this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
603 points (99.5% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

2552 readers
339 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

Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.

If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.

Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.

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

[email protected]

[email protected]

r/ACAB

r/BadCopNoDonut/

Randy Balko

The Civil Rights Lawyer

The Honest Courtesan

Identity Project

MirandaWarning.org

♦ ♦ ♦

INFO

A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions

Adultification

Cops aren't supposed to be smart

Don't talk to the police.

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

So you wanna be a cop?

When the police knock on your door

♦ ♦ ♦

ORGANIZATIONS

Black Lives Matter

Campaign Zero

Innocence Project

The Marshall Project

Movement Law Lab

NAACP

National Police Accountability Project

Say Their Names

Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration

 

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So how do you refuse breathalyzer and just "get away with it"?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 days ago

You have to be in a police union first.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Everyone can refuse breathalyzer. Everyone should actually, because it will take longer to get to the station. This guy is a POS but if anyone didn't know, now you do

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Doesn't work everywhere. In Canada refusing the breathalyze test carries the same potential charge and failing the breathalyzer test. I know, I already agree with the "what the f*** kind of law is that", but this is how things are.

DUI's are a play-to-play win (paying enough for a good lawyer) or you need to be apart of an exclusive club, otherwise bend over.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Everyone should actually

Everyone driving drunk should. But, you know, you should maybe also not drive drunk

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're assuming that police only accuse drunk drivers of driving drunk.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They can accuse you without a breathalyzer test as well and they can fake blood tests just as well as a breathalyzer test. If you assume the police are just gonna plant evidence, refusing a breathalyzer test will do nothing.

CaptnNMorgan clearly stated, that they recommend taking the test at the station because of the time to get there, indicating that it's about degradation of the blood alcohol level. They're clearly showing that it's not about innocent people being wrongfully accused. I know ACAB, yadda yadda, that doesn't mean everyone accused by the police is a saint. Some people are just assholes and anyone driving drunk should get the book thrown at them. Including of course off-duty cops.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nobody should drive drunk, but everyone has a different tolerance. Someone can blow a high number and not even feel buzzed, if their tolerance is high. I'm not talking to bad people who don't care about other lives, I'm talking to people who would otherwise be taken advantage of by the police and their obtuse laws.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Dude, you're literally defending drunk driving. Please educate yourself on the effect of alcohol on decision making and reaction speed. Just because someone thinks they're not impaired doesn't mean it's true and how they feel doesn't play any role in it whatsoever

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Bro, there is a difference between being drunk and not realizing it, and being sober while blowing a high number.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you're blowing a high number you're literally not sober, wtf?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are wrong. Someone with a high tolerance won't be drunk, but they'll have the same amount of alcohol in their blood as someone who is wasted and has a low tolerance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

You should not drive at a fairly low blood alcohol level either. Reaction time and decision making abilities are limited even if you don't feel anything consciously. Although, I get the feeling that you're not capable of making good decisions while being sober either, so maybe for you it doesn't make a difference.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 12 hours ago

You don't have clue.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

"I drive better after a couple drinks, it loosens me up but I'm not even buzzed."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

In UK you get a charge of failure to provide and it worsens when you refuse again at the station.