If anything he is more of a proof why ACAB, if you try to do the right thing they will get you, therefore good cops cannot exist
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
13 points (93.3% liked)
Asklemmy
54534 readers
337 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
He blew the whistle because the surveillance apparatus was surveilling Americans; everyone else was fair game. The complete rejection he suffered from the Americans might've morphed into "mass surveillance is generically bad", which now catches non-Americans too, but he's an American dog who got a fright when he saw the reality outside propaganda reels. The system continues unabated. ACAB.
Also the five eyes is genius honestly. A lot of nations have strong laws preventing spying on their own citizens... Except it's not illegal to spy on another country, especially with a tacit agreement that they can spy on your own citizens and you just trade information later.
he's one of those fabled good apples in the bunch -- one of the cops who report the other cops -- and the rotten ones in the bunch (aka the 99.99%) are trying to arrest him.
It applied when he was a cop, yes.
Seeing as he is one of the most famous whistleblowers out there, no.
Thats a brilliant question. I might be in the minority here, but one thing I've always wrestled with is whether ACAB is best understood as a critique of an institution or as a judgment of every individual within that group.
Personally for me, the strongest argument has always been the institutional one. I have deep criticisms or even hatred of how police power is (ab)used, of the historical role in protecting existing power structures, and of the ways in which accountability regularly fails.
At the same time, I'm less convinced that every individual who wears a badge is equally malicious or equally committed to those structures. Some actively reinforce them, some passively uphold them, and some try, with varying degrees of success, to mitigate harm from within. My best friends father is serving as a police officer here in Germany, and he is as left as it gets. He became a cop bc "that's where the change needs to happen". He's openly anti-racist, supports refugees, is active in labor and union issues, has privately attended demonstrations against far-right groups, and has never been shy about criticizing police misconduct, especially if it's about his very own colleagues.
That's why the Edward Snowden question is so interesting. If someone works within a coercive state institution, but then exposes wrongdoing at enormous personal cost, does that tell us something about the institution, the individual, or both?
So I'd say: the police is one of the biggest problems of our societies. Comes right after the fight against climate change and the fight against capitalism. But IMO it's wrong to say ACAB, bc it's every individuals action that should decide over their fate. Feel free to argue with me, since I'm open to changing my mind.
ACAB is an abolitionist slogan. People are not cops. People play the role of cop. Abolish the role of cop, the people remain. Similar to slave owner. We abolished private slave ownership without killing or imprisoning all of the slave owners.
ACAB says there is no cop that is worth keeping, that is to say every role from patrol to detective to chief to sherrif to SWAT to FBI... All the cops are bastards. Abolish the cops.
Never thought about it this way... especially in the context of slave ownership. Thanks for the new perspective.
whether ACAB is best understood as a critique of an institution or as a judgment of every individual within that group.
English comprehension answers this for you so you don't have to worry. The words "all" and "cops" tell you whether the movement targets every police officer or the institution itself. Note the use of the countable noun.
He's not a cop anymore is he?
p sure he live in Russia or something because CIA said theyβd kill him lol.
Imagine a good cop, if you can.
They will have to exist in a system which I think we can all agree is corrupt to the point that it cannot be repaired.
They have a choice, they can silently watch as justice is applied unevenly. Allowing their coworkers to steal and murder with next to no oversight. This would (I feel) mean that ACAB applies to them just as much as anyone else.
Or they can try to do something about it, try to fight the system through direct action or documenting/exposing the bad cops for the media. Almost always the result of trying to reform the police system from within is expulsion (one way or another) from the police. If the police excise any good cops from their own ranks, then you are again left with ACAB being satisfied.
Edward Snowden is an example of the police identifying and elimination any good cops from their own ranks to ensure that ACAB still stands.
Was he ever a cop? I thought he was a software engineer....
I was just about to answer thinking you meant Robert Pattinson in Twilight
A cop AND a snitch...
yes