3 ms·
I disagree. If the police are protected under a clause of "just following orders", then the home addresses shouldn't be shown. Neither should individual police
by true_religion 15y ago
I disagree.
If the police are protected under a clause of "just following orders", then the home addresses shouldn't be shown. Neither should individual policemen be called out. Rather the system is at fault, and the law makers behind it.
If the police are morally at fault, then this extends past their work-life sphere. If you kill and abuse at work and that is considered immoral, you are not simply allowed to go home and claim sanctuary.
In the view of Lulzsec, there are two sides---we the people, and they the State. Revealing the information of the officers to the people is analogous to the FBI keeping records of the names and known addresses of who they consider criminals.
- clintjhill 15y agoThe morality argument is interesting. However killing and abusing is hyperbole in this context.
- true_religion 15y agoProbably the killing part. Though the police might perpetrate illegal deaths, either through neglect while in custody or 'over enthusiasm' during raids, I don't think that its a systemic abuse. The documented racial profiling, however, is could be properly termed 'abusive'.
- wnight 15y agoThere's likely no policy of killing, but there is a policy of covering up inconvenient leaks, arresting photographers, etc, that gets used when there is a killing, or any other crime from drunk-driving to bribery. The police code of never admitting an officer committed a crime is itself a crime, and one of the worst.