5 ms·

Few people dispute that there are some good peace officers. However, there appear to be no good police unions. The unions bend over backwards to protect bent c

by pacaro 4y ago

Few people dispute that there are some good peace officers. However, there appear to be no good police unions. The unions bend over backwards to protect bent cops almost regardless of their actions. The "good cops" also support these unions - if they didn't, and if the "good cops" where the majority, then the police unions would reflect that And one of the misunderstood things about ACAB is that it doesn't have to be literally true, if there are enough bad cops (and we know by now that there are), and if the bad cops are protected by the good cops (which we also know to be the case most of the time) then as a civilian you don't know which you're going to be dealing with in an interaction. The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop.

Arrath 4y ago
Thank you for putting it better than I could have.
tracker1 4y ago
The problem is a lot of it cuts both ways... a lot of cops see misconduct investigations and a LOT of them are either unsubstantiated or lies. It's really impossible to know from the outside and onset. In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong. The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you? I know it's pretty simplistic, but that's largely what it comes down to... I'm not supporting police misconduct at all. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a crime, I think that police spend too much time trying to make criminals out of innocent people... Once at an accident where I was rear ended, "why is your seatbelt unbuckled?" I was kind of pissed, because, "I needed to get my insurance and registration from the glove box." In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented. I'm also not that inclined to generally and blindly support police. They are agents of the govt's interests and not yours. They serve the govt and the govt is too split from general good and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. And I also think that enforcing draconian lockdowns in many places didn't gain them any favor with anyone these past few years. Again, most cops are mostly good, like most people. And like most people they will bend to peer pressure, anxiety, stress and their environment. You really want to see people with a bent personality, talk to the guys that have to clean up traffic accidents sometime... They're quasi police and complete alcoholics for the most part. That's a job nobody should have for an extended period of time. It's extreme, but only to show that one's own experiences will shape their perception. Of course, I am biased, I just make an effort to be level headed as much as possible.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tonyarkles 4y ago
  > The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you? That's an interesting perspective and nuance! It gets really interesting when the same group is both responsible for "protecting the individual" and "protecting the profession". In most legal situations, you have a lawyer of your own and it's very crystal clear that their role is to protect your best interests. And I am one of the people who strongly strongly believe that, in the general legal perspective, "he got off on a technically" should almost always be replaced with "the legal system failed to do their job". For example, if someone is acquitted of a crime because of a poor chain of custody with the evidence, the fault 100% is on the people who failed to do their jobs correctly. When the state wants to strip someone of their most basic right (freedom), they had better dot their Ts and cross their Is. > In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented. With the lawyer situation, I am paying my lawyer to represent me the best they can. With the police union situation, the good guys are paying union dues that go directly towards the defence fund for the bad guys. There's a very significant conflict of interest here as well; if a video leaks where I'm beating the shit out of someone while wearing my company uniform, my employer is almost certainly going to put out a statement about how my actions don't represent the company values and that I've been terminated. With the police and police unions, there's often complete silence or even support. I have more thoughts, thank you for triggering a really interesting line of thought for me. Will try to come back to this but work's getting busy again...
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  > In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong. That was after the civilian world had already reacted publicly. All of the police involved helped kill him or cover it up until the video came out.
  - 4y ago
specialist 4y ago
> ...there are some good peace officers "A bad system will beat a good person every time." -- W. Edward Deming > The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop. True. I was swatted. I had a puppy who was still in the barking and biting phase. My starting assumption was they'd shoot my dog. Then I got conflicting instructions ("freeze!" and "lie down on the ground!"). And I thought, "Whelp, here it is." Fortunately, we both lived. But it's sad that being shot in my driveway while wearing my PJs would be a "disappointed, but not surprised".
- Arrath 4y ago
  Christ. I'm glad you and the pup made it through that scary situation. Due to the potential for an extreme outcome, I've long though Swatting should cop the 'prankster' an attempted murder charge. Which is in itself probably excessive, but hey.
  - account42 4y ago
    I'd put more blame on the police than the prankster to be honest. The prankster should be fined for wasting the police's time and for messing with important societal safety systems but how the police engages the target is entirely up to them.

by pacaro 4y ago

Arrath 4y ago

Thank you for putting it better than I could have.

tracker1 4y ago

The problem is a lot of it cuts both ways... a lot of cops see misconduct investigations and a LOT of them are either unsubstantiated or lies. It's really impossible to know from the outside and onset. In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong. The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you? I know it's pretty simplistic, but that's largely what it comes down to... I'm not supporting police misconduct at all. I think that civil asset forfeiture is a crime, I think that police spend too much time trying to make criminals out of innocent people... Once at an accident where I was rear ended, "why is your seatbelt unbuckled?" I was kind of pissed, because, "I needed to get my insurance and registration from the glove box." In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented. I'm also not that inclined to generally and blindly support police. They are agents of the govt's interests and not yours. They serve the govt and the govt is too split from general good and in favor of the wealthy and powerful. And I also think that enforcing draconian lockdowns in many places didn't gain them any favor with anyone these past few years. Again, most cops are mostly good, like most people. And like most people they will bend to peer pressure, anxiety, stress and their environment. You really want to see people with a bent personality, talk to the guys that have to clean up traffic accidents sometime... They're quasi police and complete alcoholics for the most part. That's a job nobody should have for an extended period of time. It's extreme, but only to show that one's own experiences will shape their perception. Of course, I am biased, I just make an effort to be level headed as much as possible.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tonyarkles 4y ago
> The union is supposed to serve the police, and that includes legal protection... your lawyer is going to back you, that's how the system works. Would you want a defense lawyer that was against you? That's an interesting perspective and nuance! It gets really interesting when the same group is both responsible for "protecting the individual" and "protecting the profession". In most legal situations, you have a lawyer of your own and it's very crystal clear that their role is to protect your best interests. And I am one of the people who strongly strongly believe that, in the general legal perspective, "he got off on a technically" should almost always be replaced with "the legal system failed to do their job". For example, if someone is acquitted of a crime because of a poor chain of custody with the evidence, the fault 100% is on the people who failed to do their jobs correctly. When the state wants to strip someone of their most basic right (freedom), they had better dot their Ts and cross their Is. > In the end, I get it... I do feel, however, that the ACAB is oversized because a lot of it is over-reported or misrepresented. With the lawyer situation, I am paying my lawyer to represent me the best they can. With the police union situation, the good guys are paying union dues that go directly towards the defence fund for the bad guys. There's a very significant conflict of interest here as well; if a video leaks where I'm beating the shit out of someone while wearing my company uniform, my employer is almost certainly going to put out a statement about how my actions don't represent the company values and that I've been terminated. With the police and police unions, there's often complete silence or even support. I have more thoughts, thank you for triggering a really interesting line of thought for me. Will try to come back to this but work's getting busy again...
tehwebguy 4y ago
> In the case of Floyd, for example, I don't know anyone, cop or not, that didn't think that was excessive force and completely wrong. That was after the civilian world had already reacted publicly. All of the police involved helped kill him or cover it up until the video came out.
- 4y ago

specialist 4y ago

> ...there are some good peace officers "A bad system will beat a good person every time." -- W. Edward Deming > The only safe thing to do is to assume that any given cop that you interact with is a bad cop. True. I was swatted. I had a puppy who was still in the barking and biting phase. My starting assumption was they'd shoot my dog. Then I got conflicting instructions ("freeze!" and "lie down on the ground!"). And I thought, "Whelp, here it is." Fortunately, we both lived. But it's sad that being shot in my driveway while wearing my PJs would be a "disappointed, but not surprised".

Arrath 4y ago
Christ. I'm glad you and the pup made it through that scary situation. Due to the potential for an extreme outcome, I've long though Swatting should cop the 'prankster' an attempted murder charge. Which is in itself probably excessive, but hey.
- account42 4y ago
  I'd put more blame on the police than the prankster to be honest. The prankster should be fined for wasting the police's time and for messing with important societal safety systems but how the police engages the target is entirely up to them.