Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
and a private security firm
they're still cunts
glad the crowd stepped in
see also: it can't be a war criminal AND a private military company
police and private security are different - it is an abuse of power but it's not police brutality
I used PMCs as an example because they present a similar problem (to international humanitarian law). Can the state just contract out its "monopoly on violence" and pass responsibility to the private actor? if the legitimacy of the private company's use of force derives from the state, this incident isn't really nothing to do with policing.
except the players who tried to break it up. But the video is mistitled, it's private security so there's nothing to be said about police.
so their obligations and liablities should be exactly those of police. it's not like they're just people who happen to be working at a football match. if the authorities allow private companies to perform the role of police, they should take responsibility for their actions too. but yeah, it says nothing about actual police conduct.
do we know this is a publically owned stadium?
and it doesn't matter who the stadium is owned by. I'm talking in entirely normative terms when I say something is the responsibility of the state (keeping the peace). I know nothing about Portuguese law and how they police football matches there.
and has security contracted out by those managing the event. the local public authority may have some say in how many security are needed for the event but they certainly have no say in who does it.
police at football matches though. i know they get paid by the clubs after a certain amount, but they're still there regardless of who owns the stadium. it's not a private event.
when i say "authorities" i mean much more abstract than local councils or w/e. you need a license to operate a business doing security stuff. that license is granted by the state or agency of it and they certainly have a say in who they give those to. so the state has responsibility to oversee the legitimate use of force, is all.
i guess the difference here is that, despite deriving their legitimacy from the authorities at some point, the security is acting on behalf of a private concern. but i pretty much agree with what you're saying about them being held to the same standards.
<some kind of joke about the police not even being held to them most of the time>
you know, one year at Reading (I think it was Reading, maybe Leeds) the private security put loads of people "under arrest" and made them lie face-down on the ground for hours? nice.
why does society get things so wrong guntrip?
it makes me lie to my friends
but yeah it's pretty horrible when they all start giving one of them a kicking. Two wrongs and all that.
looks like all the "cops" were in on it at the beginning. i wouldn't expect people to do nothing in that situation.
nothing to do with the police.
Over zealous security get beating for being heavy handed
Some crowd members probably get arrested for invading the pitch/assault
THE PERFECT OUTCOME AS JUSTICE IS SERVED FOR EVERYONE