On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:37:45 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But again, to call the US a "police state" is really like calling us a
>> "socialist state" because we now have affordable health care.  It's
>> hyperbole at the best.
> 
> The TSA all in itself doesn't make the US police-state-like, but it adds
> up to everything else.

Sure, but at the same time, I actually live in the US; you don't.  During 
the lead-up to the 2002 Winter Olympics, Salt Lake City felt like a 
police state - we had armed personnel on high structures around the 
Olympic venues.  We don't have that now.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems, but I'm saying we're far from 
being a police state - and reports that that is the case are pretty 
skewed and show the worst of the worst rather than the status quo.

I will, however, grant that as a white male in the US, I am not subject 
to "stop and frisk," being asked to provide documentation of citizenship, 
etc.  My view certainly isn't the only one here, and I'm sure if you 
asked a black 19-year-old in New York City if it was a police state, they 
might have a different view.

> It seems to be that, at least at some places, there's a strong "us vs
> them"
> mentality among the police force, and they act as if they were a
> military force within a foreign and potentially hostile land.

Again, reports of the worst of the worst - not the norm.  Boston after 
the Boston bombing, for example - way over the top, but not the state of 
affairs in any city on a daily basis.

> They are extremely trigger-happy and will pull out guns and tasers at
> the slightest of provocation, or even without, but just if they feel
> like it. They can legally lie to people, and trick people into
> implicating themselves. They regularly abuse people with impunity.

*Again,* this is the exception that you see in the news.  Cops behaving 
themselves aren't newsworthy.  Cops tasing a grandmother are, so that's 
what you hear about on the news.

> Time and again we get news about new cases of police brutality. While
> that alone doesn't yet make it a police state, what does is that they
> usually get scot-free. Their buddies will support them and lie for them,
> even under oath, and their superiors are not eager to start internal
> investigations. Such investigations are generally started only if the
> event gets wide publicity, and even then the punishments are often
> extremely lenient or even non-existent.

*Again* - the exception and not the rule.  I'm not saying there aren't 
bad actors, but most cops (like most citizens) do their job admirably.  A 
few bad apples give all cops a bad name.

> The cases that get publicity are probably just the tip of the iceberg.
> There just *happened* to be a camera pointing that way, or someone with
> a camera who didn't have it immediately confiscated afterward. How many
> such cases are happening where there are no cameras and no credible
> witnesses? In these cases it's usually the word of the victim vs. the
> word of a half-dozen police officers (all of who, naturally, agree that
> no abuse happened, of course.)
> 
> If the government just watches by while all this is happening, rather
> than taking stern actions to eradicate these abuses, what else is that
> other than being police-state-like?

Your view is skewed because it's based entirely on news media reports and 
not actually being here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message