this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
303 points (96.0% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

2469 readers
10 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

Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.

If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.

Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.

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

!abolition@slrpnk.net

!acab@lemmygrad.ml

r/ACAB

r/BadCopNoDonut/

Randy Balko

The Civil Rights Lawyer

The Honest Courtesan

Identity Project

MirandaWarning.org

♦ ♦ ♦

INFO

A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions

Adultification

Cops aren't supposed to be smart

Don't talk to the police.

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

So you wanna be a cop?

When the police knock on your door

♦ ♦ ♦

ORGANIZATIONS

Black Lives Matter

Campaign Zero

Innocence Project

The Marshall Project

Movement Law Lab

NAACP

National Police Accountability Project

Say Their Names

Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

You can debate the need to arrest, but creating a ruse that ends up with the man being shot several times?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago (5 children)

From everything else in the article, there's no indication of anything necessitating a plainclothes operation of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, local police department, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, all with a made-up ruse to get the man out of his house. What's the point, unless they simply wanted violence?

Dude has every right to point a gun at plainclothes cops attacking his brother, cops who haven't even said they're cops. Kinda surprised he didn't squeeze the trigger.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 32 points 1 year ago

Yep. And yet they plugged (or shot at) him at least ten times. No walking for you, buddy.

This is in the richest nation in human history. We could care for every citizen. We choose not to.

[–] VioletRing@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wonder how much money the 4 agencies involved in the raid spent. Like how many months of rent would that equal? At what point would it just be better to send a single officer with a voucher for a months rent? Would cost the public far less and give the family a months relief, allowing them time to save money and get back on their feet.

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Sounds beautiful to me — kindness instead of cruelty, life instead of death, and a huge savings in expense.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure, but then the conservatives would be bitching about handouts.

[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Trump's entire presidency was hand outs for billionaire banks and corporations anyway that ended up destroying the economy.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/

Just zero handouts to his stupid base.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most people will do anything not to shoot. Even most cops.

I agree their ruse wasn’t needed and needlessly escalated the situation.

That’s the shit I’m beyond fed up with. The needless escalation of shit.

They wanted to feel all undercover.

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

in GRIZZLY territory too of course they need a small firearm. jesus help these folks jeez

[–] QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

in GRIZZLY territory too of course they need a small firearm.

.22 is just gonna piss off a grizzly. I'd say .357 Magnum or larger.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Polar@lemmy.ca 53 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Why is America so obsessed with shooting first?

Last year we had an indigenous person kill a cop in Canada and then run into a field with his gun. Cops arrested him without shooting him, despite him killing a cop, and being in a group that police have dislike towards.

Then, he complained about having pain, and the police called an ambulance to check him out before arresting him.

I heard all of this live on police scanner.

Do better, America. Holy shit.

[–] ITypeWithMyDick@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Dont get all high and mighty. The United States is an amazing country! We have to deal with all this 'woke justice' every day bringing down our country. Once they are finally purged them we can finally have our fascist utopia rich straight white men will finally have all the power again, as demanded by the bible (which I hear is a great book, but honestly who has time to read these days)

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Had they not pulled their ruse, most likely there would not have been an issue. This is a case where the cops were trying to be cute and someone ended up being shot.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Why is America so obsessed with shooting first?

It is literally what our cops are taught in training. Look up "Killology" if you haven't heard of it. And no, despite the ridiculous name, I'm not joking; that is what a big part of their training is actually called.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] krigo666@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

In Europe, specially in the EU, these "law enforcement officers" would have been immediately arrested and subsequently charged with attempted murder. And definitely would be convicted. These situations very but very rarely happen here. And when they do, the perpetrators are brought to justice.

An armed law enforcement agent in most countries of the EU can only draw its gun in very restrict conditions, mainly only if own or others life is in clear and immediate danger, not perceived danger but justifiable and objective danger, and can only shoot to prevent loss of life. Also the measure of force has to be similar to the one used by the threatening party, cannot be greater. For example, shooting someone who is at distance, alone, armed with a knife is not justifiable, since the measure of force of a gun is greater in this situation (longer reach). Only if the individual with the knife was very close and capable of causing death is the shooting justifiable.

Oh, and there isn't anything like qualified immunity here. There are some specific laws governing law enforcement powers and actions, but in general same laws apply for all.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] theDoctor@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 1 year ago

As cities and states across the country pass ordinances cracking down on camping and homelessness…

Homelessness should only be a crime if houses are provided to everyone wherever you desire to live and then you chose to then be a public nuisance and sleep blocking a sidewalk or a street.

Until then, this is just disgusting. Our society is fucked.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The shooting occurred after Roberts, who had a .22 revolver with him, pointed his weapon at the two plainclothes officers after they confronted his brother. He did not fire, police body camera footage shows. After seeing Brooks Roberts' gun, officers unleashed a storm of gunfire on him, the footage shows. Since Idaho is an open carry state, Roberts was within his rights to be holding the weapon.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Within his rights to have the weapon on him, yes, but pointing a gun is not carrying a gun, it's brandishing, and brandishing is a no-no no matter how you slice it. Speaking as a gun owner, if you point a gun at something, that means you have intention to kill it, otherwise you shouldn't be pointing your gun at it. Too many people watch TV and Movies and think that after you point the gun to let people know that you're really, really serious, you stop and give them a chance to rethink their choices. That's not how it is; if you're drawing a gun, you have the intention to use it (at least as far as the law is concerned), so the gun should only ever come out when you've already committed to the belief that this situation requires deadly force in order to preserve the life of yourself or others and it's time to act. Otherwise, the gun stays put. That's it, there's no middle ground there, either you have to act with deadly force to save yourself and others or you don't. Anyway, brandishing in and of itself is a crime basically everywhere, IIRC. But in so many words, regardless of how they may have provoked and mishandled the situation, it's likely that any reasonable court is going to find that the officers' response to the weapon being brandished was entirely reasonable within the expectations of their job.

So, pro-tip, if you're going to introduce a gun to a situation, it had best be because you're about to use deadly force for a justifiable reason. Otherwise, just leave that shit right where it is. In point of fact, there are people who have (unknowingly) shot cops because they believed that they were acting to protect their life or someone else's, and got off with it. In all fairness, people are held accountable for it way more than they should be; cops getting shot doing no-knock raids on the wrong house (for example) is a predictable consequence, and well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The cops should take their licks on that and, rather than lock people up for not having the ESP to know it was the cops, maybe take a moment to wonder if they're really making smart choices here.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

So was he just holding it, or pointed it at them? Those seem like two very different scenarios

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It may not have been legal since he was on federal land. He wouldn't have pulled a gun on them if they had not played silly games (Most likely) I state the most likely since we don't know much about him, but there is no indication he was a hardened criminal ready to fight law enforcement. I don't like when law enforcement creates scenarios where people feel the need to defend themselves because they're confused as to what is going on.

Had they just walked up and identified themselves, I do not think anyone would have been shot.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Agreed. It's likely that the cops set the conditions for this to happen; maybe not consciously, but still.

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, and for many cops, it's not even subconscious. They enjoy confrontational situations where they have every advantage of law, gunpower, steroids, and the ever-present public perception that they're good guys no matter what.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

That is my issue. It is like a no-knock warrant where they kick in the door at 2am and kill the home owner.

I am not 100% against no knock warrants but they should be rare. I have read many stories where they ended up someone being dead over something more trivial that could have been dealt with during daylight hours and just talking to the person in public.

It is why I support reform. I am not anti-law enforcement at all but I am against bad law enforcement.

[–] mob@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We do know that it is legal to have guns in national forests in Idaho.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You’re correct. I thought there will still some debate about it but looks like federal law matches state law since 2010. The only difference is in buildings.

I know in the past federal land had more restrictions

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WillardHerman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Our world is a literal nightmare.

load more comments
view more: next ›