3 ms·

I get your point but actually why can they lie and claim your buddy ratted you out?

p_ing 2y ago
Tax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in <your home state>. Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.
- pstuart 2y ago
  Many of those tax payers are fine with them being gang members, but only against "others" -- that's a feature, not a bug.
- deepsun 2y ago
  State (any country, since the birth of monarchies) is the gang. It literally robs you ("taxes"), monopolized violence (only state is allowed to utilize it). But if it does a poor job at that, other states swoop in with their rules, no invitation needed.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Cops are sufficiently independent to be a separate entity here. Under civil asset forfeiture they are literally allowed to go out and rob people independent of what any taxes might be.
- duskwuff 2y ago
  > Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members. Sometimes very literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff%27s_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Zak 2y ago
The assumption, as I understand it is that a guilty person is more likely to confess if they believe the evidence against them is strong, but an innocent person will not believe the lie because they know they didn't commit the crime and generate the purported evidence. I fear like many other old assumptions about criminal justice that isn't a close match to reality.
Terr_ 2y ago
I imagine a lot of it is tradition, AFAICT it was never really banned in the US (or Britain), although in the US it was codified in 1969. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp
dghlsakjg 2y ago
Simple answer? Because there is nothing prohibiting it.

Tax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in <your home state>. Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.

pstuart 2y ago
Many of those tax payers are fine with them being gang members, but only against "others" -- that's a feature, not a bug.
deepsun 2y ago
State (any country, since the birth of monarchies) is the gang. It literally robs you ("taxes"), monopolized violence (only state is allowed to utilize it). But if it does a poor job at that, other states swoop in with their rules, no invitation needed.
- Retric 2y ago
  Cops are sufficiently independent to be a separate entity here. Under civil asset forfeiture they are literally allowed to go out and rob people independent of what any taxes might be.
duskwuff 2y ago
> Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members. Sometimes very literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff%27s_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Zak 2y ago

The assumption, as I understand it is that a guilty person is more likely to confess if they believe the evidence against them is strong, but an innocent person will not believe the lie because they know they didn't commit the crime and generate the purported evidence. I fear like many other old assumptions about criminal justice that isn't a close match to reality.

Terr_ 2y ago

I imagine a lot of it is tradition, AFAICT it was never really banned in the US (or Britain), although in the US it was codified in 1969. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp

dghlsakjg 2y ago

Simple answer? Because there is nothing prohibiting it.