this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024

222 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers

2472 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

222

Florida Legislator Files Bill That Would Keep Killer Cops From Being Named And Shamed (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 9 months ago by einat2346 to c/politics@lemmy.world

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 53 points 9 months ago (3 children)

yeah thats what we need, to protect an already over-protected class of people.

you want to increase hatred for cops? this is how you increase hatred for cops.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Pretty sure my hate meter is maxed for cops.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

im somewhat torn in that i worked with many. these are fellow human beings... but all the bad stuff is true. there are handfuls of good cops here and there but there are absolutely bad cops almost everywhere, and theres nothing the 'good' cops can seemingly do about the bad cops without 'outing' themselves.

hence, acab.

the system is broken. it attracts both the worst and the best and turns them all into garbage.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

One bad apple spoils the bunch.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just expanded my hate meter to accomodate my new levels of cop hate.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

"This one goes to eleven."

"Why don't you just make ten more angry?"

"... This one goes to eleven."

[–] Igloojoe@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

They dont care how much hate the police receive. They just need to protect the fascism enforcers.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, that is exactly what they're trying to do.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The former would expand the definition of “crime victims” to include “law enforcement officers, correctional officers, or correctional probation officers who use deadly force in the course and scope of their employment or official duties.”

Republicans want to redefine cops who use deadly force as victims? Color me doubleplusunshocked.

[+] Rivalarrival -19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Deadly force may only be used to stop a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

If you kill me while I am in the process of attacking you, you are, indeed, my victim, whether you are a random individual, or a sworn officer. The fact that I am the one who dies during that encounter does not mean that I am the victim.

Edit: Do people really not know the circumstances under which force may be used? Does the general public not understand the 6 conditions that must be met before lethal force can be justified?

Reasonable Person
Credible Threat
Criminal Threat
Imminent Threat
Severe Threat
Necessity

Cops don't get some special exception to this. These are the legal standards that they must abide by when using lethal force.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The bill defines all cops or correctional officers who use deadly force on duty as victims. Not just those who kill someone in the specific circumstance that you described.

[+] Rivalarrival -14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Self defense and defense of others are the only circumstances where police can justifiably use lethal force. Self defense, they are clearly the victim. Defense of others, I would argue they deserve the same protections as the victim.

The bill doesn't protect other, non-justifiable uses of force.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house? What about kneeling on someone's neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air? What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death? What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?

You act like this bullshit list is actually EVER followed by any cop in any situation. You act as though cops who DON'T follow this list are punished for murdering innocent civilians without following this bullshit process.

Fuck you and your boot licking ass.

[+] Rivalarrival -9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house

Not protected.

What about kneeling on someone's neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air?

Not protected.

What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death

Not protected.

What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?

Not protected.

This bill does not protect officers in any of the scenarios you describe. None of these scenarios describe self defense or defense of others. None of these uses of force are justifiable.

Also not protected is an officer mistaking an acorn for a gunshot and unloading his weapon into the back of his own cruiser, with a handcuffed suspect in the back.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

ALL OF THESE USES OF FORCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND JUSTIFIABLE YOU ABSOLUTE BOOT LICKING MORON.

[–] Rivalarrival -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

In every case you described, officers were charged and prosecuted. Some were convicted, some were acquitted. None of them would have been protected under Marsy's law.

Stop holding pockets.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Hmmm let's see The elderly woman scalded to death, no officers charged: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/katherine-fernandez-rundle-criticized-for-darren-rainey-florida-prison-death-11657307

Shooting dogs, I'm sure all these thousands of cases per year are either justified or prosecuted: https://qz.com/870601/police-killing-dogs-is-an-epidemic-according-to-the-justice-department

Not to mention that even when charged police officers are almost never found guilty even when the evidence is overwhelming due to the various additional protections they have. At best someone can sue the city and obtain a financial remedy while the police department is completely unscathed and unaffected by the poor and criminal behaviour of their officers.

It's obvious that you're not arguing in good faith so you can respond how you like I'm done talking to you.

Edit: just looked up the prison slang you were using in your comment. Obviously you're not a boot licker, you are the boot. It's clear now why you support a law that would hide your identity when you murder people. Cops HATE accountability, that's why nobody trusts them anymore. Fascists gonna fash!

[–] Rivalarrival 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The "elderly woman" you're talking about was a 50-year-old man, and the situation does not qualify for protection under the bill. The man posed no credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Their act of locking him in the shower had lethal results, but it was not a "use of lethal force" under self defense laws, and would not qualify the officers for protection under the bill.

Dogs are legally considered property, not people. Killing a dog is not considered a use of lethal force. Marsy's law does not protect officers for killing dogs.

In both scenarios you cited, the law would not hide their identities.

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

No, the general public is aware that cops are protected regardless of if these criteria are met. So are you.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So the safe assumption is that any given officer in Florida is a murderer.

[–] cmhickman358@thelemmy.club 4 points 9 months ago

So the safe assumption is that any given officer ~~in Florida~~ is a murderer.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago

Protecting Cops that MURDER CHILDREN is how we Protect The Children!

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

ACAB

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Fascists gonna fash

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

So basically the laws are unconstitutional in the same way that arrest records and voting registration details are in the public domain in Florida.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 9 months ago

What a great idea! said no one. ever.