THE POLICE PROBLEM
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
view the rest of the comments
In Europe, specially in the EU, these "law enforcement officers" would have been immediately arrested and subsequently charged with attempted murder. And definitely would be convicted. These situations very but very rarely happen here. And when they do, the perpetrators are brought to justice.
An armed law enforcement agent in most countries of the EU can only draw its gun in very restrict conditions, mainly only if own or others life is in clear and immediate danger, not perceived danger but justifiable and objective danger, and can only shoot to prevent loss of life. Also the measure of force has to be similar to the one used by the threatening party, cannot be greater. For example, shooting someone who is at distance, alone, armed with a knife is not justifiable, since the measure of force of a gun is greater in this situation (longer reach). Only if the individual with the knife was very close and capable of causing death is the shooting justifiable.
Oh, and there isn't anything like qualified immunity here. There are some specific laws governing law enforcement powers and actions, but in general same laws apply for all.
If read carefully, what does not happen is "law enforcement officers" getting away with impunity that often in these situations. France always has had problems with their ex-colonies citizens and non-citizens, but these 13 cases are exceptional. And please do compare the numbers of people killed or shot by the police in France (or even in the E.U.) to the numbers of the U.S., even taking in account the difference in size of populations. Then come tell me I'm pretending.
Edit: Just for reference, thought it lacks lots of European countries. Please order by Region and compare Europe to the U.S.A., and check the span of time also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_by_law_enforcement._Rates_and_counts_by_country
I'm not in love with the concept of proportionality wrt weapons. If a cop sees someone with the knife to the throat of my kid vs again to the head, I don't really care.
This isn't a defense of cops.
It is a critism of delineating by tools instead of outcomes.
Edit: This scenario was clearly explained and I apparently can't read.
Read my example above, it agrees with what you say.
Oof, you sure did. My B.
Combined with
Tells a justification story
So cops can just roll up in plain clothes, not announce themselves, start assaulting people and when those people try to defend themsleves, the cops can just shoot them for "self-defense"?
I don't know the full story, but I'm also not filling in blanks with my imagination.
With the information we have, this story could easily go either way.
Says you, filling in the blanks, under the assumption that someone would pull a gun on someone who states they’re law enforcement? Two edged sword, friend.
The article states that the guy pointed a gun at the officers.
Even without them being officers, I am pretty sure pointing a gun at someone gives them the right to defend themselves. If not legal, at least moral.
Now what caused the events to take place could change the whole scenario either way. For all we know, the police confronted the brother for ritually sacrificing kittens to a Republican god or something, or the police were smuggling children and the brother was a witness.
Funny how people would argue on one side that pointing a gun at someone is perfectly legit self defense, but if it’s a cop that the individual says didn’t state they were a cop, suddenly it’s cool to arrest them.
Really trying hard to play both sides of coin to be right, aren’t ya.
Pointing a gun at someone is not self defense. It's intent to kill.
And I'm not playing both sides, I'm just not jumping to conclusions off a vague article
The gymnastics are incredible. If pointing a gun isn’t self defense then there would be a lot of gun/parts manufacturers out of business as an enormous amount of arsenals would suddenly vanish when people were no longer able to justify owning most of their guns.
Are you for real? What are you gonna Butwhatabout me next over? Keep moving the goalposts.
Eh, it always ends up with cliche copy/paste comments about whatabout/goalposts/mental gymnastics.
I guess y'all know how it all went down and can condemn the guilty party without any doubt.
If everywhere you go it smells like shit, check the bottom of your own shoe first.
EU police can operate very very differently because of the rarity of guns. It's a completely reasonable assumption that virtually everyone you encounter doesn't have a gun. In America it's the complete opposite. And this situation is a a direct example, the dude was armed and brandished a gun.