Ixian
Well-known member
Totally not dystopian at all.
Perfectly normal for agents of the state to infringe on the freedom of the press.... in Saudi Arabia maybe.
Protecting And Serving: Cop (mis)behavior and consequences general discussion
- Thread starter Abhorsen
- Start date
Totally not dystopian at all.
Perfectly normal for agents of the state to infringe on the freedom of the press.... in Saudi Arabia maybe.
Doomsought
Well-known member
We need the right to defend our constitutional rights with lethal force guaranteed by statute or constitutional amendment.
I understand many of you being upset. I just don't want my brother being killed by a speeder who thinks his right to travel is being violated.
Doomsought
Well-known member
The legal battle to access constitutional rights costs millions of dollars, on the off chance that you are even provided an appeal. Regular people don't have civil rights unless they can protect them at the end of the gun.
...They snapped off his fucking leg, covered it up, and it was only because a lawyer actually had a heart and took his case that any of this came to light.
Fucking American police. smh
Fucking American police. smh
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Yeah...
At this rate, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before we need an anti-police brutality thread to document all the reports of incensed civvies clapping back at law enforcement in not-so-legal ways. If you ask me, that's coming, so get ready for the current wave of Antifa and BLM agitators to be the least of their problems once everyone to the right of Mao starts turning on them, too.
At this rate, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before we need an anti-police brutality thread to document all the reports of incensed civvies clapping back at law enforcement in not-so-legal ways. If you ask me, that's coming, so get ready for the current wave of Antifa and BLM agitators to be the least of their problems once everyone to the right of Mao starts turning on them, too.
DarthOne
☦️
Yeah...
At this rate, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before we need an anti-police brutality thread to document all the reports of incensed civvies clapping back at law enforcement in not-so-legal ways. If you ask me, that's coming, so get ready for the current wave of Antifa and BLM agitators to be the least of their problems once everyone to the right of Mao starts turning on them, too.
Sucks to be the State’s attack dogs.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
It does, though I'm sure the enemies they're making will be no better.
Like I've said before, I think the Mexican cartels and mob protection rackets provide some "glimpses" at just how gruesome those who've long stopped giving a fuck can be. And unlike BLM or Antifa, the terror they inflict and body counts they rack up will be far more serious than the spiteful, cry-bully antics of moonlighting trust-fund babies who have no idea what's coming.
Don't get me wrong, a society needs some form of cops. The thing is, police brutality is how you end up with no cops. It lowers trust in cops (for obvious fucking reasons, no one wants to lose a leg on their front porch), and makes people go to drastic lengths to solve a very real problem.
Again, ending qualified immunity is the way to go here. Its a complete judicial invention that immunizes all government officials from being sued for obviously wrong things.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
No, codifying it narrowly in legislation to preserve the purpose it was devised for in the first place but stop the constant re-definition as needed to bounce whatever the judge feels like that day is what's needed. Too much of how the judiciary works would turn the process itself into a crippling punishment for law enforcement being wrong in the very slightest of technicalities, and that just does not bloody work at-scale.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Can't really disagree with this.
Unfortunately... the policymakers and interest groups who matter do, so most attempts at your suggested reforms will hardly make a dent.
*Looks at private policing options.*
Otherwise, yeah, agreed that "some form" is necessary and that police brutality has adverse long-term consequences. As I said, cartels and mob protection rackets that fill the demand for effective security left by anarcho-tyrannical law enforcement are one of them, though the ones you suggested are equally true.
Now, I'm certainly not advocating or celebrating the idea of revenge attacks (which would get me banned, anyway). Mostly, I view it as inevitable at the rate things are escalating, and would advise staying the fuck away from places where the population is likely to clap back.
Last edited:
We need politically uninvolved/neutral cops. There's zero point to having a policeforce who are biased in any way, because then the logical question is "Well, should the police snap my leg off just because I didn't vote for the Clintons?"
Wargamer08
Well-known member
That's a fantasy. Patronage exists, it will aways exist. I expect city cops to be loyal to their municipal government, just like I expect sheriffs to be loyal to the people that pay for and elect them.
You need enough regulations to keep police from abusing citizens and enough protections to keep criminals from abusing police.
It's a fantasy, but without it, I question if we CAN have law enforcement.
We're past the day and age where "Huh, the victim voted for another party? Who cares?" is the norm, everyone is a ludicrous political extremist that even ISIS would be envious of.
If law enforcement can't get it's shit together and follow, ya know, the laws, we're going to get public lynching's again.
Worse, revenge attacks don't even solve the problem. Violence is generally a poor solution to problems, as it causes more of them.
Also, there already has been police shootings (i.e. guys shooting the cops because they are cops).
And you will never get politically neutral DA's, because there are way too many laws, and many of them are BS, so there's a lot of incentive to have a DA not prosecute things as a band-aid. This then gets taken way too far quickly.
Also, there already has been police shootings (i.e. guys shooting the cops because they are cops).
This actually already mostly exists. The idea of political neutrality only happens when they don't have much power, and cops, oddly enough, don't. Oh, they definitely can have power, but their amount of power and who it applies to is either controlled by the local DA who decides who to charge, or the cops have gone completely rogue, and you've a new problem.
And you will never get politically neutral DA's, because there are way too many laws, and many of them are BS, so there's a lot of incentive to have a DA not prosecute things as a band-aid. This then gets taken way too far quickly.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
We don't need more regulation cops, @Wargamer08, we need more consequences. As @Abhorsen already said, qualified immunity needs to go. Completely. No reform. No narrowly defined boundaries. Removal root and branch. Let every cop, politician, bureaucrat, and every other kind of public servant experience the consequences of their actions.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Have fun with the legal system disintegrating in short order to its manpower drowning in frivolous bullshit. Again, the process being the punishment in so many cases means that you need to shield the people keeping laws enforced from the worst of it, or else you stop having anyone around to do so.
Also, most of the bureaucrats and elected positions have legislatively-codified immunities already, so axing Qualified Immunity will do nothing to them. It is almost exclusively boots-on-the-ground police officers benefiting from it.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Cool, all the police are sued out of existence by everyone they have ever looked at. Who do you get to replace them and how do you convince them to do the job?
Fanatics looking to totally destroy qualified immunity are acting like they've never seen any of the current cop cancel culture the left has pushed for decades.