this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
960 points (98.9% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

2967 readers
417 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The March 14 directive, signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, uses an obscure 18th-century law — the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — to give law enforcement nationwide the power to bypass basic constitutional protections.

According to the memo, agents can break into a home if getting a warrant is “impracticable,” and they don’t need a judge’s approval. Instead, immigration officers can sign their own administrative warrants. The bar for action is low — a “reasonable belief” that someone might be part of a Venezuelan gang is enough.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

In California remember you have Castle Doctrine. Protecting yourself, your home, and property from unwarranted unannounced invasions from ANYONE allows you to use deadly force if available

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

...Except cops. You do not have a legal right to resist illegal actions by police. The ONLY state where that's a legal right is Indiana. Look, I get it, you should have that right everywhere, but if you shoot a cop that's illegally breaking into your home, you will be arrested, charged, and convicted, IF you survive. And you probably won't.

Should you shoot them anyways? Absolutely. Just understand what the result will be.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What makes a cop a cop? Could we establish a new town, which would of course have its own police department, and everyone in that town is part of the department.

Yes, it's a bit of a facetious question. But we are entering very stupid times.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

This article implies that you wouldn't be breaking the law if you shot a cop entering your home unannounced and without a warrant:

https://campbelllawobserver.com/cops-not-robbers-the-clash-between-no-knock-warrants-and-the-castle-doctrine/

It also says that the cops are allowed to kill you, so having followed the law and being innocent will be small comfort.

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

Well shit too bad Indiana hates my kind

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

I know, right? It's the broken clock that's so broken that it's only gotten the time right once.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wait. CA allows the Castle Doctrine?

A quick search shows it does. I'll be damned.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'll be damned as well.

Worth noting for any Californians that it u-turns if the person stops being a threat. If you threaten and they run away, you're now in the wrong if you shoot.

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

If you pull out a firearm you better fucking use it not threaten with it. because life and death is when it comes out not before.

In some states you have a duty to retreat as well. Something to consider.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I thought the whole point of Castle Doctrine is that you don't have to retreat because your home is the place of last retreat?

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

That's true pretty much everywhere. Shooting someone in the back will almost always get you charged, unless you're a cop.

Generally speaking--and I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, and you should ask a criminal defense attorney in your state for specifics--you can use force, including lethal force, to protect your life if you have reasonable fear for your life or safety. Generally speaking, if someone is running away from you, they're no longer a direct threat, and therefore you can't use force. Similarly, if you are in a reasonable fear for your life, and you shoot someone, you can not kick them while they're bleeding on the ground.

I believe all states have some form of Castle Doctrine. Some states have a duty to retreat if you aren't in your home/car, e.g., you have to attempt to escape first. Some states require you to use proportionate force; if they have a baseball bat, you may not be allowed to use a firearm. Know the laws specific to your state.

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

That's all fair enough. I've seen it listed as a gotcha on some very pro-gun sites for the specific case of a thief who's taken something, jewelery for example, and is now running away. You can't take the offensive to get it back. (At least not with your gun. I expect trackling them to the ground would be fine?)

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

That gets much, much more state specific. I can tell you that a lot of stores with loss-prevention officers aren't keen on having them tackle shoplifters, since that can result in massive losses from lawsuits.

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

Wait...that's not true everywhere?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Guess I need to move to CA.