consensus of society at the time that ONLY white males would run things, and that's how things were. However, society has more or less been shifting in a liberal direction, as suffrage, recognition, and civil rights were slowly granted to minorities. They're not perfect, I know. The point is, society now is a LOT different than it was just 20 years ago.

Well, one might say "So what? Police still commit outrages against minorities. Nothing's changed." Well, society HAS changed, a lot. The important thing is that these outrages are treated AS outrages, ant not ignored by the press or it's citizens. The police, and the entire department, were smashed by the fist of public scrutiny. Now during the "jim crow" era you were talking about, everyone would have looked the other way. Plus there are more people like me than there were in societies past (you have the support of a Chinese Computer Nerd. Isn't that nice :D ).

Now let's look at the police, is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? To answer that question, one must compare the good it does, to the harm it does, and see which one is greater, since you are talking about the ABOLITION (as opposed to the re-organization) of the police. The main duty of the police is deterrence, not actually arresting people. Many of the people out there would commit petty (or not-so petty) crimes, but don't do so because they are afraid of being caught by the police. Certainly people do commit crimes, but they are a cumbersome process, since they inevitably include safeguards which prevent them from getting caught (at least with relatively smart criminals). Without police, the crime rate WOULD skyrocket, including quite a few assaults, murders, and hate crimes.

Taking all that into account, I think that the police should be reformed, but not abolished.

Christopher MortonFong Chih

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:40:57 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

I think that Patrick Dorismond and Amadou Diallo are dissatisfied with the police... I'm not sure though, they don't return my calls....

Conservative Chinese ethics included at one time, collective responsibility.

How did these protections benefit the Japanese-Americans in 1942?

What has the "outrage" done for Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond? Are they no longer dead?

A dangerous thing. Sometimes a necessary thing, but always a dangerous thing.

The police always want to be absolved of responsibility for their actions, no matter how outragious they might be. They become very much more dangerous when we given in to those demands.

Then the police are a miserable failure, since they deter very little crime here. In the United States the main function of the police is the INVESTIGATION of crime and the apprehension of suspects.

When the NYPD went on strike in the '60s(?) the crime rate went DOWN.

The police need to be PURGED. Of course even that's problematical. Nobody thought they could purge the Gestapo or the Kempetai. I question whether you can reform the NYPD, LAPD or Chicago PD.

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Fong ChihChristopher Morton

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

the

this

Well, "dissatisfaction" was a deliberate understatement. Besides, I already heard you talk about those two. Many times.

Well, you ARE generally a part of your family, and what you do reflects on your family. I don't quite see how relavent it is though. Banding together against the tyranical government? Actually, the Chinese culture includes respect authorities and elders (as well as several long outdated traditions.) Of course a lot of that no longer applies.

put

abuses.

They didn't. I explained in the following section why not (which you did not include in your reply) and why it's diffrent now (which you did include.)

other

past

The consequences of a crime never prevents the crime itsself. When a man kills someone else, he still needs to be caught and punished, even if it can't bring the dead person back. This is also preferable to how things would have been.

My argument is NOT that we have a perfect society, but that society is changing in that direction. Before, people thought such things are right. Now, most people know that it's wrong, but it takes a while for deep seeted societal modes to change things around. Then, of course, there are certain groups who seek to go back to The Way Things Were (which shall go unnamed, everyone should know who they are.)

To

duty

Well, I'm no expert but the absence of a law enforcement authority should increase the crime rate, as there is no longer a fear of getting caught.

do

people

inevitably

According to http://www.nycop.com/Stories/Jun_00/The_Police_Strike/body_the_police_strike .html it was in the 70's and laster five days (if it's the same strike you had in mind). That's not statistically significant in terms of crime rates. I know it's not the best source, but it's all I could come up with (search for "NYPD" and you get "NYPD Blue".)

There are various degrees of reform, ranging from no reform at all to executing all police members in the most painful and public manner possible and then sicking their heads on pikes as a warning to others. The more extreme it is, the more damage there is to the general social structure. However, any short term damage should be worth it in the long run if the orginization that results is more effective than the original orginization.

The point being that there needs to be a resulting orginization. Executing the police and recruiting new members is acceptable, but extreme. Disbanding the police permanently is a bad thing though, as it leaves NO resulting orginization to provide the increased benefits which are the goal of any reform.

Christopher MortonFong Chih

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:24:25 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

Why shouldn't they be talked about, "many times"? The NYPD and the "New York Post" among others don't want those cases talked about, but then the NYPD brooks no criticism, and the "Post" is their principle cheerleader (apart from Ghouliani) anyway.

Collective responsibility as practiced by the Legalists wasn't limited to the family. It included the members of one's neighborhood in the cities, in a fashion similar to, but more extreme than that used in Cuba today. The Cuban style "block watch" concept still prevails in China, but then China's a police state. I'd like to avoid that kind of thing here.

How IS it different now? If I'm not mistaken, the court decisions permitting the Japanese Internment were never struck down.

It CAN happen again.

How have the killers of Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond been "punished"? The last I'd heard, none had been fired, and one was trying to become an NYC fireman.

Criminals by their own admission fear getting beaten or shot more than they fear being arrested.

But it's a datapoint in my favor. You just have conjecture.

What's more damaging to the social structure, cleaning the criminals and sadists out of the police ranks or making it obvious to everyone that they operate with impunity?

Then let's fire the NYPD en masse the way Clinton got rid of the Federal Prosecutors and start over from scratch.

If your library has recent copies of "New Republic", look up the case of the New York (or New Jersey) police department that was caught (among other things) using traffic stops to hit on women. Would they REALLY be worse off with no police department?

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Fong ChihChristopher Morton

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

"Many times" meaning "once every other post." I see your point.

China right now is back to a opressed pesantry being ruled by an Emporer, only they call it "The Communist Party." Chinese culture then and Chinese culture now were essencially police states which make America look good, so they are generally bad examples.

But didn't. Not against the Koreans, Vietnamese, or Arabians. Some Pacific Islanders really got fucked over though, as well as some US servicemen. That was during the 50's.

OK, now something resonable. The orginization of the NYPD was forced to change it's tactics, so things like this would not happen again. Plus Mayor G_____(won't attempt to spell) approval rating took a dive.

It's virtually nothing, it's unfair to the victims, it's not justice. It's a lot more justice than if the same thing happened 10 years ago.

By police? Being beaten is for worse than getting caught, so naturally it would be feared more. You really think if there were no police that the crime rate would not go up? I know some people who would be comitting crimes against people who "deserved it" if there were no one to stop them.

e

in

for

What point in your favor? 5 days out of 365 is NOT statistically significant, according to statistical rules. Probability analysis is a science, not an art.

reformed,

possible

If you have't noticed, I support reform of corrupt police departments. Please don't attack arguments I don't make.

orginization.

Executing

goal

Yes.

YOU'RE MISSING MY POINT!!!

Is the existing Police system bad? No shit. THAT'S WHY IT SHOULD BE REFORMED!!

That way, the new system will not repeat the outrages. Spending all those knives, pikes, and piano wire to execute the police department just to put in another one which is exactly the same is a colossal waste of time. Hence, why the new police department will NOT do things like shoot people without cause.

Christopher MortonFong Chih

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:25:06 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

China hasn't been "communist" for over a decade. It's just back to the traditional corrupt, authoritarian regime with "communism" as a prop.

The Chinese "Communist" Party is no more about communism than the Gambino crime family is about Sicilian nationalism.

It didn't happen UNTIL it happened in 1941-1942. So it CAN happen again. Certainly there's no LEGAL reason why it can't. The Supreme Court said so.

You didn't answer my question. How were the cops PUNISHED?

The NYPD CLAIMS it's changed things, but they went right out and murdered Patrick Dorismond AFTER they murdered Amadou Diallo.

As for Ghouliani, his response to the Dorismond case was to ILLEGALLY publish parts of Dorismond's juvenile records.

How can NOTHING be more than something? NOTHING meaningful was done... except to show the police that they can commit murder with impunity.

By civilians. Criminals in the US generally avoid occupied dwellings. They might get shot.

After a few criminals bit the dust, they'd know where it was safe to work. In many instances, police serve only to protect criminals.

It's an art... otherwise Al Gore would be president by a landslide.

Your support for such measures seems tepid at best.

No, I'm rejecting it.

The police were COMMITTING much of the crime.

They didn't want to be reformed. They were willing to use physical intimidation to prevent it too.

Single bullet to the back of the neck. The classics never go out of style....

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Fong ChihChristopher Morton

Hey, welcome back!

Just asking, how come you never participate in any of the normal Daria discussions. I'm not much of a character or literary analyst, but I put in my two cents once in a while.

Christopher MortonFong Chih

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:07:08 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

I was shooting the National Matches at Camp Perry.

I guess you missed my recent comments on why guys (as opposed to teenage girls) watch "Daria".

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Fong ChihChristopher Morton

All right, I beleive that I have figured out how your little mind workd.

You are currently wallowing in a vat of self pity. "Oh, please pity me. I live in such an unfair society! Everyone hates me, it must be all that damn racism." You blame everything on the police and the "system" and jump on whatever excuse you can to blame it. You talk a lot about "revolution" and "fighting for freedom" from a "corrupt police state" because you can safely say those things without having to do anything. You can't, however, say "I'm going to write a petition and send it to city hall [or whereever]" because THAT would include doing actual WORK!!

You know what, the Asians haven't been having it good in America either. There are a whole lot less of US than there are of YOU. So what do we do? Let me give you a hint. We don't bitch and whine and moan and say "poor me." We simply study twice as hard as anyone else and start sucking up all the top spots in the universities around the world. That or we open up small businesses and work at it 18 hours a day until it becomes big and sucessful. Of course, there are a lot of people who hide in the Chinatowns of the nation, but they are now starting to come out.

Compare that to your approach. You threaten a revolution which you'll never have the balls to carry out. Talk is good, but I'm still alive.

Have you ANY idea how HARD it was to get accepted into the University of Southern California? Actually, I was also accepted by Carnegie Mellon University, but I couldn't afford it. You know why I spend all that time studying and working instead of polishing guns? This way, I can actually have a chance of changing the system, of becoming a diffrence.

Of course, you might be able to change it too. I'll beleive it when you actually launch your revoluion.

Well, I started actually "talking" to you so I can learn how your mind works. Now that I have, I beleive that I have suceeded. Wallow in your self righteousness if you like, but I beleive we are done here. Viva La Resistance!

Chris MortonFong Chih

In article , "Fong says...

No, but you've figured out a way to whitewash the way things work in this country. Chris Matthews has a very interesting article about racial perceptions in this country. He could well have written it about you.

chikaChris Morton

In article , Chris Morton wrote:

*splat*

*splat*

Mud, mud, glorious mud, nothing quite like it for cooling the blood, So follow me, follow... Down to the hollow... And there let us wallow in glo-o-orious mud.

Love and RocketsFong Chih

In article , [email] says...

Fong, this is a very thoughtful post and I respect the effort you made, even if I might disagree with parts of it. Please try to not be too concerned with the political discussions you read on Usenet newsgroups. Most of the give and take is not
Christopher MortonLove and Rockets

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:07:41 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

I wouldn't characterize what was done to Abner Louima as a "mistake". It was an intentional act of torture and sexual assault.

What is the police mechanism for deterrence?

What is the rate of success for this deterrence?

How is that success measured?

"Gunloons"? Oh yeah, people who disagree with you, better known as adults.

But hey, if you don't have an argument, you can always substitute name-calling. Of course if I were to follow your example, I would call gun control supporters "rapist supporters". After all, gun control is among other things, the idea that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb. rapists... or submit.

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Mark WhickmanChristopher Morton

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Stupid adults?

What if she can't reach the gun? Or she misses and the guy kills her with her own gun?

Christopher MortonMark Whickman

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:02:00 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Children generally see adults as stupid because they're so fixated on facts, logic and reason.

What you're saying is that the CERTAINTY of rape (and possibly murder) is preferable to the POSSIBILITY of it if self defense fails.

Shouldn't Britain have surrendered to Germany after the fall of France? What if Germany had successfully invaded? What if Germany gassed Britain? Why not face the inevitable and give up?

This seems to be a common trait among Brits, at least Brits in usenet. They seem to prefer the certainty of victimization without resistance than the possibility that resistance might fail. Actually, more than a few Brits I've seen in usenet seem terrified by the possibility that resistance will SUCCEED. They apparently see life as essentially one big S&M game in which someone is the top and someone else the bottom. To them, resistance to exploitation and murder just mucks up those carefully crafted relationships.

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Mark WhickmanChristopher Morton

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Which is why the driving force of sciety is the young, to stop society wallowing in its own filth and depravity.

The attacker can lose heart at the last minute. Basic self defence is kick the attacker where it hurts and run, he'd have to be damn tough to get up after that. Remember a gun can only legally be used in self defence as it is if all other methods are completely exhausted, otherwise its murder or manslaughter.

Countries cannot be compared to people. One hit won't kill a country but it can kill a person.

You may succeed resiting but then what? A dead body on your hands? A country ruined by war and in debt to the tune of Trillions with nothing left?

Christopher MortonMark Whickman

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:22:09 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Using that argument, one could portray the young National Socialists as fighting the "filth and depravity" of the Weimar Republic.

And as we all know, National Socialism is the ultimate triumph of "feeling" over rational thought. It didn't matter whether the Jews really were an evil force in society. The Horst Wessels FELT they were, and that was enough.

So what you're saying is that the woman should trust to the better nature of a RAPIST?

So what you're saying is that 110lb. women have a duty to fistfight with 210lb. rapists?

In the United States, once the attempted rapist uses physical force, he's history. She can use whatever means are necessary to end the rape, including painting the walls with what substitutes for his brains.

Don't want to get shot? Don't try to rape anybody. That's always seemed like such a simple formula to me....

Why CAN'T they be compared to people? And besides, I wasn't comparing countries, I was comparing identical situations, using YOUR own logic.

Now, given that you appear to prefer the certainty of defeat over its possibility, shouldn't the UK have surrendered after Dunkirk?

I'd rather have somebody's dead body on MY hands than have MINE on somebody else's. I'm just funny that way.

So then you ARE saying that Britain should have surrendered after Dunkirk?

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Mark WhickmanChristopher Morton

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

with

kick

is

A kick in the 'nads ignores weight.

it

As I said, a country can take a lot of damage, a fleshy weak thing like a human can't.

country

How many murders are there compared to lethal accidents? What about the woman who is hypothetically going to be raped, what if her 5 year old son starts playing with her loaded gun and blows his head off?

What if it did? The results will never be known. If and should with regard to the past are irrelevant questions.

Christopher MortonMark Whickman

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:31:21 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Your argument ignores the difference in speed and agility of the parties.

Again, your argument seems to be that 110lb. women should have to grapple with 210lb. rapists... or submit.

How MUCH damage can a country take? How much could Belgium take?

Again, why not just surrender to the Nazis? They wouldn't do anything BAD, would they?

Actual firearms accidents are few in this country and declining at a steady rate.

So then the same can be said of your justification for people to render themselves helpless victims of violent crime, right?

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Mark WhickmanChristopher Morton

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Have you ever been kicked in the nads?

but

Couple of Panzer divisions, lots of infantry and lack of supplies.

Did they do all that much in belgium?

But they are likely to be a lot more than those protected.

regard

To people who own guns recieve any more or less violence than those without?

Christopher MortonMark Whickman

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:45:19 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Yes, that's why I don't allow people to do it.

You seem to be presuming that the rapist will stand still with his legs conveniently spread.

It's FAR easier to shoot someone than kick them in the groin, but you expect a 100% success rate for the latter. How about older or handicapped women? If they can't effectively kick an attacker in the groin, do they have a duty to submit?

So they had a DUTY to submit?

What shape was Britain in after Dunkirk?

Shouldn't you have surrendered and trusted to the better nature of Hitler?

Machinegunned a bunch of American POWs.

Then there's that whole Holocaust thing....

No, they aren't. You're more likely to be protected by a firearm (and with neither the assailant or the victim being harmed) than to be accidentally injured by one.

Generally less.

As a rule, criminals when confronted with an armed victim retreat hastily. This is another fallacy of the anti-gun movement. Criminals are by and large cowards who go after the vulnerable. I've seen a tendency by anti-gunners, Brits in particular, to equate common street muggers with the SAS or Delta Force. In fact, the LAST thing in the world a criminal looks for is a fight. If criminals were REALLY brave, they'd be robbing known cop hangouts and lying in wait outside of the JFK Center. They'd be raping Marine gunnery sergeants, not elderly grandmothers. None of this seems to happen much, greatly bolstering the theory that they want an easy mark... which gun control gives them.

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Love and RocketsChristopher Morton

In article , [email] says...

Few people here know who Mr. Louima was, and you know that. It's kind of an argument from authority from you without having to actually take responsibility for it.

Well, I know who Louima was. If he had had a gun, he would have been killed even faster. The issue here is the NYPD and its overwhelming corruption -- not guns.

Can we all spell 'disingenuous?' ... I knew that we could.

* * * *

Typical gunloon fucked response. Go take an Admin/Justice class at your local JC, if your grades are high enough. They have them, even in Houston. The instructor will tell you all about deterrence, and how it works, and why. If you don't know what deterrence is, then you shouldn't be pissing your off-topic gunloonology all over this newsgroup.

Yup.

You. Mirror. Gunloon.

Yeah, you're right. that's me: Defender of rapists. Boy, you sure have my number, Ch.

L&R

Christopher MortonLove and Rockets

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:29:54 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

Hey, maybe some day somebody will invent something that will allow you to enter search terms and look things up! We could call it a <Dr. Evil fingers> "search engine". Nah, it'd never work. We'd have to invent the World Wide Web first....

He'd be no worse off, and we might be a killer cop or two less.

I'll bet you CAN'T spell "evasive".

Never been to Houston. Never been to Texas.

Bet you must LOVE Justin Volpe. He sure knows how to deal with us "coloreds", right?

As indeed it's obvious I do.

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Love and RocketsChristopher Morton

In article , [email] says...

You are so wise and insightful. Not to mention correct in all things.

I on the other hand, have no argument I can possibly propose against your withering logic. Obviously we have the unfettered right to use anything we want to fool around with. Pistols, dogs, howitzers, anthrax, it's all the same. How foolish of me not to see it, and how immoral of me to deny it once I saw it. How mature of you to not gun me down where I stand for the traitor that I am.

Of course, there is still the little matter of 50,000 deaths from guns per year in the US. And the additional matter of people like you, wise in all things gunnacious, exercising your God-Given right to deny that it is a problem at all, and then to propose without any backup, that simply arming everybody on the planet would REDUCE that number of deaths.

So tell me again, Christopher:

If we gave every black in Houston a gun; would the cops kill the blacks; would the blacks kill the cops, or would the blacks kill the blacks?

L&R

Christopher MortonLove and Rockets

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:30:56 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

It's good to see you've noticed what everyone else has... albeit belatedly.

  • They already do. You appear terrified that that might stop.
  • In some instances, hopefully so.

3. They already do. Only this way, the criminal "associates" of the police might not have it all their way, and the victims might have a chance.

4. Who says Black people in Houston DON'T have guns? Is there a law against Black people in Houston owning guns? Would you support such a law? Obviously you would.

5. Who says we need to be GIVEN guns? Contrary to what you read in the "National Vanguard", many of us have jobs.

Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun. Check out: http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton