5 ms·

And this is why most cops should be tarred with the brush of corruption - it isn’t that they broke the law, but too many are willing to cover up, defend and swe

And this is why most cops should be tarred with the brush of corruption - it isn’t that they broke the law, but too many are willing to cover up, defend and sweep under the rug those that do.

nekusar 5mo ago
[flagged]
- dionian 5mo ago
  "all"
RobotToaster 5mo ago
People forget the original saying was "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel."
- y1n0 5mo ago
  That’s true, but people on HN have a habit of saying ‘most’ when they really just mean ‘many.’
  - yaur 5mo ago
    But it’s not one bad apple. It’s one cop who stole someone’s laptop while arresting them and entire system that looked the other way and let the theft go unpunished.
  - fearmerchant 5mo ago
    And really it's just a few.
    - kennywinker 5mo ago
      Coping by only hearing the first half of the expression. “Spoils the bunch” is just as important as the number of bad apples.
    - wredcoll 5mo ago
      It's a "few" who actually commit the crime. It's the vast majority who refuse to prosecute them for committing the crime.
- Amorymeltzer 5mo ago
  While in graduate school, the graduate student government had results from a student survey about their advisors. When presented with the results, nearly every administrator would give some response of "Well, it's really just a few bad apples," and we had to remind them every time of the actual meaning of the phrase!
- dredmorbius 5mo ago
  I've done some digging on the history of the phrase, and find that 1) it's been in use for at least 80 or so years (several non-produce hits in the 1940s), and 2) clearly missing the "spoils the whole barrel" element seems to begin in the 1950s, with conspicuous application to police misconduct. I'm strongly inclined to include the abbreviated phrase in a list of thought-stopping cliches if only for that reason (though not the correct and complete version you provide). Google's Ngram viewer shows usage beginning in the 1930s: <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fe https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fe>. Application to police from The Nation in 1956: <https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Nation/Ay8QAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22a+few+bad+apples%22+police&dq=%22a+few+bad+apples%22+police&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Nation/Ay8QAAAAIAAJ...>
Zigurd 5mo ago
Engaging in a cover-up is in fact a crime. Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that.
- gruez 5mo ago
  >Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that. What does sending "sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers" have to do with cover-ups? Anyways my guess is that it's general policy for police/courts to not release evidence unless it's part of a trial, similar to how the Epstein files weren't released across 3 administrations and took an act of congress to get released.
  - bilbo0s 5mo ago
    >took an act of congress to get released. I guess? I mean you go ahead and call that a release. If it brings you comfort. The US government is just corrupt from tip to tail. Why everyone continuously acts surprised about these things is genuinely a mystery?
- cucumber3732842 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Zigurd 5mo ago
    Their actual material conduct was coordinating with other dirty cops which is how their phone got seized and entered into evidence. Are you saying people need to put up with racist POS cops?
    - 5mo ago
cromka 5mo ago
This is, to a large extent, a US problem, because of the qualified immunity. Yet another cultural abomination that nearly doesn't exist anywhere else in the "developed" world.
- wat10000 5mo ago
  The impact of qualified immunity is greatly exaggerated. All it means is that an officer can't be sued for performing their duties. They can still be sued for acts outside their authority. And more importantly, qualified immunity has nothing to say about criminal prosecution. The real problem isn't the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, but the informal doctrine of "police don't get prosecuted for crimes, and if they are, they don't get convicted."
  - parineum 5mo ago
    Just like "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine", people learned a new legal buzzword and think it applies to every story in the news.
    - lukeschlather 5mo ago
      In this very article the police department argued that taking a laptop and not entering it into evidence is protected by qualified immunity. People think that qualified immunity applies to every story in the news because the police argue that it does and the courts typically agree. I will be interested to see the outcome of this case - my expectation is that the court will rule that the police officer cannot be personally sued in this case, because of qualified immunity.
      - parineum 5mo ago
        Theft is a criminal offense as well. The officer can be prosecuted for that. Qualified immunity also applies to the officer who individually. The department can be sued still.

And this is why most cops should be tarred with the brush of corruption - it isn’t that they broke the law, but too many are willing to cover up, defend and sweep under the rug those that do.

nekusar 5mo ago

[flagged]

dionian 5mo ago
"all"

RobotToaster 5mo ago

People forget the original saying was "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel."

y1n0 5mo ago
That’s true, but people on HN have a habit of saying ‘most’ when they really just mean ‘many.’
- yaur 5mo ago
  But it’s not one bad apple. It’s one cop who stole someone’s laptop while arresting them and entire system that looked the other way and let the theft go unpunished.
- fearmerchant 5mo ago
  And really it's just a few.
  - kennywinker 5mo ago
    Coping by only hearing the first half of the expression. “Spoils the bunch” is just as important as the number of bad apples.
  - wredcoll 5mo ago
    It's a "few" who actually commit the crime. It's the vast majority who refuse to prosecute them for committing the crime.
Amorymeltzer 5mo ago
While in graduate school, the graduate student government had results from a student survey about their advisors. When presented with the results, nearly every administrator would give some response of "Well, it's really just a few bad apples," and we had to remind them every time of the actual meaning of the phrase!
dredmorbius 5mo ago
I've done some digging on the history of the phrase, and find that 1) it's been in use for at least 80 or so years (several non-produce hits in the 1940s), and 2) clearly missing the "spoils the whole barrel" element seems to begin in the 1950s, with conspicuous application to police misconduct. I'm strongly inclined to include the abbreviated phrase in a list of thought-stopping cliches if only for that reason (though not the correct and complete version you provide). Google's Ngram viewer shows usage beginning in the 1930s: <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fe https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fe>. Application to police from The Nation in 1956: <https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Nation/Ay8QAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22a+few+bad+apples%22+police&dq=%22a+few+bad+apples%22+police&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Nation/Ay8QAAAAIAAJ...>

Zigurd 5mo ago

Engaging in a cover-up is in fact a crime. Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that.

gruez 5mo ago
>Recently a Massachusetts trooper who engaged in railroading a fabricated suspect was exposed for sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers. But the names of those troopers and their own behavior remains opaque to the public. That's crazy! Nobody should put up with that. What does sending "sending extreme racist, sexist, antisemitic texts to fellow troopers" have to do with cover-ups? Anyways my guess is that it's general policy for police/courts to not release evidence unless it's part of a trial, similar to how the Epstein files weren't released across 3 administrations and took an act of congress to get released.
- bilbo0s 5mo ago
  >took an act of congress to get released. I guess? I mean you go ahead and call that a release. If it brings you comfort. The US government is just corrupt from tip to tail. Why everyone continuously acts surprised about these things is genuinely a mystery?
cucumber3732842 5mo ago
[flagged]
- Zigurd 5mo ago
  Their actual material conduct was coordinating with other dirty cops which is how their phone got seized and entered into evidence. Are you saying people need to put up with racist POS cops?
  - 5mo ago

cromka 5mo ago

This is, to a large extent, a US problem, because of the qualified immunity. Yet another cultural abomination that nearly doesn't exist anywhere else in the "developed" world.

wat10000 5mo ago
The impact of qualified immunity is greatly exaggerated. All it means is that an officer can't be sued for performing their duties. They can still be sued for acts outside their authority. And more importantly, qualified immunity has nothing to say about criminal prosecution. The real problem isn't the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, but the informal doctrine of "police don't get prosecuted for crimes, and if they are, they don't get convicted."
- parineum 5mo ago
  Just like "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine", people learned a new legal buzzword and think it applies to every story in the news.
  - lukeschlather 5mo ago
    In this very article the police department argued that taking a laptop and not entering it into evidence is protected by qualified immunity. People think that qualified immunity applies to every story in the news because the police argue that it does and the courts typically agree. I will be interested to see the outcome of this case - my expectation is that the court will rule that the police officer cannot be personally sued in this case, because of qualified immunity.
    - parineum 5mo ago
      Theft is a criminal offense as well. The officer can be prosecuted for that. Qualified immunity also applies to the officer who individually. The department can be sued still.