5 ms·

That really bugs me. If it’s a crime to reflect back onto the cops, why wasn’t it a crime for them to use it without justification?

gimboland 6y ago
~~without justification~~ FTFY.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. In such a situation, it’s not clear why a group of people that acts this way should be given any equipment at all, let alone the legal authority to use it based on their own word alone.
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    > The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. But you just said you couldn't prove this above... Which is it?
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You can’t prove a negative. You can however point out that no justification was given, or that the justification given was a blatant lie. Given that we live in a constitutional republic that provides rights to all citizens, any use of force on them that lacks justification is therefore unjustified.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      No, they said they could not prove themselves to have done nothing. I know those things feel equivalent, but they represent entirely opposite ends of perspective. In the scenario they have to prove themselves innocent, the cop needs provide no justification.
      - yeetawayhn 6y ago
        No, their claim isn't that they didn't throw tear gas at the police, but that they were justified in doing so.
- bitwize 6y ago
  The cops can arrest you, throw you in jail and prevent you from contacting your lawyer before you get a chance to show you had justification.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    And even if they don’t have justification for use of force, unless if there’s a super narrow precedent showing they shouldn’t have, they’re immune from lawsuit. And since qualified immunity dismisses lots of cases, very few new precedents are being created. The total effect is that if you have a device created after QI was invented by the courts, you’re effectively totally immune.
hootbootscoot 6y ago
Or why isn't it a crime to use it or any other permanent-damage-causing tech in the first place. Rubber/plastic bullets have cost how many eyes at this point? There IS NO justification for LE to use this stuff, as their charter in the case of protests is about maintaining peace and de-escalating any confrontational violence that may occur. The very notion of being a force confronting/opposed to protesters is WRONG, as they should be de-escalating things, and THIS is the greater issue. LE is waging war upon protesters instead of providing security services.
CompanionCuuube 6y ago
"Why is it a crime if I detain criminals but not a crime if the police do?"
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Except in this case it's being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians, and the only reason there are no consequences is that the people using it are cops.
  - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
    In that case, it's a matter of proving to the courts that it was being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      That won’t work; the entity responsible for investigating such a claim is the same one unlawfully attacking peaceful civilians in the first place.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The clause “without justification” in my original comment matters a lot, do not ignore it. Cops might have the legal right to use force, but they must have clear justification for that application. Indiscriminate application of tools designed to injure people by the police should be a crime, but in practice it does not appear to be so.
  - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
    In that case be prepared to defend the claim of it being without justification. Which if it truly is as clear cut as you're making it out to be, should not be a problem at all.

gimboland 6y ago

~~without justification~~ FTFY.

ashtonkem 6y ago
The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. In such a situation, it’s not clear why a group of people that acts this way should be given any equipment at all, let alone the legal authority to use it based on their own word alone.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  > The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. But you just said you couldn't prove this above... Which is it?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    You can’t prove a negative. You can however point out that no justification was given, or that the justification given was a blatant lie. Given that we live in a constitutional republic that provides rights to all citizens, any use of force on them that lacks justification is therefore unjustified.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    No, they said they could not prove themselves to have done nothing. I know those things feel equivalent, but they represent entirely opposite ends of perspective. In the scenario they have to prove themselves innocent, the cop needs provide no justification.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      No, their claim isn't that they didn't throw tear gas at the police, but that they were justified in doing so.
bitwize 6y ago
The cops can arrest you, throw you in jail and prevent you from contacting your lawyer before you get a chance to show you had justification.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And even if they don’t have justification for use of force, unless if there’s a super narrow precedent showing they shouldn’t have, they’re immune from lawsuit. And since qualified immunity dismisses lots of cases, very few new precedents are being created. The total effect is that if you have a device created after QI was invented by the courts, you’re effectively totally immune.

hootbootscoot 6y ago

Or why isn't it a crime to use it or any other permanent-damage-causing tech in the first place. Rubber/plastic bullets have cost how many eyes at this point? There IS NO justification for LE to use this stuff, as their charter in the case of protests is about maintaining peace and de-escalating any confrontational violence that may occur. The very notion of being a force confronting/opposed to protesters is WRONG, as they should be de-escalating things, and THIS is the greater issue. LE is waging war upon protesters instead of providing security services.

CompanionCuuube 6y ago

"Why is it a crime if I detain criminals but not a crime if the police do?"

jakelazaroff 6y ago
Except in this case it's being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians, and the only reason there are no consequences is that the people using it are cops.
- CompanionCuuube 6y ago
  In that case, it's a matter of proving to the courts that it was being used unlawfully on peaceful civilians.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    That won’t work; the entity responsible for investigating such a claim is the same one unlawfully attacking peaceful civilians in the first place.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ashtonkem 6y ago
The clause “without justification” in my original comment matters a lot, do not ignore it. Cops might have the legal right to use force, but they must have clear justification for that application. Indiscriminate application of tools designed to injure people by the police should be a crime, but in practice it does not appear to be so.
- CompanionCuuube 6y ago
  In that case be prepared to defend the claim of it being without justification. Which if it truly is as clear cut as you're making it out to be, should not be a problem at all.