We anarchists are generally averse to cooperating with the police, for very good reasons. However, as I understand it, at times the only real way to protect the community in the society we currently live in seems to be talking with the pigs.

Suppose you believe yourself to have evidence incriminating a serial killer. In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely. But what about the modern day? Do you turn over the evidence to the police?

This question has been bothering me for about 3 days now. It was provoked by learning about Aufhebengate. It made me wonder under what circumstances snitching is justifiable.

  • perestroika@slrpnk.net
    91·
    3 days ago

    I have had many encounters with cops, and I decide about the extent of cooperating with them on a case-by-case basis.

    • landlord is illegally evicting my mother’s neighbour --> I call cops and they prove how useless they are at prevention, but the matter goes to court and the landlord gets convicted later, and it was my only time to testify in court
    • cops accuse me of ignoring their lawful order --> sorry, I was listening to music, didn’t hear nothing, no comment, no comment, I admit nothing (nothing came of it)
    • cops intrude into the squat yard without knowing it’s a squat --> “the droids drunken people you look for are elsewhere” --> the cops go elsewhere
    • cops raid the squat --> refuse to provide documents until threatened, require cops to provide their own ID, contest every statement and discuss the matter publicly in media
    • cops try to steal equipment during a demonstration --> pull the equipment back and yell to them a description of what it is (I assume they thought I was planting a bomb instead of packing up)
    • cops want to interview me about illegal demonstrations --> I politely tell them to fuck off, then call back and volunteer for the interview to convey the opinion of other anarchists :D
    • a new squat is being established --> establish a security perimeter that is watched with attention and never let cops close
    • an attempted squat gets burglarized and set on fire -> inform the fire brigade that a bottle of propane could be present (fortunately it was stolen), the fire brigade had better things to do than involve cops
    • a new squat gets burglarized --> pepper spray the burglar and take their tools, without involving cops
    • a new squat gets burglarized, episode N --> threaten the burglars and take their tools, without involving cops
    • cops try to fall into a hole in ground during a stupid training excercise --> tell the cops not to go there, as they might fall in (leave untold: it would be a major embarrasment for squatters to rescue them)
    • the squat is suddenly in the security perimeter of a NATO summit --> find some military lurking in the yard and invite them into the squat so they could be reasonably certain we don’t have anything that shoots down planes :P (runway was about 250 m away)
    • a drunken person tries to SWAT me at a street party --> fully explain the situation to the SWAT team and later participate in amateur theatre with cops to get the drunken person safely removed from the police station :o
    • one drunken neighbour hits their spouse and when I forbid, hits me --> seeing that the neigbour has already paid for his deed since pepper was 100% effective and he’ll feel extremely bad for many hours, I did not file a complaint to cops, although they were called and showed up
    • after two geniuses tried to steal my car, but fled after a warning shot --> I did not involve cops
    • after some person attacked his partner and hit her on street --> I pepper sprayed him, and since he took out a knife and attempted to come at me (I evaded, no harm occurred to me), I did call cops and make a complaint, as did the woman he had hit
    • cops call me about one neigbour’s car --> I don’t remember anything (I did actually remember, but wasn’t in a mood for helping them repress a neighbour)
    • my car gets burglarized --> I ask the cops for info, they have none, I don’t involve them beyond that

    …etc.

  • punkisundead [they/them]@slrpnk.netMEnglish
    9·
    3 days ago

    However, as I understand it, at times the only real way to protect the community in the society we currently live in seems to be talking with the pigs.

    I think this is true in some situations and imo its okay to call the cops in a situation that not only endangers the community but also oneself. Like people trying to physically harm you and you don’t have any safer alternatives to protect yourself. Sadly many people are not part of communities that enable them to fully skip every interaction with cops.

    To your serial killer example: If in your hypothetical situation there is a key benefit in turning the evidence over to the police in comparison to just publishing it so everyone(including the police)/only your local community can access the evidence, I dont see why not. Its also not something I would call “snitching”.

    In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely.

    Also I just want to mention, I think this is not something with a consensus in anarchist circles.

  • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
    71·
    3 days ago

    In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely.

    I suspect, in an anarchistic society, serial killers would be killed in turn by the victims’ friends and relatives, and the rest of society would shrug and say “murdering people is wrong but in this case we can’t really blame them”.

    Anarchists aren’t necessarily pacifists, after all.

    Really, if you ask yourself “what would happen to someone in an anarchist society who killed a serial killer/rapist/molester/etc etc in revenge” and the answer is “little or nothing” you probably have your answer to how that society would handle serial killers, rapists, molesters, etc.

    • punkisundead [they/them]@slrpnk.netMDeutsch
      6·
      3 days ago

      Really, if you ask yourself “what would happen to someone in an anarchist society who killed a serial killer/rapist/molester/etc etc in revenge” and the answer is “little or nothing” you probably have your answer to how that society would handle serial killers, rapists, molesters, etc.

      A rapist/murderer might be just a rapist/murderer to some, to others the person might alsl be friend, relative, lover, child or parent. While I do not see myself in the position to stop someones revenge against their abuser or the killer of a loved one, I really hope this will not be the norm. Because as I said, the killed person might have people that care about them that most likely will get hurt by this and also might want to do revenge for that. I also believe that the act of killing can be very harmful to those doing the killing.

      I think anarchist societies should focus on prevention and doing things that actually help those that got harmed, which might vary widely by the individual.

    • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      3 days ago

      And then the friends and family of the unconvicted serial killer will say he was innocent and you got the wrong guy, then carry out reprisal killings against the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioners of their guy, then their friends and families will want to settle the score, etc. Or most people would support a mafia- or taliban-like group that provides some semblance of a justice system.

      Just like in plenty of places where the government can’t or won’t do the job.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        The USA had this sort of thing burning for a long time in the early days of the country. The Hatfield and McCoy blood feud is probably the most famous.

  • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
    5·
    3 days ago

    also, what kind of an “anarchist society”?

    put 10 anarchists together and you would have 10 different visions of an “anarchist society”

      • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        3 days ago

        it is relevant, as every society has its own solutions to “safety”

        if you’ve visited anarchist communities, you’ve probably seen that they invented their ways of dealing with “problematic” individuals

          • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            3 days ago

            calling for help of people who are experienced in dealing with these kind of situations, without using pejorative names for their profession, would be reasonable

            as an anarchist living on a state controlled territory, you need not feel guilty about communicating with the police

            • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
              41·
              3 days ago

              as an anarchist living on a state controlled territory, you need not feel guilty about communicating with the police

              Unless you’re calling them about something stupid or petty or irrelevant or outside their skill set or a situation which would not be improved by angry men with guns - and that covers like 95% of typical civilian interactions with police.

              Reporting information about a serial killer probably falls in the 5%.

                • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
                  31·
                  3 days ago

                  I made them up. To express my belief that the vast majority of stuff people call the police for is not stuff the police should be involved in. Would you argue otherwise?

                  (I mean, I could dig into statistics about the reasons people call the police and formally analyze how many of those reasons, from an anarchist standpoint, are not valid reasons to call the police, but I think bullshitting a 95% number is fine. I’m not being peer-reviewed here.)

              • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
                2·
                3 days ago

                see, i’m not a rambling lunatic 😁 i had to ask myself so many times these same questions and i’m sure i will be asking them again 🤷

  • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    3 days ago

    What makes you think that a “psych ward” would be an acceptable solution in an anarchist society?

    confinement would still be involuntary and an imposition.

    • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.worksOP
      3·
      3 days ago

      Because the alternatives are:

      • Prison

      • Execution

      • Exile, which offloads your problem to some other community

      • Letting someone who is a danger to themselves and others continue to be a danger

      • punkisundead [they/them]@slrpnk.netMEnglish
        4·
        3 days ago

        I think there are far more alternatives and also ways to mix them.

        One more alternative would be constant care taking by one or more people. In case the community cant/doesnt want to provide that full time, it might be possible to mix this with other options that might reduce the persons autonomy.

      • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        3 days ago

        you’re writing that in your anarchist society there would be a “psyche ward” where people deemed dangerous by the society would be incarcerated.

        Is that correct?

        • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.worksOP
          2·
          3 days ago

          Not really incarcerated, per se. And only a subset of the dangerous people.

          If someone commits murder in a fit of rage and regrets it afterwards, they would not need any obligation or coercion to undergo psychiatric treatment.

              • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
                2·
                3 days ago

                psychology, psychiatry, hospitals and of course what you may call “psyche wards” (among many other subjects)

                the question of when we started to establish psychiatric institutions; who did we incarcerate in them and with what justifications. If this and similar subjects interest you, there you have a person who spent their life examining them.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      3·
      3 days ago

      confinement would still be involuntary and an imposition.

      A worse imposition that being murdered by a serial killer?

      • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        3 days ago

        most anarchisms (again the plurality) have problems with the community imposing choices over individuals.

        justification of this or that as “better” or “worse” are personal or communal choices (and it shouldn’t surprise you to find an “anarchist community” with despotic tendencies. Unlike theory, flesh degenerates with time 🤷

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          3·
          3 days ago

          I think that more anarchisms have problems with individuals (serial killers) imposing harm over other individuals.

          Collectivist anarchism doesn’t really have a problem with establishing rules, to my understanding.

          • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            3 days ago

            why go to extremes? Let’s say a thief? An alcoholic who gets aggressive every time they’re drunk? A man who beats their companion? Or a woman who beats their companion? A dog that shares the same space and bites your friends. A woodchuck in your garden?

            “collectivity” may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules. Solving these kinds of problems while trying to respect anarchist ideals are not as easy as you think.

            Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn’t confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              51·
              3 days ago

              why go to extremes?

              Extremes are interesting sanity checks for theories

              Let’s say a thief? An alcoholic …

              I’m currently not interested in these examples. You’re whataboutising my point.

              “collectivity” may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules

              You have an obligation to follow the rules of a community if you are a part of that community. Also, a community has an obligation to their members. That can include protection.

              Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn’t confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)

              I’m an anarcho-communist myself so… thanks for the explanation, I guess?

              • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
                12·
                3 days ago

                you’re welcome

                anarcho-communists were always too communist for my anarchist tastes. Let’s part ways, nothing would come of our pseudo conversation.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  2·
                  3 days ago

                  You’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t confuse that with “most anarchisms”, please. Individualist anarchism is fine, but collectivist anarchism makes up a lot of the theoretic field.