The times become dangerous when the state loses it’s monopoly on violence
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
815 points (98.9% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
12935 readers
1872 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Vhere are your papers??"
ACAB. They’ll never change if our only resistance is peaceful. No significant swing in power between a people and its government has occurred absent of violence.
Where are all the posters who are trying to assuage their guilt for their own inaction by telling you why you're wrong and defensively calling you a keyboard warrior? Is this even Lemmy?
Bad policing is bad for good cops.
Good cops? You mean the ones that stand and watch the bad cops?
Sigh. The responses you got really dishearten me. We really are moving fast to a binary world where everything is good or bad and any opportunity for nuance is thrown out the window.
You are of course 100% correct.
Well good thing there are no good cops 🅰️©️🆎
I mean... there's at least one: https://sh.itjust.works/post/41445902
Dude got beaten by his fellow officers. But now a Progressive Democrat have apppinted them as police commissioner. I hope there is reform (in his department at least), but its not like dude can just fire half of the police force, so once he retires or gets replaced, those rotten apples will start to rot again.
Still a cop, still a bastard.
"All cops are bastards" means "All cops are bastards", no exceptions. Simply put: even the most polite, most protocol-abiding, most progressive-coded police officer still ultimately serves to impose the will of the capitalist class upon the working class. Rarely do they ever protect, rarely do they ever even make the situation better, and the rare times that they do anything positive are basically when calling a monster with a gun is better than calling no one at all.
It's not a "barrel of apples" situation. It's more like a barrel of radioactive waste: some of it might be less bad than the rest, but ultimately we need to get the whole barrel as far away from humanity as possible forever.
It's that the police are categorically a bad thing. It literally does not matter what else a cop does, as long as the individual is still a cop and still have cop powers and privileges, then like all other cops, they are bastards.
Dude got beaten by his fellow officers.
That sucks and that shouldn't have happened. But he still went back into policing, even becoming an arch-cop. So fuck him.
I mean that same argument also applies to any positions of power. Politicans are also responsible for this. cops are just the lowest ranking pawn, the politicians and oligarchs are the ones running the show. "ACAB" is an easy sentinment to latch on to, but it sounds like just a diversion so the working class forgets about the real issue.
Fuck the politicians. Fuck billionaires.
If cops = the gangsters/thugs on the street;
Then politicians = mob-bosses
If you hate cops, fine, I don't really have sympathy for them, but you should hate the rulling class 100x more.
If you kill a cop, another one will replace them, nothing changes.
If you kill a tyrant, however, maybe things can change for the better.
Its the same during war. People like the hate the pawns but forget who the real enemies are.
That is not to absolve the pawns for playing their roles as pawns, its a reminder to redirect you focus from merely "ACAB" and instead focus on "Eat The Rich".
its a reminder to redirect you focus from merely "ACAB" and instead focus on "Eat The Rich".
Okay but what on earth makes you think I'm not focusing on eating the rich? Like "eat the rich" and "ACAB" are complementary. Yeah of course the rich are the biggest monsters, but that doesn't mean the cops aren't monsters.
load more comments
(6 replies)
There are no good cops.
Hard disagree. My wife was stopped due to expired registration on our car - My fault, long story. The cop gave her a fix it ticket. Nothing else happened. They're a good cop, or at least they were in that moment.
You know what would have happened if they were a bad cop in that moment? She would have been deported for having brown skin.
Good cops don't make headlines, but they exist, and I'm grateful for the good ones we've encountered.
That being said, bad cops can fuck right off.
Bad cops, even the worst of the worst, do a normal job 99% of the time. It's the other 1 % of their actions that have such a negative impact.
My dude, that cop did the bare minimum of their job. I don't believe that should be your definition of 'good'.
Bare minimum would have been not pulling her over in the first place, or giving a warning. I've encountered cops in the past that ticketed me for things that I found out later I should not have been ticketed for, and they were dicks while they did it.
This wasn't the bare minimum, and they didn't abuse their power. Definitely wasn't a "bad cop".
Definitely wasn’t a “bad cop”.
But by virtue of being a cop, was a bastard.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm no expert on American law but I'm pretty sure you don't have to show ID unless you're given a good explanation for it.
ACAB
"Reasonable articulable suspicion", is the official way of saying that.
"A good explanation" is very undefined. The police has to have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, and they have to be able to articulate, ie explain that said reasonable suspicion of having committed a specific crime.
They just make it up all the time though, but most of the cops don't even seem to know the law. They just do what other cops do. And never have to take responsibility for breaking the law.
So the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which outlines the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, protects people from being forced to verbally identify or show documents of identification without reasonable cause, among other things. What that has been interpreted to mean by the SCOTUS is that, while they can always request ID without it being a lawful order, a request you can deny without consequence, any policy or state/local ID law that requires identification upon officer request without any other reasonable cause is unlawful. In other words they cannot demand id for no actual reason nor punish you for failing to ID without said reason.
At minimum, they need "reasonable and articulable suspicion" of a real crime that has happened, is happening, or is about to happen, in order to legally require you to ID yourself in every state, district, and city in the country (with the exception of if you are driving a car and get pulled over for a lawful infraction, you must provide your license to prove you're allowed to drive the vehicle). "Reasonable and articulable suspicion" means that there are real facts that can be pointed to that a reasonable person would deem as a likely indication of crime, not hunches or racial profiling. Some states have higher levels of requirements in order to ID someone, but none can have lower requirements.
BUT, the unfortunate and infuriating truth is that they do not need to actually explain their reasonable and articulate suspicion to you at the time, which ultimately means that they dont have to have it until they justify it to the court much later. They could be just demanding it for no reason unlawfully. Or they could be demanding it because they just saw you pick pocket someone, or someone pointed you out as someone that threatened them, or you match the description of the person that just broke a bunch of windows nearby. All of those things qualify at reasonable suspicion allowing them to ID you in places where that is the minimum requirement. Even if you did nothing wrong, you could still match a description but aren't the right guy, or they thought that saw you do something unlawful but were actually mistaken. It doesn't matter. They still have reasonable suspicion unless you somehow factually dispel that suspicion. If you do not dispel that suspicion (maybe because they didn't even explain their reasons in the first place) and they demand ID, you can be lawfully required to present it even if you did absolutely nothing wrong and don't have a clue why they are asking at all.
In other words, if they demand ID and don't explain why, there's functionally way to discern at the time if the demand is lawful or unlawful even if you have committed no crimes. So you either comply or go to jail and argue your case in court later, regardless of the truth. And btw, even if they had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to lawfully demand ID at the time, they can just lie to justify it. If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it's assumed to be true. So... enjoy your "freedoms", I guess.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
Reminder that there legally cannot be a crime such as "failure to provide identification" outside of specific contexts like actively operating a vehicle, etc. Lots of states allow cops to require you to provide your legal name (and sometimes address) when detained, and courts usually have the ability to compell the same.
Yeah actual laws as written don't matter.
This is fascism; the cop regime. They dont know or care about the laws, everything is vibes, and courts up to and especially the supreme will back them on this.
load more comments
(19 replies)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
Not exactly a new thing.
"Resonable Suspicion" is a lower threshold than "Probable Cause".
Reasonable suspicion of a crime. You need to say the whole thing.
The number of cops that thinks "I've got reasonable suspicion of you being suspicious." Has always been too goddamn high. You need reasonable suspicion OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Being suspicious isn't a crime. Being black or Latino in a subway station isn't a crime. Even stop and identify laws need to be based in reasonable suspicion of a crime because the 4th amendment demands it.
That is why cops have Terry Stops that allow them to fill in the reason as whatever and the judge always sides with the cops
Well played by these two bros.
Making them waste time and resources with nothing to show for it, plus standing up for those who can't. Respect.
This is it honestly. When people slow down police/ICE, it creates a distraction.
When they're arresting grandmas and choking old people, causing a scene changes their focus and lets those people leave unharmed.
“Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper?”
view more: next ›