Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
Heard this at a demo, really made me think.

3 Answers

0 votes
Crimes aren't crimes when committed by police. The first thing about becoming a cop is learning to protect other cops even if they are having bouts of psychopathy. As long as their crimes don't see the light of day, law enforcement is above the law. Most crimes aren't known by police, and only a small fraction of known criminals are arrested.

P.S. Here is a video about the Oakland police lying through their teeth:! Clearly, the police have a special relationship with the public if the state is so relunctant to punish them as they do everyone else. The psychological resentment to authorities is too much to be transparent with which cop does what.
by (740 points)
edited by
0 votes
There is a common lie about the functioning of the state called "rule of law". A state is said to be respecting rule of law if politicians, police and other state functionaries are not allowed to flout the law, as it exists on paper. Often (when convenient, and for ulterior motives) USA will criticize third world dictators for not respecting rule of law. In reality, it is pure hypocrisy, as evidenced by all of the police that literally get away with murder. Even when there are video records of their crimes, such as the murder of Oscar Grant by Johannes Mesehrle, courts are loathe to deal police officers any punishment beyond a slap on the wrist. Liberal activists claim that this inconsistent application of the law weakens the legal system. Really, though, it would make the legal system much weaker if "law enforcement" personnel were not virtually immune from prosecution. Imagine the chilling effect this would have on the police. It is more in the interest of the courts to lose face with the public every so often than it would be to keep their attack dogs on leashes.
by (6.1k points)
+2 votes
This question has been up for awhile, and i hadn't really ever thought about answering it, but I've also heard this chanted at demos, and it has always bugged me.

It seems to me this is another example of asking the wrong question, at least if one is attempting to put forth an anarchist perspective. If we hate prisons as much as we hate cops and laws, then begging the question of why cops are not tried and imprisoned is actually working at counter-measures to our goals as the premise of the assumed correct answer is that the state will provide justice and right the wrongs of individual ("killer") cops.

The short answer to "why do killer cops go free?" is that we let them.
by (22.1k points)
total non sequiter ingrate, but "begging the question" isn't what you  mean here. here you want "raising the question". this is a VERY common mistake -- and i only point it out because "begging the question" is much more interesting than "raising the question". it's a term from logic/debate. an explanation is here...
or here...
Thanks, I actually knew there was a difference and was debating whether this was an appropriate use of begging the question, these links offer a better descriptive than what I'd looked up. I was thinking in terms of the logical fallacy being that the state will provide justice, though that still doesn't meet the definition. Perhaps some night when I am unable to sleep I'll go back in and correct that, but not now.
stay strong, ingrate! usage and grammar is a totally oppressive institution