550
Good Cop, Bad Cop (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 week ago by princessnorah to c/onehundredninetysix
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fredthefishlord 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

There is absolutely nothing stopping them from acquiring backup during those situations.

Sure. The people who arrest criminals will always be cops no matter how you dress them up.

Cops are not just the enforcers you don't like. I suppose the most accurate definition would be a cop is a person with authority to arrest.

A safety authority that can't arrest is toothless and worthless.

[-] princessnorah 1 points 6 days ago

Non-violent offenders don't generally need to be arrested though. A summons to court is enough. You discussed workplace safety for example, where I don't think direct arrests are needed. However, where they are, the judiciary could deploy deputies to bring offenders to their appearances. There is still no reason that an investigator must be a cop.

A safety authority that can't arrest is toothless and worthless.

I don't understand this fetish for authoritarian arrests. Can you explain why they would be needed by a safety authority? Or why a traffic safety service would necessarily be police?

[-] Fredthefishlord 1 points 6 days ago

Before I explain myself, which I will, I'd first like to ask how you define police vs not police? Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police

[-] princessnorah 1 points 6 days ago

Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police

You've talked here about how police are the ones investigating workplace safety issues. Which doesn't really sound correct for the US, OSHA exists, but I don't live there. I do know for certain that police aren't involved in that process at all in Australia, it falls under WorkSafe. To me, that is an example of how investigative services can be provided by other bodies than the police. WorkSafe still has teeth, and could work directly with the judiciary when violations reach a criminal level. You could do things like funding/empowering the fire department to investigate all arson cases, not just provide some investigative services to the police.

The entire issue with policing is that it's one homogenous, corrupt organisation. Breaking it down, separating out its powers into other services or bodies, limits the possibility of corruption. Perhaps you've heard the term "we investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong"? If whatever direct crime response organisation you had, wasn't in charge of investigation, that would be much harder.

Same with traffic enforcement. If they aren't pulling you over and lying about "smelling marijuana" then less corruption is going to occur. Have their only job be traffic enforcement. Roadside drug and alcohol testing is important, people shouldn't drive under the influence, but having weed in your glovebox doesn't affect your ability to drive. I've actually joked to a number of friends that we should get a bunch of grandmas doing traffic enforcement. I think having an older woman tut and fuss at you like "come on now sweetheart, you know it's not nice to run through a red light, you might hurt yourself or others" and give you the look would honestly be pretty effective in my opinion. (This last part is mostly a joke by the way.)

[-] Fredthefishlord 1 points 5 days ago

You didn't answer the question I notice. Traffic enforcement, often called traffic cops, are absolutely cops.

You've talked here about how police are the ones investigating workplace safety issues.

Well, it sounded like I was, but they aren't. It's my wish for a serious enforcement agency to review safety instead of a joke of an organization.

You could do things like funding/empowering the fire department to investigate all arson cases, not just provide some investigative services to the police.

Investigating arson is the job of the fire department. The fire warden is a fire cop.

The entire issue with policing is that it's one homogenous, corrupt organisation. Breaking it down, separating out its powers into other services or bodies, limits the possibility of corruption. Perhaps you've heard the term "we investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong"? If whatever direct crime response organisation you had, wasn't in charge of investigation, that would be much harder

Yes. Do you think police are only called police if they perform enforcement and investigation as one entity?

If they can pull you over, they're a cop. If they can arrest you, they're a cop. Taking a square and calling it a circle so you can sit there and say acab while advocating for cops still existing is what's questionable to me.

[-] princessnorah 1 points 5 days ago

I tried to answer it with examples of what I think are, and are not, police. I'm interested in hearing what your alternatives are. I did find an article I read a while back that helped shape my opinions here, that I posted if you'd like to go have a read and continue this discussion there: https://threadiverse.link/lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/31917406

[-] Fredthefishlord 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Well, one of the main reasons I'm more fixated on that is because the only point I'm really disagreeing with you on is what's considered police. That and that safety offices should have power to arrest. But basically, every single thing you've said are things I fully think are necessary changes.

Since I consider investigative services as mostly police and any arrests or response teams as 100% police no matter their names, and you seem to disagree with that viewpoint

[-] princessnorah 1 points 5 days ago

I'm confused then, would a safety officer (like OSHA/WorkSafe) that can arrest not be police then?

this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
550 points (100.0% liked)

196

4491 readers
1551 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS