if you cant behave your toys will get taken away.
Protecting And Serving: Cop (mis)behavior and consequences general discussion
- Thread starter Abhorsen
- Start date
if you cant behave your toys will get taken away.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
I don't hate cops to the extent that I want to burn down the breadth of the country in order to take them out. Though that's an exaggeration. It's far more likely we'd see qualified immunity come back, just either backdoored or via judicial refusal to hear cases. So likely worse then the bad situation that exists right now.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Lynch mobs, the time proven solution. With no police to police the communities, the communities will have to police themselves, death toll would be a bit high, but eventually the lynch mobs will become the new authorities as they will be able to remove any who would seek to sue them.
No, most bureaucrats don't have any legislatively codified immunity. Prosecution absolute immunity is about the only other large amount of immunity there is.
Shockingly, I think that removing someone's leg deserves a lawsuit.
The cop cancelization has actual strength because people realize that the cops near complete immunity is fucked up.
The current system is quite literally, "it's not a crime the first time" + "We probably also won't make it a crime the next time too".
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
To an extent, I understand you hesitation but only to a small degree. For one, the legal system disintegrating seems a bit of an exaggeration. If you mean civil order, then maybe that happens. But likely, that's only going to happen in places that are effectively lawless already: LA, NYC, Portland, Chicago, etc. However, for 90% of the country I doubt any such consequence will occur. And to be frank... fuck those shit holes. They want that outcome so it should be given to them in full.
As for bureaucrats and elected positions having legislatively codified immunity... I believe that's true of the latter but not of the former. Qualified immunity is what protects the bureaucrats and police. Or did I misunderstand what qualified immunity is supposed to do?
I've seen the cancel culture. I just think it's an acceptable price. You can disagree with that price if you like. Qualified immunity has destroyed trust in police more than anything else. It has enabled them to commit any number of heinous acts of violence, steal any property they like, punish people they don't like under color of law, and generally abuse their position for decades. It's only been with the influence of the internet that we've been able to prove definitively that this isn't just a problem of some small number of cops it's systemic.
The current policing structure is fucking broken. It would be better with nothing there at all than its current incarnation. I would prefer vigilante justice and having to bear the responsibility of defending myself to police protection. As far as replacing the current police with something else though- I believe that expanding the elected sheriff's office would be better. Additionally, the sheriff system needs to be further atomized. Our population has grown, so the number of sheriffs positions/offices need to be increased and the area they are responsible for shrunk: for a nice round number... let's say increase the number of sheriff's offices to... 2500 citizens per office and limit deputies to... say... 3.
Lynch Mobs are never good ever..... ever. The amount of innocent people that have been killed by Lynch mobs exceed the population of some cites in the US. And are evil in nature so you can keep that shit to yourself.
IndyFront
Well-known member
Notwithstanding all the unnecessary responsibilities shouldered on rank and file police officers. Wouldn't it be better to, say, have a medical or mental healthcare professional deal with involuntary commissions to mental healthcare facilities, as an example? The presence of cops and treating them like a criminal just because their brain chemistry fucked them over that day is Orwellian bullshit and is unfair to both the police officers and the person being further traumatized by their already-traumatizing experience by sending in militarized police officers and fucking armored vehicles to handcuff and transport them to a facility like they committed a fucking crime just for being mentally ill
And that would do what exactly?
Cops are trained and equipped to physically restrain or neutralize people willing and able to engage in quite brutal violence.
In many such cases, medical professionals would demand cops come with them anyway, or hope they arrive in time.
Yes, their brain chemistry is fucked over, but that's not so different from the average maniacal killer or something, and in practical terms it does nothing to change the fact that they are unpredictable and may turn dangerous at any moment.
Treating them like criminals? Well, what if they are criminals besides being crazy?
In countries that do not fuck around, are much more willing than USA to involuntarily commit ever was since deinstitutionalisation and do not have much politicking around such topic, police usually do take part in such situations anyway, without going into extreme bleeding heart tail chasing about how unPC sights like paramilitary equipment could traumatize the poor crazy people, because news at eleven, medical professionals do not have magical powers that make them immune to bullets, knives, axes and fire.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
To be very explicit, I do not believe involuntary admission to mental health facilities should be done by social services or medical staff- ever. In the case of involuntary admission to a hospital, it should always be done with police or sheriffs or some kind of armed and trained personnel. The reason I believe this because:
- Involuntary admission is inherently dangerous because it's unknown how the person will react
- neither social services nor medical workers are trained to handle violent situations (like the possibility of a firearm
Doomsought
Well-known member
I think you have one thing backwards here. The only situation where we should involuntarily commit people to a mental institution is when they are a danger to themselves and others. So it is not unknown how the person will react. We know they will react violently by the time we get to the point where involuntary institutionalization is in the cards.
We already have laws on the books specifically outlawing police brutality like this. What we need is consiquence for judges who rule in direct opposition to the law. Judicial discretion has grown too strong.
Last edited:
Yes. Then judges came in with qualified immunity, and made that brutality legal in practice. The police will never be prosecuted because of prosecutorial discretion (and they'll almost always be pro police, as they basically are lawyer!cops).
You need civil penalties for bad behavior, because the only people that are going to be incentivized to attack the police are those harmed by police. And that's why we need to get rid of qualified immunity. I'd be fine replacing it with something like a reasonableness standard, but the idea that 'its not a crime the first time' needs to die.
They're a positive, relative to the alternative if the alternative is 'that' bad.
Entire damned parts of American towns have 'died' with not a single store open in them. And the official political response is "This is okay, this is normal".
Lynch mobs will not solve that problem.
It won't hurt though, and that's the problem.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Who do you think are going to be resorting to lynch mobs first and most frequently?
The people opposed to guns. Heh heh.
DarthOne
☦️
I almost feel sorry for them.
IndyFront
Well-known member
You're all wrong. Mentally ill people =/= violent people. Period. Saying these two types of people are the same is incorrect.
Oh fuck off with such soundbites. I think the best solution would be for the police to use such clever ass protectors of the criminals and the insane as designated handlers for such risky cases. Either a smartass lucks out, and if someone gets hurt, it will be a smartass who wanted it.
Not all mentally ill people are violent, but they can be, they are rather unpredictable, and you don't fucking know which you are dealing with, and considering we are speaking of mentally ill people who got police called to deal with themselves in the first place, no one sane is going to bet their own life and limb that they aren't, all for the sake of not stressing out the loon.
So, if you insist that someone's life and limb should be bet on it, and for such minor cause as not stressing out the loons, people who believe this crap should provide theirs.
Last edited: