This is why it's important to remember that in any revolution, resistance, or targeted action, it's the police that are the first enemy. They'll be the ones that respond first, and will likely toe the line the most reliably.
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1205 points (98.5% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2551 readers
235 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
2nd Amendment is usually a punchline, but it may become necessary
Tbh, it always has been.
The only problem is that we've been set up so that the people that are most likely to oppose the worst case scenario are the ones least likely to be both armed and willing to fight.
Just wait, though. If things slide the way they could, it won't be long before the party policy shifts against armed citizens.
load more comments
(1 replies)
NY transit starts getting complaints about an ad they have no idea about.
"No, m'mam, we don't have a death penalty policy.....no......no m'man, I don't know what poster you saw....."
"but yes m'aam we did shoot and kill 4 human beings for cheating us out of the 2.90 fare"
Fortunately none of them died as far as I can find. Surgeons had to crack open the skull of the bystander they shot in the back of the head to relieve his brain swelling though. I hope he recovers because he's gonna be set for life.
They spent 150 million on overtime for cops to stop fare evasion. How much were they losing in fares? I'm gonna go ahead and guess it wasn't even a teeny fraction of that.
They spent 1500x more on enforcement than they could have ever recovered from fare evaders. Just like every single other monitoring and enforcement program for public services.
Has there ever been a single program like that which is actually a net positive? Fare enforcement, food stamps means testing, public services with drug screens, "welfare queen" check ups, means testing, etc. I'm not aware of a single instance where it wouldn't have been cheaper just to let a few people get benefits that "didn't deserve them" than putting these restrictions in place
But God's forbid we let poor people have nice things, or just to do good things for our society. Goddamned toxic puritanicalism. ..
Absolutely right. Brings to mind something I read a while ago which I will paraphrase.
"Liberals want everyone to get what they need even if a few cheat the system. Conservatives want nobody to get what they need if there's a chance anyone will cheat the system."
Somebody on Lemmy a while back asked about the phrase, "the cruelty is the point," and whether it was true and fair. Well, here's the evidence: The point is not a net gain on fare collections.
The fact that the numbers are public and they keep doing it proves it: The cruelty is the point.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Well wait.....can the NY transit be blamed for that, if it was NYPD?
That would be like if some guy stole a loaf of bread from a grocery store, so they call the cops, and the cop shoots the theif.
Do you blame the grocery store?
The vast majority of people who steal food from a grocery aren't doing it out of malicious reasoning but simply for their and their families survival.
Using a systemic monopoly on violence to stop people from trying to non violently survive in a world that refuses to help them is always immoral.
We should be calling the cops on supermarket chains for hoarding and not sharing their exes of wealth with citizens who actually need it.
”We should be calling the cops on supermarket chains for hoarding and not sharing their exes of wealth with citizens who actually need it."
I think the word you were looking for was "excess." What you wrote seems like an oddly specific kink for divorcees.
Its a happy little accident.
Homer: You know, Mr. Burns, you're the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny.
Mr. Burns: Yes, but I'd trade it all for a little more
Don't worry there's plenty of blame to go around in this fucked up system we've got.
But I agree with you. No matter what this guy did, these cops engineered an unnecessary confrontation and then shot innocent bystanders, the suspect, AND themselves. They are to blame. They are not qualified to use firearms in the performance of their duties because they lack good judgement.
Wait.... they did WHAT?!
I read the advert and just assumed, the suspect just tried to ran and they needlessly used guns to stop them instead of running after them or something like that?!
The suspect is not 100% blameless, he did hop the line, he was not following lawful commands, and he was holding a knife. Now that is a really sketchy situation because a knife can kill you real quick, real life is not like Hollywood. But he did not try to stab anyone with it and he was not threatening anyone. Cops love to talk about how a knife can kill you from 20 feet but that ain't gonna happen when they have already drawn on him. So none of that validates their response. They could have easily backed up temporarily, called for backup, tried the tasers again, waited for him to calm down a bit, or 20 other things than unloading their guns in a crowded subway station. Idiotic. The ONLY reason they should have fired is if the suspect was attempting to harm someone. I hope they are fired and charged with negligence at the very least, attempted manslaughter sounds even better.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Do you blame the grocery store?
Yes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The fun part is of the 4 people shot, only the one had skipped the fare. Two were bystanders, one was another cop.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
so is this ad meant to push people to pay the fare or to start a revolution?
It's saying the quite part out loud about the normalized police state we live in.
I'd say a bit of both. The numbers they showed for it if I remember was that they spent $150m to catch like $100,000 of fares that were skipped. Then throw in 4 people dead and you didn't do much to help. You just made it more miserable for people travelling.
With fares making up 23% of your income, and payroll taking up over 30% of expenses... Odds are they could cut the number of guards patrolling tolls, ticket sales people, customer service reps, maintenance workers for all the machines/guard terminals etc by a shit ton and make the transportation free, and offset the costs elsewhere. It would also likely boost the economy of the area, do to people not needing to scrape together a couple dollars to take the train and spending it at businesses they otherwise may normally avoid do to costs or not having that extra few dollars.
In Ontario, asshole political leader Doug Ford is trying to stop free public transit by paying for transit cops out of the provincial budget. That way no one can make the payment you just made. Can we have the same amount of money to spend on improving public transit? No. The only thing fearless leader Doug Ford fears more than free public transit is good public transit.
What a bag of dicks. Watch other conservative states and provinces follow his lead!
load more comments
(4 replies)
Well, I’ll give you an update here as I have boots on the ground:
They cut back on the amount of cops on the platforms now—but now every single exit door has a private guard (one of those rent a cop companies). So now they’re bringing privatized security into the mix. But there are still cops on the platforms! Just not as many at the door because they’ve hired some security guards to have the same effect an MTA person has, which means they can’t really do shit if you don’t let them stop you.
So a slightly different way to waste money.
load more comments
(1 replies)
At this point it would be better usage of money to make it a surveillance state instead of a police state, cameras won’t shoot you
It's also a surveillance state at this point.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Please transcribe images of text for the blind
SKIP THE FARE? EXPECT THE DEATH PENALTY
On September 15th, the NYPD shot four people over the $2.90 fare
OMNY
So the NYPD can double tap and go
It says OMNY. It's a payment system for the subway
Thanks -- fixing
Adding descriptive text to all images is the cool thing to do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›