471
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 2023
471 points (94.9% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2522 readers
25 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
Elaborate please. Are you saying there should be no laws, or no punishment for breaking laws, or something else?
The government should punish lawbreaking behavior. The government should not punish behavior deemed 'bad' by you or by me, unless that behavior is illegal.
It sounds like you're just not familiar with how CPS works, no offense. If a child is being subjected to an unsafe situation they can legally remove a child, whether the conduct rises to the level of illegal conduct or not.
Medical professionals are mandatory reporters (I'm not sure if that's the same legal term in NY, my experiences with CPS have been with several other states). That means they are legally required to notify CPS if they see or THINK they see evidence of abuse. Allegations must be investigated before being acted upon.
I can certainly see why you don't like the fact that the hospital tested the baby for marijuana but if it means they need to modify treatment of the baby they absolutely can do that. Testing the mother may be different, like I said I don't have experience with the NY system.
In short it sounds like you are just not familiar with the standard processes of CPS and are actively interpreting everything in a negative way.
You don't get to randomly drug test random individuals who have no broken the law. That's a violation of human rights. The mother would not have consented to a drug test of her or her baby. Even if they get reported, that isn't probable cause.
Imagine if that were the case. One racist nurse could say that every ethnic mother that comes in smelled like weed, and both mother and child get forcibly drug tested based on that? Do you want to live in that world?
I'm sorry but what you just described is not even close to what was alleged in the article and frankly incorrect on several points. I have no intention of arguing against a strawman, I've made several othee comments in this thread which add context to the situation, you should read them.
I did. From how it reads, you definitely think what I'm saying. You really think CPS can and should violate human rights.
Before I thought you were uninformed, now I think you're an idiot AND uninformed.
Except a court ruled in my favor for $75k, so tell me again who is right
Well if you tried actually reading the article it sounds like the settlement was for the delay in returning the baby and the practice of using pot use as a negative factor. Not testing the baby or mother for marijuana, and not removing the baby because the mother smoked pot in the hospital while pregnant. Headlines are not an adequate source of information, you have to keep reading.
Yeah, $75k for violating human rights.
Do you think that's some magic phrase you can parrot with absolutely no context? Let try an easy one: what human right did they violate? Are you referring to one of the 30 defined by the UN? If so which one? Are you using a different definition? If so cite your reference please.
In no particular order
All human beings are free and equal.
No discrimination.
Right to life.
No torture and inhuman treatment.
Same right to use law.
Equal before the law.
Right to be treated fair by the court.
Innocent until proved guilty.
Right to privacy.
Human rights can’t be taken away.
OK now cite specific actions listed in the article and which violation they match up to. You started by saying testing them for marijuana was a violation of human rights, maybe start by explaining that one.
You can keep moving those goalposts. I've got the law on my side.
It was really brave of you to immediately admit that you couldn't back up the first thing you said.
Prove it, kid. I have the article in my favor.
I'm contrasting this conversation with the one I had with OP yesterday, where explaining the actions of the hospital from a position of how they and CPS operate shows why they did some of what they did and agreeing with the parts that the courts said we're wrong, and we both came to a better understanding of why each other felt they way they did.
Then there's you, who care more about buzzwords and stirring anger about "human rights" and absolutely no ability to back up your statements. You should have stayed on Reddit, you'd do better there.
You never even responded to the points in my first comment. Why would I dignify this conversation?
You threw up a strawman that was never claimed in the article and now say the burden is on me to disprove it. I forwarded you to the discussion I had with OP and you again made a claim against me without citing anything I actually said. You are not coming off well in this attempt at a conversation. You need to cite specifics.
Guilty as charged. I am ignorant of how CPS works, except that I used to watch Judging Amy. I'm operating solely on instinct here — I don't trust cops, and this news item has the odor of cops.
That said, most of what you say makes sense, and the concept of mandatory reporters hadn't popped into my head at all, thanks. Assuming it's illegal for children to have cannabis in their blood, I can almost see mandatory reporting coming into play.
Except, we're in New York, where marijuana is legal. Are all hospitals testing all newborns, and seizing them for CPS/APS if they test positive for marijuana? They'd be seizing an awful lot of newborns.
My guess — still utterly uninformed, I'll admit — is that New York newborns are only tested for marijuana if Mom is black and has pissed off the hospital staff.
The article said a nurse witnessed the mother smoking pot in the hospital room, I would err on the side of assuming that was the reason the baby was tested. The article says there is a history of racism at CPS in NY towards black people which yeah, that's an issue. But I'm unwilling to assume that about hospital workers given that the inherent basis of medical work is to treat everyone as best you can regardless of personal feelings.
Agreed — I can't even muster any doubt that that's why.
Seems a fairly obvious conclusion that she smoked pot in her hospital room, which led someone to order a marijuana test on both mother and child. That test led to the child being taken away.
A quick Googling suggests that the penalty for smoking indoors in New York is a fine of up to $2,000. Seems harsh, but we don't want people smoking indoors, so levy the fine.
It doesn't say that the penalty is losing your child.
Yeah but you're thinking of it as an action being punished. She was not reported to the police for doing something illegal, even though they technically could have. The hospital was not trying to punish her, they were trying to make sure the child was safe. CPS didn't take the child away because the mother smokes pot (see caveat at the end), they took the child away because the mother smoked while pregnant. Not to punish her, to protect the baby.
Caveat: a major point of the article is that CPS had been continuing to use smoking pot as a factor of determining unsafe conditions, which they should not have been doing once pot was made legal. Just like smoking cigarettes is not illegal and shouldn't be a factor in and of itself. However, smoking cigarettes or pot AROUND children is still a negative factor.
I don't see any of what happened happening if she hadn't smoked marijuana in her hospital room, so I can't envision how what happened isn't punishment for that act.
You're saying they took the child away because the mother smoked while pregnant. I'd like to know how common that is. Are newborns taken away if staff is aware any mother smokes pot while pregnant?
Did health care workers remain mandated to report marijuana use after is became legal?
Obviously there could be mountains of context we don't have which could push this in either direction. I do know subjecting children to second hand smoke is absolutely a factor which can result in CPS getting involved.
Tovthecbwsr of my knowledge hospital workers have never been mandated to report drug usage to the police, I know for a fact it's explicitly illegal for medical staff to report drug use to the police, with one major exception: if there is evidence of harm to the user.
As for reporting drug use to CPS: probably depending on the drug. Again, pot use is legal, but if you get high around your children to the point where you are diminished in your ability to care for that child it becomes an issue.
You must be a teacher — you're good at this. Your third paragraph is an eye-opener, and makes all this make somewhat more sense to me. Someone who's toking in a hospital bed might be someone who tends to toke to excess.
Even second-hand smoke — my instant response is to say that's nuts, because I'm old and grew up with kids who must've had black lung by junior high school, just from their parents' second hand smoke. But it's a different era, and there's no doubt that it's harmful to kids.
Heh, not a teacher, I've just been in a career for a long time that primarily requires explaining data to people. I spent enough years as a data analyst to know how bad policing in the US is, the numbers are pretty damn clear. It definitely sounds like NY CPS has its issues but I've seen a lot of data around what other state CPS organizations do and they get a lot of crap to do an insanely difficult job.
The cops can't arrest you for being a shitty person, only for breaking laws decided by Congress.
Are you from Russia or something?
No they can't, but CPS can remove a child for all kinds of abuse that doesn't rise to the level of illegality, it's like that in every state in the US.
You're good at explaining stuff, and I'd like to understand please. What abuse that "doesn’t rise to the level of illegality" gets kids seized by child protective agencies?
OK think of it like this, CPS' duty is to the child. Their goal is to provide the best environment for the child they can. Absent other factors that will always be with the parents. If they see issues with how the child is being raised or their environment they don't immediately take the child away (depending on the severity, obviously). They will provide the parent with education, supplies, etc to fix the problem and get the child back into a healthy environment.
Things can escalate from there if repeated attempts are not yielding positive results. In this case it said she had previous issues with smoking around her other children. That is unhealthy. I doubt that was the only factor in removing them but it is part of the history, so when they saw she had been smoking while pregnant they removed the child.
I would also like to point out from Googling it sounds like that is the procedure in NY, a child can be removed and then the parent can go to court to ask a judge to have the child returned. That is what happened. Then it sounds like the issue with CPS was them not returning the child in a timely manner and using marijuana use it self as a factor determining a child was in a bad environment. Those are obviously issues, but the initial removal (keep in mind we are both armchair quarterbacking) did not seem like an issue to me, it fit standard practices as I have known them.
You failed to provide an example. Feel free to do so along with a source.
An example of what?
What else could it be?
Let's start with the example heavily discussed in this article: smoking drugs while pregnant.