549
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 22 May 2024
549 points (98.9% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2458 readers
66 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
Here’s the thing about Trademarks though:
Trademarks exist to protect consumers from confusion in the market, NOT primarily to protect the owner of the trademark.
So, like, a restaurant calling themselves McDonald’s could reasonably be assumed to be operated by the McDonald’s Corporation.
This makes trademarks distinct from both patents and copyright.
Do you honestly believe a rational consumer would mistake this design for one originating from the LAPD?
https://academic.oup.com/book/41769/chapter-abstract/354401357?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
‘’’
European Trade Mark Law Kur Annette and Martin Senftleben Contents Contents Search in this book CHAPTER 3 Rationales of Trade Mark Protection Get access Arrow Kur Annette, Martin Senftleben https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199680443.003.0002 Pages 1–26 Published: March 2017 Annotate icon Annotate Cite Icon Cite Permissions Icon Permissions Share Icon Share Abstract Although trade mark law is generally regarded as forming part of the larger body of intellectual property, the protection mechanism underlying its functioning is distinct from other intellectual property rights. Patents, copyright, or design rights award creative or innovative achievements with a limited period of market exclusivity thus creating artificial scarcity of the respective commodities. This grants the proprietor of such rights the possibility to raise prices above the marginal costs so as to recoup the investments made. Whether and to what extent that strategy is successful and even allows gaining a premium is determined by the market. Trade mark law coincides with that scheme insofar as it also engages market forces to determine commercial gains or losses. However, instead of creating artificial exclusivity of the goods or services offered, it provides a communication channel for entrepreneurs, so as to identify the goods or services originating from their business, distinguish them from competing goods, and transport product-related messages they want to convey to their customers. This, by reflex, provides information to the market, guiding consumer choice towards goods satisfying their demands, and helping to avoid those they do not want, at minimal search costs (see paragraph 1.08 et seq.). Thus, instead of restricting competition on the production level, trade marks are designed as an enabling tool without which competition in today’s mass markets would not function at all. ‘’’
This, and the dumbass lawyer representing the LAPF sent a DMCA takedown, explicitly calling it copyright infringement, which is most certainly is not
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/14/when-lol-no-is-not-enough-lawyer-explains-why-bogus-takedown-over-fuck-the-lapd-shirt-should-result-in-paying-legal-fees/
Great read, thanks for sharing.
FYI there's a link in that article that goes to the initial, and much more brief, walkthrough of the original letter, and it's comically short response.
That was a great read. Thank you.
DMCA is only copyright so it had to be a copyright claim. You could probably argue that this claim was in bad faith, but that's a lot of work to actually prove.
Read the 4 page document
No seriously, read it, it's fucking hilarious.
In a footnote on page 3
Mike Dunford, Cola's lawyer, is fantastic. He has a Twitch channel (questauthority) if you want to hear more from him.
Why wasn't this good enough to protect The South Butt? Or was it just a legal might makes right kind of thing
Doesn't seem like its the same type of situation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_South_Butt
Can explain why you think its different? They both seem like they are obvious parodies and should fall under similar rulings/precedents.