990
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 04 Apr 2024
990 points (99.3% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2463 readers
85 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
There is a lot of bullshit here... NAL, but you can make a case that they intended to drink, or if they had a non-0 BAC, you can make a case that they were too impaired to drive. While the 0.08% limit is a "standard", it's not a hard and fast line, from what I'm aware of, but NAL. I would assume it'd be hard as shit to make a case that someone was too impaired with a BAC of 0.01%... But that doesn't mean you can't try.
You’re literally arguing that they could drink it, so they were intending to drink it? Do you have any knives in your house? Shall we call the authorities because you could murder someone, and therefore intend to murder someone?
I think my intention got mixed up here. I think it's all bullshit. But essentially what you said is closer to how the law is written.
To be totally clear, the ruling that an officers assessment of someone being impaired is taken as highly, if not higher, as an objective BAC here, is bullshit. It basically means that if they think you are drunk, you are drunk. That's insane to me.
I had a former cop explain to me once that he had an absolutely fool proof test involving tilting sometimes head and seeing if their retinas jiggle or something. I kinda assumed that it was bullshit, but if he thought that was the case, then he had the "right" to issue a DUI.
My point is that the BAC being really low is not an instant case closed in the way that it should be. Which is highlighting just how ridiculous things can get in these cases and still go to court.
In this case, it shouldn't even go to court.
Riley shouldn't go to court but every one of those cops certainly should.