Well played by these two bros.
Making them waste time and resources with nothing to show for it, plus standing up for those who can't. Respect.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
833 points (98.9% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
13028 readers
850 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is it honestly. When people slow down police/ICE, it creates a distraction.
When they're arresting grandmas and choking old people, causing a scene changes their focus and lets those people leave unharmed.
Bastards in blue doing what they do
Reminder that there legally cannot be a crime such as "failure to provide identification" outside of specific contexts like actively operating a vehicle, etc. Lots of states allow cops to require you to provide your legal name (and sometimes address) when detained, and courts usually have the ability to compell the same.
In England, it's necessary to provide name and address when arrested, but, it's illegal for the police to arrest just to find out your name. But of course, how difficult is it for them to make up some asinine BS excuse?
"I smell weed" has been a classic for decades.
A long while back, I was harassed by the cops for "acting suspicious" while waiting for some friends at the mall. This quickly escalated to "suspected terrorist activity" for absolutely no reason I could discern or anyone afterwards could explain.
Cops just say shit. The best you can do is say you need to speak to a lawyer and clam up after that.
I had the cops try to pin a bunch of crimes on me and a few coworkers once. Thought my life was over for a few days because they were very serious allegations. Fortunately their police report was so ridiculous as soon as someone competent got involved the whole thing was immediately dropped. The claims they made had literally no evidence and multiple witnesses could prove they were lying. Cops 100% will say anything, it makes their job easier and there's no consequences.
I got questioned by the police when waiting for the train in New York (state) once. I'm a white guy, though I had really long hair at the time. They came up and said someone had reported someone suspicious. I was like, well, I'm waiting for the train and my friends. They were like someone saw you looking in that car suspiciously. I said, that's my car. They asked if I had proof so I opened the door with the key.
Then my friend and her shitty little brother showed up. The brother yells "YO YOU GOT MY WEED??"
Luckily the cops realized that was an idiot 13 year old white kid, and they left.
load more comments
(3 replies)
A guy I knew was on probation and would be visited by cops on a regular basis. During one of the visits, one of his roommates was on his computer doing some programming. The cop looked angry and asked him "are you hacking?"
Bruh...
To be honest, that's probably a question he has to ask.
When I was on probation I had a ton of random things I wasn't allowed to do including any crime on a computer. But since I work in IT a lot of my job "looks" like hacking so I had to get a letter from my boss basically saying "he is not hacking at work"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah actual laws as written don't matter.
This is fascism; the cop regime. They dont know or care about the laws, everything is vibes, and courts up to and especially the supreme will back them on this.
If lots of states allow cops to require you to provide your name and you don't, isn't that refusal to comply with a lawful order, and thus a crime?
Failure to id is a secondary crime, you first need to be lawfully detained/lawfully suspected of a crime, before id can be demanded in 24 states. In the remaining states you need to be arrested before id can be demanded. Driving a motor vehicle is different though. As long as an officer had a reasonable reason for pulling you over, they can id you even if you dispell their suspicions prior to providing ID. If you're pulled over, it's best to always provide ID.
So it's only a lawful order if the police follow the law, if they just walk down the street randomly asking people for id, then failure to comply with their unlawful demands can be thrown out by the courts. Of course the police can just lie and make up a reason they suspected you of a crime, which is why some states have made things like "smelling marijuana" not enough on it's own.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
If Zohran becomes mayor, can he potentially change anything about how the NYPD does things?
Considering a lot of the NYPD straight up said they'd resign if he became mayor, I think he's got a pretty good chance of bringing change if he really wants to
Oh no how unfortunate.
Wow, they are just giving him free advertising at this point.
They are lying to influence the election
No.... Would people do that? Lie to further their agenda?
load more comments
(2 replies)
They said the same thing in my city.
Then they stopped patrolling/enforcing anything.
And surprise surprise, violent crime actually went down.
Now they go around harassing homeless people because they don't have anything else to do.
Give it to NYPD for threatening us all with a good time.
Ny is just full on police state. They need every single cop swapped
That’s one way to dispose of all those bad apples
The department is administered and governed by the police commissioner, who is appointed by the mayor to what is, nominally, a five year term.
Can Zohran fire the existing commissioner and replace him? Idk what the bureaucracy around that looks like. Entrenched power structures have a way of slow rolling executives thru don't like and ignoring rules they don't want to follow.
A lot of levers of power that worked for a Guliani or an Adams might suddenly stop working assuming Zohran can make it all the way through the general and into office.
as far as i am aware, the mayor is the commander in chief of local police and also determines their budget
load more comments
(2 replies)
The potential is there, but usually winning one election is not enough to actually achieve structural change such as stopping racist police actions.
“Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper?”
I'm no expert on American law but I'm pretty sure you don't have to show ID unless you're given a good explanation for it.
ACAB
So the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which outlines the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, protects people from being forced to verbally identify or show documents of identification without reasonable cause, among other things. What that has been interpreted to mean by the SCOTUS is that, while they can always request ID without it being a lawful order, a request you can deny without consequence, any policy or state/local ID law that requires identification upon officer request without any other reasonable cause is unlawful. In other words they cannot demand id for no actual reason nor punish you for failing to ID without said reason.
At minimum, they need "reasonable and articulable suspicion" of a real crime that has happened, is happening, or is about to happen, in order to legally require you to ID yourself in every state, district, and city in the country (with the exception of if you are driving a car and get pulled over for a lawful infraction, you must provide your license to prove you're allowed to drive the vehicle). "Reasonable and articulable suspicion" means that there are real facts that can be pointed to that a reasonable person would deem as a likely indication of crime, not hunches or racial profiling. Some states have higher levels of requirements in order to ID someone, but none can have lower requirements.
BUT, the unfortunate and infuriating truth is that they do not need to actually explain their reasonable and articulate suspicion to you at the time, which ultimately means that they dont have to have it until they justify it to the court much later. They could be just demanding it for no reason unlawfully. Or they could be demanding it because they just saw you pick pocket someone, or someone pointed you out as someone that threatened them, or you match the description of the person that just broke a bunch of windows nearby. All of those things qualify at reasonable suspicion allowing them to ID you in places where that is the minimum requirement. Even if you did nothing wrong, you could still match a description but aren't the right guy, or they thought that saw you do something unlawful but were actually mistaken. It doesn't matter. They still have reasonable suspicion unless you somehow factually dispel that suspicion. If you do not dispel that suspicion (maybe because they didn't even explain their reasons in the first place) and they demand ID, you can be lawfully required to present it even if you did absolutely nothing wrong and don't have a clue why they are asking at all.
In other words, if they demand ID and don't explain why, there's functionally way to discern at the time if the demand is lawful or unlawful even if you have committed no crimes. So you either comply or go to jail and argue your case in court later, regardless of the truth. And btw, even if they had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to lawfully demand ID at the time, they can just lie to justify it. If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it's assumed to be true. So... enjoy your "freedoms", I guess.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Reasonable articulable suspicion", is the official way of saying that.
"A good explanation" is very undefined. The police has to have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, and they have to be able to articulate, ie explain that said reasonable suspicion of having committed a specific crime.
They just make it up all the time though, but most of the cops don't even seem to know the law. They just do what other cops do. And never have to take responsibility for breaking the law.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Bad policing is bad for good cops.
Sigh. The responses you got really dishearten me. We really are moving fast to a binary world where everything is good or bad and any opportunity for nuance is thrown out the window.
You are of course 100% correct.
load more comments
(9 replies)
ACAB. They’ll never change if our only resistance is peaceful. No significant swing in power between a people and its government has occurred absent of violence.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Vhere are your papers??"
Are they still alive? Serious question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
Not exactly a new thing.
"Resonable Suspicion" is a lower threshold than "Probable Cause".
Reasonable suspicion of a crime. You need to say the whole thing.
The number of cops that thinks "I've got reasonable suspicion of you being suspicious." Has always been too goddamn high. You need reasonable suspicion OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Being suspicious isn't a crime. Being black or Latino in a subway station isn't a crime. Even stop and identify laws need to be based in reasonable suspicion of a crime because the 4th amendment demands it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›