Perspective | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

Judith
JstPlnOnry
emmettoconnell
IFerguson
Laurian
jKonovsky
JMK
dr
The Original Yoda
Matthew Green

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac
circular_ruins

Perspective

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 08/05/2007 - 2:35pm.

(This is an amazing summation of our stance on this issue, so I'm reposting Drew's words here, By "our" I mean the PPU and other interested parties that took part in a meeting about the police recently.)

Perspective

new Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 08/05/2007 - 2:18pm.
Whether you agree or disagree with the "hatred" of police, Wally's email worked. For the first time in a long time, there are serious people having an honest discussion of whether we even need to have police, how we can create alternative institutions, and what we can do - not say - to make this change that many of us want to see.

That said, not all of you guys "get it" and probably never will; Police do not pick on people equally, they pick on people selectively - as does any other species of bully. If you have been consistently picked on your whole life, you tend to see it as normal and outrage wanes. If you get picked on suddenly, and that experience correlates with advocacy of deep political change, you will also experience outrage waxing (growing). If you're never picked on at all, you could over-analyze the "cycles of hatred" and equate an inflamatory sign held on a street corner for an hour - with a TASER carried on a belt 10 hours a day for four days a week.

What Wally (and I) "hate" are not the people who become cops, but the choice to be a cop. We "hate" what is done, not who people are. That's a distinction that quickly gets lost in most of this discussion, so I'll suggest that we drop the hate/love dichotomy because we have something far more important to consider.

How are we going to organize our community to achieve security, while either holding police officers accountable for their actions, or else making their job obsolete?

What we have been seeing is a distinct tendency of several Olympia police officers (Jeffrey Dale Jordan, Gregory Thornton Brown, Jacob Brown, Charles Gassett, Robert D Krasnican, and Robert Beckwell) to resort to violence in a way that gives me the impression they LIKE to use it, and will sometimes escalate a situation to be able to use force when they could have avoided it. Some of these officers have given me this impression directly, and some have done so by consistency which shows up in their reports. The prime common factor in their reports is a "blame the victim" narrative in which the actions of the officer are always the victim's fault. The fact that there are 50+ other patrol officers out there who don't have to constantly explain why they used force as much as these six do gives the lie to the "victim made me do it" argument. It also gives the lie to the idea that I can't differentiate 'good' officers from 'bad.'

But this is not about bad apples, and if we were to fire these six we would still have unhappy incidents, even violently unhappy ones, because of the nature of policing.

Historically, policing is the common response of industrial societies to the collapse of personal relationships of power over people; It's the adaptation of a society to the fact that its working force is no longer directly supervised by the "boss," the owner, the master. When the workers are on their own and the market in labor becomes "free," police arise to take on the function that disappears. (Consistently throughout the history of the US, Britain, Europe, etc). Police, in short, herd the poor.

If we recognize that ownership, and (collectively) management, of humans as "assets" is onerous to our value system, then we must reject police as an institution. If we want to have security against crime, we must replace that function with another, more accountable, institution.

We're going to be meeting and planning in the upcoming weeks to do several key things:

1) Create a Citizens' Police Review Panel without asking the City Council to be involved in any way (they have consistently refused to do so for 15 years now).

2) Link together the existing groups which now replace some function of policing (Black Dog Foundation, Dispute Resolution Center, Etc) and create services were there are gaps.

3) Create opportunities to resolve disputes with OPD Officers who use violence through sit-down, face to face discussions in a neutral environment so that officers who use physical violence can hear directly from their victims.

4) Meet regularly to plan further what we can do to REPLACE policing with community based security (How we resolve issues around crime and security without resorting to men whose use of weaponry and training in personal combat color their choices of tools to use).

For now, these meetings are word-of-mouth. But nothing prevents you, the reader, from discussing these issues from your own perspective in your own circles, or here.

Rob Richards's blog
Login or register to post comments

Oh please

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 08/05/2007 - 10:06pm.

That said, not all of you guys "get it" and probably never will

I really like most of this post, but...

Really? You find something

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 08/05/2007 - 10:38pm.

Really? You find something systemically wrong with that statement? Is Drew, are we, wrong in thinking that we are in the minority in terms of our views? Is saying that others don't "get it" any different than what most would say to us? Is taking the high road better than being right? Or did that sentence call you out on your beliefs, making you think for a second? Did that sentence really do some sort of harm, or did it simply question what you believe to be true?

I think it is harmful

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 08/05/2007 - 11:06pm.

to suggest people just don't get it and never will. You may be right, but what good does it do? It is needlessly antagonistic.

Needlessly?

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 12:04am.

It's antagonistic to an idea which many hold to be true (the idea that the police are neccessary, beneficial, etc) and which most of us reading this blog (folks who have free time and home computers from which to engage in this conversation) will never question.

Most of us will never question that idea because the police will not actually target us, middle and upper class folks, for the kind of naked bullying which the poor get daily, and activists get occasionally...

Try not to think of it as a statement that you're too stupid to understand the position I'm taking, because it's not that at all. I know you're capable of understanding it - I'm arguing that you don't likely experience it. I don't think I'll really understand what it is like to be pregnant with a child (I'm a guy), and most of us will never be targeted by the police for special attention (you probably have not).

If most of us were likely to get police harrassment, the system of policing would be brittle rather than resilient. It's history from the 1830's to the present suggests institutional resiliency - though not without issues and challenges along the way... especially when things like David Brame and his relationship issues surfaced.

I don't think that statement is antagonistic to an idea

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 8:20am.

It's a statement about people who don't get it and never will. There are institutional impediments to "getting it," and those certainly need antagonists.

Hey, check the assumptions.

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 11:45pm.

I wrote that piece, I corrected you on how I meant it, and you're saying you know better than I do how I meant it? WTF?

I wrote that some people will not seriously consider the issue, and illustrated why. Period. End of story.

Check yourself Drew

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:13am.

Don't correct me, correct the piece if it needs it. "Some people will not seriously consider the issue." I don't disagree with that at all.

I got two words for ya: c'mom

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:18am.

He said "some" people. Even you can't argue that there aren't "some" people who will never "seriously" consider our ideas. Remember how half the people voted for Bush, twice? Yeah...

You big knucklehead

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:29am.

I said "I don't disagree with that at all." Sorry about the double negative. Janet B. is right. This is where we come to argue with people we agree with.

wow

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:35am.

where's that crow?

If we all ate crow when we needed to

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:43am.

they'd be extinct.

Huh?

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 8:19pm.

"Correct the Piece?" You mean I have to actually post the WHOLE thing, line by line, with the changes YOU want, in order to be heard by you?

Hold your breath until I do it, I like the color blue.

Well...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 3:48am.

Yes, that is exactly what I want you to do. And could you wash my car when you're done.

a working system of authority

Submitted by enpen on Sun, 08/05/2007 - 11:39pm.

If a system involving dominance and ownership is going to exist for a long period of time (let alone in perpetuity), it is necessary that an influential portion of the population feel protected and free (mutually exclusive?). In other words, if people "get it", then people feel threatened and shackled. A pair of conditions which, as of late in human history at least, have led to revolution. And whoo-eee...revolution is like this big heaping pile of death and people acting not out of choice, but out of necessity.

A lot of times I don't want people to get it. But this all sounds very positive. I particularly like the idea of establishing a citizen review panel using the sanction of being a fellow human being in the community. I worry that due to the very nature of this project a significant portion of our community would not have its voice heard on the panel. However, if something like this serves to catalyze a greater level of social accountability by challenging people's sense of the-way-things-are, then I'm all for it.

I don't like cops myself

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Sun, 08/05/2007 - 11:55pm.

But do you really think people are capable of policing themselves? I barely know anyone who's capable of having a civil conversation -- let alone diffusing a tense situation. I read today that the more advertising you are exposed to the worse is your ability to have empathy for other people. And we all are exposed to about 3000 advertising messages a day. I think this is a pretty good explanation for the way I see other people's interpersonal skills deteriorating. Look at the way people on this website bicker and feud. Do you really think modern human beings have the negotiation and compromise skills to settle things without police? I wish I did but I don't. If my boyfriend was beating on me and there were no police to call and I called one of you guys, who among you has the mediation skills to de-escalate that situation? Show me -- don't tell me.

People police themselves all the time

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:05am.

"To police" simply is the verb form of "Policy." "Police" is taking that verb and making it a noun which describes a professional person whose main task is enforcing policies.

Are you saying that you've never complied with a policy voluntarily, or come to an agreement with someone about how you will conduct yourself? That's policing.

The extreme case you cite is one example where actual police might be needed - but it could likely be avoided altogether in a lot of ways, if you think about it. Oh, and "showing" you anything in this forum is - well - difficult, since it is by definition all writing.

Drew, you are showing me how antagonistic you are

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 1:31pm.

You are showing that in writing.

Of course I have policed myself and I have negotiated many things with other people without the assistance of law enforcement. I avoid the police as much as possible.

I must correct you, though. A boyfriend beating on a woman is not an extreme case at all. It is very common. In fact, there is a variety of ways in which men use their superior physical and economic strength to prey on women. I tend to rely more on male friends and relatives for protection against male aggressors than the police, because I don't like cops and don't feel very safe with them -- cops have certainly been known to take advantage of vulnerable women, too. But you can't always reach a friend, and the cops always answer the phone.

And, sad to say, there are a whole lot of men who will not negotiate with a woman. Obsessive stalkers, domestic abusers, sexual predators. There are probably ways to avoid and improve these sorts of situations; many ways have been tried, and almost as many have failed. The problem remains huge. The cops are my resort of last choice in protecting myself from these creeps. But someone always answers the phone when you call 911 -- a lot of times if I call a friend or relative, the line is busy.

Personal Safety

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 8:51pm.

"Drew, you are showing me how antagonistic you are - You are showing that in writing."

It's called debate; I argue my points, you argue your points. That's not antagonism unless you think I'm only advocating these things to incite you, to anger you. I can assure you that I don't know you well enough to have any hidden motive there. I'm after a discussion of the issue, police in society - not about my way of communicating or my own motives. I am not the issue; I don't consider it fair to imply that I'm the subject of discussion.

You're right that abuse is commonplace, but I see a lot of police reports and it's not as common (for policing) as property thefts, traffic stops, and routine contacts with the public originating from patrols. Domestic abuse / mutual combat calls are dangerous, and not quite rare, but they are hardly the main thing police are doing. They get the attention because they are dramatic and dangerous. I think we should consider solving the personal safety / violence problem in a way that doesn't simply use more, better organized violence as the "solution." That smells like a protection racket to me.

We might want to redefine the role of police so that armed police are ONLY doing this kind of call (or any other serious felonies of violence); we might want to get back to an earlier definition of policing where some cops do this (traffic) and some do that (riot control) and the ones who probably will not use force, don't get the emphasis on personal combat techniques and tools. This emphasis on officer safety creates expectations of compliance, and poisons simple traffic stops with rude 'attitudes' which confuse civilians. These make perfect sense to an officer, but seem really antagonistic when they are used on someone who is NOT intending harm to the officer. Like having someone get down on their knees in public for 'the officer's safety.'

Right now, there is a lot of "professionalism" in policing, which is the trend of police officers to be generalists, who patrol, and respond to direct calls for a wide variety of situations - including a lot of emphasis on the worst case scenarios which are very rare. This emphasis creates a level of paranoia among cops which is self-enforcing and self-defeating - the attitude actually makes conflict more likely.

In the past, there were police who only did a few of these things and not all of them together in one agency. But when you train an officer to always be in control of the situation, and always demand compliance, that practice quickly runs up against the fact that (most common instance) there is no Washington State Law which requires you to give your drivers' license to an officer who has merely stopped you on the street (unless you're driving, buying alcohol, or being cited for an offense - and even in the third case you can simply give your name and date of birth.). But try not giving your ID to the cop who asks for it and I will bet that in most cases the next words out of that person's mouth will either describe consequences, or be consequences.

I don't feel like you're listening to me

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 9:54pm.

You're just kind of talking at me. I don't like cops. Have you heard me say that? I like the idea that the community could help me ensure my personal safety. But how can we get that organized when we can't even communicate effectively?

Domestic violence calls don't get all the attention because they're dramatic. At least not from my perspective. They get attention because they're freaking scary. I've been burglarized, I've had my car broken into, I've been pulled over for speeding. The cops were not helpful to me in any of these incidents. Yet none of these incidents inspired the terror that very ordinary sorts of male-on-female violence have. Rape, domestic violence, stalking. These things aren't rare, and even if they're not as common as traffic stops, they loom very large in the minds of half of the population. They happen way too often. They've happened to almost every woman I know, and most more than once.

A lot of cops like to protect the helpless little woman. I don't like having to be the little woman in order to get protection. But the fact is that sometimes some guy who's twice as big and twice as strong as me wants what he wants, and doesn't care what I want. It's men that bulldoze over women that make me want to keep the police around, despite my dislike for them. Too bad there are so many of those men.

Yup - and...

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 12:09am.

(R)evolution is like this big heaping pile of death and people acting not out of choice, but out of necessity."

And the alternative - allowing exponential growth of human populations and markets, in a fixed system of resources (the Earth) gets us to the exact same place that yeast go when the beer is done. Funny how our plant allies inform and shape our societies, isn't it?

not so black and white as that

Submitted by enpen on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 1:13pm.

Do you really believe that's the alternative? It certainly seems that it is a possible alternative, but beyond that your scenario places the hope for human survival on revolution. I think it'd be a big mistake to gloss over the human atrocities that occur in times of revolution when mob mentalities develop. Are "innocent" people beaten down and slaughtered under the current system? Yes. Would people be beaten down and slaughtered in a systemic revolution? Almost guaranteed.

What I particularly like about your proposal is its focus on dialogue, an attempt at a middle path. We need this kind of different solution, because what we have is exploitive and demeaning, and if we don't pay attention to our tendencies as animals we're likely to fall into something similar, and potentially far worse.

Personally, this is why I think we should be attempting to get off of the planet. If we're going to figure out how to survive as a self-aware species, I think we need a lot more time than the resources on this one will allow.

Core issues - but a huge digression

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:08am.

If we can't live here, in balance with our resources, no smaller craft is going to be able to support us long enough to get anywhere else we want to be. We need to quit pooping our way out of room on THIS spacecraft before we use another (smaller) one to infect yet another biosphere. (Assuming the folks and microbes there would have us, which they will not.)

Are you guys doing that Evergreen seminar thing?

Submitted by jlw on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 10:14am.

That thing where you argue with people who agree with you?

what?

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:05pm.

You're so wrong, Janet. Don't even get me started, because I'll just have to tell you how wrong you are. Wrong.

By the way, I hope your class is going well.

No way

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:59pm.

She's not wrong because you say so, she wrong becasue I say so.

Without the police there

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 6:51am.

Without the police there would have been nothing to stop the community from (I promise you the pun is not intended) lynching David Lynch. He would have been discovered soon enough and it's horrible to imagine how "creative" the community policing itself would get.

Nevermind the fact that no amount of Dispute Resolution would've identified the real rapist.

I would say that police are

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 9:51am.

I would say that police are neccesary, just not in the capacity that they serve currently. We still need people to do DNA testing and detectives to solve crimes, we just don't need them on every corner with a gun making sure nobody strays from the flock.

So no more proactive

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 12:31pm.

So no more proactive policing, just solve the crimes after they are committed? Does that mean that we now let a domestic abuse issue turn into a domestic manslaughter, speeding ticket turns into vehicular manslaughter? Given our society we cannot effectively police ourselves. What happens when we run across the next Ted Bundy? Make him sit down and listen to his victims families tell him how much they hurt?

Wow, Norm - serial killers?

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:12am.

I know you like television, as do most folks, but really - the day to day workings of the OPD have about as much to do with catching ebola as they do with catching serial killers. It could happen, yes - but it's so incredibly rare that it really should not justify a whole industry that demands it be held un-accountable.

Of course we can police ourselves - we do this all the time.

Hey Drew, read the rest of

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:38am.

Hey Drew, read the rest of the post and answer those questions. Throw the serial killer out. We do a pretty terrible job of policing ourselves, if we were better at it the prison industry wouldn't be an INDUSTRY.

It seems like you're still

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:53am.

It seems like you're still doing that thing where you're pretending we want to get rid of all the cops right now, the way things are. No. Bad Norm. We want to put systems in place that will lead to great changes in how police do business and what their function is. I think both Drew and I have stated here that there will always be a need for some kind of "cop". Just not as we know them today.

They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey

I disagree

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 11:56pm.

I don't think that police agencies are the proper place for science to be lodged in the criminal justice system. The rampant abuses and shoddy science of the FBI labs (the scandals broke in 1996) is a fine example of how science can be used to excuse poor detective work and shore up false cases against innocent (or even guilty) people.

If you need proof, check the Illinois death row issues over the past ten years. Many innocent men went to prison on false science, a few got out because of it, and the whole system lost credibility to the point that the Governor had to stay all of the executions.

It would make a lot more sense for the courts to provide the institutional scientific analysis of evidence which police collect and offer to them, to separate the motive to lie / fudge the evidence from the scientist who conducts the tests. It would not be perfect, but the current system only encourages science to be perverted for political and social ends. Police labs often start from a conclusion and work backwards, the opposite of actual science - which depends on having an open mind even more than having the right equipment.

1) this would be great if

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 12:40pm.

1) this would be great if you could find citizens that had any clue what it was like to be on the police officer side. I would have a hard time with a review board filled with grocers, tailors, and nurses who tried to tell a cop that he did the wrong thing. If anyone serving on the board was required to go through an academy and spend a weekend per month on patrol with an officer I "might" feel a little better about them passing judgement. At least then they would know that split-second feeling of, "I may not make it home tonight, did I tell my wife I loved her?".

2) Sounds like a good idea to me

3) I've never heard of such a silly thing. If some police TRULY are instigating things in order to beat on someone they need to be terminated. Making them sit down and listen to others feelings is not going to change anything. Something else is wrong in their psyche.

4) It'll never happen. There are far too many sheep in the population that will refuse to take care of themselves. There are far too many sheep that will refuse to help another who is in trouble. There are far too many wolves that will take advantage of the situation and exploit it to no end. This scenario seems like a stepping stone to a "might is right" with no oversight at all. At least police are held to some standard (maybe not enough of one) but taking the police out of the context means whoever has the biggest guns/most ammo, and the bigger posse is going to win. Who is going to stop them when they decide to run things the way THEY want to? The sheep? You and a handful of the anarchists in Oly? How many of you guys have weapons? Training? The public complains about police and soldiers who step out of line, what happens when those guys are out of a job and looking for the next score?

#4 imo reminds me of "The Postman"

I think this is exactly what

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 1:02pm.

I think this is exactly what Drew meant with "don't get it" part.

The idea is to avoid Bundy's and DV by steering our society in a way that doesn't see violence as a solution. Also, having cops doesn't stop any of the things you listed now, does it? How many domestic homicides are first offenses? Probably not many, but usually come after 7 or 8 beatings. Our system is not geared toward preventing those crimes now, only punishing them. Prevention would be education, counseling, and yes, talking about our feelings. For f's sake, why are we so macho as a culture that talking about how you feel is something to be ridiculed? I used to be the type of person who would fight first and ask question never, as I've matured I've realized how much trouble and stress I save myself by working through frustrations before they turn into anger and violence.

Perhaps you're not thinking your responses through on this level, but please don't assume we're stupid. We KNOW that if we were to remove all cops today things would be seriously f'd up. We're talking about setting a goal for their to be no more need for cops as we know it. There will likely always be a need for some form of cop, in the form of community policing and consensus based accountability structures, but not the people with guns that sit at the feet of government keeping us in line.

They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey

but please don't assume we're stupid.

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 1:29pm.

but please don't assume we're stupid.

I don't. I really don't mean to come across that way either. Too much cynicism in my life at the moment.

Our system does gear toward that though. That's why instead of letting couples duke it out cops step in and haul one off to jail. They got tired of making them kiss and make up just to leave the situation and have one kill the other. Ted Bundies will always be around. Until we have a cure for all mental illness they will always be around, and some will not get recognized or treated. Those are the ones that will end up killing. I answered number 2 that way because I truly think it's a good idea. Having alternative means to help a situation is great, but it's not going to negate the need for police. Someone will always slip through the cracks. Someone out there will always kill someone else for something that they don't have.

No, having cops doesn't stop the things I listed, but at least there is a force out there (supposedly) trying to be proactive about stopping those crimes from happening. Personally I'd rather be able to call 911 and know that if I can hold off the intruders for 5 mintues I'll have an armed response person there. Right now I would have a bunch of young girls (no offense neighbors) that couldn't do a darn thing as I was fighting/shooting an attacker.

Talking about things isn't a bad thing. If these cops are so messed up that they are picking fights, why do you think talking about it is going to help? They obviously have a disconnect that throws out the whole right vs wrong when it comes to hitting someone. I have hurt people, physically, in my life time. A number of those times I've HAD to do it. I have never enjoyed doing it though.

The problem with cops not having guns, is that the bad guys have guns. Read about those 2 "volunteer" police in NYC that were unarmed, and shot to death? Wearing a badge makes you a target, not having a gun is a bad idea while wearing one.

The examples that the

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 6:03pm.

The examples that the average adult sets for the average child is horrendous in one way or another. We glorify violence, wars, gluttony, greed, lust, etc, and then we wonder why everything is so f'd and the corporations are taking over. Laws and cops don't make us less likely to commit crimes, only societal shift in a more community oriented direction will do that. The more ownership we feel over our lives and our surroundings, neighbors, kids, pets, animal and plant friends etc, the less likely we will be to choose to harm, steal, kill, etc.

Cops today are one embodiment of what's wrong with society, we won't make the choice to respect each other and our belongings, so we hire someone to make sure we do. There wouldn't be as many drunk driving deaths if everybody was taken care of by others, including strangers. We all need to pull each other up by our bootstraps and live in community, when we can really do that, cops become less necessary.

They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey

.....I'm thinking you and I

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 6:32pm.

.....I'm thinking you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I just cannot back what you are saying. WTH is a plant friend? What if we don't like kids, or pets, or animals? Heck what if we don't like other people?

WTH is a plant friend?You

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 10:23pm.

WTH is a plant friend?

You obviously haven't met my little rosemary down at the artesian well.

I have no idea what that means

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:00pm.

must be a girl thing

are you calling me a GIRL!?!?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:35pm.

I have plant friends and I am a man!

So, maybe you're the one

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 1:37pm.

who took the plant from the back of the Broho. Plant friend indeed.

I should add

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 3:07pm.

I'm not trying to butt heads or even disagree, I'm voicing things that are running through my head in the hope that maybe I'm missing something and you will point that out to me. Better understanding etc.

Hey, now - come on.

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:13am.

#4 did not actually come out and say that there would be NO police, it suggested that we could come up with a lot of ways to rely on some means OTHER THAN police. And that not only can happen, it does.

Drew

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:43am.

you used the word "REPLACE"

If you had meant what you are saying above you could have used a word like supplement. Given your phrasing my conclusion was that you are replacing the police. I can't imagine how I would get that idea when you use the word replace.

Meet regularly to plan further what we can do to REPLACE policing with community based security...

It is a margin where the "Persective" doesn't seem to fit

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 12:48pm.

The "herding the poor" model of the origins of policing does not seem relevant to the policing of domestic violence, child abuse, and other similar person-on-person crimes. That said, there are ways to reduce crime without putting extra police on the street. For instance, there are a number of violence prevention programs for youth that are effective in reducing criminal behavior and more cost effective than the criminal justice system. I think the idea is that we need to work harder at finding alternatives instead of relying on the old standby.

word

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 08/06/2007 - 12:59pm.

word

History

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 12:23am.

The use of police to engage constructively in domestic abuse, child abuse and such actually comes VERY recently, and in direct proportion to the power of women in political life in the country. It was not so many years ago that a man would be allowed to beat up his wife over and over again by the police; the move to use police to stop this came in the 1960's-1970's. Child abuse came along a little later (as an issue that police helped to curb). Even now, we're still working out the kinks.

It's gotten to the point where about one out of twenty copwatch complaints involve police and the prosecutors' office putting No Contact Orders (NCOs) in for "victims" who are caught by police having a loud argument with their spouses / boyfriends / etc with absolutely NO first party contact or victim.

Seriously, I'm talking a 9-1-1 call to a dispatch center, police arrive, separate two people and take him (almost always him) to jail, on the say-so of the phone call and without direct observation of the offense. And the NCO is automajic in Thurston County. No real discretion for some reason. Even if he lives with her, and there is no evidence for physical contact.

But you're right, we'll probably want to keep some professional policing around for cases such as domestic abuse and child abuse. But that does not mean that these officers should be un-elected, or un-accountable.

I've never heard of such a thing.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 10:55am.

Cops being elected by the people? Now that could potentially go very wrong, or could be very cool. Depending on where you live. The South, not so good, but I think it would do wonders in inner-cities.

They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey

Sure you have heard of it - the SHERIFF?

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 8:17pm.

We have elected Sheriffs in the United States since before the Declaration of Independence. Same thing. And yes, it goes badly as often as not but the point is that at least there is some accountability at the polls. Assuming: free and fair elections, open and honest journalism, accurate and timely public documents releases, etc. It's far from perfect.

Edward Abbey said it best: "Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others."

So, how about that Steamboat Island shooting?

Submitted by jlw on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 10:18am.

News story here. I can't believe the troopers shot into a car with a toddler in it.

I'm holding back judgement

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:44am.

I'm holding back judgement until more of the story presents itself. From the article I can think of a handful of reasons why the trooper shot into the car. I think this may be worthy of a new thread though. Hope you don't mind Janet, if you do feel free to smack me ;)

Unless I missed something I

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:45am.

Unless I missed something I didn't see enough to determine whether the trooper fired into the car, or whether the driver had left it.

We are the precious chosen few, let all the rest be damned. There's only room for one or two, we can't have Heaven crammed!

True

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 08/07/2007 - 11:53am.

I'm not seeing it one way or the other. I started a new thread on it though.

For those who feel police are necessary and always will be.

Submitted by Myshkin1984 on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 3:53pm.

This is my first posting (I check this site every once in a while to get some local info, but never posted before) and maybe its a bit to late for this thread, but hey.

I think that this article can serve as a useful metaphor for this police situation. Stop lights and street signs were removed from several cities in Europe and, hey hey, chaos DID NOT ensue. What happened? People became more courteous drivers. This experiment was based on a theory that basically said that all of these rules, laws, and signs, actually clutter our heads and compromise our own innate morality. Think about your own experience(s). Who here has not sped through a yellow light in order to avoid getting a red light (those who drive cars that is)? What if there were no traffic light there? Would you plow right through hoping that no obstacles appear? Or would you be more cautious, taking time to make sure that the intersection was free of obstacles? Now I don't want to hear whining about traffic congestion and so on because that is not the point; it's a valid point if we were actually talking about removing all stop lights in Olympia, but we're not. What we're talking about is whether or not people have it in them to police themselves. So far this traffic experiment seems to be working in Europe (not to say that there aren't skeptics). I don't think that we'll get to see a police-free-state in our lifetime (this culture has fucked up way too many people beyond the point of return), but if we want to, we can work toward it.

Why not give it a try

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 4:02pm.

Pick a section of town, get rid of the signs, and if it doesn't work out, go back to the old ways. Why not conduct more of these kinds of experiments (at least on a small scale) so we can stop arguing about whether or not they are good ideas?

good point

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 4:29pm.

googly elmo is right too, we should try these sorts of things out, then maybe we can get rid of those stupid roundabouts that nobody knows how to use.

Weren't the roundabouts put

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 4:40pm.

Weren't the roundabouts put in for exactly that reason? Drivers have to pay attention, be courteous, slow down etc? Taking away the stoplights in downtown would create 4way stops, this would make the busier streets get the same amount of thru-way as less-busy intersecting streets. Sure, let's try it....on a sunday or something. I have no doubt that drivers will pay more attention and there may be some more "friendly" exchanges, but I'm sure traffic would be terrible.

Actually,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 4:57pm.

the roundabouts are working rather well. People may not like them, but traffic doesn't have to back up any more like it used to...which was the reason they were created. They keep people moving...except the numbnuts who think yield means stop.

THOSE ARE THE ONES I'M

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 5:08pm.

THOSE ARE THE ONES I'M TALKING ABOUT!!

wow!

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 5:25pm.

That's some energy there Rob. So if there were "roundabout cops" would you sign up? Maybe smack around an old lady who keeps stopping when the circle is clear?

Yes,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 6:07pm.

Of course I would Norm.

Rob and I talked at the

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 9:50pm.

Rob and I talked at the broho tonight, and I related that Some olympians are not sure what a blinking yellow light means.....I have very little hope for traffic help in this town anymore.

Oh my goodness, maybe I

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 7:00am.

Oh my goodness, maybe I shouldn't get started.

People in this town don't know what to do on either side of a Yield sign.

They don't know what flashing lights mean.

They don't have the gumption to take their turn on a four-way, or to know when to go at the Roundabout.

They believe if a cop has pulled somebody over and is giving them a ticket that they must slam on the breaks even when they were already going below the speed limit.

Maybe George Bush has it right after all: Fight the Population Explosion, Support Your Local War.

How about we just send the

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:21am.

How about we just send the people with the lowest IQ's to war?

In a way, isn't that how

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:38am.

In a way, isn't that how they used to do it? And today they're still trying to convince the gullible that Hussein funded 9/11 and really did have all those invisible WMDs and that if we don't keep having the kids go over and die we'll be praying to Mecca by next century (as if that's any worse than praying elsewhere)

roundabout ettiquette

Submitted by enpen on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 6:25am.

I learned how to drive roundabouts while learning how to drive a stick shift in Ireland. While trying not to grind gears and stall out as cars flew by I discovered the key: assume that everybody else doesn't want to be in a car accident as badly as you do, and then gun it.

That's always been my

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:19am.

That's always been my driving philosophy, and I've had only one accident involving another car, then again my dad was a race car driver.

Wow, my parents raced

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/09/2007 - 10:43am.

Wow, my parents raced hydroplanes and my dad's a huge racecar fan, and they both taught me how to drive. Simple things like gunning it so that you merge onto the freeway at the speed limit, or actually taking your turn on a four-way and not waiting to see that everyone else nods their acceptance of your right-of-way.

Maybe school traffic safety classes should take their students out to the Tenino Speedway?

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: