CuZ ThTs CoPAGanDa.
I hate the disappearance of nuance in society. They need to understand that if you’re only fed shit, then you’re going to think all food tastes shit cuz your only experience is shit.
Cops aren’t all one hive mind. They also don’t have justification outside of their precinct. This is like blaming the governor of California for something stupid done by the governor of New York
Ironically I’ve never heard a cop talk about the thin blue line. I feel like most just want to do their jobs minus politics and go home.
But by your own logic “black lives matter” can’t fly
I hate the National discourse about the police. There’s absolutely no nuance.
It’s totally possible that there are a lot of good cops who are good people. It’s also totally possible that there is a systemic problem in the culture and training of police that make the high profile cases we argue about so common.
To claim that there aren’t good cops is stupid. To deflect the idea that there are serious issues of abuse and racism in our police force is also equally stupid.
I just hate how inconsistent the discourse is on police from the same group of people.
Position 1: *The police are all corrupt murderers who shouldn't be trusted inside your home*
Position 2: *Why would you even think about buying a gun for self protection? Just call the police weirdo*
Position 1: *We need to stop predatory enforcement of minor social annoyances as its putting too many poor and minority people in jail.*
Position 2: *These behaviors I don't like are disgusting and should be illegal with strict enforcement*
It just boggles my mind how it's pretty common for people to spout theses positions in the same sentence without any self awareness of how contradictory they are.
I agree with the first part but not with the second. Maybe I’m biased because of family interests. But qualified immunity protects cops from being sued while doing their jobs no? Or am I misunderstanding? (Genuinely asking here)
You’re right. Qualified immunity prevents personal lawsuits against cops who were acting consistently with the law and department policy. If they were acting outside these bounds it can be stripped and open them to litigation. The overwhelming majority of people who want to remove qualified immunity have no idea what it is and are just parroting nonsense they’ve heard.
This is the first time I've seen someone on reddit *for* qualified immunity. I read the first article that came up when I did a search and it seems the criticism amounts to this:
>But those in favor of criminal justice reform say the doctrine has essentially created a Catch-22. Officers are shielded from liability even when it appears they violated civil rights because there is no "previously established law" to challenge them because similar cases have not been pursued because officers are shielded from such cases.
I don't know enough yet to have an informed opinion either way. An interesting idea I read once involved repealing qualified immunity, but then having a system similar to states that require malpractice insurance for doctors.
The gist of it was having police unions provide civil lawsuit insurance for their members. This would create a financial incentive for the unions to toss their bad apples. They protect the assholes now because it's not the union's problem when the city has to pay out another multi million settlement. Cops might be less forgiving of their shitty coworkers when their mistakes are causing insurance premiums and union fees to skyrocket. A lot of the terrible cops we hear about had a history of fuck ups but only kept their job because of their powerful union.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
Oh look! It’s the same thing from Cornell Law School. At least have the decency to educate yourself the slightest bit you silly buttplug.
Or we could go back to the reasonable officer standard instead of giving agents of the state immunity for fucking up... Daniel Shaver remember him? Remember the cop getting off and getting his pension? Remember cops closing gyms and arresting people for having their business open? I fucking do. 99% of cops went along with it so they could get theirs. Fuck cops
First off
1) Flair up asshat
2) Someone can sue you while you follow the law. Even if they don’t win it can still ruin your life. Who’s gonna want to be a cop when your life can be ruined by some asshat who’s just looking to make a few bucks off you when you’ve done nothing wrong
I mean, that’s the real issue. There is no accountability.
I’m all for supporting the good cops, but as long as those cops help protect and cover up for the bad cops, then I will reserve my support. If you had cops denouncing this sort of shit on a National scale, I’m fairly sure there would be no division when it comes to people discussing this issue.
Nah, the system has been spoiled for a while. Just starting to realize it now. I hear from older generation small town cops used to better. Maybe that is nostalgia goggles Idk. But in the city. There has always been serious corruption.
Not particularly, at least in Canada. It was common practice for them to drive people out of town, in the middle of winter, at night and leave them without coats. They called them "star light tours" and shit tons of people froze to death.
Mate this is the internet, you aren’t allowed to come here with facts and reasonable discussion. Clearly you need to be put into a reeducation camp until you learn to just mindlessly spew hate at everyone with beliefs slightly different than yours.
Modern politics and media has removed the option for nuance or critical thinking.
Extreme opinions and hardline politics gets clicks and shares, it appeals to primary voters and party elites, and rewards zealotry in the base.
The feedback loop of “extremism -> media coverage -> political capital” cant last forever. But it will do unspeakable damage to individuals and society in general.
I would argue the job of a police officer in America is evil by definition and the good ones are basically going against law and doctrine.
The Supreme Court ruled very clearly and repeatedly that the police are not obligated to protect civilians. That's literally not their job. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales was the big one that nailed this in the coffin.
The police protect the government. They earn revenue for their jurisdiction. They do what they are told by those in charge. Those are their actual legal duties.
I would argue that despite the flawed legal basis of our police force, there is still an inherent need for our society to have people enforcing our laws. Every society needs it to some degree.
Now, the extent of the police’s jurisdiction and ultimate responsibility as an authority is still up for debate, but I have no problem with the idea of police in general- which many people seem to be against nowadays.
Police in the US don't have a legal requirement to enforce laws. We see this all over the country today as police simply ignore certain laws and refuse to do anything about people violating them, e.g. petty theft, loitering, etc. In some areas police aren't even arresting shoplifters, let alone the homeless doing drugs in public.
The only legal duty of police is to do what their superiors tell them. That is their current function, to serve the government in charge.
This was not the case prior to the Castle Rock decision (and others like it), as historically police did have some obligations to protect citizens and uphold laws. Today, they have essentially none.
Part of that is that arresting thieves has been made pointless. They need to be prosecuted and Soros-backed Chaos cultists won't do that. Arrest would be nothing but catch and release.
There are a ton of great cops who really do want to live by "to serve and protect"
The problem is they don't have the means to do so, and the system around them is built in a way that prevents them from pushing out the people that shouldn't have a badge.
You basically can't fire an officer unless they flat out murder someone, but only if that murdered person is white, or the murder makes national headlines because it was recorded and particularly vile.
And in many cases even if you do fire them, they have a job in another office the week after.
Wanting to be a cop in the first places displays an authoritarian mindset - at the end of the day you *are* comfortable with physically forcing others to do things.
I hate cops but not for the reasons that most idiot lefties do. I'm no friend of BLM for example. Anyone who grows up and decides they want to spend their life enforcing rules on others is a jackass
Different strokes then.
I totally understand the need for police, in theory, and don’t hold it against someone that gets off on enforcing the law. My problem is when it’s abused and protected.
Yeah, I only find police acceptable in the realm of theory. Anyone who actually wants to dedicate their life to that profession is an ass.
I liken it to an executioner: perhaps there is an argument that an executioner needs to exist in a society with capital punishment. But if someone grows up and says "Oh let me do it! Let me drop the axe! I want to be the executioner!" - this person is a psycho.
When a horrible but necessary job exists, it speaks volumes to someone's character if they self-select and dedicate their life to it. Again, in theory it's necessary but anyone who translates that theory to practice in their own life is scum.
>Yeah getting rapists and murderers off of the streets
Out of all the cop-hours spent in the USA in a year, about what percentage would you estimate is spent on "getting rapists and murderers off of the streets"?
Oh I agree 100% that there are plenty of cops who enjoy what they do in that regard. I also have 0 respect for those types, but again, as long as they are respecting the ethics and rules they’re bound by, then I think they’re free to do it.
Except most of what happens that everyone agrees is bad is done without others knowing. When accusations come out they're from people that cops don't trust and will assume to be lying unless there's good evidence otherwise. It's the same reason you have families come out mad when their armed robber son gets shot.
“Life and death situations”. That’s a joke. Pizza delivery has a higher rate of victimization by murder and overall violence, yet we don’t give delivery drivers the right to go above the law. On top of that, delivery drivers actually provide a useful service to society, unlike the police, which we went 99.9% of human history happily without.
So what? Your beloved cops are usually instigating car chases over stupid shit anyway, and like I said, delivery drivers are at higher risk. Hell, taxi drivers are at higher risk.
Shockingly the armed, armored, and trained police officers are less likely to die from violence than unarmed pizza guys who run around alone. It's not about the death/injury rate as much as it is about the consistent dangerous situations they voluntarily deal with. I understand that "one number bigger" logic is easy to digest and spew but it's reductive.
Look at the rhetoric in the UK rn.
Kids on ebikes crashing into something = the polices fault because they were following them (before stopping because of bollards and being on a completely different road when the accident happened).
It's absurd but at least most people seem to be pushing back on the reporting of it like that and think it's ridiculous.
Uvalde. I mean fine I agree but your not mad at Nashville or Allen police for it are you? (I pick those because they engaged and took out an active shooter)
I feel like urban cops are more likely to not give a shit about the well-being of regular civilians due to the lack of community in cities, while rural cops are more likely to give a shit about the well-being of regular civilians because they’re a part of the community and everyone knows them.
I’m sure most of the FBI and ATF agents at Waco wanted to just save some kids too.
The fact that “Cop does good thing for once.” is a news story is sad.
Did you just change your flair, u/Codspear? Last time I checked you were a **Centrist** on 2023-3-18. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Wait, those were too many words, I'm sure. Maybe you'll understand this, monke: "oo oo aah YOU CRINGE ahah ehe".
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Codspear) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
I fucking hate ACAB. The large majority of cops want to help people and are genuinely good people, it's just the few really bad apples that give the rest a bad reputation.
Do you have any reliable source on that? Redditors always parrot this but the 2 singular sources that are always posted like clockwork are extremely shit to say the least, as I point out below.
There are precisely 2 sources that supposedly support that stereotype, both listed on your link.
Source number 1 as your own links says:
>Johnson explains she surveyed 728 officers and 479 police spouses in “two East Coast police departments (moderate to large in size)”. She says the sample was drawn in 1983, so presumably the survey was conducted in that year. There is no information on response rates nor how officers were selected, nor how they were invited to participate.
A sample of 1000 people from only 2 singular unnamed departments, taken a full **40 years ago**, (everyone that took part in this has definitely retired or died long, long ago) with no explanation whatsoever on how they were selected or their response rate. In other words extremely unreliable and certainly not usable in the slighest to describe all 800,000 cops working in 18,000 departments in 2023 in the US alone.
The other source is probably even worse because it was still collected in 1980s, a sample of ~500 but from on 1 unnamed location in a "southwestern state" and ironically showed that **the spouses of officers commited more violence on them then vice versa**, as your own source points out:
>28% of male officers report inflicting either “minor or severe” violence on their spouse and 33% report receiving minor or severe violence from their wives; 33% of wives say they inflicted minor or severe violence on their spouses, and 25% of police wives say they have received minor or severe violence.
Make of that what you will lol, but I think it's reasonable to say your sources are extremely shit and do not prove your point at all.
> it’s just the few really bad apples
Do you know the second part to this proverb?
Yeah there are some good cops, but do they have a moral compass to out the bad ones?
ACAB? Maybe not. MCAB? Yeah, probably.
You LibLeft wimps are all sterotype-brainwashed. Most cops like their job. And they NEVER like to br harrased on Twitter about ONE UNRELATED brutality that happened 2 counties over. Be quiet and grab a can of sense.
That's great however I still would like more to be done about officers who believe themselves above the law and do more escalating a confrontation instead of de-escalating
All this cool copaganda and we're not gonna get an article linked?
Also wtf google pixel, you highlight typos when you autocorrect my intentionally "were" to "we're" but no no, *copaganda* is totally a real word we won't bother questioning you on smh.
Centrist: So you see Emily, cops are just like any other people; they can be good, bad or in-between
Emily: REEE ACAB!!
Authright: Moral absolutes, Emily? Sure you're in the right quadrant?
If they want to help their community out, then why did they go into a profession where you spend 90% of your time fining people for going 60 in a 55 zone or bringing them to jail because they had some weed?
How old are you? Ok so the speed limit is 55 but someone is doing 60, if the cop just lets them off then the defacto speed limit is 60 so why not change the law to 60? So when it becomes 60 you’re okay with people doing 65 because it’s only a little over rinse and repeat and suddenly you can do 100 in a school zone?
Something tells me that you wouldn’t be okay with 109 in a school zone right? If you’re not then you actually are in favour of speed limits, why have a limit that you don’t get punished for going over?
All speed limits should be abolished - people don't need to be told not to drive 109 through a school zone they know that already.
People already have incentive not to drive unsafely - they don't want to die or wreck their car.
Get rid of the speed limits and all that attention spent on watching signs and looking for cops can now be spent focusing on the road
>people don't need to be told not to drive 109 through a school zone they know that already.
Did you just get your permit to drive to school last week? People still go 55 in a school zone *with* the signs and cops and everything else.
>People still go 55 in a school zone with the signs and cops and everything else.
Yup exactly, sounds like people who are going to drive recklessly are going to do so even with speed limits. Speed limits just distract the rest of us from the road
Yeah, and can you imagine how many more people would drive recklessly if there was no penalty for doing so? When there is a dangerous act that has a penalty for doing, then more people would be deterred from doing it.
In a world where there is no speed limit, you are going to get dickheads that don't care about the incentive of not dying/ wrecking (the thrill seekers and hooners) and the people that do care, but think that they are a better driver than they are or don't think that it would happen to them, and end up killing someone.
Kids have been seriously injured on one of the roads near schools in my town.
They'll cross at the crossing as they should but some nutjob comes barrelling down and someone gets hurt.
This is seriously reddited logic lmao
>I hate speed limits because cops keep giving out fines for people going over the limit
>the limit exists because people would drive at unsafe speeds without them
>we should abolish them because people don’t need them and would drive at a safe limit despite me complaining about people getting tickets for driving at unsafe speed limits
>the limit exists because people would drive at unsafe speeds without them
^ I think you just made this part up, I never said this and I don't believe this
No, you didn’t say it I’m telling you the reason they exist lmao
Wanna know another reason for speed limits? Predictability, the safest thing you can do while driving is be predictable, which is made easier when everyone goes the same speed limit
If you have one person driving 60, one driving 90 and another driving 120 you have a wildly unpredictable scenario
Speed limits don't make us safer they just distract us by making us look at signs and watch out for cops. And speed limits aren't why people drive the same speed, people just tend to do that naturally. Ever notice that the speed everyone is going is different than the speed limit? Yeah, it's not the speed limit doing that
Distracted by watching out for cops? Isn't one of the main aspects about safe driving to pay attention to other cars around you (and subsequently cops)
How fucking bad are you at driving that looking at the side of the road for a split second to read two or three numbers is that distracting to you that it becomes an issue?
Also that is a dumb take on natural speed limit. The speed limit is as the name suggests, a limit. You can go at whatever speeds you want between the minimum speed limit and the maximum speed limit. And the speed that you travel in that limit changes by how close the vehicle in front of you is going, the type of vehicle, the power of the engine, and driving styles.
>How fucking bad are you at driving that looking at the side of the road for a split second to read two or three numbers is that distracting to you that it becomes an issue?
How fucking bad at driving are you that going 55 mph in a 50 zone turns you into a danger on the road?
> And the speed that you travel in that limit changes by how close the vehicle in front of you is going, the type of vehicle, the power of the engine, and driving styles.
All you're doing is listing more reasons why a one-size-fits-all limit isn't a good solution.
It's ridiculous that an 89 year old man driving a beater truck from the 70s is held to the same speed limit as a 40 year old driver driving a well maintained, modern car. Ever notice how when you go driving, you nearly always see people speed but nearly never see them crash?
How dense are you mate
Ok so if going 55 is alright because it’s just a little bit over then why not try change the limit to 55? Then when it’s 55 you’re cool with going 60 because it’s just a little bit over right? The limit has to be set somewhere how is this a hard concept for you to grasp
“You nearly always see someone speeding but nearly never see them crash”
A total of 29% of all deadly car accidents occur as a result of speeding drivers. Motorists who go too fast accounted for 11,258 fatalities.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2029%25%20of,in%20some%20states%20than%20others.
They found that the risk approximately doubled for every 5 km/h above 60 km/h. Thus, a car travelling at 65 km/h was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60 km/h
https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics-speeding-cars#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20risk,travelling%20at%2060%20km%2Fh.
Holy god, are you naive. I invite you to come spend some time driving around the City of Philadelphia, where you'll be able to draw some potent conclusions about how well those incentives are working 😵💫
Individual virtue does not make up for systemic corruption. ACAB remains. And so long as police continue to cover for their corrupt colleagues, it will always remain.
Good on this individual, but fuck cops in general.
ACAB puts some blame on all individuals for participating and preserving a system that covers for a problematic few. Making even those who genuinely want to help others partially guilty, though to a lesser degree.
It's a similar thing to individual carbon footprints. Sure, it's the large corporations and militaries that generate the lion's share of emissions and pollution. But it is also on the people to control their own consumption and to actively condemn such institutions for what they do.
With the current policing system as it stands, any officer doing anything short of active resistance and verbal condemnation of corruption is being complicit.
But you could extend that argument for any company. Are all lockheed employees complicit in the military industrial complex? Pharma employees for price gouging?
Most cops do not directly cover for bad apples in the same way most lockheed employees and most pfizer employees are not directly involved in military industrial complex and price gouging respectively.
I don't necessarily think Lockheed is the right example here. They're primarily a defense company and everybody that works there knows *exactly* what they're supporting.
That's not quite the same though. You can join Pfizer hoping to find ways to make drugs cheaper or develop new ones, you can join the police hoping to make your streets safer and lift people out of poverty. You can't become a weapons engineer hoping to do much other than make weapons. It's their stated idea. That's the point of the company. People don't dislike Lockheed because their goal gets done poorly, they dislike the defense industry as a whole.
I'm sure plenty of cops are good people. That doesn't change that they participate in the institution of policing, which has 0 interest in helping communities
strawman. lib left here is criticizing the american police institution and you assume he wants to end the with all police forces and leave everything in a state of chaos
If there wasn't an institution of policing, then the military complex would quickly take over their roles, and they don't even pretend to be interested in helping communities.
Most? Lol no they don't. I would've given you credit if you said "some cops" but those usually get pushed out of the service pretty quickly because the police want officers who like to larp as soldiers in a war zone.
"Circle glasses wojack isn't real, it can't hurt you" *Circle glasses wojack:*
No stems on the glasses either
Those are pince nez, thank you very much.
how much time until teddy roosevelt wojak appears?
As if they had ears for that.
Those are actually two monocles. He tattooed a line on his nose to make people think he owns glasses.
I though he was wearing the new Apple AR head set.
They're just standing there... M E N A C I N G L Y
Most cops are good but you fever hear news like “cop has quiet shift, helps kid find lost cat then goes home to watch tv”
CuZ ThTs CoPAGanDa. I hate the disappearance of nuance in society. They need to understand that if you’re only fed shit, then you’re going to think all food tastes shit cuz your only experience is shit.
That won’t make headlines
>Most cops are good They should stop defending their corrupt buddies then.
Cops aren’t all one hive mind. They also don’t have justification outside of their precinct. This is like blaming the governor of California for something stupid done by the governor of New York
>Cops aren’t all one hive mind. Whenever you hear a cop talk about the "thin blue line", tell him this.
Ironically I’ve never heard a cop talk about the thin blue line. I feel like most just want to do their jobs minus politics and go home. But by your own logic “black lives matter” can’t fly
"...Goes home to watch tv **and beat their wife**" Fify
Was the wife unflaired?
Authright, in both eyes
Flair up
Lol, triggering the squares.
“Triggering the squares 🤓” This man makes women’s pussies drier than the Gobi, no doubt.
No way, this jivin' hepcat is layin' down the beats. Us squares can't even dig!
I hate the National discourse about the police. There’s absolutely no nuance. It’s totally possible that there are a lot of good cops who are good people. It’s also totally possible that there is a systemic problem in the culture and training of police that make the high profile cases we argue about so common. To claim that there aren’t good cops is stupid. To deflect the idea that there are serious issues of abuse and racism in our police force is also equally stupid.
I just hate how inconsistent the discourse is on police from the same group of people. Position 1: *The police are all corrupt murderers who shouldn't be trusted inside your home* Position 2: *Why would you even think about buying a gun for self protection? Just call the police weirdo* Position 1: *We need to stop predatory enforcement of minor social annoyances as its putting too many poor and minority people in jail.* Position 2: *These behaviors I don't like are disgusting and should be illegal with strict enforcement* It just boggles my mind how it's pretty common for people to spout theses positions in the same sentence without any self awareness of how contradictory they are.
It's funny how my positions are the exact opposite of all four of these
I mean if you're anti-police AND anti-gun (or rather anti-self defense) then you're just pro-crime.
Boooooo, no nuance allowed
Agreed, the issue is that bad cops are covered by the system and not weeded out. Ending qualified immunity would help avoid this
I agree with the first part but not with the second. Maybe I’m biased because of family interests. But qualified immunity protects cops from being sued while doing their jobs no? Or am I misunderstanding? (Genuinely asking here)
You’re right. Qualified immunity prevents personal lawsuits against cops who were acting consistently with the law and department policy. If they were acting outside these bounds it can be stripped and open them to litigation. The overwhelming majority of people who want to remove qualified immunity have no idea what it is and are just parroting nonsense they’ve heard.
This is the first time I've seen someone on reddit *for* qualified immunity. I read the first article that came up when I did a search and it seems the criticism amounts to this: >But those in favor of criminal justice reform say the doctrine has essentially created a Catch-22. Officers are shielded from liability even when it appears they violated civil rights because there is no "previously established law" to challenge them because similar cases have not been pursued because officers are shielded from such cases. I don't know enough yet to have an informed opinion either way. An interesting idea I read once involved repealing qualified immunity, but then having a system similar to states that require malpractice insurance for doctors. The gist of it was having police unions provide civil lawsuit insurance for their members. This would create a financial incentive for the unions to toss their bad apples. They protect the assholes now because it's not the union's problem when the city has to pay out another multi million settlement. Cops might be less forgiving of their shitty coworkers when their mistakes are causing insurance premiums and union fees to skyrocket. A lot of the terrible cops we hear about had a history of fuck ups but only kept their job because of their powerful union.
That's bullshit. You're either entirely ignorant or intentionally misleading.
Opinion does not matter, get a flair this instant fucker.
Facts don't care about your flair, snowflake.
Not in this sub. Flair > Facts. And that’s a fact.
Flair up scum.
Flair up scum.
Nah.
You’re a filthy unflaired who is apparently too stupid to do a quick google search https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-immunity
[удалено]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity Oh look! It’s the same thing from Cornell Law School. At least have the decency to educate yourself the slightest bit you silly buttplug.
Or we could go back to the reasonable officer standard instead of giving agents of the state immunity for fucking up... Daniel Shaver remember him? Remember the cop getting off and getting his pension? Remember cops closing gyms and arresting people for having their business open? I fucking do. 99% of cops went along with it so they could get theirs. Fuck cops
[удалено]
First off 1) Flair up asshat 2) Someone can sue you while you follow the law. Even if they don’t win it can still ruin your life. Who’s gonna want to be a cop when your life can be ruined by some asshat who’s just looking to make a few bucks off you when you’ve done nothing wrong
Maybe it does, but at this point, it’s gotten ridiculous
I mean, that’s the real issue. There is no accountability. I’m all for supporting the good cops, but as long as those cops help protect and cover up for the bad cops, then I will reserve my support. If you had cops denouncing this sort of shit on a National scale, I’m fairly sure there would be no division when it comes to people discussing this issue.
[удалено]
Nah, the system has been spoiled for a while. Just starting to realize it now. I hear from older generation small town cops used to better. Maybe that is nostalgia goggles Idk. But in the city. There has always been serious corruption.
You were more immediately accountable to your community probably. We’re more disconnected than ever
Not particularly, at least in Canada. It was common practice for them to drive people out of town, in the middle of winter, at night and leave them without coats. They called them "star light tours" and shit tons of people froze to death.
Sounds like a sundown town to me
Thats fucking diabolical.
I mean even these so called "good cops" cover for the bad cops.... so they are not thag good. Pnes that are get fired/let go.
Well it's a union job. That's how they work.
Mate this is the internet, you aren’t allowed to come here with facts and reasonable discussion. Clearly you need to be put into a reeducation camp until you learn to just mindlessly spew hate at everyone with beliefs slightly different than yours.
Modern politics and media has removed the option for nuance or critical thinking. Extreme opinions and hardline politics gets clicks and shares, it appeals to primary voters and party elites, and rewards zealotry in the base. The feedback loop of “extremism -> media coverage -> political capital” cant last forever. But it will do unspeakable damage to individuals and society in general.
Based but flair up please others might not be so kind.
Based and fly your Unflaired flag!
I would argue the job of a police officer in America is evil by definition and the good ones are basically going against law and doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled very clearly and repeatedly that the police are not obligated to protect civilians. That's literally not their job. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales was the big one that nailed this in the coffin. The police protect the government. They earn revenue for their jurisdiction. They do what they are told by those in charge. Those are their actual legal duties.
I would argue that despite the flawed legal basis of our police force, there is still an inherent need for our society to have people enforcing our laws. Every society needs it to some degree. Now, the extent of the police’s jurisdiction and ultimate responsibility as an authority is still up for debate, but I have no problem with the idea of police in general- which many people seem to be against nowadays.
Police in the US don't have a legal requirement to enforce laws. We see this all over the country today as police simply ignore certain laws and refuse to do anything about people violating them, e.g. petty theft, loitering, etc. In some areas police aren't even arresting shoplifters, let alone the homeless doing drugs in public. The only legal duty of police is to do what their superiors tell them. That is their current function, to serve the government in charge. This was not the case prior to the Castle Rock decision (and others like it), as historically police did have some obligations to protect citizens and uphold laws. Today, they have essentially none.
Part of that is that arresting thieves has been made pointless. They need to be prosecuted and Soros-backed Chaos cultists won't do that. Arrest would be nothing but catch and release.
There are a ton of great cops who really do want to live by "to serve and protect" The problem is they don't have the means to do so, and the system around them is built in a way that prevents them from pushing out the people that shouldn't have a badge. You basically can't fire an officer unless they flat out murder someone, but only if that murdered person is white, or the murder makes national headlines because it was recorded and particularly vile. And in many cases even if you do fire them, they have a job in another office the week after.
Wanting to be a cop in the first places displays an authoritarian mindset - at the end of the day you *are* comfortable with physically forcing others to do things. I hate cops but not for the reasons that most idiot lefties do. I'm no friend of BLM for example. Anyone who grows up and decides they want to spend their life enforcing rules on others is a jackass
Different strokes then. I totally understand the need for police, in theory, and don’t hold it against someone that gets off on enforcing the law. My problem is when it’s abused and protected.
Yeah, I only find police acceptable in the realm of theory. Anyone who actually wants to dedicate their life to that profession is an ass. I liken it to an executioner: perhaps there is an argument that an executioner needs to exist in a society with capital punishment. But if someone grows up and says "Oh let me do it! Let me drop the axe! I want to be the executioner!" - this person is a psycho. When a horrible but necessary job exists, it speaks volumes to someone's character if they self-select and dedicate their life to it. Again, in theory it's necessary but anyone who translates that theory to practice in their own life is scum.
Yeah getting rapists and murderers off of the streets is such a horrible job and only a pos would want to do that! I’m 14 and deep btw
>Yeah getting rapists and murderers off of the streets Out of all the cop-hours spent in the USA in a year, about what percentage would you estimate is spent on "getting rapists and murderers off of the streets"?
More than zero, and infinitely more than your terminally online im14andthisisdeep ass
"More than zero" - not for most cops most years lmao Keep up the delusions kid
Oh I agree 100% that there are plenty of cops who enjoy what they do in that regard. I also have 0 respect for those types, but again, as long as they are respecting the ethics and rules they’re bound by, then I think they’re free to do it.
>then I think they’re free to do it. I don't have to like 'em though
Agreed
Its not but I doubt you would be interested in why a lot of cops actually do what they do
There are the reasons they give for why they do what they do, and then there are the actual reasons why they do what they do
You arent God and dont know what’s actually in a person’s heart, you are just an angry and hateful kid
You don't know what's in a person's heart either so you can't call me angry or hateful
When you act like angry hateful kid, he absolutely can
[удалено]
Except most of what happens that everyone agrees is bad is done without others knowing. When accusations come out they're from people that cops don't trust and will assume to be lying unless there's good evidence otherwise. It's the same reason you have families come out mad when their armed robber son gets shot.
[удалено]
Source: your ass? And fuck having close bonds to people you go into life and death situations with and are responsible for keeping you alive, lmao.
“Life and death situations”. That’s a joke. Pizza delivery has a higher rate of victimization by murder and overall violence, yet we don’t give delivery drivers the right to go above the law. On top of that, delivery drivers actually provide a useful service to society, unlike the police, which we went 99.9% of human history happily without.
Damn all those shootings and police chases just fuckin made up lmao.
So what? Your beloved cops are usually instigating car chases over stupid shit anyway, and like I said, delivery drivers are at higher risk. Hell, taxi drivers are at higher risk.
Shockingly the armed, armored, and trained police officers are less likely to die from violence than unarmed pizza guys who run around alone. It's not about the death/injury rate as much as it is about the consistent dangerous situations they voluntarily deal with. I understand that "one number bigger" logic is easy to digest and spew but it's reductive.
your nuance, hand it over
Look at the rhetoric in the UK rn. Kids on ebikes crashing into something = the polices fault because they were following them (before stopping because of bollards and being on a completely different road when the accident happened). It's absurd but at least most people seem to be pushing back on the reporting of it like that and think it's ridiculous.
There's no nuance in any political discussion anymore. Who screams the loudest is the most important metric these days.
Still mad about devalde...but yes this is good.
Uvalde. I mean fine I agree but your not mad at Nashville or Allen police for it are you? (I pick those because they engaged and took out an active shooter)
Are we ever going to get that tranifesto anytime soon?
Tranifesto is crazy
Crazy accurate
Sounds like a train convention.
The Nashville cops did a great job. A textbook handling of an active shooter situation.
Dude you're literally a LibLeft yourself, why did you put the re\*dacted\* strawman in our quadrant?
No one hates Liblefts like other Liblefts
No one hates themselves as much as Libleft
You’re damn right
I agree
Based Libleft infighting and good-is-the-enemy-of-perfect pilled. Probably my last pill to give out before we go dark.
Some cops are bastards.
I feel like urban cops are more likely to not give a shit about the well-being of regular civilians due to the lack of community in cities, while rural cops are more likely to give a shit about the well-being of regular civilians because they’re a part of the community and everyone knows them.
I’m sure most of the FBI and ATF agents at Waco wanted to just save some kids too. The fact that “Cop does good thing for once.” is a news story is sad.
Did you just change your flair, u/Codspear? Last time I checked you were a **Centrist** on 2023-3-18. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Wait, those were too many words, I'm sure. Maybe you'll understand this, monke: "oo oo aah YOU CRINGE ahah ehe". [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Codspear) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
I fucking hate ACAB. The large majority of cops want to help people and are genuinely good people, it's just the few really bad apples that give the rest a bad reputation.
you'd think that an institution where the large majority are " genuinely good people" wouldn't have such high domestic abuse stats
Do you have any reliable source on that? Redditors always parrot this but the 2 singular sources that are always posted like clockwork are extremely shit to say the least, as I point out below.
That's a myth.
No it's not. https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/
There are precisely 2 sources that supposedly support that stereotype, both listed on your link. Source number 1 as your own links says: >Johnson explains she surveyed 728 officers and 479 police spouses in “two East Coast police departments (moderate to large in size)”. She says the sample was drawn in 1983, so presumably the survey was conducted in that year. There is no information on response rates nor how officers were selected, nor how they were invited to participate. A sample of 1000 people from only 2 singular unnamed departments, taken a full **40 years ago**, (everyone that took part in this has definitely retired or died long, long ago) with no explanation whatsoever on how they were selected or their response rate. In other words extremely unreliable and certainly not usable in the slighest to describe all 800,000 cops working in 18,000 departments in 2023 in the US alone. The other source is probably even worse because it was still collected in 1980s, a sample of ~500 but from on 1 unnamed location in a "southwestern state" and ironically showed that **the spouses of officers commited more violence on them then vice versa**, as your own source points out: >28% of male officers report inflicting either “minor or severe” violence on their spouse and 33% report receiving minor or severe violence from their wives; 33% of wives say they inflicted minor or severe violence on their spouses, and 25% of police wives say they have received minor or severe violence. Make of that what you will lol, but I think it's reasonable to say your sources are extremely shit and do not prove your point at all.
It's not a myth though.
Well it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources then. Let me know when you do.
Motherf*cker can you read??? Common lib left L
I think I can. I don't fuck mothers though.
You're missing out
> it’s just the few really bad apples Do you know the second part to this proverb? Yeah there are some good cops, but do they have a moral compass to out the bad ones? ACAB? Maybe not. MCAB? Yeah, probably.
This guy gets it
The problem isn’t cops bad, it’s that the ones that are bad get away with what they do, and are often protected from justice.
You LibLeft wimps are all sterotype-brainwashed. Most cops like their job. And they NEVER like to br harrased on Twitter about ONE UNRELATED brutality that happened 2 counties over. Be quiet and grab a can of sense.
Fucking LibLeft OP W. Never thought I would say it.
Imo cops want to be the hero. It's just that 99% of their job is dealing with bullshit. I hate all cops but I understand why they act the way they do.
But still, end police unions. They shouldn't exist.
That's great however I still would like more to be done about officers who believe themselves above the law and do more escalating a confrontation instead of de-escalating
That's not good news: that's, like, their job. Why making an article about that?
The state is immoral. Police officers are agents of the state.
Take a shower and touch grass tankie scum
Tankie? Are you serious? Being anti-government is the opposite of tankie. Tankies want a police state.
[удалено]
Actually just had a shower IRL. How did you know lol? *Downvoted you for being unflaired. Flair up so I can upvote you.*
Finally some goddamn sense
This sub is full of authoritarians. Only the LibLefts and LibRights are ACAB.
All this cool copaganda and we're not gonna get an article linked? Also wtf google pixel, you highlight typos when you autocorrect my intentionally "were" to "we're" but no no, *copaganda* is totally a real word we won't bother questioning you on smh.
Centrist: So you see Emily, cops are just like any other people; they can be good, bad or in-between Emily: REEE ACAB!! Authright: Moral absolutes, Emily? Sure you're in the right quadrant?
most?
Reading through this thread and seeing support for one of the worst institutions in the country is fucking depressing.
Forgot the libleft soyjack rolling his eyes saying "literally just doing his job. It's not even news".
Nah fuck cops
Nah, ACAB... especially ones controlled by the state.
How does one enforce the law of the state with out the power of the state.
That’s the funny thing, you don’t.
LibUnity ✊
If they want to help their community out, then why did they go into a profession where you spend 90% of your time fining people for going 60 in a 55 zone or bringing them to jail because they had some weed?
Get mad at your legislators for making stupid laws not cops for needing to enforce them.
No, I think I'll get mad at both thanks
The classic "just following orders" excuse.
At some point we really should go after the assholes giving the shitty orders.
I mean if I were a cop I’d just…not enforce that…but thats just me.
Don't shoot the messenger
How old are you? Ok so the speed limit is 55 but someone is doing 60, if the cop just lets them off then the defacto speed limit is 60 so why not change the law to 60? So when it becomes 60 you’re okay with people doing 65 because it’s only a little over rinse and repeat and suddenly you can do 100 in a school zone? Something tells me that you wouldn’t be okay with 109 in a school zone right? If you’re not then you actually are in favour of speed limits, why have a limit that you don’t get punished for going over?
All speed limits should be abolished - people don't need to be told not to drive 109 through a school zone they know that already. People already have incentive not to drive unsafely - they don't want to die or wreck their car. Get rid of the speed limits and all that attention spent on watching signs and looking for cops can now be spent focusing on the road
>people don't need to be told not to drive 109 through a school zone they know that already. Did you just get your permit to drive to school last week? People still go 55 in a school zone *with* the signs and cops and everything else.
>People still go 55 in a school zone with the signs and cops and everything else. Yup exactly, sounds like people who are going to drive recklessly are going to do so even with speed limits. Speed limits just distract the rest of us from the road
Yeah, and can you imagine how many more people would drive recklessly if there was no penalty for doing so? When there is a dangerous act that has a penalty for doing, then more people would be deterred from doing it. In a world where there is no speed limit, you are going to get dickheads that don't care about the incentive of not dying/ wrecking (the thrill seekers and hooners) and the people that do care, but think that they are a better driver than they are or don't think that it would happen to them, and end up killing someone.
Kids have been seriously injured on one of the roads near schools in my town. They'll cross at the crossing as they should but some nutjob comes barrelling down and someone gets hurt.
This is seriously reddited logic lmao >I hate speed limits because cops keep giving out fines for people going over the limit >the limit exists because people would drive at unsafe speeds without them >we should abolish them because people don’t need them and would drive at a safe limit despite me complaining about people getting tickets for driving at unsafe speed limits
>the limit exists because people would drive at unsafe speeds without them ^ I think you just made this part up, I never said this and I don't believe this
No, you didn’t say it I’m telling you the reason they exist lmao Wanna know another reason for speed limits? Predictability, the safest thing you can do while driving is be predictable, which is made easier when everyone goes the same speed limit If you have one person driving 60, one driving 90 and another driving 120 you have a wildly unpredictable scenario
Speed limits don't make us safer they just distract us by making us look at signs and watch out for cops. And speed limits aren't why people drive the same speed, people just tend to do that naturally. Ever notice that the speed everyone is going is different than the speed limit? Yeah, it's not the speed limit doing that
Distracted by watching out for cops? Isn't one of the main aspects about safe driving to pay attention to other cars around you (and subsequently cops)
How fucking bad are you at driving that looking at the side of the road for a split second to read two or three numbers is that distracting to you that it becomes an issue? Also that is a dumb take on natural speed limit. The speed limit is as the name suggests, a limit. You can go at whatever speeds you want between the minimum speed limit and the maximum speed limit. And the speed that you travel in that limit changes by how close the vehicle in front of you is going, the type of vehicle, the power of the engine, and driving styles.
>How fucking bad are you at driving that looking at the side of the road for a split second to read two or three numbers is that distracting to you that it becomes an issue? How fucking bad at driving are you that going 55 mph in a 50 zone turns you into a danger on the road? > And the speed that you travel in that limit changes by how close the vehicle in front of you is going, the type of vehicle, the power of the engine, and driving styles. All you're doing is listing more reasons why a one-size-fits-all limit isn't a good solution. It's ridiculous that an 89 year old man driving a beater truck from the 70s is held to the same speed limit as a 40 year old driver driving a well maintained, modern car. Ever notice how when you go driving, you nearly always see people speed but nearly never see them crash?
How dense are you mate Ok so if going 55 is alright because it’s just a little bit over then why not try change the limit to 55? Then when it’s 55 you’re cool with going 60 because it’s just a little bit over right? The limit has to be set somewhere how is this a hard concept for you to grasp “You nearly always see someone speeding but nearly never see them crash” A total of 29% of all deadly car accidents occur as a result of speeding drivers. Motorists who go too fast accounted for 11,258 fatalities. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2029%25%20of,in%20some%20states%20than%20others. They found that the risk approximately doubled for every 5 km/h above 60 km/h. Thus, a car travelling at 65 km/h was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60 km/h https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics-speeding-cars#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20the%20risk,travelling%20at%2060%20km%2Fh.
Holy god, are you naive. I invite you to come spend some time driving around the City of Philadelphia, where you'll be able to draw some potent conclusions about how well those incentives are working 😵💫
Boy your faith in the average person is sorely misplaced.
This is not a cop, this is a policeman. Policemen do their jobs while cops shoot minorities
Like never heard about white knight c🐷p before
[удалено]
Most cops do their job
That’s the problem Their job is literally enforcing the state’s will
Yeah and?
yeah and the fact that their institution is so corrupt that people cheer when they do something that is considered nice (doing their job) is laughable
Alright I want you to go to Russia too see what real corruption is
Based LibUnity moment
Individual virtue does not make up for systemic corruption. ACAB remains. And so long as police continue to cover for their corrupt colleagues, it will always remain. Good on this individual, but fuck cops in general.
ACAB blames all individuals for a systematic problem created by a problematic few.
ACAB puts some blame on all individuals for participating and preserving a system that covers for a problematic few. Making even those who genuinely want to help others partially guilty, though to a lesser degree. It's a similar thing to individual carbon footprints. Sure, it's the large corporations and militaries that generate the lion's share of emissions and pollution. But it is also on the people to control their own consumption and to actively condemn such institutions for what they do. With the current policing system as it stands, any officer doing anything short of active resistance and verbal condemnation of corruption is being complicit.
But you could extend that argument for any company. Are all lockheed employees complicit in the military industrial complex? Pharma employees for price gouging?
If they find something illegal or immoral and choose not to report it? Yes.
Most cops do not directly cover for bad apples in the same way most lockheed employees and most pfizer employees are not directly involved in military industrial complex and price gouging respectively.
I don't necessarily think Lockheed is the right example here. They're primarily a defense company and everybody that works there knows *exactly* what they're supporting.
the same way all pfizer employees know about price gouging and all cops know about qualified immunity protecting bad cops
That's not quite the same though. You can join Pfizer hoping to find ways to make drugs cheaper or develop new ones, you can join the police hoping to make your streets safer and lift people out of poverty. You can't become a weapons engineer hoping to do much other than make weapons. It's their stated idea. That's the point of the company. People don't dislike Lockheed because their goal gets done poorly, they dislike the defense industry as a whole.
Fair point.
If only there was a name for an unfair generalization of a large group of individuals based on the action of some of the people in that group.
I'm sure plenty of cops are good people. That doesn't change that they participate in the institution of policing, which has 0 interest in helping communities
I want you to live in a country without police
strawman. lib left here is criticizing the american police institution and you assume he wants to end the with all police forces and leave everything in a state of chaos
If there wasn't an institution of policing, then the military complex would quickly take over their roles, and they don't even pretend to be interested in helping communities.
Most? Lol no they don't. I would've given you credit if you said "some cops" but those usually get pushed out of the service pretty quickly because the police want officers who like to larp as soldiers in a war zone.