Louisville Police hide 700k reports of them molesting children

[Captain Crimson]

I'm afraid there isn't much of a "literal" sense of anarchy beyond the philosophy. As far as labeling people Anarchists, that is.

Mind you this is a clear case of one of them generalizations you're so weary of.

I apologize if I misspoke. It may not surprise you to learn I never went to college, for entirely personal family reasons, so that I have no formal higher education past what I read online.

I had hoped to convey that the argument the other user was employing was itself fallacious, since it's treating the police as an armed gang on par with vigilante criminals. And while police outreach breeds criminals and you could make the logical conclusion that given their position of authority, it's far more unforgivable, at the same time, the two comparisons are still not the same.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm afraid there isn't much of a "literal" sense of anarchy beyond the philosophy. As far as labeling people Anarchists, that is.

Mind you this is a clear case of one of them generalizations you're so weary of.

I apologize if I misspoke. It may not surprise you to learn I never went to college, for entirely personal family reasons, so that I have no formal higher education past what I read online.

I had hoped to convey that the argument the other user was employing was itself fallacious, since it's treating the police as an armed gang on par with vigilante criminals. And while police outreach breeds criminals and you could make the logical conclusion that given their position of authority, it's far more unforgivable, at the same time, the two comparisons are still not the same.

Alright. Well I was just playing around kinda.

But as far as the topic, there's a major issue of state sanctioned violence that's implicated in the facts.

[Captain Crimson]

I'm afraid there isn't much of a "literal" sense of anarchy beyond the philosophy. As far as labeling people Anarchists, that is.

Mind you this is a clear case of one of them generalizations you're so weary of.

I apologize if I misspoke. It may not surprise you to learn I never went to college, for entirely personal family reasons, so that I have no formal higher education past what I read online.

I had hoped to convey that the argument the other user was employing was itself fallacious, since it's treating the police as an armed gang on par with vigilante criminals. And while police outreach breeds criminals and you could make the logical conclusion that given their position of authority, it's far more unforgivable, at the same time, the two comparisons are still not the same.

Alright. Well I was just playing around kinda.

But as far as the topic, there's a major issue of state sanctioned violence that's implicated in the facts.

As a matter of debate, I would consider something like Mr. Bush's "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be such.

I would not consider police outreach that at all. Is it criminally, even morally reprehensible? Yes. But I find rare instances where it is state-sponsored.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm afraid there isn't much of a "literal" sense of anarchy beyond the philosophy. As far as labeling people Anarchists, that is.

Mind you this is a clear case of one of them generalizations you're so weary of.

I apologize if I misspoke. It may not surprise you to learn I never went to college, for entirely personal family reasons, so that I have no formal higher education past what I read online.

I had hoped to convey that the argument the other user was employing was itself fallacious, since it's treating the police as an armed gang on par with vigilante criminals. And while police outreach breeds criminals and you could make the logical conclusion that given their position of authority, it's far more unforgivable, at the same time, the two comparisons are still not the same.

Alright. Well I was just playing around kinda.

But as far as the topic, there's a major issue of state sanctioned violence that's implicated in the facts.

As a matter of debate, I would consider something like Mr. Bush's "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be such.

I would not consider police outreach that at all. Is it criminally, even morally reprehensible? Yes. But I find rare instances where it is state-sponsored.

Understandable assertion.

I might call Bush's antics actually State violence, not state sanctioned violence.

Police forces work in municipalities, and have very seemingly tangential oversight from our more inalienable federal constitution. That being said, a matter of local corruption isn't as major as fascism, but when there is a problem it IS a problem.

[Thebestoftherest]

Let me posit this hypothetical scenario, and ask a question, to all those who distrust police.

For some reason, I can't speak to what it is, but through some unforeseen circumstance, likely outside your control... you find yourself in Central Park. You can't get out before dusk and then night falls. And as you're frantically trying to make your way back to your destination, you hear a scream, the sounds of violence. You have a phone, nothing else that could be used as a weapon. Bonus question. You head on over and find it's a gang of thugs brutalizing someone. A man, woman, maybe even a child or some disenfranchised minority. There are far too many for you to take down all at once by yourself. Do you seek out a police officer, or call them up on your phone? Try to make it better?

I ask you. What would you do in that situation? Really. If you answered in any way other than yes... well, TBH, it's what I've come to expect from political fanatics.

Since it's the same hypocrisy inherent in the radicals who want to defund and abolish police thinking that it will make things better, who would be the first to mourn their absence all the more. In a radicalized country, I'd say don't increase funding to police, but don't cut it either. Because civilization no matter the form, socialist, capitalist, whatever, is not ready for a world without law enforcement. That's just the facts.

Let me asked a hypothetical, what do you do when the violent gang and the police are one in the same?

Moving the goalposts and appeal to emotion fallacy.

A violent gang never has official sanction from governmental institutions. They are anarchists, acting outside the law. While law enforcement can cross the line with their methods in trying to conform to the law, or break it themselves. The two are not one in the same.

Have you live under a rock, what in human history suggest that violent can't work for governments. By your logic when the Gestapo were totally in their right to grabbed a person from their home and shot them in the street because they were with the government of their country at the time

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

You guys aren't talking about the same thing.

I mean it was a fair hypothetical, but Crimson clearly missed it.