I dislike all forms of law enforcement because if the law reflects the needs of the State, and the State's needs do not align with my needs, then law enforcement officers are inherently at conflict with my needs. In short, law enforcement are nothing but goons who do the bidding of this abstraction known as the State. This is the main reason I hold contempt for law enforcement. They voluntarily sign up to a job that protects and serves the State, and therefore by extension, protects and serves the ruling class and owning class. Logistically, even if the law was in my interest, it is not even possible for law enforcement to know the full extent of the laws they enforce, so they are practically limited in their ability to actually enforce the law evenly and completely. Moreover, law enforcement often break laws themselves, due to a lack of accountability nested in their supposed authority. I see no place for the physical embodiment of State violence, and I reject it where I can. What follows is my responses to some common counter arguments.
When (often white priveliged) people speak of "good cops" they tend to quickly give examples of:
cops who have a pleasent demeanour
or
cops that ignore their duty as law enforcement
An example of the first: someone recalls a time that they met a cop and became good friends with them or had a nice chat with them, possibly during an incident where the police were called. This is not a valid counter-argument for why the police are good, but instead just an anecdote about someone who treated you like how you would expect any other human being to treat you. Cops do not get a special medal for treating you in a respectful way that's considered normal in our society. At most, it might say something about that particular cop as a person, but it says nothing about the occupation, especially because a good demeanour does little to alleviate, for example, the consequences of being arrested during a climate action protest.
An example of the second: someone recalls a time they were stopped and maybe caught with a bit of marijuana, but the cop gave this issue a pass and ignored it. Or maybe they caught you trespassing but let you go. Cops who choose to ignore the enforcement of certain laws, perhaps because they might (rightly) believe it to be unjust, are not being good cops, they are simply choosing to (briefly) not be a cop. The primary role of the police is to police. What you are actually saying, when giving this example, is that: if the cop was to be a "proper" "unbiased" law enforcement, you would not have liked them as much, but when they decided not to do their job "proper", you liked them more. If anything, this counter-argument should only make you recognise that you actually don't like cops either.
There is finally a third, and seemingly more robust example of a so-called "good cop".
It is a common misconception that cops are there to protect and serve the people, however this is rarely the case. When it does occur, it is often protection from a situation created wholly or in part by the State, e.g. a person experiencing a mental health episode who has not been given adequate care and is now actively endangering others. However when something is "created by the State", we must remember that the State is nothing until its power has physicality, or at least the appearance of it. Therefore, these situations created by the State (e.g. poverty, houselessness, climate anxiety etc.) are often emergent from the implied or enforced power of the State, which largely is materialised through the police and other law enforcement. That is to say, the enforcement of unjust laws by cops (or the promise of it), creates these injustices which lead people into situations that endangers others.
But certainly the role of keeping people safe is important regardless, but there is no reason why we couldn't have this role in a society without police. We could instead have a group of people who are trained to help the community in various ways (see the last section of this page).
Finally, there are also rare instances when the political needs of the State overlap with my own needs, in which case law enforcement can be helpful (see the following counter argument for an example), but this does not justify their continued existence.
Play Three-way Chess if you struggle with understanding the dynamic between anti-fascists, fascists, and the State.
It's true that it's never all police doing all the awful things, but this makes little difference when these few "bad apples" keep cropping up repeatedly. Police worldwide continue to show a particular pattern in their culture: they tend to have each others backs, even the one's doing awful things. In fact they will often push against anyone trying to out these people, and when this doesn't work, they give the abusive cops paid leave and maybe some "retraining". If anyone in the media raises the question about how systematic this appears, funding for the police ironically increases as if that will fix a trend which has persisted since the beginnings of modern police. Positions of power will always attract those seeking to abuse it.
So whether or not it's just a few cops, it's clear that it is all cops who stand by and support these few (with the exception of ex-cop whistleblowers). Just as with the military, if one ignores an oppressor, one takes the side of the oppressor.
Just because it's very awful in one place, and only relatively medium awful in another, doesn't mean we should ignore the latter. Because children are starving in Africa doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help houseless people in Australia, etc.
Would you be killing anyone? Chances are low. Do you know anyone around you that would kill anyone? The notion that people are untamed wild animals is a carry-over from the religious notion of inherent sin. It takes tremendous amounts of effort to become self-sufficient on your own, especially if one seeks to enjoy leisure time too, so by design, humans require one another in order to live well. If someone goes about killing others, they are actively severing their ties with their fellow humans. There's a reason that ostracisation has been a common and effective practice throughout human history.
Consider that these "few bad people" already actively seek positions of supposed authority, such as law enforcement. Consider the ideal at the bottom of this page which outlines an alternative to police. Consider that humans have had various methods of discouraging anti-social behaviours for thousands of years without the need for police. Consider alternative justice systems like restorative justice instead of punitive. Consider that we can still use self-organised community power, and self-determined individual power, to deter non-consensual hierarchical domination. We keep us safe.
If the previous examples seem too theoretical to you, and you are still convinced that I'm reacting purely because of a "few bad apples" or you're looking for sources on many of these claims/observations, the following lists some awful things that Australian law enforcement have done.
Let us perhaps imagine a group of self-organised people who carry out the role of keeping people safe. In other words, a group that does what everyone thinks is the primary role of the police (it is not). This group would carry no inherent authority, and only have as much respect as they have skills to perform their role. This could include deescalating domestic violence, giving people lifts to the nearest bus stop so they get home safe if they are drunk, helping people that are lost or experiencing a distressing situation (e.g. from drugs), and carrying out anti-fascist actions. Imagine for a moment, a world where seeing one of these community safety people gives one a feeling of relief and actual safety, rather than the tenseness that police officers give in our current world.
ACAB
Page last edited on 5 May 2024.