The Law Australian Police brutality thread.

[eddiesmith]

Do you have evidence of what you said here being true, or did you just make it up?

Which part you offends you, the greens or the unemployed?

Given the Greens MP is leading the charge and they’re always free to protest when everyone else is it at work, I’d say it’s a pretty far comment.

 

[kickazz]

Which part you offends you, the greens or the unemployed?

Given the Greens MP is leading the charge and they’re always free to protest when everyone else is it at work, I’d say it’s a pretty far comment.

Neither. I just asked for evidence or if you made it up. Think I have my answer.

 

[Gralin]

of course they have no evidence they just like to find any opportunity to slag off people they don't like

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah but then these winners run to the next protest, then the next, then the next...

Not so certain, you paint it like every single protester goes to every single protest. Willing to bet among 'protesters' there's varying opinions on varying social issues

I mean, if they all boycott specific companies and affect profits you'll see some change mighty quick.

If there were millions then yes, but there's not even thousands in any single protest, or rarely.

It'd take the bulk of Jan and Joe public to be 'protesters' to achieve pissing off the corporates.

If everyone who wanted to protest got together and said stop buying xyz until we get what we want, you'd soon see that company on your side.

See above.

 

[adammania9]

They have an actual point other than being bored unemployed greens voters with nothing better to do?

Woah woah slow down cobber. They worked a 90 minute shift at a vegan cafe on Monday morning.

 

[Demons09]

Channel 7 doing a stich up job on the protestors.
Not one word on the issues.

Probably because the majority of Australians agree with the actions of the police i know that would burn deep inside.

 

[Cmarsh]

24 police injured. Is this the police brutality thread or the brutality of protesters towards police thread?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

24 police injured. Is this the police brutality thread or the brutality of protesters towards police thread?

Post on the expo thread then

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

24 police injured. Is this the police brutality thread or the brutality of protesters towards police thread?

Serves the police right. How dare they serve and protect. They should be letting the low life’s do whatever they want, even if that means harming the innocent public. I mean there are innocents in Gaza being killed so the best way to draw support to that issue is be violent towards police, animals and innocent passers by in Australia.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

They have an actual point other than being bored unemployed greens voters with nothing better to do?

Most of these violent activists wouldn’t vote green. They are way too moderate for them.

 

[Gethelred]

The greatest indication of statehood is the monopolization of violence; ie, the state controls who is allowed to commit an act of violence and or where/when it occurs. Affecting the pretense that violence is not inherent to all states is to be ignorant of the nature of a nation-state's historical origins and the maintenance of its position and role within our society. This is why the Jan-6 violence is considered a coup attempt; had there been enough support in the right places and/or the mob got a hold of the right people - Biden or Pelosi - without the state being able to intervene to stop them in the moment, the state no longer has a claim to effective control of the nation and thus regime change is required to one that does or can. Essentially, that claim to being able to control the peace is itself a threat of violence against anyone who would break that peace.

A police force within the nation state comes courtesy of this, and the necessary side effect is police brutality and heavyhandedness. While some nations - liberal nations - have guidelines and procedures to protect the public from their own violence, all nations which feature the basic model of policing are still working from the assumption that without police there is no maintenance of the peace and thus no control or monopoly on violence. This is - IMO - a genuinely absurd viewpoint; a nation-state has an armed forces for external defense, and can employ those armed forces as they choose (limited by constitution, which is subject to change in most circumstances if difficult). The Feds chose to express that power in the NT intervention - possible without a referendum because of the difference between a federated state and a territory in terms of being subject to commonwealth rule directly instead of having the federal government's powers tightly constrained - but you get the picture: the government was able to send in the military to enforce their will over the people, whether it was needed or not. What this is intended to demonstrate is that decisions concerning violence - ie, which is justified and which is not - are genuinely made for political reasons which are used to paint over violent repression and state control.

Had the government wanted to violently repress the anti-lockdown protests, they could've and would've been well within their purview to do so, and it would've been completely justifiable from their perspective.

To the point of this little journey into theory: when a populace becomes discontented with what their state is doing, there is no recourse for them other than regime change or civil disrest. We have implements of state to institute regime change - electoral cycles - but if an action or policy is bipartisan, there is no means to evince change the populace wants. The populace are, in effect, prisoners of their own nation state who is acting in their names. This is equally true of refugee 'Return the Boats!' policies as it is of forcibly restricting protest rights; if the populace does not agree, there is zero recourse as far as regime change goes because of the nature of the political system shutting some ideas out and enforcing their control over their territories.

The only option then, therefore, is political violence. Attempt to overthrow the nation-state's monopoly over violence, and bring about enough... threat of regime change that the system is compelled to listen to protect itself; or, succeed and become a new regime.

Now, you may not like this. You can choose to shove your fingers in your ears and/or disagree. But this is the problem in a nutshell: if there is no non-violent political recourse to evince change, a populace may choose instead to attempt a violent means of change. If y'all don't want that, perhaps consider listening to other people - even if they're perennial protesters - ahead of just wholesale ignoring them.

After all, the Declaration of Independence does hold the following words, does it not?

... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[IlovethePies]

Probably because the majority of Australians agree with the actions of the police i know that would burn deep inside.

Nah, a thin minority at the top agree with the actions of the police.

 

[IlovethePies]

The greatest indication of statehood is the monopolization of violence; ie, the state controls who is allowed to commit an act of violence and or where/when it occurs. Affecting the pretense that violence is not inherent to all states is to be ignorant of the nature of a nation-state's historical origins and the maintenance of its position and role within our society. This is why the Jan-6 violence is considered a coup attempt; had there been enough support in the right places and/or the mob got a hold of the right people - Biden or Pelosi - without the state being able to intervene to stop them in the moment, the state no longer has a claim to effective control of the nation and thus regime change is required to one that does or can. Essentially, that claim to being able to control the peace is itself a threat of violence against anyone who would break that peace.

A police force within the nation state comes courtesy of this, and the necessary side effect is police brutality and heavyhandedness. While some nations - liberal nations - have guidelines and procedures to protect the public from their own violence, all nations which feature the basic model of policing are still working from the assumption that without police there is no maintenance of the peace and thus no control or monopoly on violence. This is - IMO - a genuinely absurd viewpoint; a nation-state has an armed forces for external defense, and can employ those armed forces as they choose (limited by constitution, which is subject to change in most circumstances if difficult). The Feds chose to express that power in the NT intervention - possible without a referendum because of the difference between a federated state and a territory in terms of being subject to commonwealth rule directly instead of having the federal government's powers tightly constrained - but you get the picture: the government was able to send in the military to enforce their will over the people, whether it was needed or not. What this is intended to demonstrate is that decisions concerning violence - ie, which is justified and which is not - are genuinely made for political reasons which are used to paint over violent repression and state control.

Had the government wanted to violently repress the anti-lockdown protests, they could've and would've been well within their purview to do so, and it would've been completely justifiable from their perspective.

To the point of this little journey into theory: when a populace becomes discontented with what their state is doing, there is no recourse for them other than regime change or civil disrest. We have implements of state to institute regime change - electoral cycles - but if an action or policy is bipartisan, there is no means to evince change the populace wants. The populace are, in effect, prisoners of their own nation state who is acting in their names. This is equally true of refugee 'Return the Boats!' policies as it is of forcibly restricting protest rights; if the populace does not agree, there is zero recourse as far as regime change goes because of the nature of the political system shutting some ideas out and enforcing their control over their territories.

The only option then, therefore, is political violence. Attempt to overthrow the nation-state's monopoly over violence, and bring about enough... threat of regime change that the system is compelled to listen to protect itself; or, succeed and become a new regime.

Now, you may not like this. You can choose to shove your fingers in your ears and/or disagree. But this is the problem in a nutshell: if there is no non-violent political recourse to evince change, a populace may choose instead to attempt a violent means of change. If y'all don't want that, perhaps consider listening to other people - even if they're perennial protesters - ahead of just wholesale ignoring them.

After all, the Declaration of Independence does hold the following words, does it not?

Strong response Gethelred. Here is something you could consider:

Australian police rampage against protesters at massive weapons expo in Melbourne

The police operation, involving the use of rubber bullets and flashbang grenades, was an assault on the population aimed at criminalising the right to protest.

www.wsws.org

Mod edit: wsws.org

World Socialist Web Site - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Overall, we rate the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) as strongly Left Biased based on promoting anti-capitalist, socialist viewpoints. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to the use of some sources that promote conspiracy theories.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Funny how people in here who applauded police violence against lockdown protests have now totally flipped their opinions on the subject regarding a cause they support. Typical.

 

[Gethelred]

Funny how people in here who applauded police violence against lockdown protests have now totally flipped their opinions on the subject regarding a cause they support. Typical.

I don't recall saying anything about police violence against lockdown protests. Perhaps you can provide me with something I said of those protests you think points to my supposed hypocrisy.

I also don't think I've said anything in my posts - in this thread or the one in Aust Pol - in support of these protests. You can - again - feel free to quote what I said in support of the protesters or their actions.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Funny how people in here who applauded police violence against lockdown protests have now totally flipped their opinions on the subject regarding a cause they support. Typical.

your IP matches evolved2 on the Temu app

interesting

 

[Chief]

people in here who applauded police violence against lockdown protests

Who did that?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That's a bit simplified and cliched.
The protestors are mainly intelligent young people who know the reality and are disgusted that bombs and tanks are being spruiked like it's a car show in Melbourne.
They're unveiling bombs and tanks under curtains with music and a light show.
It's sick.

no they weren't lol. I'm sure a lot of them were doing the right thing. But i wouldn't be using the world mainly.

Intelligent people dont generally break laws.

There is a difference between a legal, peaceful protest and what occurred here, which was neither.

Just because you and others dont like something, doesn't mean you get to disrupt the lives of others. That is not what a legal and peaceful protest is.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

no they weren't lol. I'm sure a lot of them were doing the right thing. But i wouldn't be using the world mainly.

Intelligent people dont generally break laws.

There is a difference between a legal, peaceful protest and what occurred here, which was neither.

Just because you and others dont like something, doesn't mean you get to disrupt the lives of others. That is not what a legal and peaceful protest is.

Intelligent people don't break laws?
There's aggressive protests then there's war crimes committed with weapons from this expo so have some perspective.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Intelligent people don't break laws?

No. Not generally in my humble opinion.

Many forms of this protest were illegal and were not peaceful. Those that took part in it are hardly intelligent.

 

[kickazz]

"The protesters are a bunch of campaigners"

"No, the police are a bunch of campaigners"

"Police are just working people doing their job"

"**** the police, they are too aggressive"

98% of the posts itt having a go at the cops or the protestors.



Meanwhile, safely inside that building............


And THAT, my friends, is the world we live in.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

There's aggressive protests then there's war crimes committed with weapons from this expo so have some perspective.

The right to protest peacefully is generally accepted by all and is a fundamental part of democracy.

When that protest is no longer peaceful, they can gagf.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

No. Not generally in my humble opinion.

Many forms of this protest were illegal and were not peaceful. Those that took part in it are hardly intelligent.

Sorry but that is a ridiculous statement.Are these low intelligent criminals: Julian Assange, Christian Porter, Nelson Mandela plus about 1 billion others.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Sorry but that is a ridiculous statement.

Not really.

Only dumb people think they are entitled to act outside the law.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Not really.

Only dumb people think they are entitled to act outside the law.

Come on Hirdy .