|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: Civil liberties, disability and mental health | |
|
<split from COVID-19 Part II thread. Thanks, David for BBMods.>
David wrote: | ...
It doesn’t seem like a particularly interesting observation. I could equally say your preoccupation with protocols and bureaucracy tilt you towards a disregard for civil liberties, but what’s the point? .... |
Preoccupation with bureaucracy??? That's a very odd claim. Staying at home and wearing a mask is "bureaucracy" to you?
Actually, what I find disturbing is that your obsession with civil liberties is applied selectively to shadows and the general public, who are relatively powerful, but does not extend to those most vulnerable, like the disabled and those with mental health problems and the elderly, who are shamefully abused on a daily basis. It would be less disturbing if you didn't give a stuff about anything. (Yes, I know, I'm "supposed" to start the thread. But it's shameful that you are oblivious to the real abuse going on in our society and even need a thread to educate you.)
Last edited by K on Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
Happy to discuss this here, K (without the uncalled-for and ridiculous ad hominem attacks, of course). Obviously this is a matter that is important to you, and I'm curious to hear more about how you feel we need to address these issues. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
I guess now David's made the thread I should post something.
First quotes from the other thread...
Tannin wrote: | It's worth a thread, and K is right. People with disabilities or with mental illness have their liberties infringed and flat-out removed as routine practice. We (that's "we" as in "this society and others like it") also remove and deny the natural liberties of old people, children, and doubtless others as well.
K's one error is to talk in terms of "democracy" where he means "liberty".
(Or else he means some other thing completely, in which case I almost certainly disagree.) |
K wrote: | Okay, maybe I'll start a thread if I have the energy...
|
Or just wait for David to create it.
David wrote: | ...without the uncalled-for and ridiculous ad hominem attacks, of course... |
Oh, good, so we won't hear accusations of being an "internet authoritarian" or wannabe tough guy, then. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
In the news in the last 24 hours:
Senior police officer suspended over Epping head-stomping incident
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/senior-police-officer-in-epping-head-stomping-incident-suspended-20200915-p55vpl.html
"Videos from witnesses show the man walking in the middle of the road, waving his arms in front of a police car. As he turns around and walks away from the vehicle, the police car speeds up and hits the man in the back.
Another video shows six officers surrounding the man while he is face down on the ground on the median strip.
When the man attempts to get up, a male officer stomps the back of the man’s head, forcing it into the ground. All six officers then pin the man down while he is arrested.
...
The man's father, Glenn, said his son has bipolar disorder and had been seeking treatment at the Northern Hospital while waiting for a bed to become available in the psychiatric ward on Sunday.
He had left the hospital and staff called police.
...
Mr King said the family's main objective was for the arrest to be independently investigated and for police to be held to account.
"I think that it's horrific footage and quite sickening as well. Stomping on someone's head really is about as violent and dangerous as it gets. I could never see any reason that could be justified by Victoria Police," he said.
"I think it should be born in mind that this was a man actively trying to seek help and he had been doing his best to do that. Police are dealing with a very vulnerable person with mental health issues who hasn't committed any other crime.
"Someone should never end up in ICU in an induced coma following an interaction with police."" |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
Well, for starters, did you mean "liberty" as opposed to "democracy", as Tannin suggests? Or do you feel people with disabilities and mental illnesses are democratically disenfranchised too? _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
"He had left the hospital and staff called police."
Bet you staff would still insist now they did the right thing.
And if they really did call police, did they tell them he was bipolar? Not that police are justified ramming someone with their car if he's not bipolar. I hope when the police claim he damaged a police car, they don't mean that there was some damage to the car caused by them ramming him. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Well, for starters, did you mean "liberty" as opposed to "democracy"...? |
I mean basic human rights, which I guess you would call liberty. (It's debatable whether democracy is a basic human right... I wasn't thinking about that, but if I found out vulnerable groups could not vote, for example... US??)
I guess if my post is the de facto OP, that means I can edit the title... "Civil liberties" is fine, but sounds a bit frivolous in cases when victims are being killed or maimed. We all should have the basic human right not to be assaulted by those representing our elected governments, whether they are police or hospital staff or whoever. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think it only sounds frivolous if you think civil liberties are a frivolous concern. For me, civil liberties absolutely encapsulate the right not to be treated like the man in the story above, which I read earlier today and thought was appalling – veritably George Floyd-like. Replacing police with social workers for frontline incidents like this is a big topic in the US, and it sounds like it's an issue that needs to be urgently considered here, too. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Okay.
I'm highly critical of the hospital staff too, though of course the video of the police is the most startling. Why call police? Did health workers think they had him under arrest and he was an escaping prisoner? That sort of attitude is part of the problem. They should not have the power to infringe his civil liberties like that.
It's interesting media lead with the officer stomping his head. I'm even more shocked by the police car ramming him. It's like a TAC ad gone wrong. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
I guess the question is, how do you feel is the best way to deal with someone who is mentally ill or under the influence of drugs if they are judged to be potentially violent (such as some of the people WPT has talked about dealing with in his job here)? My preference would be either for an absence of police intervention unless strictly required or else for police to have much better training in dealing with people with mental illness (focusing on negotiation and de-escalation rather than arrest). But I understand that there may be cases in which a person walking out of a mental healthcare facility presents a danger to the public, and cases where it may not be obvious in the moment which department has responsibility, and perhaps there need to be clearer rules around that. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
I've seen video of the bloke before they knocked him down with the car. They'd already tried capsicum spray, the guy was off his nut running round the street, punching Police cars...
He got up by the way after being knocked over by the car, it was a second lot of capsicum spray that put him down and he then got piled on.
The punching and kicking once he was on the ground was by no means warranted and the police involved should censured. The bloke who stomped on his head should be charged.
I won't be critical of the hospital either for the wait he endured or calling the cops after he left cos I have no details of the situation. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
I broadly agree with all of the posts above, each in its own way.
The thing I'd add is that as a community we seem to be fixated on being "nicer" or "less nice" as a blanket policy.
Take two imaginary people: one (I'll call him "Imaginary David" just to make a name up completely at random) wants to be nicer to everyone by not locking them up, and focusing on re-training and prevention and counselling. Imaginary David is very concerned about violations of peoples rights and liberties.
The other one (I'll call her "Imaginary Stui") is far more concerned about safety on the streets and locking up dangerous people. Imaginary Stui isn't really fussed about a few lower-class types getting a good kicking, and if a policeman shoots one or two, well, they probably had it coming.
Me, I am neither of those people. I am balls-out in favour of liberty, and very, very concerned about any violation of human rights. That includes the right not to be beaten up by policemen, and the right not to be assaulted by a drugged-up repeat offender.
I am 100% for better crime prevention (all else aside, it is way, way cheaper than any other way of dealing with crime - and more effective). That means youth workers, dealing with inequality, all the stuff that Imaginary Davids love. And it means consequences. You beat someone up, you do time. No excuses, no outs. You steal a car, rob a 7-11, invade someone's home, in you go. End of bloody story.
More carrot. More stick. Both. Not "heavier punishments" FFS! Our set penalties are plenty harsh enough. They just never get applied until it's way too late.
Discount for being on drugs at the time or for having substance abuse issues or an addiction? None whatsoever. Do the crime, do the time. You chose to take the drugs, now you get some drug-free time to think it over. Make a better decision next time chum, coz we don't take excuses anymore.
Meanwhile, we work very hard on prevention - remember, all else aside, it is cheaper than any other method. And we come down like a ton on=f bricks on police brutality. No excuses for that at all: do it one time and you are charged with criminal assault (just as any other citizen would be), and as for your job, you are O.U.T. with your cards marked "never to work in policing, or any other security-related position, again". We want good coppers. Bad ones we do not want at any price. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
Imaginary Stui has interesting views, not sure if I agree with much of them. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
Well, Real Tannin more or less nailed Imaginary David’s positions. At least that’s my, aka Real David’s, perspective. Perhaps I should check in with Imaginary David and see what he thinks.
Of course I’m inclined to disagree with the suggestion of mandatory imprisonment for drug-related offences, and I also have some issues with how we assess culpability in those circumstances, but that’s not what I want to argue here – what I’m curious about is how you feel offenders with an incapacitation that they aren’t responsible for (e.g. mental illness) should be handled by the justice and healthcare systems. I think that gets back to what K is trying to discuss here*: is the way we currently deal with such cases insufficient, and if so, how can we make it better?
*I understand that K’s focus here is broader than crime and punishment, but I’ll allow them to explain their thoughts on that further. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Of course I’m inclined to disagree with the suggestion of mandatory imprisonment for drug-related offences. |
Sorry, that's not what I meant to suggest at all. I'm talking prison for bad crimes (basically any crime involving significant violence, and selected other crimes of similar gravity), and no discount because you were out of your brain on drugs. Like this ...
"Your Worship, I'm sorry. I wasn't bad, it wasn't my fault, it was the ice I was on that made me do it."
"Prisoner, I don't give a damn if you were hitting up drain cleaner at the time. Or 100% clean. You did what you did and for that the penalty is such-and-such. Drugs or no drugs. Your actions, your responsibility."
Simply using drugs shouldn't be a crime at all. Do what you damn well like in the privacy of your own home, and with due care for the rights of others, notably children. It's your body, if you want to wreck it, that's your right. (Note that this does not allow you to endanger others by, e.g., driving while drunk.)
It's all about requiring people to take responsibility for their own actions. And equally, about helping people, working WITH people to avoid crime in the first place. Carrot and stick. Both are needed. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|