4 ms·

People are slowly realizing that one of the actual roles of police in US society is to protect the interests of large corporations, wealthy people and those in

People are slowly realizing that one of the actual roles of police in US society is to protect the interests of large corporations, wealthy people and those in entrenched positions of power. And not actually to serve/protect the population. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protec...

azinman2 4y ago
From your own link: “the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists” None of this says the actual role is to protect the rich and corporations. They get the same non specific legal duty at all. They could just as easily ignore Hertz. While I wouldn’t be surprised that the rich get more responsiveness out of the police, I’m sure there are rich people too who also get ignored. Just like when my father had his phone stolen and we found via find my and IP logs the physical address of the thief, police refused to go retrieve it and arrest the thief.
- Tostino 4y ago
  Different levels of wealth you and GP are talking about. Completely different.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    My father lives in a wealthy zip code, and stolen phones, car breaks ins, traffic violations are usually the main types of crime there. Was giving an example to solidly that they have can use discretion.
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
Requiring a duty to protect is extremely dangerous to society. It elevates police above regular citizens. Contrary to popular perception police have almost no powers beyond that of regular citizens. Citizens can make arrests, police differ in that they can do so even if they are not direct witnesses of a crime. Citizens can enter private property to save lives, and can break laws and regulations to do so as well. Police can only enter private property absent a threat to life or property if given permission either by the owner or courts. They have qualified immunity, as do several other professions and citizens acting in extraordinary capacities such as good samaritans. The law and public expectations should be that police are regular citizens with a regular job, bound by the same laws as everyone else. Not that they are specially-designated protectors. They only become specially-designated protectors when they take someone into custody—- and depriving someone of their freedom of movement is one of the few things regular citizens cannot realistically do. Elevating them to have some special extraordinary status is, again, very dangerous. Many powers would be enabled by such a status which do not exist today that could be justified by granting them a “duty” to protect. Additionally, just from a philosophical perspective doing so would be immoral. Regular citizens, with very few exceptions such as vessel captains, parents, spouses, and employers (in the context of being required to be provide a safe working environment and facilitate rescue of endangered employees) having a “duty” to protect anyone. It is unreasonable, to myself and many others, to levy such a duty on anyone except in extraordinary circumstances. Airline captains have a duty to protect their passengers. This RIGHTLY grants them near-total, absolute, and unquestionable authority over the conduct of their crew and all souls on board. Giving or forcing a duty to protect to or on police would do the same. That’s bad. And because police are NOT extraordinary they don’t have a parental-like duty to protect their children (the public). Nor are we their spouses or employees. As far as cynicism goes, they don’t protect the interests of large corporations that’s more the purview of politicians. Police are generally just enforcing the laws as written. The court decision and the cases it references you yourself linked to goes over some of my points. Many people respond with “but what about when the police…” but the egregious cases of misconduct from which they draw outrage are what are wrong and should be stopped— not an absence of some duty to protect.
- walrus01 4y ago
RC_ITR 4y ago
>People are slowly realizing that one of the actual roles of police in US society is to protect the interests of large corporations I'd say protect the interests of capital, which just so happens to be something corporations have a lot of. Think of it this way: grand larceny isn't dependent on the victim's net worth, so even if stealing $100 from a poor person has 1,000x impact on their life vs. stealing $100,000 from a wealthy person's private business, you can guarantee that the $100,000 will be what the police focus on.
1123581321 4y ago
It’s the same police reporting and behavior that chases down the person who steals a family’s only car.
- cameronh90 4y ago
  Imagine this scenario: I report my car as stolen. The police find someone driving a car matching my report, but upon pulling them over, they claim it's not stolen and have all the appropriate paperwork, license and insurance. I expect the police would use some judgement and figure out maybe there's been an error or misunderstanding. Provided the driver identifies themselves, provides contact details and everything matches up, the police would almost certainly let them go and follow it up later. Similarly in these cases, I assume the drivers of the "stolen" cars have the keys, some paperwork, email or other confirmation that they hired a car from Hertz and aren't driving or acting suspiciously. The cars won't have been hotwired, the police haven't been provided with any evidence of it being stolen. Provided the driver is compliant with the police investigation and there is no other cause for suspicion, there is no reason to arrest them at that point. Why would a report by a company be treated as different to a report by Joe Bloggs? We had a similar scenario in the UK with the Post Office Scandal. The authorities seem to believe companies without question and give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't to a private individual.
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    I don’t agree with your scenario. If the owner showed documentation that they owned the car, and the police found the car and were shown conflicting documentation, they would engage in some additional legwork, likely involving either roadside detention or arrest. If the car owner had been able to have a warrant put out on a specific person; there would definitely be an arrest. The problem is Hertz’ “documentation” is bogus, not that the police pursue stolen cars. (Though, at this point, Hertz reports should be viewed more skeptically by the police.)
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      What's funny is that a few years ago there was a camera 'rental' company much like Uber, where you lent out your gear. There was several issues, one of which was the great lengths they went to imply that your gear was insured, only to find out its not, because insurers considered it "unlawful taking" not theft or fraud, if it wasn't returned. It should be noted that "unlawful taking", despite the name, is not a crime or legal concept, but purely an insurance concept. As a result, somehow, they'd convince the police that this was a civil matter. Yet somehow, refuse to return (or be accused of refusing to return rather) a vehicle gets you lit up for Grand Theft Auto, which is most certainly a crime.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
slowly realizing? That was the thesis of Marx…
- walrus01 4y ago
  Even the people who would consider themselves fervently anti Marxist ideology at this point would have to recognize the role police play in the US's power structures. Say this out loud and people act like you're the literal reincarnation of Karl himself.

azinman2 4y ago

From your own link: “the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists” None of this says the actual role is to protect the rich and corporations. They get the same non specific legal duty at all. They could just as easily ignore Hertz. While I wouldn’t be surprised that the rich get more responsiveness out of the police, I’m sure there are rich people too who also get ignored. Just like when my father had his phone stolen and we found via find my and IP logs the physical address of the thief, police refused to go retrieve it and arrest the thief.

Tostino 4y ago
Different levels of wealth you and GP are talking about. Completely different.
- azinman2 4y ago
  My father lives in a wealthy zip code, and stolen phones, car breaks ins, traffic violations are usually the main types of crime there. Was giving an example to solidly that they have can use discretion.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

Requiring a duty to protect is extremely dangerous to society. It elevates police above regular citizens. Contrary to popular perception police have almost no powers beyond that of regular citizens. Citizens can make arrests, police differ in that they can do so even if they are not direct witnesses of a crime. Citizens can enter private property to save lives, and can break laws and regulations to do so as well. Police can only enter private property absent a threat to life or property if given permission either by the owner or courts. They have qualified immunity, as do several other professions and citizens acting in extraordinary capacities such as good samaritans. The law and public expectations should be that police are regular citizens with a regular job, bound by the same laws as everyone else. Not that they are specially-designated protectors. They only become specially-designated protectors when they take someone into custody—- and depriving someone of their freedom of movement is one of the few things regular citizens cannot realistically do. Elevating them to have some special extraordinary status is, again, very dangerous. Many powers would be enabled by such a status which do not exist today that could be justified by granting them a “duty” to protect. Additionally, just from a philosophical perspective doing so would be immoral. Regular citizens, with very few exceptions such as vessel captains, parents, spouses, and employers (in the context of being required to be provide a safe working environment and facilitate rescue of endangered employees) having a “duty” to protect anyone. It is unreasonable, to myself and many others, to levy such a duty on anyone except in extraordinary circumstances. Airline captains have a duty to protect their passengers. This RIGHTLY grants them near-total, absolute, and unquestionable authority over the conduct of their crew and all souls on board. Giving or forcing a duty to protect to or on police would do the same. That’s bad. And because police are NOT extraordinary they don’t have a parental-like duty to protect their children (the public). Nor are we their spouses or employees. As far as cynicism goes, they don’t protect the interests of large corporations that’s more the purview of politicians. Police are generally just enforcing the laws as written. The court decision and the cases it references you yourself linked to goes over some of my points. Many people respond with “but what about when the police…” but the egregious cases of misconduct from which they draw outrage are what are wrong and should be stopped— not an absence of some duty to protect.

walrus01 4y ago

RC_ITR 4y ago

>People are slowly realizing that one of the actual roles of police in US society is to protect the interests of large corporations I'd say protect the interests of capital, which just so happens to be something corporations have a lot of. Think of it this way: grand larceny isn't dependent on the victim's net worth, so even if stealing $100 from a poor person has 1,000x impact on their life vs. stealing $100,000 from a wealthy person's private business, you can guarantee that the $100,000 will be what the police focus on.

1123581321 4y ago

It’s the same police reporting and behavior that chases down the person who steals a family’s only car.

cameronh90 4y ago
Imagine this scenario: I report my car as stolen. The police find someone driving a car matching my report, but upon pulling them over, they claim it's not stolen and have all the appropriate paperwork, license and insurance. I expect the police would use some judgement and figure out maybe there's been an error or misunderstanding. Provided the driver identifies themselves, provides contact details and everything matches up, the police would almost certainly let them go and follow it up later. Similarly in these cases, I assume the drivers of the "stolen" cars have the keys, some paperwork, email or other confirmation that they hired a car from Hertz and aren't driving or acting suspiciously. The cars won't have been hotwired, the police haven't been provided with any evidence of it being stolen. Provided the driver is compliant with the police investigation and there is no other cause for suspicion, there is no reason to arrest them at that point. Why would a report by a company be treated as different to a report by Joe Bloggs? We had a similar scenario in the UK with the Post Office Scandal. The authorities seem to believe companies without question and give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't to a private individual.
- 1123581321 4y ago
  I don’t agree with your scenario. If the owner showed documentation that they owned the car, and the police found the car and were shown conflicting documentation, they would engage in some additional legwork, likely involving either roadside detention or arrest. If the car owner had been able to have a warrant put out on a specific person; there would definitely be an arrest. The problem is Hertz’ “documentation” is bogus, not that the police pursue stolen cars. (Though, at this point, Hertz reports should be viewed more skeptically by the police.)
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    What's funny is that a few years ago there was a camera 'rental' company much like Uber, where you lent out your gear. There was several issues, one of which was the great lengths they went to imply that your gear was insured, only to find out its not, because insurers considered it "unlawful taking" not theft or fraud, if it wasn't returned. It should be noted that "unlawful taking", despite the name, is not a crime or legal concept, but purely an insurance concept. As a result, somehow, they'd convince the police that this was a civil matter. Yet somehow, refuse to return (or be accused of refusing to return rather) a vehicle gets you lit up for Grand Theft Auto, which is most certainly a crime.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

slowly realizing? That was the thesis of Marx…

walrus01 4y ago
Even the people who would consider themselves fervently anti Marxist ideology at this point would have to recognize the role police play in the US's power structures. Say this out loud and people act like you're the literal reincarnation of Karl himself.