- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
The question with the bad spelling tells me all I need to know.
Patrol Cop once told me a joke about how he ran over a black kids bike. When got back to the station he saw the kid at the desk trying to report the incident. He’d carried his busted up bike the entire way. The cop behind the desk called out “Hey Rob, did you run over this kid’s bike?”. “Nope”. Case closed. No report filed.
How the fuck is that a joke?
It was funny to him. It was the moment he realized he could get away with crime.
I wish I had an answer
For some people - and especially the kinds of people who want to become cops - literally just making others suffer is entertainment. He was surrounded by others like him, so for them it was nothing but a “joke” and another day at the office. Cops are truly fucked in the head.
Aristocrats!
That’s the sadism they are best at.
Police aren’t the problem it’s the culture and laws they enforce
“police aren’t the problem it’s just everything about police that’s the problem”
Try not to choke on all that boot leather
I mean, yeah? I don’t see a way in which having police without all of their problems is worse than having no police.
Getting shot in your own home during a no knock raid isn’t a culture problem.
Yes it is because there is a culture considers 1. Shooting people and 2. No knock raids as acceptable
“Your honour, I had no choice whether to break into that person’s house and shoot them in their bed. I was peer pressured into it”
On the one hand, yeah thats an accurate summary of what’s happening and it needs to change. On the other hand you think you can shift into other dimensions so I only really waste my own time
Check out the antirealist manifesto at http://soulism.net!
Are the officers not part of that culture? Do they have no discretion in what laws they enforce and when?
Yeah they are. Yes they do? Are you asking rhetorically? Those answers seem obvious
I kinda thought you might put it together, but ok. Yes, those were rhetorical and obvious.
Police are responsible for police culture so pointing to culture doesn’t absolve them or change any of the math here. Same with the laws, they may not directly make them or have a say in them (unless you count police unions), but they can choose when to enforce them, when to not, and against whom. Again, your arguments aren’t changing any of the math here.
The problems of police are caused by the police and sustained by the police so they are entirely the fault of the police. Your comment seemed to imply that at least some of the blame should be taken from the police since it’s not them it’s the culture and the laws. I’m saying, it’s still all them. The culture and the laws are still on them.
I agree with everything you say. I think having a police force is a pragmatic choice to make. I think the idea that there is no redemption for the police force is irresponsible. I think police culture and laws need to be changed.
Any policing service which actually serves the people will not be descended from the modern day police. It will be a new organisation, with no association to the old.
Okay that’s fine but there will still be police and they will still be policing so what would be the point. It’d be much easier to fix the current system then start over
No, it’s much easier to make a new system. Because it’s impossible to fix the current one.
Cops love it when you tell them that they are free to go.
“did you used to be”
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses…
It’s a quote from a kid. Kids talk exactly like that sometimes.
Serious question: What’s the leftists position on police in the ideal but realistic socialist world? What would make ACAB irrelevant?
Probably some combination of:
- Require them to have a 4 year degree
- No qualified immunity
- Make them also liable to civil suits
- Heavily slash their budget
- Disarm all of them, save maybe for SWAT
- much, much better descalation training (pretty sure they’re trained to escalate immediately)
I would add a measure of public election for every branch of LE, at minimum. If I MIST have a boot on my neck, I may as well get to choose it.
How are you gonna slash their budget if you add so many requirements and remove benefits? By default that will mean there will be less interest in being a cop, which means you’ll have to offer a quite substantial increase in pay to compensate. And in most places there already is a shortage of cops.
My apologies, I submitted a comment regarding that elsewhere. By slashing their budget, I meant to say: divert it to other positions like to social workers so issues with mental health crises wouldn’t introduce excessive force. I think police really should be focused on the Public Servant part.
In the UK, the training requirements for police is still surprising to me, as I had assumed it would take years to train as police.
Either way, our police meet a lot of the criteria here. The budgets are nonexistent, they aren’t armed outside of specific circumstances, and they all go through regular de-escalation training.
It hasn’t stopped many of the issues we see that are also shared in law enforcement in the states. Our force often uses force unnecessarily, there is institutional corruption and racism, and even in instances where the police have done something bad AND there is evidence it’s very hard to find justice.
I think that a degree would help, or a training programme that takes many years and involves extensive training. It’s depressing to say, but the demand for good jobs with decent pay and employment protection would probably result in people becoming police just for the pension. I would also add that a good avenue to policing would be for it to link heavily with the law profession. Add a route for police to train part-time to be criminal lawyers, or for lawyers to join the police force.
I disagree with points four and five. The rest seem accurate though. Alternatively, cut the budget to fund a seperate but collaborate group for mental health and/or non violent incedent responses. Have police provide backup but have clear rules of engagement, and procecute when the rules are violated.
Can you elaborate on what makes you disagree with those points? Just for clarity, were talking the defunding and the disarming?
Sure!
Disarming: Social studies have shown that it’s difficult to walk back changes to the social contract. We already have a society to reliant and accepting of guns to send police unarmed. Right now in the Cal Bay area you are very likely to be shot just for stopping someone who is stealing a catalytic converter. It makes no sense to have a deterent factor that can’t actually deter behavior. De-arming would need to be combined or following stricter gun laws and significant cultural shifts. That said, reviewing and revising the arming strategies is something that should occur. That is of course, unless you aren’t trying to prevent a potentially substantial rise is polics officer deaths.
Defunding: Removing funding without removing work load really just doesn’t work logistically. This has led to breakdowns in everything from the airline to the railroad industry. I’m sure there is a way to better allocate funding, but simply removing it is a problem. Alternatively, may US children had (or have) terrible times in the US school system. Should we defund it as a corrective measure? How does that help?
But I am curious, how do you believe these approaches would help the situation? How do you suggest they get implemented?
Disarming: I don’t think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you’re going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I’ve had it happen to me, and we’ve all seen videos I’m sure. Let’s remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it’s escalated.
Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I’d rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.
Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won’t work. Again, I don’t think that’s the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it’s reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.
I think disarming/defending would be two sides of the same issue. I meant to add to the list for defending, splitting police’s workload with some other task force/committees like having dedicated traffic police that only deal with traffic issues/social workers for mental health crises, semi medical personnel (to help paramedics) for injured cases/domestic abuses. If force is necessary, there should be a highly trained specialized force they would call in.
Being a cop carries too many responsibilities, diverting some of those to dedicated teams/positions would create less scenarios where cops come and shoot your dog (or you) and create more jobs.
I don’t disagree. My point is the discussion should be stated in a way that is less “shocking” than defund the police. While the goal is to gain traction with the shock value, at this point the narrative needs to be switched to a more nuanced and accurate description.
Also, apologies for being pedantic, but paramedics are already semi-medical personnel. It literally means alongside medic(cal). In truth, we should be also deploying nursing and medical staff into the outside environment that are supported by paramedics. Currently, the problem is cost and public interest isn’t there.
I agree, maybe instead it should be “stop over paying police”. Then we could change the discussion to shifting some of those tax payer funds to roles/positions that deserve it.
Socialism removes the fact that Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people, so this inherently means they aren’t class traitors.
There would be an expansion of social programs and services, better access to housing, and overall fewer crimes of desparation.
Socialism ends up causing all the problems you think it’s gonna solve. Name one time in history that it was successful.
What on Earth are you talking about? This is utterly vibes based.
Socialism factually does work this way.
In theory. Never works in practice.
Socialism works in theory and prwctice, Capitalism does not.
Capitalism works if the systems goal is to accumulate wealth to monopolies and the capitalists.
It does not, because it contains within itself the necessity of its decline due to factors like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
China, Cuba, Vietnam…
Those are your success stories? Fucking laughable how stupid you are.
All of those examples were successful in comparison to what came before. The ROC had a life expectancy in the 30’s, and made no effort to address the basic needs of the vast majority of Chinese people. Cuba had a corrupt, authoritarian gangster state under Batista. Vietnam was suffering under brutal colonial rule. Under socialism, life expectancy, literacy, food security, and medical access rose dramatically and greatly improved the lives of the people living in these places.
So yes, they are success stories, they objectively solved many of the problems they were trying to solve and improved people’s lives across a wide number of metrics.
Pertaining to this meme and subject, yes.
Despite having less than a quarter of China’s population, the U.S. also has the highest overall prison population at more than two million. China’s is approximately 1.7 million. Globally, the U.S. accounts for 4% of the population and 25% of prisoners.
Some context:
Not only does the U.S. have the highest incarceration rate in the world; every single U.S. state incarcerates more people per capita than virtually any independent democracy on earth. To be sure, states like New York and Massachusetts appear progressive in their incarceration rates compared to states like Louisiana, but compared to the rest of the world, every U.S. state relies too heavily on prisons and jails to respond to crime.
I completely agree with you on ACAB in capitalist countries, for the same reasons you mentioned, but cops in “actually existing socialist” countries like Russian and China are no better. They still use authoritarian violence to oppress anyone who steps out of line with the will of the State. There are many, many historic and more contemporary examples of socialist countries using the [secret] police and/or troops to quell dissent from unions, anarchists, and other leftist groups, because anyone who protests the actions of the State, no matter how legitimately, is considered to be an enemy of the State, whether that State is capitalist or not.
Russia the Russian Federation, or Russia the USSR? Very different deal there.
Either way, I feel like this is vibes based analysis. Committing crime is illegal, yes. Even Anarchists like in Revolutionary Catalonia punished criminals, even putting them in labor camps. Would ACAB apply to Anarchists? No, I would argue not, just like I would say ACAB wouldn’t directly apply to a Socialist State.
The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is stark, a Socialist State is run by the Workers, rather than a Capitalist State run by the bourgeoisie. An analysis of Capitalism, it’s accumulation-based nature, and how this impacts the state, is necessary analysis.
What do you think of Chekism?
Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people
Are there common every day examples where this happens? I’ll be honest my exposure to the police is extremely limited and from a UK perspective. Do you mean like the police will prioritise responding faster to wealthy people and are more likely to put resources in solving crimes against them than your average person?
Evictions, disproportionately of those most vulnerable, due to Austerity via the Neoliberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher which very much persist today, maximizing, subsidizing the profit of fortune 500 companies while making welfare a slur.
Cops break up people who are just trying to feed the hungry.
ICE; Locking children in cages – No human is illegal. The Contras were perpetrated by the imperial core, and then the imperial family eats up the propaganda to hate the refugees fleeing those situations.
Prisons, during covid lockdowns, put prisoners in 24/7 solitary. Solitary is torture. It is so bad that is an effective motivator to force prisoners to instead labor for cents a day.
Cops illegally raid safe injection sites, and spread disinformation about People who use drugs, dehumanizing themselves in the process.
Read about the Comstock Raids, as far back as 1860s, the reason that motivated the Stonewall Uprising a century later, and dont think they up and stopped harrassing queer folks of color for doing so much as existing in public.
The origins of the police forces were to chase down runaway slaves.
It is not “a few bad eggs”. It’s not about a bug of the system, it’s the features it was designed for, through Comstocks weaponization of the Post Office to control bodies and autonomy, into modern day surveillance state and militarization.
What we are talking about is Violence. SYSTEMIC Violence.
There is no more violent beast than the Settler-Colonial White Supremacist, with all it’s manifest destiny. This Prison System’s history is well documented, and evidence of it’s violence is more apparent and accessible everyday.
Abolition is a process and it will take time, the two greatest things we can do to obsolete prisons and police are:
- encourage and popularize anti-authoritarian parenting methods and 2) build strong community groups and mutual aid networks.
We must be free from class, from heirarchies of domination. These are inherently violent
That Dang Dad on YT is a great resource, and that’s a starting point, because there is no justice unless you adress the root cause, and the truth is always on the side of the oppressed.
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights and enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo.
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights
What does this mean though? Like if someone breaks into my house then they shouldn’t be coming over to investigate?
enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo
Is this not an issue with the laws of the country rather than the police? I feel like it would be an even bigger issue if the police just became a law unto themselves and decided on their own what they should laws they should or shouldn’t enforce.
Ok, for one example, after the 2008 housing market drop, banks bought the debt from other banks intentionally writing bad loans, which they then resold to third parties. This buying up of the debt of the banks that collapsed during this time lead to banks pushing families out of their homes, many of which were paid-up, but the lending institution behind them had failed, in order to resell the property later, when the market prices had recovered, or use the land for other developments. This was enforced by the police. Bankers did not go around forcing people out of their houses, the police did it at their behest.
Another is laws created specifically to punish people for being homeless. Laws like not being able to camp anywhere near a place they might be able to get themselves out of homelessness, e.g. a place with jobs, and other resources, not some place way out in the forest. These are also only effective because the police use violence to enforce them. Anti-solicitation laws fall into this category. Police often don’t realize that (speaking for my country) they are not constitutional at the federal level. Police departments that know about this tell their cops to do it anyway because it’s not like homeless people will likely be able to sue them.
A third is the enforcement of petty traffic fines. Things like window tint, or minor violations in situations where the safety concern isn’t present. These fines are, often, the brunt of how they fund themselves. Petty violations, like tint, are also used to go on fishing expeditions, so they can either wrack-up more fines, or make an arrest, even if that means intentionally escalating the situation, lying about what happened, and giving false testimony in court. More arrests, more convictions, equals more money for the police, and the legal industry as a whole. If you work with, or around, police, like I have, you will hear them discuss things like testilying. Bouncing ideas off of each other as to how they can make bad arrests, and use illegal levels of force, while having a technicality to maintain their immunity, e.g. screaming quit resisting, while in a position where they know cameras can’t really see what is happening. This is just the tip of this iceberg, I would need thousands, upon thousands, of words to detail all the shit I have heard police say, and see police do.
I can go on, but I think I have made my point.
No, that’s not what I mean. I am not referring to personal home ownership, but the system of Capitalism.
The anti-poor laws and racist laws exist because of class dynamics, not vibes. The issue is Capitalism itself.
I am not arguing that police should just do whatever.
I honestly can’t figure out what point you are making. I see a lot of buzz-words like anti-poor, racist, private property rights, status quo, etc. but I don’t understand how you think this plays out practically. The person you are replying to was asking for real-world examples of the cops defending rich white people in instances they wouldnt support poor non-white people.
I’m not even saying I disagree necessarily, just that you haven’t answered the initial question.
There are systemic issues core to how Capitalist systems are set up, and the violent arm that upholds these is the police.
Does that make sense?
Socialism isn’t a model for policing, unless you love the secret police.
Nope, it’s an economic structure that gets rid of the largest sources of poverty in Capitalist society, and poverty is the largest factor for crime.
How your country runs economically informs what kinds of laws you hold valuable in society, informs what kind of policing you have. Socialism isn’t specifically about policing, correct, but to act like it’s not all interconnected is ludicrous.
I agree with @Cowbee@lemmy.ml . You can either try to copy the policing model used in, say, East Germany or the USSR, with it’s delightfully large secret police force, but that’s more from the authoritarian political system rather than the socialist policies. Alternately, you could try to copy the policing model used in democratic socialist countries, the nordic model, which is more influenced by their political system rather than socialist policies. Countries with socialist programs have all kinds of different police systems. There’s no policing model that always goes with socialism. I will say that socialism may or may not get rid of poverty, it really depends on the wealth of the country. If the country is poor, socialism isn’t going to make them rich. Ideally it should reduce inequality, however we see that while it can reduce economic inequality, it does not always adequately address privilege.
I didn’t say that the policing model goes away, or that we should have secret police a LA the USSR.
The words I said were: your country’s economic model informs what laws you hold valuable.
This is easily true. We currently have the system in place of “get more, more good.” An abundance of our laws, some of the ones we hold most dear, adhere to that. Protecting property is one thing that our legal system and police force does well.
Contrast to a more equality based economic model. If our society values raising people who are down up, sometimes at a mild cost to someone who’s already doing well, then our laws change. Suddenly we see a value shift in our legal system from get more/protect what we have, to let’s help the downtrodden a bit.
Second, I said that this all informs what policing you have.
Again, this pretty naturally follows from the previous point. Police exist to uphold the laws, at least ostensibly. Their interfacing with society depends on what society has said we hold valuable enough to codify into law. This is where you might get such laws as rent control, where we have determined it’s valuable to set limits to the year over year increase someone has to pay for their dwelling, at the slight cost of some profit to the owner.
All of these things are connected. Correct, socialism isn’t a method of policing, but our method of policing is born of what our society holds valuable. It’s all connected.
They wouldn’t exist in this form under anarchism at all. However they’re still very much bastards under ML-regimes as well.
NGL that doesn’t seem very convincing. Lots of what ifs and hypotheticals that sounds like the Office bit.
“Just krrrrsht and then you’ll be saved.”
The conflict between ACAB and All Vigilantes Are Also Bastards has always been my primary concern with anarchism tbh.
At least vigilantes aren’t above the law. We don’t reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.
Who vigilantes the vigilante vigilantes? It seems like in the end you really just need some form of professional rule thug that just has actual public accountability.
At least they’re held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it’s better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.
I’m not an expert in this field, I don’t have all of the answers. I don’t think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as “how do we keep society safe” without trying things. I do think the thing we’ve tried for the last little bit has run its course, it’s shown us it doesn’t have much merit, and I’m ready for another system.
I feel like people who enforce rules are necessary in any society. I note that cops in Scotland or New Zealand manage to do their job without killing lots of citizens. I dont think that being murderous unaccountable over-militarised gang is necessary to do the job.
mentions IQ
very cool, very normal. Youre right, cops arent smart, or they wouldnt be cops! On unsmart people are cops, because unsmart people are evil!
acab includes people policing other peoples intellect
It’s a thing,
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
How is defunding the cops and courts not prosecuting going?
That kid’s getting punted across the street the next second lol
That kid had a gun 🔫
I don’t know in what shithole of a country you guys live to hate cops, but here they are just decent, helpful protectors they ought to be. Never ever met one single piece-of-shit-cop in my life. There surely are rotten apples, but that is due to being human, not being a cop. There is no field of anything where everything’s sunshine and lollipops. Maybe it’s a case of how you treat them? You know, like give respect, earn respect? That thing?
You know, I’ve also never personally had too bad of an encounter with a cop. I mean, I was falsely arrested once, but the cops were chill, only half of them had their guns pointed at me for no reason. They were just doing their job though, the others were all super chill!
No. Doesn’t matter. You see DAILY that people are victimized. Not just in the states, you can look through this very thread for accounts of other people from other countries with terrible stories.
The very system of the state giving some non-elected individuals sole legal authority to excise violence against their peers, even ostensibly to prevent crimes we all agree are crimes, creates a power dynamic that leads to all sorts of problems we see today.
There might be bad daily incidents here too. Sure. Even if it were 10, what about the tens of thousands of incidents where cops just were helpful and/or protective? Same like with plane-accidents. Millions don’t happen but the one that does makes the media.
I really don’t see the problems you do. Cops here are highly selected (a weekend full of assessments of all kind, physical, intellectual and psychological evaluation). From like 300 participants, 0-3 get chosen. Then follows 3 years of training and regular checks. Not every country is like the USA which seems to recruit nutjobs and then give them a 2 week crash course.
But, for the sake of the argument: what is the alternative? No cops at all? What do you do if you’re in need of help? Elect cops? That already seems to work great with politicians /s
I’m not an expert on any of this. Just a caveat, I’m sure anything I propose will have it’s share of flaws.
State law enforcement (men armed with guns apprehending private citizens) should be the LAST step. For in-the-moment intervention, cops are already useless - unless they happen to be on site already, whatever violence happen, will happen before they get there. There’s no good answer to stopping a determined violent individual, short of empowering people to defend themselves and others around them.
I think there’s always going to be some level of violent crime. Some people simply don’t function the same way. For these people, we clearly need some kind of active response force. It’s use should be limited, based on hard fact and actual threat to civilian life. We also clearly need some kind of (humane) separation for people who cannot or will not rehabilitate, people who cannot be reintegrated into our society. These are two of the only acceptable uses of state violence, in my opinion.
I don’t know the exact way it would look, but I’d like to see a move towards communities looking after themselves and those around them, in all aspects, and this includes safety and security.
Unfortunately, for property crimes, the only way to actually enforce property ownership is through violence, either direct threat of violence (break my shit and I’ll end you), or state violence (break my shit and the state will send armed men to apprehend you unless you reimburse me). We have to determine what level of property security versus violence we seem acceptable. I tend to fall a bit more extreme towards violence not being okay to protect property - I don’t think there’s a single piece of property worth killing or maiming an individual over. Thus, if the only way to protect property is this level of violence, I believe it is wrong to intervene. I don’t believe it is right for the individual to intervene, and I don’t believe it is right for the state to intervene. The sad truth is that most of what the police force does now is enforce these types of crimes.
Maybe an actual cop can give insight.
I was talking about real cops in more civilised countries. Not untrained us-american gun-monkeys. For the US my statement surely isn’t valid.
Real cops don’t exist.
When you grow up some day, you might notice who’s your real enemy. As it surely ain’t the stupid cop who’s just doing another stupid job of all those stupid other jobs in a stupid society of stupid people running after stupid pieces of paper with stupid numbers on it.
Who’s the real enemy?
Maybe the billionaires running this planet? Who all just have the best of our future at heart
The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid- to late-19th century from the threat posed by that system’s offspring, the working class. source
Criminological data has told us for decades that police are irrelevant for public safety. Other data tells us a lot about what does influence safety. British researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their classic 2009 book The Spirit Level show that a large number of social problems, including violence, correlate strongly with inequality. Their work also shows different options for achieving equality: high wages by private employers (as in Japan) or high taxes and redistribution (as in Northern Europe). In the United States, every option for increased equality has been blocked by the wealthy who have—as Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page make clear in their important 2014 study—captured politics. source
Nuh uh, dehumanizing them works better!
Do you really think all cops are bastards or is it like a easy thing to type instead of “corrupt cops are bad” or something?
These people have such an oversimplified view of the world that there’s no reasoning with them. They can’t comprehend that people would join law enforcement for any other reason than denying people civil rights.
Bizarre.
The fact that anyone can say “all” this is that speaks to such a misunderstanding of their reality.
It’s like choosing to refuse certain lengths of the spectrum. How many years are they going to force themselves to live colorblind?
Who are you referring to?
anyone that can say “all” this is that about a non- identical group of anything “all” of them obviously cannot be the same.
“All dogs are dangerous”
“All houses are safe”
“All birds are real”
Using “all blah are bloo” to describe a complex group of anything and their necessarily complex associations between and outside of each other belies such a fundamental misunderstanding and incomprehension of the world you live in and the topic you’re talking about.
An important thing to remember with something like ACAB is, even if it’s not literally ALL cops are bastards, it loses its bite if it’s anything else. When we say ALL cops are bastards, we serve to remind the people who already at least partially buy into this belief that it doesn’t really matter about the individual. It’s about the institution. Anyone party to that institution is part of the problem, even if they’re a generally decent person who, in a particular situation, did something commendable.
As far as getting the people who don’t already buy in to buy in? Well,that’s what these kinds of discussions are for. No motto easy to turn into a soundbyte is going to change too many minds, they’re more rallying calls.
Further, unlike the other examples, “cop” isn’t a fundamental aspect of their existence. Any cop, right now, can stop being a cop. I have no problem throwing shade at something someone can change. Dogs can’t not be dogs. Birds can’t not be birds. Houses… well, they could be something else with a lot of effort, but it’s fundamentally different.
Interesting that at the exact point your examples break down, the contradicting evidence to your point becomes fundamentally “different” and you just dismiss it.
Besides, don’t you know the animorphs? Birds can change into humans, andalites, tons of stuff.
Back to your point: a slogan does not gain validity or credibility by being false; it loses its validity and credibility by being fundamentally false.
You see that slogan as particularly important because you’ve used it before and because it’s popular.
That does not make it a good or correct slogan.
It just makes the person saying it look like they’re spouting gibberish since there are so many simple examples that prove it incorrect, many of those examples displayed in these threads given by the people myopically chanting that acab is valid.
I agree these discussions are important, but what hope do you have of influencing other perspective when your argument is, at its foundation, flawed and clearly incorrect.
Black Lives Matter? Undeniable.
Of course they matter.
All Cops Are Bastards?
Objectively false schoolyard taunt.
That backfiring banner is working against your point and against your credibility.
I dismissed houses because they’re inanimate objects that we can literally break down and turn into something else. That thing would no longer be a house. And, if I DID think all houses were inherently safe, then that change would mean that I no longer think it’s a fundamentally safe thing. There’s no gotcha here.
I’m tired of the rest of this conversation, we’re clearly at foundational differences in our world views.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be a police officer out of truly caring about and wanting to improve your community. Sadly what happens is those good meaning people are the minority and there are countless cases of them being harassed and outed, sometimes even assassinated, by the bad cops who are the majority.
When you have an entire occupation, in every state, doing shady shit, killing bystanders, killing innocents, even killing the people they were sent to help, it is a huge problem that can not be ignored. They act without consequences and it needs to stop.
Good cops are awesome. I love good cops. I wish them the best and hope they make it home safe.
If you want to truly care and help people, be a firefighter. Be a medic. Get into the mental health industry. Feed people. Teach. Build. There are near infinite ways to help people, that don’t involve walking around the city dressed, literally, to kill.
Violent crimes consistently trend down. We actually don’t have too many people randomly killing others. When we do, it’s a big fucking event, that could have probably been avoided entirely with some more of those mental health people I mentioned before. BEST case, a cop does something after blood has been spilled.
At best a cop thinks they want to help people, and thinks the best way to do that is with violence.
Seems like you are trying to oversimplify their world view so you don’t have to question your own.
Bullseye
All. Because the ones who aren’t corrupt fucks either look the other way, or try to report the bad ones and get bullied off the force.
You say “all” but I’m pretty sure you only mean the ones in specific countries. In most European countries they simply do their job and don’t have a negative connotation (apart from people getting angry when they have to pay fines for speeding / parking wrongly / etc.).
Requirements and training also are much harsher here.
Just assume anyone making a post on the internet in English is American, because they have the majority of the publicly discussed issues and post most of the English content.
You’ll be less confused and not lots people off by studying a “well aktchually” in where it’s not needed.
Pretty much everyone is making posts in English because I’m pretty sure literally everyone on Lemmy can speak English. You can’t assume someone’s nationality / first language just because a post is in English.
Woo, I disagree. I mean, statistically that can’t be true.
Do you have a proposed alternative to law enforcement?
Southern Occupation style military police detachment,
A soldier fresh out of bootcamp has more trigger discipline and de-escalation training than your typical blue bastard anyways, and the federal military answers to the federal government, so they can’t negotiate qualified immunity agreements or any of that shit, and their funding is already provided, so no quota meeting traffic ticketing.
I agree about trigger discipline and de-escalation training, don’t they also have training to dehumanize their opponent?
Maybe I’m missing something, what exactly is " Southern occupation style military police detachment"?
I will say right off the bat that I completely support way more training for police officers and a far more rigorous screening.
The post civil war occupation of the south.
It was basically a brief golden age for black leadership in the south because that’s how “not letting anyone fuck around” the union occupation force was with the traitors.
It was so effective at cock blocking the terrorist little shitbags that the red second they had enough political leverage they had them disbanded and proceeded to immediately kick off the first golden age of the klan.
But you still think it’s a good idea to use MPs in civilian metropolitan areas?
I’m not totally against the idea if only because there’s so much more training.
Like you say, I’d be a little wary of retaliation with even more heavy-handed law enforcement.
If it’s good enough to keep the racists rightfully terrified for their miserable lives, it’s good enough for the rest of us to have a law enforcement infrastructure that actually protects and serves us.
There are all sorts of ways to make police less shit. Maybe police should not have the means and freedom to arbitrarily apply violence. It doesn’t take much imagination to think maybe acorn cop shouldn’t have a gun.
Regulate law enforcement.
That’s a much more convincing and realistic way to improve law enforcementn than calling them names.
ACAB is some insecure schoolyard taunt that doesn’t help anything or affect the social conscience.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Other guards…this question was never as profound people thought it was.
I teach Latin and read comic books, what are the chances a similarly socially handicapable nerd would serve me up this phrase?
Sure, let’s start with not making armed thugs the first line of defense. Your average traffic cop, contrary to what the bastards will say, doesn’t need a gun. The presence of one only intensifies the situation.
Easy counterpoint: traffic stops are dangerous!
Counter to the counterpoint: they’re only dangerous because cops are jumpy. A person being pulled over for a traffic stop is being interrupted - UNDER THREAT OF STATE SANCTIONED VIOLENCE for what most likely boils down to either a speeding ticket or an excuse to ID the driver. Naturally someone in that situation may do something rash.
Wellness checks. Those are a big one, too. Glen’s suicidal, got his gun to his head? What should we do? Call 911 obviously! They’ll send out someone with some mental health training. A paramedic at least! What do you mean they sent out a jacked up jackboot who won’t stop shouting “drop your weapon”? He’s already got a gun pointing at his own head, what’s another gun do to help this situation?
I’m not a legal scholar. I don’t claim to have all of the answers, and honestly yes - an armed protection force is probably a necessity, from a societal safety standpoint, but they absolutely do not need to be the first line.
Not my job to convince you of anything.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Read again but actually try to understand
Which part are you confused about?
See this is what I’m talking about
ALL cops are bastards, yes. It’s in the title.
Each and every cop could have chosen not to be a bastard. Some of them weren’t bastards when they started, but by the time they’ve been in it long enough to identify as a “cop” they’re a bastard. They are either actively participating in the system that the state uses to violently enforce their whims, or are complicit by virtue of continuing to perpetuate the establishment. Some of them, a vanishingly small minority, have the moral character to go back to not being a bastard, of they quit the police force, but until then, they cop, they bastard.
So in your perspective not all cops are bastards.
They may become bastards over time or may become a complicit part of the system, and if they decide not to be bastards, they may be kicked out, but at any time there are non-bastard cops
I agree. That’s what’s so silly about this taunt.
It is unproductive and exposes your unwillingness to deal with the complex reality.
Chanting an obviously incorrect slogan backfires pretty hard upon every utterance.
It sure is here.
Nope. The moment they’ve self identified as cop, they become bastard.
The slogan isn’t incorrect, you simply choose to look at the individual actions, which yes, CAN be good actions, whereas others apply it to the institution that is the police force. If you are a part of that force, you are complicit in being a bastard.
Were all the gestapo bastards? Or did some of them do a few good things while participating in MASSIVE amounts of state sanctioned violence?
Nope, I’m looking at individual people, not actions.
No, you don’t become complicit in being a bastard simply by becoming part of a corrupt institution.
The Jewish sympathizers that were part of the Reich who saved Holocaust victims?
HOA participants who change the laws to be more fair and beneficial to everyone?
IRS agents offering free file programs and tax benefits for low-income individuals?
You are blind to how systems of the world actually work and what creates change.
You can keep throwing a tantrum and calling names, eventually you’ll realize you’re not changing anything.
It’s just going to take a lot longer than if you open your eyes.
By your logic, you are a rapist and a murderer because you live in a society within which rape and murder occurs.
If that’s how you like to see yourself, that is your choice.
It isba false, narcissistic and deluded perspective to ascribe total immutable personal responsibility for the actions of others by virtue of association.
You know what would be better in each of those situations? The offending party not existing in the first place.
Don’t have to save the Jews if the Gestapo doesn’t exist.
No need to change the HOA if you don’t have a HOA.
I could tackle the IRS Example as well, except I actually believe in (some degree of) taxes. Good on the people for finally twisting the IRS’s arm on free file options though, they’ve been vastly limited until lately.
Yes, if everything we’re talking about was different and behaved in a completely different manner than it does in the reality everybody lives in(that’s right, you too!), then there would be a way to support your worldview.
Way to miss the point like you have this whole thread.
PEB: Policing Enables Bastards
- Shorter
- Not literally wrong in case there’s a mountain town of thirty people with two cops on the force that have never covered for a corrupt cop
Sure, works fine.
And yes, it’s not literally wrong, haha
One would think being not literally being wrong would be fundamental to the developing and adoption of a slogan.
Further evidence acab is a taunt rather than a serious slogan.
People always try to invoke “just a few bad apples” forgetting the rest of that phrase.
One bad apple spoils the bunch. Doesn’t matter if you’ve got a squad of Clark Kent boyscout types, the fact remains that if they can deal with even one Lex Luthor being a shitass in their uniform without actively trying to put a stop to that situation, they’re all suspect.
Normally it’s unreasonable to expect someone to stick their neck out just for the sake of doing the right thing alone, but these people menace society with military kit and weaponry under the premise that they’re the exception to that. They tell us all the time that it is their job to risk their lives to stop people from getting victimized, so it’s more than fair to judge them when they don’t hold themselves to the same standard when dealing with their own.
Sure, let me know if you see someone using that phrase.
I don’t follow your ensuing logic that because a cop could be corrupt you should treat them like they are corrupt.
“They’re all suspect”? Okay. So is everybody else.
But the presumption that they’re all corrupt or acab is silly and unrealistic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswgEdJTrfU here’s a really famous guy using that phrase, though I will admit he’s got a few felonies under his belt.
My case in point. Only the dumbiest dummies that have ever dummied say that
Nobody here is saying that.
Oh, cool, so you’ll just keep moving the goalposts and other bad faith tactics. Thanks for letting me know I should block you.
You’re using those words wrong.
You equivocated my argument that it’s unrealistic to assume that acab with The first half of a phrase “a few bad apples”, and argued against that phrase even though nobody had used it.
I asked you to let me know if you saw anyone using that phrase, since nobody had used that phrase except for you.
Those goal posts are pretty firm.
I understand how you would see my speaking accurately as “bad faith” given your way with words.
Enabling the corrupt ones is almost as bad being corrupt.
Sure. Taaangent?
Hardly a tangent. If a cop is otherwise good, his simple existence within the establishment of “cop” is enabling the continued existence of that establishment, while also providing obfuscation for the shitbags, letting people like you say not all cops are bastards. In the famous words of Tim minchin, “if you cover for another mother fucker who’s a kiddy fucker the fuck you mother fucker you’re no better than the rapist” - replace “kiddy fucker” with any of the atrocities police are regularly known for.
The establishment is corrupt, you cannot be party to it and be innocent, period.
That’s such a limited and flawed perspective.
Literally any example of a whistleblower destroys your client.
The evolution of civil rights proves you wrong.
Of course you can make change from the inside, of course it’s easier to pretend you can’t. That’s a scary job.
If you condemn everybody trying to make a positive change within a dangerous environment at personal risk, then you don’t have to question why you aren’t putting yourself at risk trying to make a change yourself.
The institution that is The Police is too large to change with any action other than collectively deciding it’s not one we need. Other industries, I’ll give you. That’s why, for instance, not all, idk… dentists? Are bastards.
Cops have one thing that other industries do not - the explicit right by the state to use violent force against its citizens with no, or next to no, legal repercussions. This closeness and uniqueness means that we can’t really CHANGE them, the state is too invested in their continuation. The only thing to do is to seek to eliminate it.
As far as whistleblowers, they’re whistleblowers, not cops. They put the badge down (most likely, you don’t often get to continue serving after blowing the whistle), and they did something good. They were still a bastard before tho.
Some states are already switching out police for mental health professionals and civilian law enforcement.
That shows that you can change the system.
It’s difficult, but with as giant an institution as law enforcement already having been changed fairly rapidly just in the last hundred years, it doesn’t make any sense not to expect further change.
Especially when so many legal groups and victim advocacy groups are demanding change and changes are literally occurring currently.
And yea, saying all dentists are bad is about as absurd as saying all cops are bad.
As far as whistleblowers go, I was referring to all whistleblowers anywhere, but yes whistleblowers are cops and that’s a good point.
You can pretend that a cop who reports or fights against corruption or supports the rights of minorities isn’t a cop, but that’s factually and objectively inaccurate.
Is a cop marching in BLM rallies a bastard? Is a cop getting a rape victim, proper health and mental support even if it isn’t warranted by their department a bastard?
Of course not, you have to ridiculous myopic mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that acab when it’s clearly not true.
The institution is being changed, by us. By people forcing changes. The police didn’t just decide to include mental health professionals randomly, we put pressure on them and our elected officials.
I can get behind someone saying that some form of policing may be necessary. This is where I cut out caveats for things such as the idealized version of a sheriff. Someone elected by the community they’re policing, who is a member of the community they’re policing, and with rather limited power in excess of the average citizen.
As far as the BLM protests go, honestly yeah - if they’re marching in uniform they’re bastards. Most likely their MO is to show some of these people that “not all cops!”. If they want to support the cause, they can, not as cops though. That’s tone deaf at best.
Is a cop getting a rape victim help a bastard? Yup. They’re doing a good thing, as a bastard. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Maybe they should change their career into something a bit more geared towards helping people, like social worker or similar.
Taaangent?
You asked about ACAB and got an answer about ACAB. This feels like a cope.
Oh.
I see
If you think you can only come up with ax partial answer, it’s usually an indication you don’t understand the concept as well as you think and a good idea to just skip trying to come up with an answer.
Your talk if you want to! I’m just saying it might confuse the situation unless you have a complete answer.
I thought you did that deliberately so I was wondering why you were explaining what a slice was when I asked about making a pizza.
I’m not the same guy, it’s just obvious to everyone else here what he was saying since we don’t need our hands held through every implication.
If bad cops can just get rid of others who call out bad behavior, what is left but the corrupt and the complicit? Hence, complacency is bad too so ACAB.
First it was “tangent”, then it was, “ax partial answer”, so now what is your excuse?
Making assumptions and looking for excuses is the reason you Don’t understand.
“If bad cops can just get rid of others who call out bad behavior, what is left but the corrupt and the complicit…”
If that were true, you would have a case.
Since that is not true, you don’t.
Since that is not true, you don’t.
Except in America it seems that’s the exact case. Maybe not in other countries.
ACAB isn’t about corruption, it’s about the fact that all police enforce allaws no matter how bad, as a condition of keeping their job.
That’s absurd on its face. Cops routinely look the other way in tons of minor civil code violations they don’t judge as damaging to society.
Cops have the discretion to enforce laws.
Some use that discretion poorly and they suck and some use that discretion well and they’re fine.
Discretion is just selective enforcement. Lots of people do a thing. But cops only think it’s damaging to society when the wrong kind of people do it. That thing might just be existing.
Maybe that punishment involves jail time, but more likely it means being harassed, or put in cuffs for a while but let off, or just be intimidated by a guy who can legally whisper “I fear for my life” into a body cam and then kill you.
ACAB means cops either participate in that system, do nothing to stop it, or try to stop it and get forced out.
Okay, so then NACAB.
That’s all I’m saying.
I understand frustration and even hatred toward law enforcement due to atrocities or idiot mistakes or qualified immunity, but making a blanket statement that depends on a misunderstanding of basic human discretion and personality demeans any legitimate facet of that argument.
If you say acab and believe it, then clearly you don’t understand reality well enough to want or have the capacity to change it, you just want to yell at somebody and stamp your feet.
Which isn’t very helpful.
It sounds like you’re breaking down cops into several categories:
- Cops that do bad things on purpose
- Cops that do bad things on accident
- Cops that work alongside groups 1 and 2
Sure, group 3 cops may use that discretion for good. Maybe they don’t pull someone over for going one over the speed limit, or decide to look the other way when a homeless guy tries to sell cigarettes. I agree with you, this is the kind of discretion that’s supposed to happen.
But when people say ACAB, they’re saying that when cops that don’t do terrible things work alongside cops that do, they are complicit. One cop slowly, agonizingly kills a guy. Three cops watch and do nothing to stop him. That’s an extreme example. But there’s a million small versions of that, in every big city and small town, where a cop uses either their legal authority or “I’m a person with a gun” authority to do something bad, and their coworkers let it happen.
Cops that don’t stop their coworkers from doing bad things are just as bad as those doing the bad things. So, ACAB.
No, I didn’t break cops down into those groups.
You did.
Holding a hammer, everything is a nail.
But keep your proprietary delineations to yourself, you know what they say about assumptions.
ACAB is a pretty poor descriptor for " I don’t like corrupt or cruel cops"
I agree with what you say above. Some cops are bastards and some cops are not.
I similarly don’t let unhelpful, inaccurate slogans govern reality.
It isn’t much more difficult to accept and understand a complex reality than to forcibly ignore reality every second of the day just to hold on to unproductive anger
Keep it up man, you’ve obviously got more energy than most of us who think that slogan is shit.
ACAB is one of the things which give ammo to the conservatives on a silver platter. It makes us look stupid.
There are occasional stories about cops who risk their lives to save people. But, fuck them I suppose, because of that one time they heard a story about their colleague they knew was shady, shooting someone for smoking weed and they didn’t organise everyone else in their department to protest outside the station until they were fired.
No room for nuance with these people.
I for one am glad we here have the police forces and am honestly terrified by the comments in this thread here. I mean, okay, maybe in your country or local sphere you have more corrupt police forces than, say, over here in the middle of Europe, but I dread the day police would be on strike or get understaffed even more.
Society even here has gotten so violent and just morally and ethically bad in the last years I perceive the police forces as one of the few stabilizing instances left. Social engagement nowadays only gets you into trouble and I have been mugged more than once in the last years, whereas this never has been occurred before that. On the streets you can see gang-like groups of “young males” roaming the streets, littering everywhere, making especially the women feel unsafe and bad. Society has got a punch and it has become more difficult to strike up a conversation or feel safe or just well when in public. Police? Hell yeah. We definitely need more. And better judges which don’t let illdoers back on the streets. Society is no battlefield. There are rules to obey for the better of everyone.
Many European countries have better police, but the systemic critiques still hold. You just have functioning systems to mitigate their worst behavior. The us has something called qualified immunity, which effectively makes them immune from civil penalties.
To explain why many Americans don’t like cops, here’s some fun stories from the last few years:
Misissippi police buried 215 people in an unmarked mass grave, at least some of which were killed by cops. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/families-in-disbelief-after-hundreds-of-bodies-found-buried-behind-mississippi-jail
Crime dropped when the NYPD went on strike https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/02/opinion/half-the-police-force-quit-crime-dropped.html
Multiple studies have found police have a domestic violence rate significantly higher than average averagehttps://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/
The Los Angeles sheriff’s department is run by violent gangs. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-sheriffs-deputy-gang-crisis
I don’t know in what country you live. I live in The Netherlands, one of the richest countries, with police which is very mild compared to other countries. They are ‘trained’ to de-escalate, to use the least amount of violence, to try to talk first. A force they ‘try’ to be inclusive, with a reasonably high percentage of women and different ethnicities, promoting to be open to LGBTQ+.
I can tell you with certainty, they are biased and racist as fuck, corrupt, abusive, above the law.
I assume you view the world through (male) white glasses from a rich country within the EU? The cops are there to protect your rich white privilege, you don’t have a clue what it is like for poor people and people of color. Police is not what it is supposed to be in an ideal world. They should be abiding the law, enforcing the law, protect ALL citizens, be unbiased, treat everyone the same whether they are rich, poor, whatever their religion or ethnicity, whatever gender, political view, etc. They fail on all these points. Even in progressive countries like The Netherlands or Germany.
Next to that, the far right is on the rise. They love to enable and use the police to enforce their will.
Look at all the protests. The protests by the left are struck down with brute force and loads of arrests. Protests of the right are mostly left alone, with maybe one or two arrests if any. Here in the Netherlands farmers were left alone to lock down the entire infrastructure of the country, for many days, with loads of destruction (including driving a tractor into a municipality building) with barely any arrests or consequences. The cop who opened fire on a tractor which drove at him fast and refused to stop got into trouble, not the guy driving the tractor.
A hand full of climate activists blocking a single road were beaten and arrested with brute force, after which they got hefty fines.
So fuck the police.
I was at a peaceful rally a week ago, police showed up and acted as intimidating as possible. We stood around and listened to some very powerful speeches from Palestinians, the police left momentarily so that they could come and assualt the crowd from the side.
They pepper sprayed children. Fuck every cop who ever did their job.
People and parents bringing their children to such a kind of demonstration are willingly endangering them. Why do they bring their kids? It is irresponsible and in bad faith. Maybe because they know they can later pull the “oh noes, they hurt my poor child” card.
What’s the age limit when a child is allowed to learn from an adult’s example about peaceful activism
“peaceful activism” which needed police intervention? Tell me.
Police violence is something different then peaceful protesting. It turns into non-peaceful as soon as the police starts to use force without a proper cause. It’s called “abuse of power”. Cops love to get violent, especially when the protesters do not (so they won’t hit back).
“If it was peaceful, why did the police show up?”
“If you were innocent, then why were you arrested?”
Bad arguments are bad.
Yes, it was completely peaceful as it has been for the past 30 something weeks that these rallies have been held.
If you’ve ever been to a demonstration you’d understand that all the police do is show up and cause violence. No one needed protecting from us, we walked down a goddamn street. Last time I checked that wasn’t exactly a violent act. But people sure needed protecting from the police…
There are plenty, too many, cases where police have “intervened” wrongfully
Sounds to me like the “powerful speeches” contained something which is forbidden in your country, forcing the police to act. Maybe Hamas propaganda? Israel should be removed from the map?
Wow, what an awful thing to assume. No, we listened to people talk about losing their families and the villages they grew up in.
No one was violent, no one called for violence and there was nothing for the police to stop. We walked through a street and then stood still peacefully.
You have no idea and are choosing to assume the protesters did something bad. It’s also possible (and likely) that the cops just abused their power and attempted to break up the protest illegally since they do stuff like that all the time.
Personally I think it is much more likely the potesters did something wrong and/or illegal (like demanding another Intifada, which so called pro Palestine demonstrations often do). Police force would probably prefer a day off or doing something less dangerous than intervening.
yeah, thoughts & prayers to the cops for turning another peaceful protest violent.
maybe approach the subject again once you’re done slobbering on pig pp.
Demanding an intifada is neither wrong nor illegal (at least not in the US). Palestinians have the right to resist their oppressors.
Society has objectively gotten less violent. Morality and ethics are subjective, so I’m not going to touch on those. Every violent crime metric is, year over year, decreasing, and it’s not because of the boot on our collective necks.
We’d all be better off without armed thugs whose only job is to protect the property of the ruling class. State-sanctioned violence just waiting to be dispensed by the waiting batons of the blue mafia.
Society has objectively gotten less violent. Morality and ethics are subjective, so I’m not going to touch on those. Every violent crime metric is, year over year, decreasing, and it’s not because of the boot on our collective necks.
I don’t know where you get your violence crime metric from but it differs from my sources, which all over the board indicate an increase of crime in the last 5 years: https://www.numbeo.com/crime/country_result.jsp?country=France
This looks like survey results? Lines like “Worries being mugged or robbed” indicate to me these data points are for what people FEEL, not what actually exists. If I’m mistaken my bad.
If not - frankly I don’t care what people FEEL. I care about actual incidents of violent crime occurring. Not gonna lie, it’s 3am, I’ve got a stomach bug, and I work in 3 hours - I’m not gonna find you a source, but if you find another one showing a marked uptick in ACTUAL INCIDENTS OF VIOLENT CRIME, please feel free to share.
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/country_result.jsp?country=France
-
I was referring to the line “Crime increasing in the past 5 years” which reads to me not being felt. I don’t know if you just overlooked it.
-
Even if it’s only FELT, a society living in constant terror is functional and desirable because… why?
Below the results, on the page:
These data are based on perceptions of visitors of this website in the past 5 years.
If the value is 0, it means it is perceived as very low, and if the value is 100, it means it is perceived as very high.
Our data for each country are based on all entries from all cities in that country.
I do not see anything indicating that those are only for the *safety" category - it seems like " safety" is intended as an aggregate of the above opinions.
Either way, without any information on how these numbers are collected and how exactly the bars are to be interpreted, I HAVE to assume it’s a collection of opinions.
Edit: assumptions cleared up. Clicking the information button on the page confirms it’s a survey result, and not based on reported incidents.
Thanks for digging, so it’s probably objectively skewed but subjectively correct.
No problem on the digging.
Define what exactly you mean.
Are you saying that it’s subjectively correct in that it’s reporting a subjective belief, and thus tautologically correct? Or are you saying that if people feel crime must be higher, crime must be higher? One of these I’m okay with, the other not hah.
https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/ocindex-2023/
This study from 2023 states:
Global context As already outlined, one of the main findings of the Index is that levels of criminality are increasing worldwide, while resilience measures are falling short of meeting the threat. That critical gap, between growing levels of global criminality and the sustainable policy and civil society measures needed to address it, is widening. This deficit can be better understood when analyzed against the backdrop of a more fragmented and unstable global order."
They also offer a 246 page PDF detailing their findings.
More on the issuer on Wikipedia.
So, I don’t want to be accused of moving goal posts. That’s not my intention here in the slightest.
This article and organization specifically look at organized crime - things like terrorist cells, cartels, mafia, etc. - no doubt a big concern, but also not the bulk of the crime that happens. That number going up isn’t a good thing, but it’s also entirely possible for that number to be going up for one reason, while the general crime levels are going down, faster, for other reasons.
Looking at this article (first thing I found searching ‘violent crimes trend over years’) we can see a much different picture thatln we’d expect looking just at organized crime. The trend is MARKEDLY down from 1990 to today. The only period there even shows an increase, really, was during that little global pandemic we had.
THIS is the number that matters when someone says that the world is objectively safer today than it was in any other period of history. That, per 100k people, the number of them having violent things done to them is going down, steadily, and regularly.
-
Be grateful there is no downvote button because I would use it to hell on you. The reality is that outside of a few countries cops aren’t really as bad as tankies etc paint them. Australia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and more have very few policing issues.
I got a down vote button. I’m not sure why I’d be afraid to have it used on me though? Oh no, someone online thinks I’m WRONG?
Anyway, enjoy the downvote. Or don’t I guess.
Have fun whinging about ACAB and then going to the police supported community event lmao.
Mate what the fuck are you talking about? Cops only shut down parties. They never support them unless its a white robe party.
Mate the community events I frequent tend to run contrary to the police. ACAB, and I will continue to have fun.
Finn here. this is & always has been straight up misinformation. all cops are, in fact, bastards, so our cops too are committing heinous acts, albeit on a smaller scale than in the US. the system isn’t magically not rotten elsewhere.
also, lol.
I don’t think you can have an institution whose purpose is violently policing your peers, either directly or implicitly, without attracting the least desirable of your population. Hell, describing them like that, they really do sound more like a gang.
we literally had a high-ranking cop running a criminal empire on the side.
That is the only bullet point I really agree with, to be honest. Perhaps because I’m not American.
I love how every acab post inevitably brings out a bunch of uninformed libs in the comments talking about how pigs are only bad in America (as though the term ACAB was invented in America…) or how a society without them is completely inconceivable. As though badges grow on trees, like police are just a natural thing that sprung out of the ground.
The primary function of the police is to protect private property and enforce eviction. They’re state agents who are allowed to use violence against working class people, and do so to prevent us from overthrowing the ruling class and redistributing wealth and the means of production. They protect class hierarchy. They attack protestors. They use state violence against the disenfranchised and the marginalized. The “just doing their job” of the police is to protect and preserve the unequal distribution of power in society. They do so by using violence against the working class. The rest of anything else they do is a small fraction of their job and entirely secondary to their primary functions.
When there’s a power vacuum, gangs even worse than the police tend to fill it. Don’t get me wrong, the entire U.S. criminal justice system is rotten to the core, and causes large amounts of pointless suffering. BUT, there needs to be some sort of “police” to enforce the laws of society (and ideally, all those laws would be just). Even the Zapitistas had a form of police.
Also, I find “ACAB” cringe inducing. Sounds like something an edgy 14 year old came up with. And I’m not sure focusing on individuals (cops) instead of the institution itself is helpful.
ACAB as an acronym began in the early 20th century by workers who were striking in the UK. It is a term with a long, complex history behind it. Cops are the institution, so I’m not sure what you mean by individuals. Every member of the police force, from the top down, is a bastard. Every single one. There’s no exceptions to this. The very nature of law enforcement is being a bastard. It is a term that is meant literally. Law enforcement functions as a means to break strikes, to enforce private property and ownership of the means of production, to enforce rent and evictions, to terrorize the impoverished and the marginalized, to collect menial tax from the impoverished who cannot fight back against them, and above all else to act as the legal arm of state violence against working class people.
Individual cops may have done good actions. I’m sure there’s a cop out there who’s volunteered at a soup kitchen, sure. But that has nothing to do with him being a cop. That has nothing to do with the actual role he fulfills in day to day life, with the violence he enacts, with the system he supports.
The idea that police are holding back some tidal wave of horrifying crime is and has always been propaganda. Nearly every single woman I know has been a victim of sexual harassment or violence at some time in their lives, including myself. A lot of them have gone to police before. I don’t know a single person for whom that did literally anything good for them. I know 1 woman who was harassed literally across the country by people including police officers who said she was lying. The police don’t prevent murder. They don’t prevent violence of any kind that’s literally not their job. More often than not they are the ones committing acts of violence for which there are no repercussions.
I still find ACAB cringe inducing, and a bad slogan, but that’s an interesting origin I did not know about. I agree with most of what you’re saying.
I think the phrase “All Cops Are Bastards” seems to focus on cops/people, and not the institution of policing. I’m not sure if it’s effective messaging or not. Maybe it helps with striker or protestor solidarity, IDK.
I think police hold back organized crime (currently, in the U.S.). They maintain a “monopoly on violence.” I think if all police suddenly disappeared, other gangs would quickly take over the job. I.e. forcing people to pay them for “protection,” and stuff like that. This currently happens in many parts of world, and has happened in the U.S. in the past, so I don’t think it’s some far-out idea. As bad as the system currently is, I think a mafia or cartel controlling things would be worse. U.S. police, generally, don’t engage in racketeering or execute you without a trial (it does happen, but is not generally the case).
Don’t get me wrong, I think the current system is evil too, and it needs to be torn down and rebuilt in a radically different way. I agree with thr concept that police currently function mostly to protect capital and the ruling class, and are, themselves, a gang of sorts. But, I think a society will always need to maintain some kind of “police” to remove people who cause harm to others (who would then be rehabilitated, if possible).
I dunno man it’s really simple I dunno why you don’t get it. If I watch my coworker murder/rape someone and I do nothing about it, I’m just as much a bastard as the coworker.
It’s that simple.
Real life isn’t the movies. Reality isn’t so easy.
As though badges grow on trees
True, if there is no police it’s not like cops just appear.
The mafia does.
Every post i see seems to use lib as a slur
I mean, it’s not a slur, but an insult? Sure. Liberals are not allies to leftists, and actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.
Liberals are not allies to leftists
They can be. Using traditional definitions, the Liberal / Authoritarian axis is orthogonal to the left / right axis
actively support the same systems we seek to dismantle.
Who are we? Poor non cops?
What are we putting in place of the dismantled system? Anarchy? Different cops? Something else?
Socialist cops. Because state violence doesn’t matter when the state is leftist.
No, I’m an anarchist and a police abolitionist.
It’s a nice idea, but doesn’t it really only work if everyone is cooperative? How do you deal with the John Wayne Gacys of the world without police? Mob violence?
How do we deal with them now? Is dealing with serial killers the day to day of the police? Is that their primary function? Do they even really do anything about it without constant prompting from victims and the community?
I’ve been a victim of physical and sexual violence. Nearly every woman I know has been at some point. None of us have ever had any positive experience with the police. At most they hand wave us away, at worst we are accused of being liars and of wasting their time. Police don’t prevent anything. They don’t solve anything. They don’t address anything. They are only occasionally turned towards a specific person who has done something wrong and used a means of state violence against that person. That is an exceptionally rare occurrence. They are the perpetrators of violence many times more than they are the defenders of victims.
Essentially, what is being currently done about the john Wayne Gaceys of the world? What is currently being done about the Bill Cosby’s, about rapists and pedophiles? What are the police currently doing that actually prevents those things from happening? Nothing. They only do anything after something has already happened. And they don’t do anything to prevent those things happening again. Their daily job has literally nothing to do with the John Wayne Gaceys of the world. It is in the things I listed in another comment. In rent enforcement and eviction, in enforcing private property and means of production, in collecting menial tax from the impoverished, in defending the interests of the rich and of the state, and in harassing minorities while enforcing hierarchies of gender race and class.
Because liberalism has failed.
The book argues that liberalism has exhausted itself, leading to income inequality, cultural decline, atomization, nihilism, the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies.
Liberalism hasn’t failed as long as I’m around
Lemmy is a bit further left than center. And most liberals tend to fall around the center to center right.
Most people on the left don’t like liberals because in their desire to be “the adult in the room” by dismissing anything more radical than the status quo, they get in the way of people trying to bring forth important change. As an activist, it’s not very fun to see someone take a milquetoast centrist position and call you radical while continuing to uphold the status quo that we are peotesting against while claiming to despise the status quo. These liberals, though often well meaning, end up being the great stumbling block to freedom MLK was talking about.
From the perspective of the left, if you see someone who is making it harder to make necessary change (ex: ending the war on gaza, stopping police violence/police abolition, being a cop, etc) is a pretty nasty sight.
Is lib a slur? No, but it’s certainly an insult, and it’s aimed at people who aren’t used to being called out for their political positions by someone who isn’t conservative.
Also, as an anarchist, I find it fun to lib bash every once in a while :3
The rich love to make liberal a slur. Because to be liberal means you’re against tyrants. So now with more divided factions their minions can exert more power
You’re on a site made by Marxists and overwhelmingly some flavor of leftist, outside of Lemmy.world.
Why always pigs, do you hate pigs?
“did you used to be”
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses…
The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.
Reposting my comment to combat mod abuse:
“did you used to be”
Followed by a quip about an IQ score. Something something glass houses…
The quote is from a child. It’s almost like children speak that way sometimes.
the only thing you’re combating is being perceived as a reasonable person.
The mod log reason for removing this comment thread is “Toxic and pointless off-topic comment thread about grammar in a meme.” That’s not mod abuse, it’s just moderation. Mod abuse would be telling you to fuck off.
I mean, if the line is supposed to be coming from a curious child, poor grammar is excusable
An adult wrote that. That’s why it’s embarrassing.
I wouldn’t necessarily, myself, consider an adult writing the realistically flawed dialogue of a child to be embarrassing.
#1 That does not sound like a child, or someone trying to write like one.
#2 They’re adult topics and adult talking points, so we are, again, not quoting a child.
#3 You know this full well and are just arguing in bad faith because you dislike irony being pointed out. You can leave now.
IQ tests are about reasoning ability, not nitpicky grammar rules.
Prescriptive grammar is useless and often racist. “Use to be” and “Used to be” are identical when spoken. There is no practical reason to know the difference or to care about rules regarding past participles and their relationship to the word “did” unless you are grading a paper or jerking off to your own superiority complex.
If language conveys meaning, it is sufficient. If you can’t understand the meaning of a sentence with this kind of error, you might be a poorly programmed AI.
“no practical reason”, except for the fact that no one would understand you if you decided to replace the entirety of your sentences with oogas and boogas. It’s as if language serves a purpose, curious how that works.
IQ tests aren’t even a valid metric of reasoning, they’ve been debunked… Yet another reason not to take this post seriously. I’ll provide sources since it seems like you can’t be bothered, with a god complex like yours, no wonder you think your word is law…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480769/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm
Not to even mention… You think correcting spelling/grammar mistakes is racist. Do you even know the history of IQ tests you’re vehemently defending like a clown?
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376687/
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28152/chapter/212962746
“no practical reason”, except for the fact that no one would understand you if you decided to replace the entirety of your sentences with oogas and boogas. It’s as if language serves a purpose, curious how that works.
IQ tests aren’t even a valid metric of reasoning, they’ve been debunked… Yet another reason not to take this post seriously. I’ll provide sources since it seems like you can’t be bothered, with a god complex like yours, no wonder you think your word is law…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480769/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm
Not to even mention… You think correcting spelling/grammar mistakes is racist. Do you even know the history of IQ tests you’re vehemently defending like a clown?
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376687/
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28152/chapter/212962746
Oh honey… I’m sorry you don’t have better ways to interact with the world.
#1 That does not sound like a child, or someone trying to write like one.
#2 They’re adult topics and adult talking points, so we are, again, not quoting a child.
#3 You know this full well and are just arguing in bad faith because you dislike irony being pointed out. You can leave now.
An adult wrote that. That’s why it’s embarrassing.
Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.
The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H…, Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:
Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.
There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:
The study includes as ‘violent incidents’ a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn’t indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c
An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:
The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.
More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, ‘Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.’ Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862
Yet another study “indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent).” A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to ‘getting physical’ (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
TL;DR: only ~10% of police are confirmed assailants of domestic abuse!
Now go look up the incidence of domestic violence in the general population, and see if you still feel so smug in saying that, lol.
I’m gonna be that person right now, but i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat. If they get to throw around 13/50 or that trans suicide number without any care to the actual reasons I’m gonna throw around 40% self report to domestic abuse. Just like you can’t stop them, you can’t stop me. Go ahead and down vote internet numbers mean nothing to me
BTW did you know that 40% of cops abuse their spouse?
i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat.
I’m frankly not surprised. Decent, honest people do, though, hence my effort to reveal that it is, in fact, a bogus stat, so that said people will know to disregard both it, and those like you, who continue to spread it in the name of their narrative despite knowing it’s bogus.
People who care more about maintaining and propagating their biases/prejudices than about being honest and truthful, are abhorrent scum, and don’t belong in civilized society.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance. Essentially, one group has been found to manipulate stats. However, the focus is on the other group’s manipulation rather than accuracy across the board. This ends up working as a form of oppression through bias enforcement of the social contract. Not saying you are going that, just pointing out a possible bases for the other person’s comments.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance.
lmao, no it fucking doesn’t. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That’s all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you’re spreading bullshit in support of it, that’s your own damn fault. If you’re right, you don’t have to lie to prove it.
Hmm, maybe you are right. However, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a biologist and mathematician who was considered the “Father of modern genetics”. However, he lied about his findings. We now know his numbers were fudged (sometimes heavily so) to create statistical findings that matched his assertions. This was likely done because there were other factors at play that he did not have enough information to know, but did not want to have the lingeriering unknowns destroy his support for genetics. And this is one of the reasons we now understand genetics.
If your argument is right, are you saying he was wrong? If so, how do you think the situation should have been handled? Further, why did the stratagy work so well? Are you suggesting this is an effective but immortal strategy? Was the father of genetics and a Catholic friar immortal?
Like I said, I’m gonna be that person.
don’t belong in civilized society.
It’s not like we’re ever going to reach that civilized society with the way everything is sliding to the right. It’s also not like they don’t already plan on removing me, so feel free to remove me once you have your civilized society, until then I’ll be here.
Lying to support your position is how people lose trust in arguments. I’m used to seeing this kind of BS from the RW but it’s disappointing to see it from the left. We need to be better than this or discussion becomes completely useless
There are few things more frustrating, politics-wise, than seeing someone who you presumably fundamentally agree with on issue X, fuck everything up by exaggerating or fabricating evidence.
It’s better to get called out by someone who isn’t interested in doing anything but correcting them. Could easily be fuel to completely reject the premise if it was someone else.
Yeah, well said
If people were convinced by facts and logic we wouldn’t have had trump as president and the ADF wouldn’t have any power in Germany. Snappy soundbites are necessary. Why do you think you heard 13/50 everywhere? Because it’s easy to remember and it sounds good. Same thing with 41%. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone that’s willing to do a whole bunch of reading to understand why ACAB unless they are already predisposed to believe you. 40% is a potential gateway in, and when they are along that path and see all the problems with cops, it won’t really matter when they find out that the 40% wasn’t true.
So go ahead, be disappointed, go ahead downvote, or whatever. But if you think winning only involves playing fair and honest you have another thing coming and it’s very far right from what you want.
I don’t think that all people are convinced by facts. I do think that eventually those who CAN be swayed are swayed by honesty.
I’m not exactly sure by what standard you’re distinguishing between “survey” and “empirical study,” considering all of your cited studies also rely on surveys.
Not prepared to read through over 100 pages of unrelated stuff, perhaps you could add a page number? It sounds like this source is included only for a critique of the original study though, and I’ll accept that that study isn’t perfect.
Ninety officers returned the surveys for a response rate of 36%.
This type of sampling comes with both weaknesses and strengths. One important weakness of using this convenience sample is that the results generated on the nature of the police sub-culture and the frequency of interpersonal violence on the part of police will not necessarily be generalizable. Although these results may not be generalizable, this sample is satisfactory for testing relationships among the variables—traditional police sub-culture, police domestic violence. This sample comes entirely from Central Florida, which further limits generalizability.
This paper is focused on a link between a domestic violence and a “traditional police sub-culture,” it is not intended to be taken as a reliable, generalizable source of overall domestic violence.
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Did not investigate this one because I don’t have the means to read floppy disk .iso images readily available.
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
This one does reference the studies you mentioned, along with other studies showing much higher numbers. It then goes on to say:
The data on intimate partner abuse by police officers are both dated and potentially flawed, but in ways that make it more likely that abuse is being under—rather than over—reported.59 Most of the studies rely on self-reporting by police officers to establish prevalence of abuse. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable measure; as one study noted, “The issue of the reliability of self-reports data is problematic when considering any socially undesirable behavior.”60 Intimate partner abuse is frequently underreported,61 both by those who experience it and those who commit it. Underreporting is likely to be particularly prevalent among law enforcement officers “who fear, even when anonymity is assured, that admitting their own or their colleagues’ abusive behavior may jeopardize careers and livelihoods and break up families.
