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
The arresting officer should be charged with Child Abuse.
We must end Qualified Immunity.
No charges, of course. Dennis Turner was only fired, which means his 'punishment' was enduring orientation as a new hire at whatever police department pays him now.
not end it
apply it the way it was meant to be applied
Your comment makes no sense.
Qualified immunity has nothing to do with charging someone with a crime.
What do you think they are qualified to be immune from?
Qualified immunity deals with civil lawsuits and not criminal charges.
Often the civil lawsuits are about alleging that an officer committed a crime and a judge has to determine whether that's the case. The officer is usually represented by a police union who usually invoke Qualified Immunity to absolve the officer i.e. there was probable cause for their actions.
That is incorrect. Civil and criminal are separate sections of the law. They had different rules and procedures.
Also incorrect. The union does not represent the officer in court. The union is not a lawyer. Probable cause is not relevant to qualified immunity and is only relevant in civil court. Immunity is not just for police officers. It is for every government employee. Police have more protection than most other government employees but less than judges, prosecutors, etc.
Personally, I think they should all lose it but in return, it means fewer cases will be prosecuted. The courts will just reject most of the cases since they won't have the staffing to deal with every case.
Admittedly, my legalese isn't great. However, I wasn't implying that the union itself represents the officer, just that they provide support in that aspect. I know it's for all government officials, the focus here was on the police so I stuck with that.
I agree on the last part. Often it feels like government officials are above the law.
They provide moral support. They also provide support for policy violations. (Not a civil or criminal court but internal disputes)
For some reason, many people think it is a get-out-of-jail card. It isn't. It has nothing to do with criminal liability. It is only civil liability.
I get why the judges put it in place. You can't have a cop sued whenever he makes a minor mistake. The issue, though, is it has turned into a blanket immunity even when they did something so egregious they should be sued.
I was in law enforcement for years. I want to see a reform of the system as we deserve better.
You ABSOLUTELY can have a cop sued for making a minor mistake. They can carry malpractice insurance, just like I do. Don't give me that shit. There is no reason cops should be immune from lawsuits
What are you going on about? That is what qualified immunity is all about. Civil liability. You can sue, but most likely, the case will be rejected unless there is prior precedent.
That is the only thing qualified immunity covers is civil liability.
Your words
That’s the court ruling. That’s the whole reason there is qualified immunity. Have you ever read any of the court cases?!?!!
I disagree with the court. We're allowed to do that
The responses and downvotes are making me chuckle. How dare you understand and explain what 'qualified immunity' is and how it works, to people who don't.
It is a pet peeve of mine when people don't understand what they want to change.
Qualified immunity isn't as big a deal as people think. While it needs to be changed, it isn't why cops are not convicted of crimes.
Cops are rarely convicted of crimes (in my opinion) because cop crimes rarely come to court. Even when there's prosecution, everyone — judge, jury, prosecutors, defense, witnesses, certainly any reporters — walks in with a background of respect and admiration for police. They watched Hawaii Five-O and all the iterations of Law & Order, and listened to hysterical Republicans screaming about crime, and watched channel 7's coverage of cops heroically hunting for some axe murderer on the subway. Everyone comes to the courtroom eager to give cops the benefit of every doubt.
It takes a truly egregious cop-crime and some sharp lawyering to get past the lifelong-ingrained "Cops are always the good guys" belief.
And of course, 'qualified immunity' has nothing to do with anything in criminal court.
The laws are written to give cops the ability to do their job. This is a good thing if you had good cops. The downside is when you have a bad cop since the same law will protect the cop. What is reasonable force? The force another officer would use in the same situation. How much force can you use? Enough to make an arrest, as such a refusal to comply, the next step can be a cop using a taser and taking you into custody. On paper, that sounds good until you see it used in the real world, where a 90 year old woman is tased over something trivial. It is an excuse to use force when a few minutes of conversation could have settled the matter or an ego check could have solved the issue.
Basically, you can't charge a cop when they are complying with the law and the law gives broad rights to make an arrest and the amount of force used to make an arrest is broad as well.
It's why I support reform. I see too much punching over stupid shit. I would rather see less physical striking and more joint manipulation. Punching to the face should be considered deadly force. Distraction strikes are supposed to be hits to distract the person and not beat the shit out of them. We needs cop who can think and say, he littered, should I beat him into submission over that?