4 ms·

It's like the xkcd about competing standards, except /s/standards/ex-police captains/ https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ You give people guns and f

It's like the xkcd about competing standards, except /s/standards/ex-police captains/ https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ You give people guns and fast cars, of course they're going to escalate whenever possible. In my opinion I don't think it matters who is the captain. edit: to back this up, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment .

jojobas 3y ago
I have a gun and pretty fast a car, never in my life I've escalated anything even to a fistfight. Why can't cops be held to a standard of discipline?
- Clubber 3y ago
  Because they don't face any repercussions for their actions. Prosecutors won't prosecute because the police are their colleagues. The police feed them cases. The other police won't do anything other than a slap on the wrist, because those same police potentially do or will do the same thing. The SCOTUS invented qualified immunity in the 60s, so they can't even be successfully sued (or it's very rare and very expensive). The reason we retain freedoms in our country to any extent is because we have checks and balances in government. The police have no checks and balances and therefore the ones who are abusive of power continue to work unabated. Really all this would be solved if we just got rid of the bad ones, but the government won't even do that. The machine protects itself.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? The fact that a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity is not directly related to the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. Police is subject to checks and balances, their transgressions just don't seem to be the priority for voters.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      >So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? Possibly, but they work on the same team. >a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects them from getting sued directly in civil court by their victims for violating civil rights, etc. For example, if I ran you over and broke your leg, you could sue me for damages (medical bills, etc). You can't sue police (or judges or prosecutors for that matter). Nothing protects them from getting prosecuted except for lack of political will from DAs. >the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. I wish that were true, but it's not. They investigate themselves and you know how that usually goes. If they do get found doing something unconstitutional, they usually get a half week suspension at most. Also, they are under no legal obligation to protect or help you. They are also not required to even know the law from a legal standpoint. Also the FOP is probably the most powerful, unabated by union busting unions in the country.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        Your points above boil down to "cities/voters are actually fine with the cops running wild". There's nothing preventing the voters from electing a mayor/DA that's not "on the same team". You get what you vote for I guess.
        Clubber 3y ago
        >Your points above boil down to "cities/voters are actually fine with the cops running wild". I mean sure, if you oversimplify things, but you do have a point. The strange thing is both Democratic and Republican districts have pretty bad police. I don't recall any campaigns saying, "I vow to support constitutional violations from the police department." Of course politicians aren't immune from things like the blue flu and concentrated efforts by the police unions to make them look bad. The quickest way to get beat in the polls is a crime wave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_flu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_flu
formerly_proven 3y ago
The counterargument is that not-wildly-violent-and-corrupt police forces do actually exist. Clearly "giving them guns and fast cars" is not a sufficient condition for "they're going to escalate whenever possible".

jojobas 3y ago

I have a gun and pretty fast a car, never in my life I've escalated anything even to a fistfight. Why can't cops be held to a standard of discipline?

Clubber 3y ago
Because they don't face any repercussions for their actions. Prosecutors won't prosecute because the police are their colleagues. The police feed them cases. The other police won't do anything other than a slap on the wrist, because those same police potentially do or will do the same thing. The SCOTUS invented qualified immunity in the 60s, so they can't even be successfully sued (or it's very rare and very expensive). The reason we retain freedoms in our country to any extent is because we have checks and balances in government. The police have no checks and balances and therefore the ones who are abusive of power continue to work unabated. Really all this would be solved if we just got rid of the bad ones, but the government won't even do that. The machine protects itself.
- jojobas 3y ago
  So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? The fact that a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity is not directly related to the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. Police is subject to checks and balances, their transgressions just don't seem to be the priority for voters.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >So it's a matter of the city appointing/the voters electing better DAs? Possibly, but they work on the same team. >a cop can't be jailed due to qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects them from getting sued directly in civil court by their victims for violating civil rights, etc. For example, if I ran you over and broke your leg, you could sue me for damages (medical bills, etc). You can't sue police (or judges or prosecutors for that matter). Nothing protects them from getting prosecuted except for lack of political will from DAs. >the fact that he would be fired long before that for not behaving up to standards. I wish that were true, but it's not. They investigate themselves and you know how that usually goes. If they do get found doing something unconstitutional, they usually get a half week suspension at most. Also, they are under no legal obligation to protect or help you. They are also not required to even know the law from a legal standpoint. Also the FOP is probably the most powerful, unabated by union busting unions in the country.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Your points above boil down to "cities/voters are actually fine with the cops running wild". There's nothing preventing the voters from electing a mayor/DA that's not "on the same team". You get what you vote for I guess.
      - Clubber 3y ago
        >Your points above boil down to "cities/voters are actually fine with the cops running wild". I mean sure, if you oversimplify things, but you do have a point. The strange thing is both Democratic and Republican districts have pretty bad police. I don't recall any campaigns saying, "I vow to support constitutional violations from the police department." Of course politicians aren't immune from things like the blue flu and concentrated efforts by the police unions to make them look bad. The quickest way to get beat in the polls is a crime wave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_flu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_flu

formerly_proven 3y ago

The counterargument is that not-wildly-violent-and-corrupt police forces do actually exist. Clearly "giving them guns and fast cars" is not a sufficient condition for "they're going to escalate whenever possible".