this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
1231 points (93.4% liked)
Memes
45751 readers
1396 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No.
Police have a monopoly on violence with qualified immunity.
Their case is unique.
Is their case unique in this context though? I guess your argument is that only a cop can bring down another cop, which is different than, say, a doctor?
But I don't understand how that refutes my point. The statement of the original "cafeteria room" post was that in every police workforce, everyone knows who the bad guys are, and silence=violence, and therefore ACAB. Well first off, i don't necessarily think that it's true that everyone knows- police officers do more work out on their own than most professions and I certainly couldn't tell you who all the bad apples are at my company where everyone works in the office all day.
But that's fine, we can make that assumption, but if we do it would surely apply to other professions as well. If everyone at the hospital knows who the bad apple pharmacists, doctors, nurses and technicians are, and people's lives are being ruined (and sometimes ended) by this corruption, doesn't that implicate everyone at the hospital? What is the moral difference between a cop not standing up to a corrupt coworker and a doctor not standing up to a corrupt coworker? If anything, police officers having a monopoly on violence makes it MORE understandable that a police officer might keep their head down- they have to worry about their physical safety and not just their career.
And if your argument is that, due to their nature of their job, police officers have an obligation to confront their coworkers that doesn't apply to other professions, that doesn't make sense to me. Morally, it's the exact same regardless of your job description.
It's the qualified immunity part that's tripping you up. Any of those medical professionals you named require higher education and licensing, and malpractice insurance for the highest levels. The licensing boards will revoke your ability to ever work in your profession again if you fuck up, and you will be personally liable in addition to the institution you work for. Cops kill people and get a paid vacation. Then you can't sue them because of qualified immunity. If for some reason the cop loses his job he just goes to the next city over and starts fresh.
So you're saying that qualified immunity makes it easier to get away with things. I 100% agree.
But there are still absolutely doctors and teachers (just sticking with my original examples but this applies to every profession) who get away with terrible things for years and years, often with a blind eye from their coworkers. Morally I just don't see any difference. The actions done by these doctors and teachers are just as destructive to society, and so are the consequences of their coworkers not coming forward.
And you can't blame police in general for qualified immunity. That's just a legal concept derived from the US constitution. Yeah, corrupt officers and corrupt departments will absolutely exploit them as much as they can but I don't see what it has to do with ACAB.
And doctors and teachers one exposed will never work in their choose profession again
Qualified Immunity is against the law.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
The 1982 SCOTUS made it up to protect cops
Interesting read. But even if the article is correct, all that means is that there was a clerical error over a hundred years ago. The Supreme Court ruled on the law as it has been documented ever since. They didn't make anything up.
I think you raise a very good point here.
It's fine if you don't understand how it refutes your point. It does. I'm not here to explain to you what qualified immunity is since that clearly went over your head.
You'll probably continue to respond in an effort to get the last word in. Just know I won't be bothering, cause I ain't here for ya.
Qualified immunity makes it harder to arrest cops, but what does that have to do with whether or not a police officer chooses to try? Qualified immunity is just a legal concept, it's not like police departments made it up to protect themselves, that's not how laws work. Anyways, as I said before the difficulty in getting cops arrested actually makes police officers who don't report their colleagues more understandable (the case might not go anywhere so don't even try).
Thats fine if you don't want to reply, I'm not really trying to argue with you individually I more just want to present my view along side yours for everyone who reads the thread.
Qualified Immunity is against the law.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html