3 ms·
Cops have legal protections that let them get away with murder when nobody else would. Some might see that as a downside when selecting who you want providing
by shkkmo 5y ago
Cops have legal protections that let them get away with murder when nobody else would.
Some might see that as a downside when selecting who you want providing your security.
Instead of comlaining about private security forces, why not fix policing in this country so that it actually makes people feel safer?
- watwut 5y agoThe people who pay got vigilante private security don't do it to avoid police planting evidence in them. They do it to have someome to attack the others, someone under their control. They have zero incentive to prevent private security from planting evidence on others. Gangs in fact did not ended up to be fair non corrupt equivalent of police either.
- shkkmo 5y agoI'm much less concerned with them planting evidence on me than I am with them shooting a friend or family member who is experiencing a mental health crisis.
- plorkyeran 5y agoOr shooting my dog just because it's there.
- watwut 5y agoThat is the same category. People who will call private security in your friend or family don't mind violence that much. And in case you are the one calling, you don't need private security as much as private mental health professional. Because that knowledge and exlerience of mental health crisis comes with being mental health professional - not with security.
- shkkmo 5y ago> People who will call private security in your friend or family don't mind violence that much. If private security shoots someone having a mental health crisis, they have far fewer legal protections to help them avoid consequences. This is precisely the point I have been making.
- tisFine 5y agoPolice forces have protections as extension of the state, it was decided they’re necessary to keep the state from being stuck on a catch-22. The state can’t bring criminal charges if the violation was due to performing work for the state. It’s legal to sue government agents as private citizens for violation of rights.
- eikenberry 5y agoConsidering some states have already removed this immunity and others are considering it, I don't think it is required. That is to say that the state can and does bring charges for violations done while performing work for the state.
- tisFine 5y agoThat’s fair. I should say instead the historical basis for such protections is rooted in logic similar to what I wrote.
- shkkmo 5y ago> it was decided they’re necessary to keep the state from being stuck It wasn't necessarily decided by elected representatives, most of these protections have be put in place by courts and are based purely on legal precedent rather than legislation. > It’s legal to sue government agents as private citizens for violation of rights. It is legal to sue anyone for anything. The standards of proof required to win such a lawsuit make it generally ineffective at rectifing most cases where rights are violated.