468
75 cops, 6½ hours of gunfire, for an eviction in Pittsburgh
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
468 points (100.0% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2398 readers
543 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
① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.
② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.
③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.
④ 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
• r/ACAB
♦ ♦ ♦
INFO
• A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions
• Cops aren't supposed to be smart
• 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
• When the police knock on your door
♦ ♦ ♦
ORGANIZATIONS
• NAACP
• National Police Accountability Project
• Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, I mean, they could stop evicting people and sentencing them to homelessness.
That would be a start and would have avoided this entire thing.
I mean the guy could have not spent all his money on guns and ammo and pay rent?
Where are guns on Maslow's hierarchy of needs do you reckon?
Ammo costs far less than rent and lasts far longer then just a month when purchased.
It's also not essential, so...
(I know, I know, it's hard to admit that guns aren't the most important thing in life for you guys)
You sound no different than boomers telling younger people to stop buying lattes and avocado toast to fix our financial burdens.
(Under handed comments add nothing to the conversation, you just sound like an asshole)
Edit: I thought this guy couldn't afford rent and was another victim of the housing crisis, rather then just refusing to pay it (something about being a sovereign citizen). My bad.
Dude, if you're budget is so tight that you can barely afford to pay your rent then choose your priorities. For that guy it was guns > rent? He deserves zero pity if he gets thrown out on the street. Heck, gun nuts are all about individual responsibilities? Well that's what individual responsibilities looks like and it looks like he just couldn't accept it so he felt the need to shoot at the people coming to evict him.
I meant more generally, arguing rent over ammo or other relatively inexpensive (vs rent) wants. Sorry I didn't realize this particular individual seems to have been avoiding rent rather then unable to afford it.
My bad.
Even if it was an issue with being able to afford it instead of avoiding it, hoarding non essentials while you're struggling to pay for essential needs is fucking ridiculous, sell that shit, keep a roof above your head.
Well part of my point is that ammo is very cheap. 1000 rounds of 22lr is like 100USD. Even 1000 rounds of 5.56/.223 (AR-15 ammo) starts around $500. Hence why I compared it to lattes and avocado toast. Cutting all that out doesn't fix the cost of housing or slumping salaries.
Im speaking generally ofc, idk how much ammo this guy had. But more ammo than you could fire in 6 hours is cheaper than youd expect.
Guarantee you that him just liquidating the guns and ammo would've been enough money for a new apartment or to pay his rent.
Dude didn't want to pay and wanted to fight the gov because he was a SovCit.
Source: further nested news links if you chase the articles back.
Ah. Fair enough this guy sounds like an asshole.
Apparently if you're sufficiently against property rights, they're vital.
Buying guns is better praxis than paying rent.
People should have a home if the action here were to provide another housing option, then this wouldn't have happened. Also seems the person likely had a traumatic reason for being evicted and needed help.
I agree. But I probably wouldn't phrase that as "they could stop evicting people".
Even if well implemented social housing existed, one should still be able to evict people from expensive property they aren't willing or able to pay for.
Dude, shut the fuck up.
I hope you get to be in this dude's situation one day and you have to take your homelessness with a please and thank you, sir, may I have another.
He occupied a house, not an apartment. He got evicted because he wouldn't settle for less than a whole house.
I may be in this dude's situation one day. And you know what I'm gonna do? Move to a cheaper apartment.
Where do you have that information? There was nothing about the reason for the eviction in this article or the one it linked to.
Here is a pic of the residence. Idk if rented or not but it is not small
And here is the real reason for the conflict
Source is the link to yet another article found within the linked article mentioned in OPs linked article. They post his address I snapped the Street View pic from that.
Indeed. If you want anything better than the cheapest apartments to exist, you have to be able to evict people who can't afford more than the cheapest apartments.
But people these days can't even afford the cheapest apartments, so what's the point of having "better" apartments for the minority?
So instead let the people move into those apartments for free, damage them and then let them shoot at police trying to evict them?
Would you be willing to part with your life savings to give them to me just because I left a comment to your thread? If not, why are you expecting other people to part with the houses they built with their life savings for some random bloke?
By definition, people can afford the cheapest apartments, because that's how those apartments get rented at that price point.
Do you not see the problem here?? Your definition only includes those able to rent. As soon as the price of the cheapest apartment rises anyone under that cutoff becomes invisible to you.
Yes that is what happens when you have too little supply.
Fuck the children of poor people, idiots should've been working to supplement the families income if they didn't want to be crammed into a room with their siblings. Lazy ass kids...
I love how you say this like it's a crime against humanity lol
👍
If it prevents someone from being homeless without risking someone else (or me) being homeless then yes. Private property should not be of a higher concern than someone having shelter.
Do you not understand the difference between taking from someone that's hoarding a resource required by society and taking everything someone owns?
This is bad faith trolling. Youre conflating the private property corporations and the wealthy hoard, depriving people of vital resources for their own profit, with my personal property of a few spoiled apples that I wasn't able to eat.
Me pinching pennies so I can donate even more is not going to make a lasting impact whereas disowning those willfully depriving others will.
Personal Property is distinct from Private.
You're literally advocating for stealing from one person to provide for another here so the question is apt.
and they gave the correct answer.
Some people should be allowed to fail.
Some people being anyone who is unable to pay rent?
Sure, I could conceive of a scenario where someone who couldn't afford rent should be allowed to fail. Are you unable to?
Agreed, but this is probably not the case to make the argument with. If someone has the guns and ammo to fight off police enforcing property owner rights (something they would be way more gung ho about than stopping a school shooter it seems) for six hours, they have the money to pay for rent.
No one should need to pay rent.
How are you going to finance housing then? Honest question. Not everyone can buy housing outright. Lots of people are very poor at managing their finances. See, my mom for exhibit A.
Socialized housing that is paid through government funds and taxes.
We do need socialized housing, but the government doesn't have the ability to construct and manage most of the housing. Too expensive. The bureaucracy would kill it, just look at what happened to the Soviet Union.
My city can't even build an apartment building without spending 8 years in design review. And they're having a private nonprofit so ask the lifting.
US real estate is worth around $43 trillion.