this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
1593 points (98.5% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2522 readers
16 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, it doesn't prove that guns in school won't solve the problem.
It proves you can't trust cops to do the bare fucking minimum.
If teachers had been armed? It might--might--have ended sooner with fewer innocent victims. At least the teachers had some skin in the game, and teachers usually care about the kids in schools.
Giving guns to teachers to fight school shooters is exactly the excalating move that I would expect from the US.
What's your solution?
My solution is making gun ownership less indiscriminate. In my country, I'd have to prove that I need a gun for self-defense and pass a psychological and physical check. Moreover, the license would have to be renewed after 5 years.
I have a friend that used to be a stripper ("exotic dancer", if you prefer). She tried to get a concealed carry permit--in Detroit--long before Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago because she had a stalker. She was denied, because she didn't have any greater need for self-defense than any other person.
Who defines psychological wellness? For reference, I'm a gun owner, and I compete in shooting matches on a regular basis. About a decade ago, I failed to complete suicide; I attempted suicide because I was being seriously abused (verbally, mentally, emotionally, financially, and sometimes physically) by my ex-spouse, which had lead to serious isolation and depression. I believe that I am mentally healthy now--as did my last psychiatrist--but I am forever barred from owning a firearm in Illinois because I was held for observation at a hospital in the state. Moreover, people with serious mental illnesses are more likely to be victims orf violence rather then perpetrators.
Why should people that are less physically capable be less able to defend themselves?
You can't "prove you need a gun for self defense" until it's too late. Unless you mean "only of you're rich, important, and white (this is America mind you) enough that we think there's a chance those dirty not-white races may attack you."
Personally I don't think we should limit guns to the wealthy elite, I think that even us lowly poors deserve the right to protect our lives.
I've never even thought, "I need a gun" and I'm not rich or wealthy or affluent. The only reason I'll ever learn to handle firearms is to shoot fascists if the need arises.
Damn fine reason. Unfortunately not everyone is as lucky as you in not needing one before then, too. I wish they were, but unfirtunately there are still people who want to victimize others. Less than there used to be though, crime has gone down since '93, so that's a positive!
The problem is that in the US, the guns are already in the hands of everyone. There are more guns than people. The cat's out of the box.
Buyback programs in the US are good for PR but do little to remove guns that would be used in a crime. Mostly people sell their junk and old rifles at these things. Many times, while they're waiting in line they'll get a better offer by the mob of people on the sidewalks looking to buy.
Ammo restrictions, I agree would be effective. But the 2nd Amendment would shut that down.
Documented firearms, again the cat is out of the bag. There are millions of undocumented firearms in the US. And no criminal would use one with a paper trail anyway. This just makes things harder for honest people.
Those "proven" methods haven't worked in the US. The 2nd Amendment and a very armed population will see to it that the guns are here to stay, by force if necessary.
I'm not a defeatist, I'm a realist.
Each of these ideas solves a different aspect of the bigger problem, but none of them will solve the entire issue.
The problem is that with these 'realistic' views, we never make ANY progress by just throwing our hands up, saying 'Well there are just too many guns to solve the problem with a single solution.'
How about "Less guns in the hands of those who should not have them in the first place", like every other civilized country does? And guess what, those countries know "school shootings" only as something America does.
We don't need metal detectors outside of school either
I'm with you there in general.