251
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
251 points (98.8% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2464 readers
289 users here now
The police problem is that police are policed by the police. Cops are accountable only to other cops, which is no accountability at all.
99.9999% of police brutality, corruption, and misconduct is never investigated, never punished, never makes the news, so it's not on this page.
When cops are caught breaking the law, they're investigated by other cops. Details are kept quiet, the officers' names are withheld from public knowledge, and what info is eventually released is only what police choose to release — often nothing at all.
When police are fired — which is all too rare — they leave with 'law enforcement experience' and can easily find work in another police department nearby. It's called "Wandering Cops."
When police testify under oath, they lie so frequently that cops themselves have a joking term for it: "testilying." Yet it's almost unheard of for police to be punished or prosecuted for perjury.
Cops can and do get away with lawlessness, because cops protect other cops. If they don't, they aren't cops for long.
The legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" renders police officers invulnerable to lawsuits for almost anything they do. In practice, getting past 'qualified immunity' is so unlikely, it makes headlines when it happens.
All this is a path to a police state.
In a free society, police must always be under serious and skeptical public oversight, with non-cops and non-cronies in charge, issuing genuine punishment when warranted.
Police who break the law must be prosecuted like anyone else, promptly fired if guilty, and barred from ever working in law-enforcement again.
That's the solution.
♦ ♦ ♦
Our definition of ‘cops’ is broad, and includes prison guards, probation officers, shitty DAs and judges, etc — anyone who has the authority to fuck over people’s lives, with minimal or no oversight.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.
② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.
③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.
④ Please don't dox or post calls for harassment, vigilantism, tar & feather attacks, etc.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
It you've been banned but don't know why, check the moderator's log. If you feel you didn't deserve it, hey, I'm new at this and maybe you're right. Send a cordial PM, for a second chance.
♦ ♦ ♦
ALLIES
• r/ACAB
♦ ♦ ♦
INFO
• A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions
• Cops aren't supposed to be smart
• Killings by law enforcement in Canada
• Killings by law enforcement in the United Kingdom
• Killings by law enforcement in the United States
• Know your rights: Filming the police
• Three words. 70 cases. The tragic history of 'I can’t breathe' (as of 2020)
• Police aren't primarily about helping you or solving crimes.
• Police lie under oath, a lot
• Police spin: An object lesson in Copspeak
• Police unions and arbitrators keep abusive cops on the street
• Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States
• When the police knock on your door
♦ ♦ ♦
ORGANIZATIONS
• NAACP
• National Police Accountability Project
• Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What the fuck? They can just... do that? Literally some third world countries are better at protecting their citizens than this (not mine though).
So ymmv and I am NAL, but under case law there is what is known as the “Payton Threshold” so named after Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (which while applying nationwide, the details vary by jurisdiction). The generally accepted rules, iirc, is that once a police officer is allowed into a home (even by only an inch) they are essentially free to detain anyone in the home and a perform a limited search (generally of anything in plain sight and/or in grab-able distance to the arrestee). Based on the circumstances, I am assuming this is what the sheriff was trying to reference by saying once he's through that door he has more power.
Except he gained entry illegally without a warrant, probable cause (from the sound of it), or consent.
Any lawyer should be able to get the case thrown out. But consequences for abuse of authority are far more elusive.
I doubt it is that simple, especially as noted the sheriff said the child ran from him, that triggers two things, whether it was exigent circumstance (child was in danger, he ran after them) or that the actual running gave probable cause to believe they were an elusive suspect. Both things have been upheld, but they would probably go with the first because its a child, and well “won’t somebody please think of the children!.” This may be alot of things but an easy dismissal it would not be.
The child WAS in danger, as made evident by the illegal forced every into their home.
I am not saying you are wrong, just legally the cop could make the argument for Exigent circumstances and easily win.
This is why it's suggested to talk to them through the door, on a door camera, or through a window.
Basically treat them like vampires. If you value your blood staying inside your body, never invite them inside.