Possibly misleading headline, the police chief seems to be saying they won't tolerate criminals being police officers. I refuse to speak to how well they actually follow that ideal, but at least they aren't saying they won't tolerate consequences for one of their own.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
38 points (93.2% liked)
THE POLICE PROBLEM
2547 readers
3 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"His crime was being caught. We do not tolerate that"
The police chief saying "We will not tolerate this on any level," while tolerating it enough to continue paying the arrested officer's salary, is ironic.
I'm of the opinion they should continue to be paid until they are actually convicted. I do not think paying someone while simply accused is "tolerating" rather letting due process occur.
Job security after an arrest seems to be a perk for police, and nobody else. When bus drivers, janitors, or schoolmarms get arrested, they're usually fired if the arrest makes the news.
Same standard for all of us, is all I ask.
I agree with you that it should be the same standard, but I feel that standard should be the one being used by the police. Many of these places prematurely fire people that then are trying to get their back jobs back after they're acquitted and I never feel that that is fair that they're out of a job for being accused of something they didn't do.
I do want to be clear that I am not siding with the police here. It is very likely that he is guilty and should be in prison. But I just don't like the president of the punishment starting before the trial has even begun.
If Congress passes a law saying people can't be fired for being arrested or charged, only for conviction of a crime, I'll hoist a diet root beer on the rocks in celebration. I'm a fan of "innocent until proven guilty."
When only police have such an advantage, defending that is "siding with the police."
I understand your point, but it is currently at the discretion of the employer. I'd rather my efforts go toward ensuring everyone has this protection and using the police as an example instead of trying to remove it from a group and then try to reinstate it for everyone.
Additionally, I just assumed that this was a result of negotiations with a police union, with there really being no other option available.