1557
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 11 Aug 2024
1557 points (99.1% liked)
People Twitter
5268 readers
745 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People like this deserve one thing only, but saying what they deserve will get you banned from some instances.
I've got a friend who, thanks to close family of hers being a cop, is still unconvinced of cops status as bastards.
It's getting more and more frustrating listening to her justify why other cops don't do anything about these kinds of cops. Still can't accept the ones that do nothing are just as culpable. Accessories, in many cases.
If I stand next to my buddy as he kicks a guy to death, I will be getting jail time too. Why not cops?
This piece of shit deserved prison when he killed someone. His actions after the fact show he has no regard for human life and as such is a danger to others by simply being alive.
When a sentient transporter room displays more wisdom than ~75% of politicians, it is more or less guaranteed that the country is fucked.
As it should be. The strongest penalty for anyone should be life imprisonment. I don't care if you're literally a terrorist who has killed thousands of people, if you can be arrested without risking the lives of officers, you should face a maximum sentence of time in prison.
That said, I agree with the rest of what you said. This cop should be in prison for a long time.
Mob justice? I don't condone violence. It would be better for the system to actually uphold the law. It won't.
How do you expect any system to "uphold the law" without violence? Or are you just condoning police violence and not defense from police.
I was talking about what a mob of people might do to an asshole who ran someone over. I bought The End of Policing for multiple people because it advocates replacing police with socialist policies. I don't know how you misinterpreted my intent, but I'm also not accusing you of anything. It's early and I have to go to work soon.
Do those socialist policies not rely on defensive violence as well?
I misinterpreted your intent because when someone says they "don't condone violence" in the context of police brutality, it's typically because they either
don't consider the police to be violence, or
are literally pacifists.
Well, the idea to provide free housing rather than policing the unhoused certainly didn't.
I'm referring to how you were saying they could replace police.
The book stipulates that providing free housing would reduce crime committed by people who are unhoused. It also advocates for free health care for people and social workers for people who suffer from mental illness. Some will refuse treatment, as we already know. But not all. The book does not say that crime will end. It does make ten (I think) excellent points as a chapter each about failures of policing to address social problems. And it has damning statistics to back up the claims.
It's ridiculous that the richest nation in human history refuses to spend money on people in need other than for the purposes of enforcement. Doing so is counterproductive and wastes more money than just helping people. That's my take.
I understand what you're saying about building better systems. But how do you expect any system to uphold the law without violence? What do you do about the crime that persists?
Because your analogy is terrible.
It's more like saying that one dude in your friend group from when you were in your twenties always tried to get in fights whenever you went out went on to murder someone one day without you being there or around. You're now also blamed for the murder because you ran with him.
Or even better, your older scumbag sibling murdered someone, or parent.
The vast majority of these people aren't even working together. They barely know who each other are in large departments.
They also have one of the strongest unions in the USA coupled with institutional laws that protect them by default with little statistical tracking.
Those aren't issues where you blame people through proxy lol.
What's with the lol at the end, is this topic a joke to you?
Kids use lol as punctuation
Because what you're saying is so farcically absolute it can only be laughed at lol.
I think that analogy is worse. If my scumbag sibling killed someone and I didn't say they were a scumbag and distance myself from them and instead defended them and enabled them to continue being a scumbag I damn well deserve others' ire.
This isn't the one bad cop in America, this is just one of many whose colleagues enable and approve of their actions. Often defenders of these shitbags say, "it's just one bad apple" but they forget the rest of the saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch. In this case, too, the people that should hold themselves to a higher standard as a group are the ones making themselves look shitty by not doing so.
Not sure how people with family and friends of "decent cops" can defend them as a whole, particularly when most of them call on their cop friend or family member to help get them out of tickets. They're just as bad (lol).
You immediately got it wrong. You didn't know they were scum. You maybe knew. You didn't really know though. For the same reason mass murderers can be saints to their communities. Lying to people is easy to them. And most people are believing.
Your sibling was completely normal. Maybe hot headed. It came out they killed someone. That's it. You're not going to toss them under the bus. In general you'll wait because that's your family unless someone knew better.
You are officially defending them at that point according to you. No matter if he legally or morally got off or was culpable.
It's dumb. The entire ACAB stance is dumb just on its premise. Y'all too fucking gullible to Russian and Chinese propaganda lol.