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
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.