4 ms·

Thugs. Maybe don’t defund the police, but let’s take a teeny bit of funding away from the paramilitary organizations using warlike tactics to find headphones th

by op00to 3y ago

Thugs. Maybe don’t defund the police, but let’s take a teeny bit of funding away from the paramilitary organizations using warlike tactics to find headphones that are actually located in the street.

mcv 3y ago
At the very least hold them accountable for this sort of unnecessary damage. Why not ring the bell and ask? Why not first walk around the house to get a more accurate bearing on the airpods? And why even wreck an entire house over some airpods? There's no sense in any of this, and people should definitely be held accountable.
- everforward 3y ago
  Because they're not liable for any of the outcomes, either individually or in aggregate. I don't believe the govt is generally liable for these damages as long as there was a genuine purpose to it. I'm starting to think that the modern, loose usage of SWAT is cruel and unusual punishment without a proper conviction. The punishment for actually stealing the air pods is likely less than the trauma of being SWATed and the fines are likely less than it cost to replace windows/doors/whatever.
  - mcv 3y ago
    When they're going so out of their way to cause damage to innocents, they clearly should be held liable. In a lot of places this sort of extreme behaviour would definitely have at least some consequences. Though likely still not enough; I think the person who made this call should be fired or at least demoted, and the police department should definitely pay for these damages.
    - everforward 3y ago
      I think doing things like this shows that the police are unable to use discretion in their execution of warrants, so my solution would be to take it away. Have the warrants specify where, when, and how the search should be executed. Whether they're allowed to break the door down, whether they're allowed to be fully SWATted up, etc. Make it clear that any actions taken outside of the warrant's directions are done as a citizen, not an officer. Then penalize officers for poor execution of warrants, and judges for poor issuance of warrants.
    - pg_1234 3y ago
      Allow civil claims against the police pension funds.
Nextgrid 3y ago
Fund vs defund the police is the wrong solution. This problem has nothing to do with the police. This problem has something to do with whoever is giving the police the ability to get away with (sometimes literally) murder and not face any consequences even for obvious, blatant misbehavior. Qualified immunity and all that bullshit. They should be “defunded”.
- pjc50 3y ago
  The "defund" argument, which I am explaining rather than endorsing, is that none of the other systems for consequences actually work in the short to medium term, but it may be possible to elect local candidates who have control over local police budgets.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > it may be possible to elect local candidates who have control over local police budgets. Local candidates generally can exert no control over the police, even in large cities. If you piss off the police too much, they just stop arresting people, and then organized crime moves in.
    - everforward 3y ago
      They are not legally allowed to do that, because of literally this exact situation. Democracy doesn't work if the police can just strike and let society collapse if we vote for something they don't like. I think the grimmest timeline there is the city needing to fire their entire police department and using the state's National Guard as police for an interim period while they find new officers.
      - mcphage 3y ago
        > They are not legally allowed to do that They are not legally allowed to strike, but they can just really slow things down. > Democracy doesn't work if the police can just strike and let society collapse if we vote for something they don't like. I don't feel democracy is really working, where the police are concerned.

by op00to 3y ago

mcv 3y ago

At the very least hold them accountable for this sort of unnecessary damage. Why not ring the bell and ask? Why not first walk around the house to get a more accurate bearing on the airpods? And why even wreck an entire house over some airpods? There's no sense in any of this, and people should definitely be held accountable.

everforward 3y ago
Because they're not liable for any of the outcomes, either individually or in aggregate. I don't believe the govt is generally liable for these damages as long as there was a genuine purpose to it. I'm starting to think that the modern, loose usage of SWAT is cruel and unusual punishment without a proper conviction. The punishment for actually stealing the air pods is likely less than the trauma of being SWATed and the fines are likely less than it cost to replace windows/doors/whatever.
- mcv 3y ago
  When they're going so out of their way to cause damage to innocents, they clearly should be held liable. In a lot of places this sort of extreme behaviour would definitely have at least some consequences. Though likely still not enough; I think the person who made this call should be fired or at least demoted, and the police department should definitely pay for these damages.
  - everforward 3y ago
    I think doing things like this shows that the police are unable to use discretion in their execution of warrants, so my solution would be to take it away. Have the warrants specify where, when, and how the search should be executed. Whether they're allowed to break the door down, whether they're allowed to be fully SWATted up, etc. Make it clear that any actions taken outside of the warrant's directions are done as a citizen, not an officer. Then penalize officers for poor execution of warrants, and judges for poor issuance of warrants.
  - pg_1234 3y ago
    Allow civil claims against the police pension funds.

Nextgrid 3y ago

Fund vs defund the police is the wrong solution. This problem has nothing to do with the police. This problem has something to do with whoever is giving the police the ability to get away with (sometimes literally) murder and not face any consequences even for obvious, blatant misbehavior. Qualified immunity and all that bullshit. They should be “defunded”.

pjc50 3y ago
The "defund" argument, which I am explaining rather than endorsing, is that none of the other systems for consequences actually work in the short to medium term, but it may be possible to elect local candidates who have control over local police budgets.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > it may be possible to elect local candidates who have control over local police budgets. Local candidates generally can exert no control over the police, even in large cities. If you piss off the police too much, they just stop arresting people, and then organized crime moves in.
  - everforward 3y ago
    They are not legally allowed to do that, because of literally this exact situation. Democracy doesn't work if the police can just strike and let society collapse if we vote for something they don't like. I think the grimmest timeline there is the city needing to fire their entire police department and using the state's National Guard as police for an interim period while they find new officers.
    - mcphage 3y ago
      > They are not legally allowed to do that They are not legally allowed to strike, but they can just really slow things down. > Democracy doesn't work if the police can just strike and let society collapse if we vote for something they don't like. I don't feel democracy is really working, where the police are concerned.