It seems like in our quest to eliminate violence in society, we are passing on the job of "violence" to the police. But then we object to how the police handle their business.

What role, if any, should "violence" (physical/psychological harm/threat or whatever) play in our society?

No need to stick to the question in a particularly strict manner...I hope you will expand with your personal opinions/thoughts/observations and whatnot.

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 12:35 AM. Reason : Relevant articles?]

6/29/2011 12:33:41 AM

police violence is the worst thing in society. In the bad areas, people actually fear the police so then when there is trouble they don't know who to call or trust. Police need to be dealt with more seriously for brutality. In the same way a teacher who sleeps with an 18 year old student goes to jail, a police officer who unjustly uses physical force should go to jail.

6/29/2011 2:09:43 AM

^True, but violent criminals need to be put to death or away for life and kept off the streets. All states should recognize the right to self defense and the 2nd Amendment.

6/29/2011 8:54:03 AM

Quote :

"It seems like in our quest to eliminate violence in society, we are passing on the job of "violence" to the police. But then we object to how the police handle their business."

Let's fix this thinking: anti-violence thinking reduces violence from all associated. There is not "offshoot" violence from an anti-violence movement.

Review the message from basically all non-violent civil leaders of the last 100 years. Let's be clear about this: the message was "I don't care how much violence you use, we will be non-violent".

Police create violence in this nation. I'm not saying police in general do. Good police almost always de-escalate the situation. Getting rid of police, obviously, won't help the violence situation either. No, the way to decrease violence is
1) Good police
2) better methods of policing, extending beyond the police

In the 21st century, a cell phone camera will be a more powerful weapon on aggregate than guns. People need to stop thinking that there, for some reason, has to be violence.

Ask a sociologist. There are very specific reasons people resort to violence.

6/29/2011 10:56:11 AM

Well, you go right ahead and record that thug with your cell phone as he stabs you, rapes your woman, and steals your car.

6/29/2011 11:15:17 AM

I don't think aggression is ever necessary; the aggressor is always in the wrong. It may be necessary to employ violence in a defensive way.

The police are government employees, and they do have a legal monopoly on force. For a given territorial area, the police are the only ones allowed to carry and discharge a firearm/employ physical force for reasons others than self defense. An officer is allowed to chase down, tackle, handcuff, arrest, and possibly injure/kill someone that has not actually harmed or threatened anyone.

The purpose of the police should be to protect citizens from unauthorized use of force. In reality, they facilitate the unauthorized use of force on behalf of the state. If police were responsible for breaking up fights, investigating murders, catching thieves/arsons, etc, then they would be a true rights protecting force. Instead, they carry out the dubious commands of legislators, always with the excuse of "just doing their job," in the same way that a soldier responsible for killing and maiming women and children was, "just following orders."

What's worse is that it has now become clear, in light of recent events, that citizens do not have the right to defend themselves from police that are in the wrong. When the police break the law, the citizens are expected to allow them to break the law, even when their lives are in probable danger. If you do try to defend yourself, not only are you breaking the law, but you'll probably end up pumped full of lead. The police responsible will not be held accountable; the same police force they are apart of will be responsible for investigating your death, and invariably, they will sweep evidence under the rug to save "one of their own."

6/29/2011 11:46:42 AM

Quote :

"Well, you go right ahead and record that thug with your cell phone as he stabs you, rapes your woman, and steals your car."

Do you see, just for a second, how your statement encourages violence? I certainly hope you never have an opportunity to address a school group.

6/29/2011 12:15:33 PM

A lot of police instigated violence could be cut down by stricter adherence to Robert Peel's principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles), not just by the police, but also by the legislators and the public at large. The more that we create laws and rules which turn the police into a special class of citizens, the further and further from citizens they'll become. And if these special rules give them the only authority to use force, then they are going to always attract manipulators, thugs and sadists who want the authority and power to inflict their will on people not allowed to fight back or resist.

6/29/2011 12:17:36 PM

Quote :

"Do you see, just for a second, how your statement encourages violence? I certainly hope you never have an opportunity to address a school group."

So you deny the existence of thugs? If so, how about this:


Well, you go right ahead and record that person with your cell phone as he stabs you, rapes your woman, and steals your car.

6/29/2011 1:17:29 PM

video evidence in that situation would be almost as helpful as it would when the thug violating your rights has the system behind him

6/29/2011 1:25:41 PM

Quote :

"So you deny the existence of thugs?"

I don't. After all, what's the best way to create a thug?

6/29/2011 1:34:13 PM

Make legislation that defines their peaceful activities as criminal behavior?

6/29/2011 1:36:00 PM

What I was going for was "tell them they are a thug", but ^ fits within that definition.

6/29/2011 1:42:11 PM

Hahaha.

6/29/2011 1:43:20 PM