5 ms·

> One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers. Because accusations are cheap enough t

> One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers. Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack. The penalty for false accusations is something pathetic, like 1 year.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ipaddr 4y ago
Have you spent any time behind bars? A year of your life is not so laughable as to be pathetic.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  Who actually serves a one-year sentence?
Fatnino 4y ago
Ancient cultures from 2000 years ago had the solution to this already. Make a false accusation, get the punishment you were trying to pin on someone. Simple as that. Even capital offences. This doesn't mean that if a jury can't convict, the prosecution gets the punishment. Still need to be legally proven to have made false accusations.
uoaei 4y ago
Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards if they want to carry a monopoly on violence (including a loaded gun) wherever they stand.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  They don't carry a monopoly on violence though? In the US, at least, you have the right to defend yourself which can include killing or detaining a person inflicting harm on you or others. This is the same thing cops can do.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    It's a fair point, but they do have a unique form of monopoly on violence. They can "legitimately" initiate violence. Initiate the violence. Don't pay your property taxes, and ignore summons, etc? Eventually someone will show up at your door to toss you out of your house. If you just sit on your couch and say "nuh huh" eventually they will violently throw you out. If you use self defense to stop the violence, they'll simply kill you or incapacitate you. Grow a funny plant in the wrong state? Eventually, if they find out, men with guns will bust into your house. They won't be 'self-defending' you into your custody, they will be initiating the violence against you to take you. While self defense is 'violence' I think a lot of us just almost "don't count it." Self defense is more like stopping the violence, IMO.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Self defense can include stopping somebody from taking your property (maybe not every state?) This is comparable to not paying taxes. The taxes are legitimately owed to the government and so you have "stolen" from the government. Similar to stealing from an individual (in a sense). You may not be a fan of killing over stolen property, but depending on the situation and state it is completely allowed. I think some states even allow you to kill a person who stole something from you while they are running away. This means the initiation of physical violence can be initiated by you as well and be considered just. Laws regarding weed are more nuanced, but it doesn't change that individuals can under certain circumstances initiate physical violence towards somebody legitimately.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I concede you're right. It's not a complete monopoly. My state would allow a citizen's arrest for felony theft, for instance. Generally killing someone over property is illegal, absent some unique circumstances (like breaking into an occupied structure). I'm not aware of any state that allows you to use violence to collect on a contract, however. IF you see taxes as satisfaction of the social contract or whatever. It's hard for me to argue failure to pay taxes as theft; I'd call it more of failure to pay for an involuntary contract. IMO it would be much more appropriately be classified as a civil offense than a criminal one.
- Cederfjard 4y ago
  I agree with the spirit of your comment, but I wonder how it could translate into practice. It seems like it would be quite the boon to organized crime if you could rid yourself of a meddlesome cop simply by way of accusation.
  - markovbot 4y ago
    Where do you see anyone saying anything about punishing people based just on accusations? That's not something anyone in this thread is advocating for.
    - Cederfjard 4y ago
      >>> One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers. >> Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack. > Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards Surely the context of this exchange is whether a police officer who has been accused of a crime still should be on active duty? Also I didn’t say ”punish”, I said ”get rid of”, which is effectively what happens if a cop is taken off duty pending investigation and potential court case.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ipaddr 4y ago

Have you spent any time behind bars? A year of your life is not so laughable as to be pathetic.

jstarfish 4y ago
Who actually serves a one-year sentence?

Fatnino 4y ago

Ancient cultures from 2000 years ago had the solution to this already. Make a false accusation, get the punishment you were trying to pin on someone. Simple as that. Even capital offences. This doesn't mean that if a jury can't convict, the prosecution gets the punishment. Still need to be legally proven to have made false accusations.

uoaei 4y ago

Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards if they want to carry a monopoly on violence (including a loaded gun) wherever they stand.

_-david-_ 4y ago
They don't carry a monopoly on violence though? In the US, at least, you have the right to defend yourself which can include killing or detaining a person inflicting harm on you or others. This is the same thing cops can do.
- notch656a 4y ago
  It's a fair point, but they do have a unique form of monopoly on violence. They can "legitimately" initiate violence. Initiate the violence. Don't pay your property taxes, and ignore summons, etc? Eventually someone will show up at your door to toss you out of your house. If you just sit on your couch and say "nuh huh" eventually they will violently throw you out. If you use self defense to stop the violence, they'll simply kill you or incapacitate you. Grow a funny plant in the wrong state? Eventually, if they find out, men with guns will bust into your house. They won't be 'self-defending' you into your custody, they will be initiating the violence against you to take you. While self defense is 'violence' I think a lot of us just almost "don't count it." Self defense is more like stopping the violence, IMO.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Self defense can include stopping somebody from taking your property (maybe not every state?) This is comparable to not paying taxes. The taxes are legitimately owed to the government and so you have "stolen" from the government. Similar to stealing from an individual (in a sense). You may not be a fan of killing over stolen property, but depending on the situation and state it is completely allowed. I think some states even allow you to kill a person who stole something from you while they are running away. This means the initiation of physical violence can be initiated by you as well and be considered just. Laws regarding weed are more nuanced, but it doesn't change that individuals can under certain circumstances initiate physical violence towards somebody legitimately.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I concede you're right. It's not a complete monopoly. My state would allow a citizen's arrest for felony theft, for instance. Generally killing someone over property is illegal, absent some unique circumstances (like breaking into an occupied structure). I'm not aware of any state that allows you to use violence to collect on a contract, however. IF you see taxes as satisfaction of the social contract or whatever. It's hard for me to argue failure to pay taxes as theft; I'd call it more of failure to pay for an involuntary contract. IMO it would be much more appropriately be classified as a civil offense than a criminal one.
Cederfjard 4y ago
I agree with the spirit of your comment, but I wonder how it could translate into practice. It seems like it would be quite the boon to organized crime if you could rid yourself of a meddlesome cop simply by way of accusation.
- markovbot 4y ago
  Where do you see anyone saying anything about punishing people based just on accusations? That's not something anyone in this thread is advocating for.
  - Cederfjard 4y ago
    >>> One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers. >> Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack. > Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards Surely the context of this exchange is whether a police officer who has been accused of a crime still should be on active duty? Also I didn’t say ”punish”, I said ”get rid of”, which is effectively what happens if a cop is taken off duty pending investigation and potential court case.