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
2461 readers
3 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
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?