8 ms·

> Cops are known to be abusive, violent thugs Although I agree with your sentiment on data privacy, I don't know where you live but in the United States this i

> Cops are known to be abusive, violent thugs Although I agree with your sentiment on data privacy, I don't know where you live but in the United States this is a gross [and potentially dangerous] overgeneralization of a million+ hard-working officers who committed their lives to your safety in spite of regularly encountering life-threatening situations.

joshstrange 2y ago
Being a police officer doesn't even rank in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. Loggers, fishers, roofers, and delivery drivers all face higher fatality rates according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The Supreme Court explicitly ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm, effectively nullifying the "committed their lives to your safety" claim. These "million+ hard-working officers" actively maintain the corrupt system by refusing to hold their colleagues accountable. The "few bad apples" theory falls apart when entire departments and unions systematically protect officers who abuse their power. American police have earned their reputation through decades of documented misconduct, militarization, and resistance to meaningful reform. The institution works exactly as designed.
- banku_brougham 2y ago
  This made me remember a news story out of Mississippi last year of hundreds of graves behind a jail with no accountability of whose body is placed there. It only came to light after much struggle from people searching for missing family members. Basically people in police or jail custody who died were dumped in there under a blanket assumption that no family had claimed them, but no attempts to notify or find family members was made. https://jacksonadvocateonline.com/crump-wants-inquiry-of-215-people-buried-in-county-paupers-field/ https://jacksonadvocateonline.com/crump-wants-inquiry-of-215...
- dataflow 2y ago
  >> hard-working officers who committed their lives to your safety > The Supreme Court explicitly ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm If a duty isn't constitutional then it doesn't exist?
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    That's what the ruling implies, yeah. The response to the Uvalde school shooting bears that out. Police get all the power and none of the responsibility.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    In a legal sense, yes. That police can't be held legally liable if they fail to protect someone from harm. They might lose their job, if their boss actually cares about officers putting their lives on the line to protect people, but they are under no obligation to do that. And in practice, most won't ever punish an officer for failing to protect someone when they could have done so.
- carimura 2y ago
  you obviously don't know a lot of officers. maybe you should meet some and hang out with them for a few days.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
    This is such a flaccid and unsatisfying reply. But really, what can you say when your initial comment was so throughly dismantled?
    - carimura 2y ago
      you're right i have changed my opinions about my father, my brothers, my cousins, and many of my friends, because of a hacker news dismantling. i have now realized they are of course statistically thugs who have no interest in protecting citizens.
      - fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
        My cousin successfully sued because he suffered constant racist treatment and was passed over for several promotions that went to less qualified and less experienced white men. He subsequently had to move out of the county because the harassment only escalated after he quit. I'll be sure to let him know that he just ran into a few bad apples, but for some reason he was not keen to try again elsewhere.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    I don't care if they're "good people" individually. Every atrocity in every history book was committed by "good people" working together (though people tend to obscure that either for comfort or because they want to repeat history). The system is rotten.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      Well, you should. Saying "cops are thugs" because some cops are thugs is no different (morally speaking) than saying "black people are criminals" because some black people are criminals. It's wrong to judge an entire diverse group of people by the actions of a few, period.
- tstrimple 2y ago
  > "The "few bad apples" theory falls apart when entire departments and unions systematically protect officers who abuse their power." Actually most people never complete the statement. It seems to be entirely accurate. "One bad apple can spoil the barrel / bunch." The bunch has been definitely been spoiled.
- kelnos 2y ago
  It's also funny to me that police apologists use the "few bad apples" theory, when the full saying is "a few bad apples can spoil the barrel". The saying is about how having a few bad people will usually corrupt the rest. And the "circling the wagons" phenomenon you mention is exactly an example of this. The so-called "good cops" rarely speak up when their colleagues are doing horrible things. It's disgusting. Those who are silent are complicit.
sdco 2y ago
> who committed their lives to your safety Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that police have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general. If police were committing their lives to our safety, why would they use their limited funding pursuing court cases to affirm the opposite?
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Schrodinger's Duty: It only exists when the person feels like they might want to do it hypothetically.
DanAtC 2y ago
[flagged]
LocalH 2y ago
THe "thin blue line" that keeps otherwise good cops from snitching on bad cops is the whole issue. You won't go far as a cop if your intention is to root out corruption. Did you know, in the US it is possible to be overqualified to be a cop, if you are too smart? The system wants jackbooted thugs, rather than intelligent policing.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  I don't think some larger system wants cops ignorant, as much as it's the dynamics of corrupt self-preservation. If corrupt sheriff Moe Carpaio is accepting bribes or selling drugs out of the evidence locker, Moe needs to hire juniors who are less likely to blow the whistle. Much of that involves in trapping them into the perpetuating cycle of crime, and that's easier when they don't have lots of other employment options.
jillyboel 2y ago
Awww the criminals in the largest gang of the USA might get upset? Tough fucking luck.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
It's frankly disgusting how many people in this thread are willing to embrace prejudice as soon as it's prejudice against a group they don't like. Turns out that the lesson people learned from years of social pressure to not pick on minorities wasn't "prejudice is wrong", but rather "ok we can pick on groups but just not these ones".
- kelnos 2y ago
  We shouldn't pick on minorities because the attributes that make them a minority have nothing to do with anything worthy of scorn or... well, anything negative at all. Police extensively abuse their power, and even the so-called "good" cops rarely speak up against their fellow officers when they do awful things. It's not prejudice to state established facts and patterns of behavior.
int_19h 2y ago
You're absolutely right, there are some good cops. But what happens to them? Here's one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft Consider that the guys entire management chain was involved in the attempt to forcibly institutionalize him, and numerous rank and file police officers as well. And not a single one of them spoke in his defense. Based on this anecdote, what would you say the ratio of good vs bad cops is in NYPD?

joshstrange 2y ago

Being a police officer doesn't even rank in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. Loggers, fishers, roofers, and delivery drivers all face higher fatality rates according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The Supreme Court explicitly ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm, effectively nullifying the "committed their lives to your safety" claim. These "million+ hard-working officers" actively maintain the corrupt system by refusing to hold their colleagues accountable. The "few bad apples" theory falls apart when entire departments and unions systematically protect officers who abuse their power. American police have earned their reputation through decades of documented misconduct, militarization, and resistance to meaningful reform. The institution works exactly as designed.

banku_brougham 2y ago
This made me remember a news story out of Mississippi last year of hundreds of graves behind a jail with no accountability of whose body is placed there. It only came to light after much struggle from people searching for missing family members. Basically people in police or jail custody who died were dumped in there under a blanket assumption that no family had claimed them, but no attempts to notify or find family members was made. https://jacksonadvocateonline.com/crump-wants-inquiry-of-215-people-buried-in-county-paupers-field/ https://jacksonadvocateonline.com/crump-wants-inquiry-of-215...
dataflow 2y ago
>> hard-working officers who committed their lives to your safety > The Supreme Court explicitly ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm If a duty isn't constitutional then it doesn't exist?
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  That's what the ruling implies, yeah. The response to the Uvalde school shooting bears that out. Police get all the power and none of the responsibility.
- kelnos 2y ago
  In a legal sense, yes. That police can't be held legally liable if they fail to protect someone from harm. They might lose their job, if their boss actually cares about officers putting their lives on the line to protect people, but they are under no obligation to do that. And in practice, most won't ever punish an officer for failing to protect someone when they could have done so.
carimura 2y ago
you obviously don't know a lot of officers. maybe you should meet some and hang out with them for a few days.
- fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
  This is such a flaccid and unsatisfying reply. But really, what can you say when your initial comment was so throughly dismantled?
  - carimura 2y ago
    you're right i have changed my opinions about my father, my brothers, my cousins, and many of my friends, because of a hacker news dismantling. i have now realized they are of course statistically thugs who have no interest in protecting citizens.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
      My cousin successfully sued because he suffered constant racist treatment and was passed over for several promotions that went to less qualified and less experienced white men. He subsequently had to move out of the county because the harassment only escalated after he quit. I'll be sure to let him know that he just ran into a few bad apples, but for some reason he was not keen to try again elsewhere.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  I don't care if they're "good people" individually. Every atrocity in every history book was committed by "good people" working together (though people tend to obscure that either for comfort or because they want to repeat history). The system is rotten.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    Well, you should. Saying "cops are thugs" because some cops are thugs is no different (morally speaking) than saying "black people are criminals" because some black people are criminals. It's wrong to judge an entire diverse group of people by the actions of a few, period.
tstrimple 2y ago
> "The "few bad apples" theory falls apart when entire departments and unions systematically protect officers who abuse their power." Actually most people never complete the statement. It seems to be entirely accurate. "One bad apple can spoil the barrel / bunch." The bunch has been definitely been spoiled.
kelnos 2y ago
It's also funny to me that police apologists use the "few bad apples" theory, when the full saying is "a few bad apples can spoil the barrel". The saying is about how having a few bad people will usually corrupt the rest. And the "circling the wagons" phenomenon you mention is exactly an example of this. The so-called "good cops" rarely speak up when their colleagues are doing horrible things. It's disgusting. Those who are silent are complicit.

sdco 2y ago

> who committed their lives to your safety Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that police have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general. If police were committing their lives to our safety, why would they use their limited funding pursuing court cases to affirm the opposite?

Terr_ 2y ago
Schrodinger's Duty: It only exists when the person feels like they might want to do it hypothetically.

DanAtC 2y ago

[flagged]

LocalH 2y ago

THe "thin blue line" that keeps otherwise good cops from snitching on bad cops is the whole issue. You won't go far as a cop if your intention is to root out corruption. Did you know, in the US it is possible to be overqualified to be a cop, if you are too smart? The system wants jackbooted thugs, rather than intelligent policing.

Terr_ 2y ago
I don't think some larger system wants cops ignorant, as much as it's the dynamics of corrupt self-preservation. If corrupt sheriff Moe Carpaio is accepting bribes or selling drugs out of the evidence locker, Moe needs to hire juniors who are less likely to blow the whistle. Much of that involves in trapping them into the perpetuating cycle of crime, and that's easier when they don't have lots of other employment options.

jillyboel 2y ago

Awww the criminals in the largest gang of the USA might get upset? Tough fucking luck.

bigstrat2003 2y ago

It's frankly disgusting how many people in this thread are willing to embrace prejudice as soon as it's prejudice against a group they don't like. Turns out that the lesson people learned from years of social pressure to not pick on minorities wasn't "prejudice is wrong", but rather "ok we can pick on groups but just not these ones".

kelnos 2y ago
We shouldn't pick on minorities because the attributes that make them a minority have nothing to do with anything worthy of scorn or... well, anything negative at all. Police extensively abuse their power, and even the so-called "good" cops rarely speak up against their fellow officers when they do awful things. It's not prejudice to state established facts and patterns of behavior.

int_19h 2y ago

You're absolutely right, there are some good cops. But what happens to them? Here's one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft Consider that the guys entire management chain was involved in the attempt to forcibly institutionalize him, and numerous rank and file police officers as well. And not a single one of them spoke in his defense. Based on this anecdote, what would you say the ratio of good vs bad cops is in NYPD?