5 ms·

Even if they are only used by family members of cops, this is still nepotism and should be punished. There is no valid reason for these cards to exist. Maybe I

Even if they are only used by family members of cops, this is still nepotism and should be punished. There is no valid reason for these cards to exist. Maybe I am naïve, but I still think that the law should apply equally to everyone.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
I know a retired NYPD officer who would hand them out to non-family as Christmas gifts every year.
Ekaros 2y ago
I don't even think law should apply equally. I believe elected officials and people in roles like police or in legal system should be always held to absolutely highest impossible standards.
- wccrawford 2y ago
  While I tend to agree, it would mean that criminals would use it to harass cops, which would end up having the opposite effect. More corruption, instead of less. So they should be held to the same standards as everyone else, which is a safe, sane compromise between those ends.
  - hiddencost 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - neallindsay 2y ago
    Or lawmakers would be pressured to change laws that are too easy to break by accident.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    Better than letting cops do whatever they want with virtually zero public oversight or control
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Being a cop during commission of a crime should, at the very least, be an aggravating circumstance, just as being armed or spewing racial slurs is.
  - maicro 2y ago
    Not trolling or attacking, but - how would criminals use higher standards of behavior to harass police? I don't propose to have any magic solutions or great insights, but if there's a proper series of reforms I don't see how that could make them an easier target. As for a "proper series of reforms" - mandatory body cams is on my personal short list (enshrined in law or insurance policies, but with clear and severe repercussions for incidents of not having them on), though better pay (it's harder to bribe someone who isn't having money issues), crisis and mental health training (and yes, establishing other support structures for these issues, rather than relying on police to handle them too), stricter and more streamlined disciplinary action (no more needing national outrage to get a murderer fired and charged, and no union/FOB protection for clear violations of civil rights and this new code of conduct), and whistleblower protection would all be great. If anything, that would make police _safer_ - there will always be criminals and those who wish to do harm, in general or to those who oppose their illegal activities - but having the entire citizenry at best wary of you, and at worst hostile, does _not_ help. Policing their own and just generally "doing better" would do a lot to increase general support for the police, which would increase cooperation and reduce the chances of radicalizing citizens. The entire discussion is very complex, and I'm just an idiot on the internet, so take this with a bucket of salt. Thanks for reading that wall of text; have a good day.
    - wccrawford 2y ago
      Criminals would be looking for infractions to take cops to court with, constantly. Things that are overlooked for normal people (jaywalking) would end up with cops wasting their time in court or even jail. Keep in mind the parent poster said "absolutely highest impossible standards."
      - skygazer 2y ago
        That seems less like an argument against public officials having enhanced scrutiny, and more an argument why they should have no scrutiny at all — because that’s the only defense against such a fanciful attack. That’s the logic that brought us the abomination of qualified immunity.
      - 2y ago
lolinder 2y ago
Yeah, the weirdest part of the article was it talking about "misuse" of the cards and acting like the number of cards distributed is the problem. It wouldn't be better if each officer received one card to give to their SO or if an active NYPD badge were the only thing that got you preferential treatment—the problem is that there exists a way to signal to the officer who pulled you over that they'll get in trouble if they ticket you. I'm sure the card started as a cute novelty, but the instant it became a signal that someone is above the law it became a problem no matter how few were in circulation at the time.
xnorswap 2y ago
Even if it's only used by cops or family members it's still naked corruption. It's not nepotism or any lesser thing, it's outright corruption. It's also clear sign that you're living in a police state when the police and those of their choosing appear to be above the law.
- tokai 2y ago
  Nepotism is corruption.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  Part of the emoluments of enforcing the law has always been at least partial immunity from the law, and not just during official duties.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago

I know a retired NYPD officer who would hand them out to non-family as Christmas gifts every year.

Ekaros 2y ago

I don't even think law should apply equally. I believe elected officials and people in roles like police or in legal system should be always held to absolutely highest impossible standards.

wccrawford 2y ago
While I tend to agree, it would mean that criminals would use it to harass cops, which would end up having the opposite effect. More corruption, instead of less. So they should be held to the same standards as everyone else, which is a safe, sane compromise between those ends.
- hiddencost 2y ago
  [flagged]
- neallindsay 2y ago
  Or lawmakers would be pressured to change laws that are too easy to break by accident.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  Better than letting cops do whatever they want with virtually zero public oversight or control
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Being a cop during commission of a crime should, at the very least, be an aggravating circumstance, just as being armed or spewing racial slurs is.
- maicro 2y ago
  Not trolling or attacking, but - how would criminals use higher standards of behavior to harass police? I don't propose to have any magic solutions or great insights, but if there's a proper series of reforms I don't see how that could make them an easier target. As for a "proper series of reforms" - mandatory body cams is on my personal short list (enshrined in law or insurance policies, but with clear and severe repercussions for incidents of not having them on), though better pay (it's harder to bribe someone who isn't having money issues), crisis and mental health training (and yes, establishing other support structures for these issues, rather than relying on police to handle them too), stricter and more streamlined disciplinary action (no more needing national outrage to get a murderer fired and charged, and no union/FOB protection for clear violations of civil rights and this new code of conduct), and whistleblower protection would all be great. If anything, that would make police _safer_ - there will always be criminals and those who wish to do harm, in general or to those who oppose their illegal activities - but having the entire citizenry at best wary of you, and at worst hostile, does _not_ help. Policing their own and just generally "doing better" would do a lot to increase general support for the police, which would increase cooperation and reduce the chances of radicalizing citizens. The entire discussion is very complex, and I'm just an idiot on the internet, so take this with a bucket of salt. Thanks for reading that wall of text; have a good day.
  - wccrawford 2y ago
    Criminals would be looking for infractions to take cops to court with, constantly. Things that are overlooked for normal people (jaywalking) would end up with cops wasting their time in court or even jail. Keep in mind the parent poster said "absolutely highest impossible standards."
    - skygazer 2y ago
      That seems less like an argument against public officials having enhanced scrutiny, and more an argument why they should have no scrutiny at all — because that’s the only defense against such a fanciful attack. That’s the logic that brought us the abomination of qualified immunity.
    - 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

Yeah, the weirdest part of the article was it talking about "misuse" of the cards and acting like the number of cards distributed is the problem. It wouldn't be better if each officer received one card to give to their SO or if an active NYPD badge were the only thing that got you preferential treatment—the problem is that there exists a way to signal to the officer who pulled you over that they'll get in trouble if they ticket you. I'm sure the card started as a cute novelty, but the instant it became a signal that someone is above the law it became a problem no matter how few were in circulation at the time.

xnorswap 2y ago

Even if it's only used by cops or family members it's still naked corruption. It's not nepotism or any lesser thing, it's outright corruption. It's also clear sign that you're living in a police state when the police and those of their choosing appear to be above the law.

tokai 2y ago
Nepotism is corruption.
bediger4000 2y ago
Part of the emoluments of enforcing the law has always been at least partial immunity from the law, and not just during official duties.