Browse By

Crimethinc and the Police-Free Zone: Burn a Cop, But Be Polite About It

Community Watch Area Sticker: Police Not WelcomeWhen taking my kids on a walk up to the campus of the Ohio State University last week, I spotted this sticker placed on a flagpole. The small text reads “trust, respect, and communication are essential to healthy community; protect your friends and neighbors from uniformed gang members and other suspicious characters.”

Now that’s cheeky, and I appreciate a bit of cheek. The message served its purpose, being provocative enough to draw my attention and yet being vague enough to pique my curiosity: at home I typed in the URL at the bottom of that sticker to find out what this “Police Not Welcome” business was all about.

At “crimethinc” I found a pretty hefty split. The web page to which I was first sent is a theoretical polemic, criticizing criticism of criticism against police. Does that sound labyrinthine? Well, it really isn’t. The conclusion of the “crimethinc” web page here is to “Fuck the Police” or, in more practical terms, to engage in “militant resistance against police oppression”:

Anything that demoralizes police officers and delegitimizes their authority, thus encouraging them to quit their posts, is in their best interest as well as the interest of their loved ones and society at large.

Indeed, “crimethinc” concludes, sometimes it is necessary to engage in violence against police in order to free everyone from the yoke of The Man:

The point is that, in purely pragmatic terms, in order that others not have to suffer, it may be necessary to interrupt, by militant and confrontational means, the injustices perpetrated by police officers. It can be empowering for those who have spent their lives under the heel of oppression to contemplate finally settling the score with their oppressors; however, a real liberation struggle does not focus on exacting revenge, but rather on solving problems so that all might have better lives. Therefore, while it may even sometimes be necessary to set police on fire, this should not be done out of a spirit of vengeful self-righteousness, but from a place of careful thought and compassion—if not for the police themselves, then for all those who would otherwise suffer at their hands.

One could make the argument that encouraging people to struggle against the police does more to publicize disapproval of them than to cause actual assaults. One could even argue that it thereby does a service not only for those who suffer police oppression, but also for the families of police officers and even for the officers themselves…

Got that? When the police commit violence, it’s “oppression.” If these anarchists decide to commit violence, it’ll be “liberation.” But wait, there’s more where that came from. See, according to Crimethinc perhaps the most dangerous idea of all is the idea that police do something useful:

The fourth and most despicable argument is that we need police. According to this line of thinking, even if we can aspire to live in a society without police in the distant future, we need them today, for people are not ready to live with each other in peace without armed enforcers. As if the social imbalances and submissiveness maintained by the violence of the police are peace! … those who argue that the police sometimes do good things bear the burden of proving that those same good things could not be accomplished at least as well by other means.

That last clause is crimethinc’s acknowledgment that it has no idea how to accomplish many of the tasks of policing without police. When Father Joseph sexually assaults his young charges, when people are attacked with guns and knives, when people high on drugs and alcohol terrorize a neighborhood, rational discourse regarding submission to state power and value systems that support the prevailing hierarchy doesn’t cut it. How are these outrages — the sort of which have taken place in every society in recorded history — to be responded to?

Crimethinc’s response, that defenders of the status quo should somehow prove something else won’t work, is cute from the theoretical point of view of a group that refuses to define itself outside of its own navel but impractical from the point of view of those who must respond, in some way, to the assaults of people upon people right now, tonight. Policing is a practical solution that in some ways leads to real, observable problems but in other ways leads to real, observable solutions. The presence of police reduces real criminal activity in an observable way. What, besides “fucking the police,” does crimethinc suggest as an alternative means to reduce the violence of people against people? My search of on this count leads to… nothing of the sort, at least that I can find, only declarations of the sort that:

There is nothing in this world currently deserving of the name peace. Rather, it is a question of whose violence frightens us most, and on whose side we will stand.

So no, has seemingly no idea of how to solve this problem and seemingly no interest in it, which is, I guess, what makes the argument that we need police so “despicable.” There’s nothing more despicable than someone asking you what you’d do with the violent drunkard down the hall.

The top half of crimethinc’s piece on the police — “Why Fuck the Police” — is a pretty doughy mass of thinc, one that selectively engages with observable reality. The bottom half — How to Fuck With the Police — is a practical description of tactics for dealing with the undeniable corruption and violence of the police system. In its sensible, empirical orientation, it shoves aside militant poses and hypothetical declarations of officer immolation. Those are apparently for entertainment purposes. In practical terms, here’s crimethinc’s program for “How to Fuck With the Police”:

1. Educate yourself about the rights of people under the law;
2. Inform others about their rights under the law;
3. Observe police in their activities and record evidence of misconduct;
4. Use the media to spread information about police violations of people’s rights and lawyers to file suits, creating a cost to the police for abusive behavior;
5. In so doing, be sure to obey the letter of the law so that your work is not undermined.

Like any institution that concentrates and uses power, the police bear watching, and so this “CopWatch” activity is of vital civic importance. Take away the defiant hypothetical references to violence and pay attention to what the copwatchers actually recommend doing and you’ve got an ACLU auxiliary, minus the suits, plus black t-shirts and a snarl. I’d rather put up with the posing than have nobody out there watching the watchers. I’ll put what you say to one side, crimethinc. Thanks for what you do.

10 thoughts on “Crimethinc and the Police-Free Zone: Burn a Cop, But Be Polite About It”

  1. qs says:

    I’ve always liked the idea of competing police forces that way one group is not entitled to its power.

  2. qs says:

    In England too many people have been video taping the police so they made that illegal I heard.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Im confused… You are saying thanks for what you do to people who say that setting cops on fire is not only ok but beneficial. I must have missed something. Surely you cant think this group should be allowed. This can only go wrong, even if its just talk and posing somebody will try to actually do it

    1. Jim says:

      Well, why don’t you go ahead and READ the page I’m referring to?

      You seem to have the same difficulty that Crimethinc has: keeping two opposing ideas in your head simultaneously.

      Crimethinc’s rhetoric is hand-to-the-forehead stupid, moving from the obvious point that some of what the police do is quite objectionable to the wild conclusion that therefore it is necessary to be done with policing overall.

      You can’t keep the distinction between Crimethinc’s screamingly bad theoretical ideas about setting policemen on fire with great compassion and what Crimethinc proposes actually doing, which is to scrupulously follow the law in service of a pretty good (and arguably necessary) reform program.

      To answer your non-question question, YES: I surely do think that a group theoretically mentioning violence should be “allowed,” so long as it does not actually carry out violence.

      I mean, otherwise you’d have to bulldoze every church.

  4. Anonymous says:

    so if I say we should burn all white people because they seem to be the biggest proponents of greed and wars and what not youd be cool with that?

    1. Jim says:

      No, I’d call your idea “screamingly bad” and “hand-to-the-forehead-stupid,” as I’ve done here with Crimethinc.

      If you then went and did something worthwhile, I’d note that, separating your statements and your actions as I’ve done here with Crimethinc.

  5. Leah says:

    “the sort of which have taken place in every society in recorded history ”

    crimethinc makes it a point that nothing will ever change in this world if we keep repeating history,which is all anyone ever keeps doing. reapeating the same mistakes we should have learned time a long time ago.


  6. Anonymous says:

    problem is almost everything has been done, there is not perfect solution for imperfect people. In recorded history there has been no stone left unturned. We have tried it all and we have failed at it all. People screw every good system up…

  7. who says:

    your idiots

  8. William says:

    Yesterday’s utopia is today’s reality. Human’s have existed in radically different social structures for the majority of our history. Why can’t society change again; in many ways going back to a more interconnected and collective organizational structure? Individualism-ists welcome to abstain from joining of course…

    Police as presently employed are a tool used by “the man” to keep their private property safe from the rest of us. Police in a peaceful and just society would probably look radically different from our own system.

    “A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing.” -Oscar Wilde

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!