5 ms·

Because cops are above the law. And, as both major political parties compete to be perceived as more pro-police than the other, no one in power will do anything

Because cops are above the law. And, as both major political parties compete to be perceived as more pro-police than the other, no one in power will do anything to change that.

ejb999 4y ago
there are more than a few cops sitting in jail right now that would disagree with your blanket statement.
- vkou 4y ago
  Our prisons would be empty if locking away the average convict took half the effort that was necessary to put them where they are.
  - nkurz 4y ago
    It took me several re-readings to conclude that "them" and "they" at the end of this sentence are referring to different people! I think what vkou is saying (and I agree) is that while there currently are some police in prison who have been convicted of crimes, the difficulty factor of convicting a police officer is much higher than the difficulty of convicting a normal person. If the same higher standard for obtaining a conviction was applied to everyone else, hardly anyone would be sent to prison.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  I can't tell — did you interpret my comment as "not a single police officer, without exception, suffers any sort of legal punishment for their actions," or are you trying to tell me that it's common for cops to be held accountable when they break the law?
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    Not OP but I think it probably is fairly common for them to be held accountable. I haven't seen any statistics on it, but I regard it is the most plausible case. You're claiming otherwise. What reason can you give for me to change my opinion?
    - mox1 4y ago
      How many other professions in the world have a Wikipedia page for XYZ code of silence[1]? Further reading: https://aele.org/loscode2000.html https://aele.org/loscode2000.html 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
      - seti0Cha 4y ago
        This argument basically boils down to "if that were not the case, why would so many people say it was the case"? That's not a great way to decide important issues.
        Retric 4y ago
        Cops talk about the blue all of silence not just regular people. It shows up in multiple court cases with cops lying to protect other cops up to and including perjury. To read the bias read up on the Jason Van Dyke case, first time in 50 years a Chicago cop convicted of murder after being caught on camera and he served 3 and 1/4 years in prison. “The U.S. attorney's office confirmed on April 13, 2015,[57] that they had been conducting a federal criminal investigation of the McDonald case in conjunction with the state attorney's office, after contradictions were found between the initial police report and the dash-cam video” Look, if you have zero counter evidence than any evidence to the contrary should be persuasive.
        seti0Cha 4y ago
        Citing individual cases doesn't say anything about what is usual. And you're the one making a claim that cops usually are not held accountable. I'm not trying to convince you that they usually are, I'm just saying that that's what I believe and offering to let you convince me. So no, I don't have to provide any evidence. If you don't want to either fine. But then why are you replying? edit: looking at this again, I think I misread your point. You're claiming that unless I have evidence that shows that police are usually held accountable, then any evidence that they are not, even anecdotal, should convince me. I would say that's plainly not correct. If I know nothing about whether police are held accountable, a single case demonstrating one not being held accountable does not warrant assuming they usually are not. It only demonstrates that they are not always held accountable and tells me nothing about frequency. Drawing broad inferences from too little data is a pernicious problem in our society. That said, I can find plenty of anecdotes where cops were held accountable. How am I to know which is more typical?
seti0Cha 4y ago
These cops are currently in court, being subjected to the law. If you read the judge's rulings, you can see that the opinions are not about the facts of the case but how the law applies to them. If they get the suit dismissed, it will have been done through legal means. So no, this isn't because the cops are above the law. The law may be constructed as to favor them unfairly, but that's an entirely other matter.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  If a court ignores the plain meaning of the law to dismiss a suit against the police, then the police are above the law.
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    The same court had ruled against them previously. If they just wanted to let them off, why didn't they do it then? It seems to me the most reasonable explanation is that they were interpreting the law (IANAL but badly it seems to me in the second case) not ignoring it. That may amount to the same to you but I think there's a huge difference in terms of how to remediate the situation. To me, the answer is to amend the law so that it does what we want rather than just make blanket claims that can't be acted on.
js2 4y ago
> both major political parties compete to be perceived as more pro-police than the other You know that's not true. It's not the Democratic candidates that regularly trot out the Willie Horton ads. As I write this, Mehmet Oz is running ads against Fetterman for being soft on crime. https://whyy.org/articles/election-2022-pennsylvania-senate-oz-fetterman-criminal-justice/ https://whyy.org/articles/election-2022-pennsylvania-senate-... The police reform bill was the work of the Democrats: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/democrats-police-legislation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/democrats-police-leg... The party position: https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/protecting-communities-and-building-trust-by-reforming-our-criminal-justice-system/ https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/protecti... Go ahead, show me the GOP position on policing.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Have you paid attention to what politicians are actually doing? President Biden is pushing for an additional $37 billion in police funding and hiring an additional 100,000 officers. In my home state, Governor Hochul is emphatically against any sort of defunding and has pledged an additional $50 million to local police departments. NYC Mayor Adams (a former cop) is rabidly pro-police, even though the NYPD are among the worst lawbreakers in the city. It’s true that Republicans are an order of magnitude more bloodthirsty — which makes the Democrats’ full-throated embrace of carceral policies all the more baffling. If I wanted regressive faux–law and order, why would I vote for them instead of a Republican?
  - js2 4y ago
    I have. The Democratic party is not as progressive as I would like on a whole host of issues (climate, immigration, healthcare, anti-trust, really, you name it). But I also recognize that defunding the police is an incredibly unpopular position even among most Democratic voters. Even in the communities affected most by crime and bad policing[1]. Most people do not want fewer police. They want better police. So the Democrats "embrace policing" because if they don't, they lose elections. Especially with crime on the rise, whether real or perceived. But that doesn't mean that the two parties are the same with respect to policing and I don't think it helps the progressive cause being cynical about it. 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-want-more-spending-on-police-in-their-area/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-sha...
somat 4y ago
"Because cops are above the law" Yes, that is what makes them cops, the police are authorized to do many things that are illegal for us ordinary citizens. they can restrain people, go through stop lights, speed, threaten, sometimes even kill. We as society recognize that these things are in general bad to do, however there are special cases where it is needed. so we authorize some people to professionally break the law where needed. That being said, the quote "Who watches the watchmen?" is as always very relevant and those authorized to break the law need to be held to a very high moral standard.
- Phrodo_00 4y ago
  Police should not be _above_ the law. It's reasonable that they have more attributions to be able to do their jobs, but those should be very well established within the law. The problem is that qualified immunity seems to have actually put them in a position where they can ignore the law.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  There’s a difference between being given special powers and being above the law. Special powers are exceptional privileges that are limited in scope. Being “above the law” means you’re exceeding even those privileges, but no one will hold you accountable. Let’s take your red light example. Cops are allowed to go through red lights when they’re responding to an emergency and they’ve put on their lights/sirens. That’s a reasonable special power. In practice, what I see happening is either (a) police briefly turn on their lights/sirens as they cross the intersection, then immediately turn them off, or (b) police simply run the red light.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > he police are authorized to do many things that are illegal for us ordinary citizens. they can restrain people, go through stop lights, speed, threaten, sometimes even kill. But not whenever they want. When needed. You could do any of those things legally in most states. The first to prevent a suicidal person from killing themselves, the next two when driving a serious case to the ER, the last two when defending yourself from an armed home intruder.

Because cops are above the law. And, as both major political parties compete to be perceived as more pro-police than the other, no one in power will do anything to change that.

ejb999 4y ago

there are more than a few cops sitting in jail right now that would disagree with your blanket statement.

vkou 4y ago
Our prisons would be empty if locking away the average convict took half the effort that was necessary to put them where they are.
- nkurz 4y ago
  It took me several re-readings to conclude that "them" and "they" at the end of this sentence are referring to different people! I think what vkou is saying (and I agree) is that while there currently are some police in prison who have been convicted of crimes, the difficulty factor of convicting a police officer is much higher than the difficulty of convicting a normal person. If the same higher standard for obtaining a conviction was applied to everyone else, hardly anyone would be sent to prison.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
I can't tell — did you interpret my comment as "not a single police officer, without exception, suffers any sort of legal punishment for their actions," or are you trying to tell me that it's common for cops to be held accountable when they break the law?
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  Not OP but I think it probably is fairly common for them to be held accountable. I haven't seen any statistics on it, but I regard it is the most plausible case. You're claiming otherwise. What reason can you give for me to change my opinion?
  - mox1 4y ago
    How many other professions in the world have a Wikipedia page for XYZ code of silence[1]? Further reading: https://aele.org/loscode2000.html https://aele.org/loscode2000.html 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
    - seti0Cha 4y ago
      This argument basically boils down to "if that were not the case, why would so many people say it was the case"? That's not a great way to decide important issues.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Cops talk about the blue all of silence not just regular people. It shows up in multiple court cases with cops lying to protect other cops up to and including perjury. To read the bias read up on the Jason Van Dyke case, first time in 50 years a Chicago cop convicted of murder after being caught on camera and he served 3 and 1/4 years in prison. “The U.S. attorney's office confirmed on April 13, 2015,[57] that they had been conducting a federal criminal investigation of the McDonald case in conjunction with the state attorney's office, after contradictions were found between the initial police report and the dash-cam video” Look, if you have zero counter evidence than any evidence to the contrary should be persuasive.
        seti0Cha 4y ago
        Citing individual cases doesn't say anything about what is usual. And you're the one making a claim that cops usually are not held accountable. I'm not trying to convince you that they usually are, I'm just saying that that's what I believe and offering to let you convince me. So no, I don't have to provide any evidence. If you don't want to either fine. But then why are you replying? edit: looking at this again, I think I misread your point. You're claiming that unless I have evidence that shows that police are usually held accountable, then any evidence that they are not, even anecdotal, should convince me. I would say that's plainly not correct. If I know nothing about whether police are held accountable, a single case demonstrating one not being held accountable does not warrant assuming they usually are not. It only demonstrates that they are not always held accountable and tells me nothing about frequency. Drawing broad inferences from too little data is a pernicious problem in our society. That said, I can find plenty of anecdotes where cops were held accountable. How am I to know which is more typical?

seti0Cha 4y ago

These cops are currently in court, being subjected to the law. If you read the judge's rulings, you can see that the opinions are not about the facts of the case but how the law applies to them. If they get the suit dismissed, it will have been done through legal means. So no, this isn't because the cops are above the law. The law may be constructed as to favor them unfairly, but that's an entirely other matter.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
If a court ignores the plain meaning of the law to dismiss a suit against the police, then the police are above the law.
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  The same court had ruled against them previously. If they just wanted to let them off, why didn't they do it then? It seems to me the most reasonable explanation is that they were interpreting the law (IANAL but badly it seems to me in the second case) not ignoring it. That may amount to the same to you but I think there's a huge difference in terms of how to remediate the situation. To me, the answer is to amend the law so that it does what we want rather than just make blanket claims that can't be acted on.

js2 4y ago

> both major political parties compete to be perceived as more pro-police than the other You know that's not true. It's not the Democratic candidates that regularly trot out the Willie Horton ads. As I write this, Mehmet Oz is running ads against Fetterman for being soft on crime. https://whyy.org/articles/election-2022-pennsylvania-senate-oz-fetterman-criminal-justice/ https://whyy.org/articles/election-2022-pennsylvania-senate-... The police reform bill was the work of the Democrats: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/democrats-police-legislation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/democrats-police-leg... The party position: https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/protecting-communities-and-building-trust-by-reforming-our-criminal-justice-system/ https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/protecti... Go ahead, show me the GOP position on policing.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Have you paid attention to what politicians are actually doing? President Biden is pushing for an additional $37 billion in police funding and hiring an additional 100,000 officers. In my home state, Governor Hochul is emphatically against any sort of defunding and has pledged an additional $50 million to local police departments. NYC Mayor Adams (a former cop) is rabidly pro-police, even though the NYPD are among the worst lawbreakers in the city. It’s true that Republicans are an order of magnitude more bloodthirsty — which makes the Democrats’ full-throated embrace of carceral policies all the more baffling. If I wanted regressive faux–law and order, why would I vote for them instead of a Republican?
- js2 4y ago
  I have. The Democratic party is not as progressive as I would like on a whole host of issues (climate, immigration, healthcare, anti-trust, really, you name it). But I also recognize that defunding the police is an incredibly unpopular position even among most Democratic voters. Even in the communities affected most by crime and bad policing[1]. Most people do not want fewer police. They want better police. So the Democrats "embrace policing" because if they don't, they lose elections. Especially with crime on the rise, whether real or perceived. But that doesn't mean that the two parties are the same with respect to policing and I don't think it helps the progressive cause being cynical about it. 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-want-more-spending-on-police-in-their-area/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-sha...

somat 4y ago

"Because cops are above the law" Yes, that is what makes them cops, the police are authorized to do many things that are illegal for us ordinary citizens. they can restrain people, go through stop lights, speed, threaten, sometimes even kill. We as society recognize that these things are in general bad to do, however there are special cases where it is needed. so we authorize some people to professionally break the law where needed. That being said, the quote "Who watches the watchmen?" is as always very relevant and those authorized to break the law need to be held to a very high moral standard.

Phrodo_00 4y ago
Police should not be _above_ the law. It's reasonable that they have more attributions to be able to do their jobs, but those should be very well established within the law. The problem is that qualified immunity seems to have actually put them in a position where they can ignore the law.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
There’s a difference between being given special powers and being above the law. Special powers are exceptional privileges that are limited in scope. Being “above the law” means you’re exceeding even those privileges, but no one will hold you accountable. Let’s take your red light example. Cops are allowed to go through red lights when they’re responding to an emergency and they’ve put on their lights/sirens. That’s a reasonable special power. In practice, what I see happening is either (a) police briefly turn on their lights/sirens as they cross the intersection, then immediately turn them off, or (b) police simply run the red light.
HWR_14 4y ago
> he police are authorized to do many things that are illegal for us ordinary citizens. they can restrain people, go through stop lights, speed, threaten, sometimes even kill. But not whenever they want. When needed. You could do any of those things legally in most states. The first to prevent a suicidal person from killing themselves, the next two when driving a serious case to the ER, the last two when defending yourself from an armed home intruder.