Monday, October 29, 2007

I'm beginning to wonder if there are agent provocoteurs in the police

Last week the police raided a Maori Women's refuge in Taupo looking for pot. They didn't find any but acted after a 'credible tip off'

Clint Rickards is still on the pay-roll and it's less than two weeks since they invaded Ruatoki.

You'd think that at least one police officer in Taupo would have considered the possibility that this wasn't going to help any.

7 comments:

  1. Tristan11:00 am

    In an ideal world the police would not take action based on politcal reasons... in fact we pay them not to.

    Are you suggesting that the police shoudnt act if the politcal enviornment is negative at the time?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well I want the police force abolished.

    But in the meantime I want them to stop picking on women and Maori. I suspect they want to stop looking like they're picking on women and Maori, while continuing to do so.

    This makes searching the women's refuge particularly stupid

    ReplyDelete
  3. The quote about malice and stupidity springs to mind, but then the counter-quote "once is bad luck, twice is coincidence but three times is enemy action" is beginning to seem more relevant. I'm just wonder who on earth would join the p*lice farce with the intention of screwing up this badly.

    But who benefits when more people think badly of the p*lice? I really don't think it's the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tristan12:28 pm

    This is what makes it so hard to have disscussions with you.

    When you want the entire police force to be abloished it means they can't really do anything that would meet with your approval.

    Given that there is no point disscussing the merits of this particular action.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:30 pm

    How would society work without people to enforce the rules?

    Would there be any rules?

    How would you stop sociopaths from murdering and raping?

    Serious questions...

    ReplyDelete
  6. No p*lice means members of the community having to take care of each other. That means not stepping over the guy who's collapsed in the street outside your house. It means having to make the decisions about whether mental health professionals or prison guards should take care of the mentally ill much more explicitly, on a more local level. I don't think that's so bad. Almost all violent criminals can be dealt with by addressing the reasons that they become criminals, rather than punishing them afterwards.

    Society with no p*lice is quite easy to imagine, or those of limited intellectual ability could read histories or various anarchist movements. The problem with anarchy is typically more the lack of military ability when archists invade. A few minutes research on the web would serve you well here.

    There's also some good fiction on the subject, "The Disposessed" by Ursala K Le Guin is one I've re-read recently. I'm not sure I buy into the idea of structuring a whole society that way, but I think it's worth the experiment given how badly everything else so far has failed.

    I'm sure I recall Maia quite explicitly endorsing some p*lice actions on this blog, even. Always with the obvious caveat, but approval nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:02 pm

    How does the absence of police result in people caring for each other more than they do now?

    Who will stop violent people being violent? Who will investigate wrong-doing? Will the community control the streets at three in the morning? Wouldn't they eventually tire of this task, and outsource it ?

    There are violent, disruptive people. There might be numerous reasons they are like that, few of which you can change (i.e. they may have mental issues). Without Police, how could you control such people?

    Anarchy would hand control to the most violent. See the history of Europe.

    >>those of limited intellectual ability

    Heh. Elitist, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete