4 ms·

Except murderers and violent criminals don't have essentially legal immunity.

dimitrios1 6y ago
And this is the hyperbolic, overdramatic society we live in today, with no nuance or potential to see another side. Qualified immunity -- qualified meaning limited. Yes it is easy to abuse and has been abused, but rest assured cops have gone to jail for murder and involuntary manslaughter.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  I'd love for you to show me how many of these officers went to jail for murder: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    I'd love for you to first show me how many of those shootings were justified.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Since most police shooting are justified why would the cop go to jail?
- sp332 6y ago
  I don't think they mean qualified immunity. I think they mean juries acquitting officers, judges throwing out cases, grand juries declining to indict, and D.A.'s deciding not to bring charges.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    This happens all the time for officers and not for officers. It depends on what the political agenda is of the mayor and DA. Counterexample: look at what is happening in Portland right now. The DA is flat out refusing to bring charges against criminals. (Also for a longer history of counter examples, see what happens to people who are criminal finaceers. Spoiler alert: nothing.) What people fail to realize time and time again is so many of our contemporary issues come down to power struggles. It all has to do with power dynamics and how one set of grifters is vying to keep it over another set. My answer has always been limitations. Limited powers, limited government, limited terms. But happy to hear of other realistic solutions that don't resemble an anarcharist approach.
    - sp332 6y ago
      If you're in favor of limited government, why so negative about anarchy?
      - bzbarsky 6y ago
        Because there is a qualitative difference between "limited government" and "no government"?
        modwest 6y ago
        Never fails IME people who say they favor “limited government” really mean “government for thee, not for me.” They want laws enforced, sure, but mostly just the ones about keeping the rabble from getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT. It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. Can’t have the rabble voting in their own welfare; that means higher tax rates on top earners —- aka “getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT” —- to pay for it. It’s the inevitable conclusion, as we are seeing in the United States.
        dimitrios1 6y ago
        This is sarcasm, right? There haven't been this many broad-as-daylight examples of "Laws for thee and not for me" than the authoritarian, wanna-be tiny-emperor governors and mayors, and representatives of a certain political ideology all across the country with their draconian, unscientific lockdowns. > It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. You have been reading way too much propaganda. First of all, Gerrymandering is enjoyed by each side of our ruling class. So that invalidates the rest of your nonsensical point.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        6y ago

And this is the hyperbolic, overdramatic society we live in today, with no nuance or potential to see another side. Qualified immunity -- qualified meaning limited. Yes it is easy to abuse and has been abused, but rest assured cops have gone to jail for murder and involuntary manslaughter.

faitswulff 6y ago
I'd love for you to show me how many of these officers went to jail for murder: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  I'd love for you to first show me how many of those shootings were justified.
- refurb 6y ago
  Since most police shooting are justified why would the cop go to jail?
sp332 6y ago
I don't think they mean qualified immunity. I think they mean juries acquitting officers, judges throwing out cases, grand juries declining to indict, and D.A.'s deciding not to bring charges.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  This happens all the time for officers and not for officers. It depends on what the political agenda is of the mayor and DA. Counterexample: look at what is happening in Portland right now. The DA is flat out refusing to bring charges against criminals. (Also for a longer history of counter examples, see what happens to people who are criminal finaceers. Spoiler alert: nothing.) What people fail to realize time and time again is so many of our contemporary issues come down to power struggles. It all has to do with power dynamics and how one set of grifters is vying to keep it over another set. My answer has always been limitations. Limited powers, limited government, limited terms. But happy to hear of other realistic solutions that don't resemble an anarcharist approach.
  - sp332 6y ago
    If you're in favor of limited government, why so negative about anarchy?
    - bzbarsky 6y ago
      Because there is a qualitative difference between "limited government" and "no government"?
      - modwest 6y ago
        Never fails IME people who say they favor “limited government” really mean “government for thee, not for me.” They want laws enforced, sure, but mostly just the ones about keeping the rabble from getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT. It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. Can’t have the rabble voting in their own welfare; that means higher tax rates on top earners —- aka “getting in the way of the fReE mArKeT” —- to pay for it. It’s the inevitable conclusion, as we are seeing in the United States.
        dimitrios1 6y ago
        This is sarcasm, right? There haven't been this many broad-as-daylight examples of "Laws for thee and not for me" than the authoritarian, wanna-be tiny-emperor governors and mayors, and representatives of a certain political ideology all across the country with their draconian, unscientific lockdowns. > It’s painfully obvious to me, now, after everything, that pursuing a “limited government” requires making it harder for certain groups to vote and gerrymandering. You have been reading way too much propaganda. First of all, Gerrymandering is enjoyed by each side of our ruling class. So that invalidates the rest of your nonsensical point.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        6y ago