It's awesome we are finally holding the police financially liable for their actions. My bad, it's the taxpayers again.
You want change? Demand police accountability.
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
270 points (99.6% liked)
News
23320 readers
4531 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Police aren't civilians and they aren't workers. Abolish their "union" as well as Qualified Immunity. They can earn the right to not be prosecuted while doing their job...
Police are supposed to be civilians. The whole idea of America avoiding mitary dictatorship was vested in the Army being under the control of the Commander in Chief (a civilian chosen by civilians), In conjunction with the police force being comprised of civilians, otherwise that force is just a military with a different name. You can make the argument they're above civilians in current times but this is by no mean integral to american policing, and is in fact antithetical to the American idea of police.
Don't get me wrong I still think they're problematic even in the theoretical best case scenario, but they're definitely civilians. Know you enemy, know them well.
I'm not an expert on the origins of police in the US, but I thought their origin story was basically to oppress the civilian population to protect corporate property.
Like, their entire purpose and why they were given authority was so that they could beat down civilians in the name of corporate profits. Which is the opposite of what you're claiming.
How are those contradictory? Can a civilian force not shakedown people to protect property?
Or are you asking me why they made a theoretical safety on the idea of policing instead of just telling everyone 'Hey these are going to be our new chosen opressors, have fun!'
How are those contradictory? Can a civilian force not shakedown people to protect property?
I think the idea is that civilian force has governmental protections that other civilians would otherwise never have.
Qualified immunity started in 1967. These protections aren't inherent to policing, they've been slowly added on over time.
Or take settlement money out of police pension funds.
Police absolutely ARE CIVILIANS
The problem is police aren't treated like civilians.
Oxford Languages definition:
civilian:
noun
a person not in the armed services or the police force.
I'm obviously using the term in a non-military context as the topic is policing, not military or international conflict.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Civilians don't get free passes on murder, torture, intimidation, false evidence, etc etc etc.
So many people are anti-union but when it comes to the police union they're oddly silent...
Friend's mom frequently complained about unions - any union - because she heard people complaining on Fox or at work. She was a 20-year member of the police union (not as an officer). And bragged about that too.
He could never convince her of the mental disconnect there.
Like who?
Who is anti-union? Let me introduce you to the history of union busting in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
They are literally above the law. So again, not civilians. That's the difference. They aren't a real union because it's not workers banding together.
Cops don't have qualified immunity in Colorado
load more comments
(10 replies)
The weird thing is this cop didn't put the suspect in her own car, but another officer's car who had parked on the tracks.
First off, what kind of fucking moron parks their car on fucking train tracks? Holy shit, that guy should have been punished as much as the officer who put the suspect in the car just for being so goddamn stupid.
Secondly, the cop should have noticed that the car she put the suspect in was on the tracks. She probably assumed the car was a safe place to put a person, since you would think nobody would be so stupid as to park on the tracks.
First off, what kind of fucking moron parks their car on fucking train tracks?
A cop that wants to execute someone via train.
Oh, no. They were just idiots in this case. If they want to really hurt you, they'll, just force an EMT to administer a lethal dose of ketamine, or break an old woman's arm over a petty theft from a walmart and then leave her wounded and untreated in jail for hours, or shoot an unarmed kid that called 911 because he was tripping on too many drugs and needed help. (All things that have happened in the area in the last few years.)
The cop who parked there isn't the cop who put the suspect in the car.
so what ? there being more than one cop means that there was multiple cops that should have been smarter.
multiple cops being there makes it look more like an attempt to kill the woman.
Look, I hate cops as much as the next rational person, but this does not at all look like an attempt to kill the woman. That's disingenuous at best. This is stupid incompetence and not paying attention, being extremely careless with a person in their care.
If a parent leaves a gun unattended in their bedroom during a party, and a kid goes and shoots themselves or someone else with it, is that parent or the adults at that party attempting to kill the kid or the other person? No, they are just criminally negligent.
If a parent leaves a gun unattended in their bedroom during a party
It is nowhere near as negligent and actively harmful as parking a car on train tracks and then handcuffing a person into the back seat of that car.
Maybe you missed the point where I explicitly said this was criminal negligence. I was arguing it wasn't intentional homicide, like the guy I replied to said it was.
Right. I’m saying that parking a car on the tracks and then handcuffing someone into it is far more negligent, to the point of crossing over into predictably horrible outcome, not just opening the door to bad outcomes like normal negligence does.
Tying someone to the railroad tracks isn’t what drunk idiots do in old westerns; it’s what the bad guys do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Parked the vehicle on the tracks!! Wtf?!
That's one of the top, like, three things you're told not to do with a car.
But one of the top things you might do if you were an immoral bully who was immune from criminal prosecution.
Or just really stupid or careless or both, which is more likely to be the cause here. For both of the cops involved. While also being a bully.
To be fair, the former cop who did this isn't the one who parked the car there. She just placed the suspect into the closest cop car, which happened to be on the tracks. I still think she should be liable for putting someone in that situation, but it's not as bad as her parking on the tracks and then putting a person in a car she knew was on the tracks. Yeah, she should have noticed the car was on the tracks, but she didn't park it there and might have assumed nobody would be so fucking stupid as to park on the tracks.
Not sure why her level of assumption abojt whether cars would be on tracks would matter, if the tracks aren’t visually obscured or something.
One might assume there’d never be a volcano in Idaho, but when you toss a baby into the volcano you found in Idaho it doesn’t really matter what you would have assumed.
I think all of you claiming this was intentional need to remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Are cops evil bastards? Yes. But they also don't need to come up with something this convoluted to kill someone they want dead. On the other hand, there are demonstrably a ton of very stupid cops.
Real mustache twirling villian energy here.