Asklemmy

43984 readers

726 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What is the profession you wouldn't work, even for a day and even if paid your weight in gold? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Let me give you some context.

My country threw a dictatorship less than 50 years. I was born and raised during the early years of the new democracy.

Back then, basic requirements for joining the police was being able to read and write; coming from the military, especially from the army, was a guaranteed entry.

People were afraid and instilled fear of the police into their children. Really bad times.

Fast forward to the 2000's and a new generation of police is entering service. Being a former military is not a guaranteed entry and can even prove to be a detracting factor. New candidates have to pass aptitude tests, evaluations, screenings. Need to have the mandatory schooling years (by then already 12 years, equivalent to american high school). And undergo a grueling physical and theoretical training: one year.

When the new generation hits the streets, the kind of "cop" you describe was washed out, by their own comrades, because being a police meant being a trustworthy figure, someone any person can approach for help and aid, especially children.

Are there any bad apples? Obviously. In the same way you can have bad agents in any profession. Even the best cloth get stains. But you can trust a police officer in my country.

A police is mandated by law to salute a civilian when aproaching one and is obligated to present identification if requested for and even take the breathalizer test if you demand it.

A police officer also has the freedom and obligation to go against orders they understand as against the law, good social standing and moral and can take action against superior in court of law, where hierarchy means nothing.

A very superficial analysis of what being a police agent in the US tells me you have a militarized police, unfit and untrained to deal with people, and ignorant of law, except that what can be delivered by the pulling of a trigger and brutality.

That was our police, 50 years ago.

Your average cop here would get beat up by their comrades and thrown in jail, assuming they would made it through the evaluation.

Again, the US is not the world, not a good example on any front and even less when it comes to civil rights and police work.

[+] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Police have unions for negotiating better conditions but they don't displace power to the polices: police does not have right of strike. At best, what police officers can do is a strike of zeal, where they overlook most situations except for the most grievous.

This implies a speeding ticket will not get written but a bank robbery will be dealt with.

Again, the US is no example for anything, and even less for this.

Police is not a for-profit organization; it's a pillar of the democratic state and as such is moved by a mission not an production objective, which some ingenious politians and high ranking officers have tried to do, with horrible results, like police agents openly denouncing it to the public.

The checks and balances you fear will be knocked down are so scattered, it would take the complete dismantling of our entire country to remove it. Just recently, it was eliminated a specialized police tasked with immigration and border control and the back lash has been immense: people want specialized agents for specialized functions, regardless the previously dismantled force being disbanded for serious and proven cases of abuse of power and corruption, which led to arrests.

To prevent one force to feel unchecked we have three different polices, a plethora of specialized agencies and a central investigation department directly under the orders of the republic prosecutor. Too many people checking on too many people. This model works so well, even politians have been connected to serious corruption schemes lately.

We solved our war on drugs by removing the crime frame from consumption and carry for personal use, thus releasing police resources to contend with real traficking, not petty matters.

Take notes. Might be useful to someone.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is an ugly backdrop of "bad", "coercion", "oppression" and "authoritarian" to this conversation.

And while I try to concede, to my hability, your good points and ilustrate steps have been taken to remove or diminish points of concern, in an effort to advance for something better, there seems to be an ever deeper entrenching on your part to build up the same points.

The state, which authority emanates from the people, does have the monopoly of force, which is a tool to ensure peace and stability inside a society looking to get rid of the need of it.

Your stance, to my understanding, veers towards an ideal anarchism, a philosophy I support myself.

But like any other social system, anarchy is affected by bad actors, motivated by selfish motives like indifference for their similar, greed or the simple appeal of basic violence against their fellow.

How are we supposed to deal with these? Are we all to become vigilantes? Allow angry mobs to apply "justice"? Or should we create special groups, prepared to deal daily with this kind of situation, to make our best collective effort to ensure "force" does not become "violence"?

You are the state. You, your neighbour, your community, your district, etc. You live in a crooked system you have allowed to flourish. Do you expect change to happen by spontaneous generation? Your default stance is of distrust. The "man" is out to get you. Guess what? You are the "man". You trapped yourself by your own actions.

Your reality is not universal. That is what I've been trying to pass across. Regardless a perfect system not existing, better than what you experience is possible and exists.