this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
1491 points (99.0% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

3318 readers
1589 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

!abolition@slrpnk.net

!acab@lemmygrad.ml

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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh no, Your Honor, you don't understand, that guy on lemmy said I could do it

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Do you not understand what the 2nd Amendment is for and are utterly ignorant to concepts such as "self defense"?

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

In the current climate, do you really think a judge will support your assertions of self defence?

If you shoot an ICE officer, I very much doubt you'd ever see a court room.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

We're a little past hoping judges do the right thing.

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay? So people shouldn't defend themselves against violence committed against them?

Do you always ask permission of your assailant on which methods you are allowed to use to defend yourself against them?

I also think the key thing you're missing here is that you wouldn't be the only one who is armed and ready to defend yourself and others around against it. You would be organized as a community, maybe through having a well regulated militia that exercises the right to bear arms in the event that it is necessary to the security of a free state

Gee why does that sound familiar?

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You literally advocated shooting ICE agents on sight. That is not "defending" oneself.

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It absolutely is. ICE is a "legal" terrorist organization that is committing crimes against marginalized individuals. They are to be treated as a threat, as their only role is to do harm against my community. It is absolutely well within the right of a community to defend themselves against organizations that only seek to do harm.

ICE gets the same treatment as Nazis.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No it's not. Defense in a legal context is averting imminent physical harm. When you "sight" a bunch of ICE agents abducting someone, it's just not going to meet that legal requirement.

You're well within your right to shoot ICE agents on sight.

This is just plain false. Anyone following your advice is just going to get shot by a half dozen ICE goons.

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Fuck your "legal context". I do not respect the authority that decides what is or isn't "legal".

My advice is to organize community militias and stand in the way of an oppressive regime, to defend their community against those who wish to do them harm. If that means a fight, then it's a fight. So be it. You come to my community armed and ready to kidnap people and you bet your ass is going to be shot on sight.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're well within your right to shoot ICE agents on sight.

You can't claim "rights" and then say you don't respect the authority that grants or denies those rights.

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Rights don't come from an authority. They are inherent aspects of existence. If you need an authority to legitimize those rights then they aren't "rights", they are privileges.

I don't need an authority to legitimize the human right to self defense, to food and water, to shelter, to autonomy, etc...

I will exercise those rights regardless of what any body of authority dictates.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So... when you say "you're well within your rights to ..." you're just kind of making that up based on the vibe?

As in... you're within your rights to shoot an ICE agent, but they will probably shoot you right back, and if you don't die you'll probably go to jail.

That's a hell of a caveat you didn't mention.

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." - The United States Constitution.

I would also suggest reading the bill of rights, and James Madison's arguments on natural rights, and why he felt The Bill of Rights was both unnecessary and damaging to human rights overall because there were too many to list.

To get you started here the wiki on bill of rights, you can use the links and sources at the bottom to confirm the information.

Please educate yourself. If you're incapable, get a tutor that isn't AI.

Your opponent is correct, we are within our INALIENABLE RIGHTS to defend ourselves from a criminal government organization. So important our founding fathers made sure to write it down and sign it.

Personally I socially consent to ICE being gun downed, and considered those who do it Heroes. ICE is disappearing people to a concentration camp in El Salvador. They are attacking the populace(That's you and me included) and any violent acts against them are inherently self defense as they are proven threats. Fuck collaborators and those that would side with them regardless of "legality".

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You haven't actually responded to what I've said.

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

It's not based on a vibe, it's literally written down as part of our Declaration of Independence. It's a part of our Bill of Rights, It's a part of The Constitution, and in some cases our state constitutions.

Yours and others ignorance of their natural rights, and the places they are codified doesn't excuse the breaking of this social contract. ICE and ICE collaborators have broken this social contract, and are no longer protected by it.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

It's not based on a vibe, it's literally written down as part of our Declaration of Independence.

The commenter I replied to, who seems to have disappeared, was saying there's no authority that grants these rights. Now you're arguing that those rights are provided by the constitution?

Regardless, the assertion I take issue with, is that Americans are within their rights to shoot ICE officers on sight. Even if that were true according to your personal interpretation of the constitution, it's terrible advice to be handing out on lemmy.

A more accurate statement would be "under some interpretations of the constitution it may be lawful to oppose ICE agents with force, however in the current climate you're very likely to be shot or incarcerated or deported should you attempt to do so"

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't see any well-regulated militias around here...

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yea. That's kinda the entire problem that I'm attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hey bud,

This doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to. It never has.

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Hey bud.

That's all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them.

It doesn't matter what they say. We shouldn't respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start:

point one : lets shoot ice under 2A
Me: 2A defense doesn't apply to people they don't want it to apply to

You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your "constitutional rights" are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they've violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing.

The current administration is not sane.

IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore never going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The 2nd Amendment isn't about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down.

It's written down for us, the people, the citizens. It's to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being.

From the Declaration of Independence:

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

(Broke it up for readability)

My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That's just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual's current actions aren't threatening.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your entire screed still relies on there being rules of social order

Fascism 101: they don't play by these. Think such a thing in america is preposterous? Then you are not paying attention because due process is already being fucked harder than caligula's favourite watermelon.

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Friend, you may want to actually read the "Screed". You'll see I was agreeing with you, and pointing out that it's down to us the people, that "legality" doesn't matter at all.

But go off I guess, lol.

[–] walktheplank@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Hey bud, not standing up ensures more lie down forcefully. Will you still defend inaction when you are the one with the boot on your neck?

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The fact you literally cannot comprehend resistance without shooting someone is almost as breathtaking as your ignorance of power structures

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The fact you literally cannot comprehend that any form of resistance will be met with violence of state oppression, disguised as "enforcing law and order", and that people should be prepared to defend themselves when they attempt to challenge the status quo is as breathtaking as your own ignorance of power structures.

[–] wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The state will enact violence upon people regardless. If you're going to be unlawfully deported to a country that has basically offered to enslave and torture the people sent there by the USA - then why not defend yourself? The violence will happen no matter how you behave. More violence will happen to other people if you do not. If a critical number of people choose to defend themselves, the federal government will be unable to continue inflicting violence.

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

This dude gets it.