I was going to post this as a comment, but it was in an anarchism community, and I figured some sections of it might be unacceptable there. Hence, new post.
Here’s a guideline of how to interact with cops. There are more or less three modes, depending on your read of the situation. Cops are not always the enemy or the maniacal whole-job-is-making-evil thugs that Lemmy sometimes makes them out to be. It really is bad for people to get mugged or their cars broken into, and they’re the solution our society has come up with to minimize the amount of it that happens. It’s not always a bad thing.
If you find yourself talking to the cops, there are more or less three ways:
- They’re there to solve a real problem. Someone’s car got broken into, someone got beat up. Just talk with them. Tell them what you know, help them figure out the situation. In almost all of the US, their effect on the problem will be positive, and it’ll be a lot more positive if they have a good grasp of what happened. If, in your opinion, the person they’re trying to catch really did do something that warrants a law enforcement response, then give them a hand. Use your judgement as to whether that’s warranted of course, and your impression of the justice level in your local area, since it varies quite a lot in the US.
- They’re there for you. Shut the fuck up. Don’t say a goddamned word. It doesn’t even matter if you didn’t do it. Don’t explain. Shut the fuck up. Be polite, obey lawful orders, definitely don’t fight them or you’ll get a felony and might also get injured or worse, but tell them that if you’re suspected of a crime, then you’d like to talk to a lawyer, and you have nothing else to say. And then, shut the fuck up and cooperate. Maybe you want to go as far as “Were you shoplifting?” “What? No. That wasn’t me, man.” But any further explanation than that, just leave it alone. Definitely don’t make something up on the spot, to make yourself sound innocent, if you did do it. For the love of God, don’t do that.
- They’re there for someone who didn’t do anything wrong. The reason for this post is, anything and everything with ICE and immigration falls into this category. Some things with local cops will, also. Just be unhelpful and simple. No, I didn’t see anything. I don’t know. I’m not sure. Be vague. Don’t get creative, keep it simple, don’t refuse to give your ID or otherwise antagonize them or commit minor crimes of obstruction, but just do your best imitation of someone who just fell from the sky. “So you’ve NEVER MET your neighbor. Your neighbor across the hall.” “Nope.” “Are you sure?” “Yeah, I don’t know.” “I mean, she gave us your name, she said she’d talked to you.” “I don’t know, I don’t remember that.” Don’t embellish. Don’t explain why. Just calmly let the silence linger and the pressure build up, without adding extra words.
Like I said, everything with ICE or other immigration authorities falls into the third category. No exceptions. Everything. The same applies with any type of federal law enforcement, I suspect, for the next few years.
Okay, sure. I’m happy to have this conversation with you, but you have to realize that you wrote me an initial message with “All cops are bastards, always, everywhere, forever, no exceptions” “a worthless piece of shit.” “No they aren’t” “No you fucking don’t” “it’s terrible advice” and so on. I read your initial paragraph and didn’t see anything even remotely resembling “this is why” or where logically your argument came from. It was just “research” from your “comrades,” which makes it sound like only comrades can come up with truth, and anyone else needs to learn from them before “spouting off.” You literally said at one point “don’t use your judgement.”
The cops in most cities are organized by the city council and the mayor. “Capitalism” has nothing to do with it, except indirectly, because it takes money and connections to get on city council. There are a lot of places where people through the exercise of their democracy, reduced the funding for the police, instituted other programs like social workers going to some calls, got the police force out of doing traffic enforcement, basically, doing reforms. If the whole city council tried to disband the police completely, and just have an anarchist city, they would probably lose their election because the people of the city wouldn’t like that idea. But there is not some other entity that’s coming from outside and “enforcing” the police on the people of the city. It’s just the city government, which is our system, is changeable by a majority of the people every few years, if enough people can get on board for it.
I’m not trying to say it is easy to fight against the network of people who operate city government, or that it doesn’t take money or anything like that. But plenty of places, some reformer has run a campaign and then won and then done reform. We still use voting. It’s not like some Amazon warehouse where the “owners” run the city and make there be police, and there’s nothing the people in the city can do about it.
Doesn’t that make sense? Does it seem accurate as far as a critique of what you said about how inescapable the police that are enacted on our cities, apparently, are, and how there is no consent by the people of the city? You tell me. I’m picking out just that one part to respond to, because you said you were open to critique and conversation. So sure, we can talk about it, I usually like talking.
Part 2
I want to expand a bit on the “don’t use your judgement” point. A better way to say that would have been: “defer your judgement to that of the victim.” Choosing to defer your judgement to someone else is still a judgement call. And in the case where you are the victim, this collapses into making the judgement call for yourself.
And the reason I said that is because if the victim does not want the cops involved, then the cops should not get involved, period. I don’t see this as controversial, even if the cops weren’t the baddies. But since they are, bringing them in where they’re not welcome is a recipe for violence and further arrests.
I will admit that I typically give my comrades’ views the most weight, but I absolutely do listen to non-anarchists. Actually, that’s one of the reasons I have a SDF account: because almost no one is defederated from us, and we don’t block anyone (I think), so at least as far as Lemmy is concerned, I get stuff from lemmy.world and other non-anarchist instances and people on Lemmy. And for my news digest, I actually just compare several mainstream and independent media sources and try to “estimate” the story from the “corrupted signal” I get from taking all those sources.
I think you are mischaracterizing how insular the anarchist movement actually is.
The phrase “except indirectly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here! Capitalism has an absolutely enormous but indirect effect on local politics. You can buy a politician’s loyalty for shockingly little, so little that even local businesses can do it for local politicians.
And where have those reforms gotten us? Every single time the reformers say they’re going to do some reform, then it gets watered down, and eventually the cops somehow get extra money, extra training, and nothing changes. Supplementary to the discussion above, this is why we need to abolish the police.
I don’t agree with you here. I think that, if we actually disbanded the police, people would be happier. Also, I’m not interested in winning elections. I’m interested in bringing power to the people.
It is absolutely not our system. In my case, the municipal government is the local branch of the state government, which is itself subordinate to the federal government. And at all levels, the people with the money are the ones that pull the strings. If push comes to shove and it’s the will of the people vs the will of the higher levels of government, the will of the government usually wins, and the will of the most powerful local capitalist will win every time (because states amplify the political power of those who are wealthy enough to prop them up).
I would argue that this basically is the reality of the situation, and that the voting is just to make the smallest of changes. (“If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal.” I would like to offer a corollary: if a possibility is so impactful that it would actually disrupt the capitalist order, it will never be put up for a vote, because the government gets to decide what gets voted on, and the politicians are indirectly controlled by the capitalists.) Like with police interrogations, voting is not an equal interaction between the government and its subjects. The government has all the power, and that power is controlled by the capitalist class.
No offense, but I think you might misunderstand some core principles of contemporary anarchist philosophy, like how capitalism and politics are intertwined, and that might be why you’re not getting a warm reception amongst anarchists. I definitely recommend you check out Section D.2 of the Anarchist FAQ, and skim the rest of Section D. (Yes there’s a holy-shitload of reading for anarchists 😆. I can probably find you a YouTube or audiobook version if you’re not in the mood to do all that reading.)
This simply is not how it works. If you run for city council, and you have the city council on the mayor on board, and you disband the city police, nobody in the state government is going to give a shit. They may be unhappy when a ton of calls for service come in for the state police, there actually was an issue like that in Texas where something weird was going on with the city and they were just letting almost all their calls get handled by some other jurisdiction.
But regardless: If enough people run for office, and win, it doesn’t matter how much money some local business has. With very rare corrupt exceptions (I can literally think of two, post-reconstruction), they’re now in charge. Money is tied in with who will win, that’s completely true. I didn’t mean “indirectly” in the sense of, it’s a small or trivial factor. It’s a huge factor. But, if you can overcome it, you can be in charge. Full stop.
What are you alleging will be the mechanism by which the state government “doesn’t let” the city not have police? There are a lot of places in the US that don’t have any police below the county level. You’re sort of on your own, out in the country, although someone from the sheriff’s department may come out after a while if you call. It’s just that every single city, and most towns, have opted to have a separate local police force. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping you from incorporating in a new place and not having police.
Here’s actually an example of it happening: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling
The libertarians took over the town, and among other changes, functionally disabled the police. No one came to stop them. They have the votes, so they’re in charge now.
(Edit: Actually, another good example along the same lines is from “Wild Wild Country” on Netflix. Those guys built their own community, with no police, and nobody cared for quite a while. And then, even when they started creating issues enough with the town that the ordinary people reached the point of “something must be done,” it took quite a bit of doing for the forces of law and order to do anything about it. The issue was, at all times, that they were committing crimes which impacted the town. Simply being out in their little place with no police was completely fine, before, during, and after.)
(Edit: And, there’s a whole separate case study when the Freak Party was going to take over Aspen. That one’s significantly more complex, among other reasons because it does include some sense in which the establishment “didn’t let” them do it, but still interesting to talk about as an example of how things play out in the real world, instead of in someone’s particular ideology.)
You keep lecturing me at quite a lot of length about how it actually works, but what you’re saying is not how it works. I’m happy to show you evidence and reasons, and sources. Are you open to that?
That’s not how it works. Reference the article above, as a counterexample. I will not at all tell you that capitalism is not deeply and corruptly entrenched within our system, both indirectly in how much money it costs to even muster the votes to win the election, and at how the system gets set up at a bigger-government level for bigger jurisdictions. But, removing the police force at the municipality level actually is something that’s perfectly realistic to do, has been done before, and you can look at the experiment and see how it played out. You can also, if you think an anarchist community would make it work better, just make it happen and make your community, just like the libertarians did.
Tl;Dr please read the PDF I linked. It will explain how interrogations work a lot better than I am capable of. And it won’t yell at you.
Part 1
To be honest, I thought we were on the same page about the cops being baddies, but on different pages about what to do about it, especially since you said you were looking to post in an anarchist community.
Yes, there was lots of swearing. That does not diminish my point. In fact, it enhances it, because it increases the chance of it being understood by the widest possible audience, and it underscores the importance of the message. It also forces the reader to practice confronting their beliefs, which in the real world are going to resemble my first post more than a perfectly typed theoretical tome.
I.e., just because someone is yelling at me doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is wrong. And this is something that really takes practice, to learn to listen even when someone is being up in your face, because I might just be “that wrong” or even stepping on someone’s toes in a way I don’t understand. For this reason, I really appreciate contemporary anarchist essays for being upfront and confrontational.
Let’s take these one at a time.
If you want, replace “bastards” with “baddies” and this is exactly what I want to communicate.
Why are cops ever the baddies? Because
Why are the cops everywhere baddies? Because they are baddies in every country, because all states exist to prop up the interests of the locally powerful people, and the police serve the interests of their local state. This is, in my view, a fundamental pillar of contemporary anarchist thought, and I can refer you to literature for a better justification if needed.
Why are cops always baddies? Because being a police officer is defined by membership in a police department, because the powers and protections police officers get are at least mostly effective as long as the officer is in good standing with a police department, including when off-duty.
Why are cops forever baddies? Because:
Why are there no exceptions? Because cops are a subset of the set of baddies, and this is because, as discussed above, cops are evil because their function is evil. So the only way for a cop to stop being evil on account of being a cop is to stop being a cop. And when individual police officers do something good, they do it in spite of being a cop, often in flagrant dereliction of their duty to uphold the law as it is written.
I very carefully worded that to make it clear that I am calling the police worthless pieces of shit.
Which I am. And they are. They’re actually a lot worse than shit, because shit can be useful as fertilizer. The police, on the other hand, keep our species from reaching its full potential.
Yes, that’s one of the points I want to make. That was in response to “(The police are) there to solve real problems.” My issue really was with the word solve. In case it was unclear: yes, the problems are real, and i do not mean to trivialize them. Furthermore, their pretext for being there will likely be to solve the problem. But they are not there to solve the problem. Solving the problem is a pretext for reestablishing control of the situation in a way that is palatable to their paymasters. In rare cases, for example stopping serial killers (which, from watching hundreds of true crime documentaries, which are notoriously pro-police: they are terrible at doing!), these interests line up with the interests of the people, but considering how many people have their lives ruined or ended by police for property crimes, crimes of poverty, drug crimes, antisocial crimes (i.e. pissing in the street), it is clear to me that this is the exception rather than the norm. That’s what I desperately need to communicate.
This was in response to the bit about talking with the police. In the guide I linked, there is a huge section about how the police ask you all sorts of innocent, easy questions to butter you up for hard ones. You really should not talk to the police almost ever. Talking to the police is not a equal exchange. The cops have all the power, and they will use whatever psychological and physical means that they can to fill up their case files.
Saying “no you fucking don’t” was crucial to demonstrate how seriously dangerous a choice that is to make. If I had said “no you don’t”, that would have betrayed how important this point is.
Again, that’s the point I wanted to make. I’m not saying that to be mean, I’m saying that because I think it needs to be said. If you told me “you should plug your fork into the outlet” with complete sincerity, I would tell you “that’s a terrible idea, don’t do that” because following that advice could be fatal. I would rather see you alive and upset at me than dead by listening to terrible advice. And then once the fork is down, I will gladly infodump about why it is a terrible idea to fuck with electricity. But in that moment, I need you to put the fork down. Similarly, I need you to not collaborate with the cops in the future. Lives are at stake. At least after whatever incident you’re going through in the present moment since I acknowledge it might be too difficult to reverse course.