While the searches may not be popular, they’re certainly profitable.
Clayton County records and federal documents show that drug agents find large amounts of cash on passengers at departing gates rather than drugs. Agents have seized millions of dollars, and while travelers aren’t arrested, their money is often administratively forfeited.
Like most civil forfeiture cases, people who have their money taken must prove in court that their money isn’t connected to drug trafficking or other illegal activity. Seizures like these don’t just happen at the Atlanta airport. They’ve taken place at airports across the country.
Generally I would agree with you on that but here aren’t they already guilty of moving large cash amounts without any sort of authorization? (I don’t know if it’s legal or not to transport that much cash in the US)
It is legal to carry any amount of cash in the US, as far as i’m aware. The main risk is that the cops will just steal it from you and then there’s no realistic recourse.
If it’s your money you can do whatever the hell you want with it. I think title 31 regulates if you are moving money for other people/money laundry, etc
Are there rules in some countries about not being allowed to carry as much cash as you want/need? That seems very strange to me as a US citizen. Is it because you might use it for drugs/other off the books transactions? or just because it’s dangerous and you might get robbed?
In France it is illegal to have more than 10k€ on your person. So moving large sum of cash is illegal but there might be a way to have a proper authorization to do so?
It’s perfectly legal in the US to carry any amount of cash, but …… asset forfeiture has turned into a situation where if police assume it was used for a crime, they can steal it from you without actually proving there was a crime committed.
While I can see that in a lot of cases large amounts of cash are related to crimes, there are also plenty of cases where that’s not true. More importantly it’s a workaround for your Constitutional protections that should be illegal as hell
It shouldn’t be. Steve Lehto covers it a lot on his channel. So much there’s an actual playlist and I can tell you there’s more than 23 videos on the topic.
Nah, they REALLY buried the lede with this bit further down. Emphasis added.
Most travelers are unclear of their rights when it comes to airport searches. In order to be admitted entry to the airport’s gated areas, passengers must submit themselves to TSA security screenings. That’s a fact.
However, the random searches by DEA agents at the Atlanta airport give passengers pause, but it should be noted that they’re not mandated. The DEA officially calls its stops and searches at airport gates “cold consent encounters,” and passengers are free to end the encounter and walk away if they’d like.
Yeah because that’s how encounters with cops ever happen 🙄
If I had a dollar for every time a cop has murdered someone for failing to obey an unlawful order, I would be rich enough for cops to let me get away with anything!
You ever had. Real encountered with the police? They’ll just make some shit up and search you anyway best case scenario. More likely is you now upset them and they arrest you for whatever they make up on the spot, I believe there was just a supreme court ruling that they can make up a reason for stops/arrests after the fact and that’s perfectly fine as well.
So, while I agree with the sentiment, I wouldn’t try anything like that. The police state is real and oppressive. You want to avoid any interaction with it and the US system at all costs.
You’re welcome to try, but your whole attitude seems rooted in the idea that at the end of the day, the justice system is on your side and that you can beat them at your own game.
More likely you’ll get arrested, probably have some BS charges thrown at you that the judge will happilly pass through, you’ll never fly again, and maybe even see some jail time.
There are many valid and important ways to fight back against police injustice. Yelling “get fucked pig” - while satisfying, and even justified - is definitely not one of them, even if talking about doing it does make you feel like a badass lol
You’re making an assumption that I believe in the justice system.
You’re very likely (95%) correct that I’ll get fucked over by the entire system, and I’m willing to accept that. I don’t care if I lose. I care that I tried.
Seems like a waste to me, if you’re literally willing to give up your freedom to fight the system, it’d make a lot more sense to do it in a way that might actually lead to change
The DEA is a failed experiment filled to the brim with corruption and toxicity. It should’ve been dismantled decades ago. Redundant executive agencies have gotten out of control in the US (e.g. Dept of Homeland Sec (DHS), NSA, DEA, etc). There’s nothing the DEA does that the FBI isn’t capable of doing. Same with DHS. And I won’t even get into how the DEA violated the Constitution by essentially writing their own laws regarding drugs (i.e. Controlled Substances Act states that determination if drugs have medical use is to be conducted by the Surgeon General, yet the DEA repeatedly ignored SG and just labels drugs however the fuck they want).
DHS was meant to be the answer for your concern. Why have many agencies with separately defined jurisdictions, checks and balances and limitations when you can combine them into one monstrous entity that can work together without pesky limitations like Constitutional rights or public transparency
He shot the dude in his back yard, after thinking the truck he just parked in the garage was stolen. 9 seconds after they arrived at the scene the 26 yo was dead. Prosecutors say the gun found near him was staged by police and taken from the house; they put the gun next to his left hand, which he couldn’t fully use since 2015 due to an injury.
I’m not the enemy, but my speed is checked by radar, my license plate read by automatic scanners cameras on police cars, my internet activity monitored for DMCA violations, etc.
Join the rest of us, you don’t deserve to be an exception.
This is one of the reasons I refuse to shop at my local Meijer stores. Their fucking registers are quick to accuse you of stealing something, and you’re treated as guilty by the employees even if you try to prove that the machine is wrong.
I know more than one person who has had this experience, chiefly my sister who already has severe social anxiety. She won’t step foot there again.
One has been banned since the first time she went because the employees confused her with someone that actually shoplifted. They called in the cops, who told her should be trespassed if she came back.
The judge already has verified they were not operating with a valid search warrant at the time the search took place. It’s literally a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.
Sounds like they now need to be charged for breaking and entering since their actions were not those of officers following the law.
You don’t think that the offending officer was sporting wood on the convoy to the raid location thinking about all the possible killing that was about to occur? Because I think he was.
When you are a group of people who are empowered to use deadly force the moment you feel your life is threatened even when you are the ones who created the threatening situation, and you choose to bash in someone's door at 5:30 AM, "to conduct a search warrant for drug paraphernalia and marijuana possession" you have to know that you are likely going to be shooting someone that day, because if someone awakens to their door bashing in at that time of day, regardless of whether they have anything to be found by the cops, the fact that some cops "announced" themselves unheard while they were sleeping isn't going to stop many people from arming themselves and confronting the threat.
Breonna Taylor's boyfriend was acquitted for just this reason.
It's not fucking clairvoyance, it's common sense. If you don't opt for a plan where that outcome is less likely, you've gone there with intent to murder as far as I'm concerned.
Premeditated, intentional killings (like stalking someone before murdering them)
Capital Crimes or Felony Murder
Second-Degree Murder
An unplanned, intentional killing (reacting in the heat of the moment when angry)
A death caused by a reckless disregard for human life
I’m not really sure if you are simply ignorant or being intentionally disingenuous. Either way, you are wrong. There are different counts & legal standards for those counts specifically because of the fact that not all murder is premeditated.
The analyst told her friend that the police could access what was thought of as private. That was the crime. Being honest about what the police can do.
The police also say that having the ability to breach privacy is key to keeping people safe but there is no mention of when info secretly scraped from the unsuspecting prevented other unsuspecting people from morbid circumstances.
This whole event looks like the cops are big mad they will now be asked for accountability on another method of investigation. Imagine having to answer for your actions!
The analyst told her friend that the police could access what was thought of as private. That was the crime. Being honest about what the police can do.
Do you suggest police analysts should be fully transparent all the time, as in "Hey bob, the cops know you are going to raid the bank tomorrow, better re-arrange"?
Allowing the police to make up the rules as they go and then justify them later is not the answer to a civilized society. That’s how you end up with a police state. We have privacy laws and basic human rights for a reason. If the cops want to circumvent them, then the laws change first. We are not a society that should accept shooting first and asking questions later.
One of the reasons the Brexiters - who are still in Government - openly stated for Leaving the EU was so that they could leave the European Convention Of Human Rights, since being a signatory of that Convention is a requirement of EU membership.
The British “elites” are very much not believers in the riff-raff having Rights that superceed their mechanisms for controlling the masses if there is an ultimate genuinelly independent enforcer of those Rights (such as the European Court of Human Rights) - the most favored control mechanisms in the UK have an appearence of fairness whilst being de facto designed for operating differently or being easy to subvert, so a trully independent Human Rights mechanism whose judges didn’t went to the same very expensive and very select private schools as the English power elites is borderline unnacceptable (clearly in the case of Brexiter leaders, absolutelly so) for said power elites.
PS: All this to say that in Britain the problem is a lot deeper than merelly the police, who to a large extent are just hired enforcers in a system designed to “keep people in their place”, a mindset probably derived from the horror of the British Elites at what happenned next door in France during the Revolution Française (the political British system is one of the ones in Europe whoch has change the least for over a century).
They should be open about how investigative tools work, and what the current privacy expectations are, yes. In the end they have to present their evidence in court, and that includes things like this.
Yes. The police, like any government agency, needs to state both the scope of its work and provide metrics for how taxpayers can expect their money spent. This expenditure should include how it achieve its goals and what progress should look like. Then let the people judge the methods are consistent with public expectations of accountability.
Police have repeatedly shown an incapability to behave, respect, or function as a person who has to be responsible for their actions. They cannot be allowed to operate without oversight.
The police, like any government agency, needs to state both the scope of its work and provide metrics for how taxpayers can expect their money spent.
That would be in the charter as set out by the UK parliament. It doesn't include the requirement that suspects be tipped off about ongoing investigations.
To be fair to the plod that’s not the only thing she’s being charged with.
She’s specifically been leaking information about ongoing investigations which for an LEO is a big no-no.
Mottram drove to Kay and Bennett’s house to warn them about the police file on Kay – which as we know, and she didn’t, was deliberately bogus.
If she’d just told people that EncroChat was insecure then she’d have plausible deniability, but she’s clearly pretty involved in trying to assist people in keeping clear of the law (which is pretty cut and dry in the eyes of the law - regardless of what you think of the morality of it all).
Mottram bought weed from a dealer whose phone number was saved in her mobile phone. She also told Bennett about a murder file she had seen on her boss’s desk, and took selfies with her work computer visible and showing an “official sensitive” document.
A few other dodgy bits here too, again, very much in breach of her terms of employment which, for LEA employees can get sticky pretty rapidly.
All of this is quite apart from whether you think the fuzz should have access to private citizens communications (which I should be clear I don’t). But she’s not just an innocent person who just told her mates that they shouldn’t use a specific service to discuss breaking the law.
Police said Perkins threatened a tow truck driver attempting to repossess his vehicle. The tow truck driver left the house but returned later with officers. In a press release, police said Perkins turned a gun toward the officer, “causing the officer to fire.”
In a statement posted on Instagram Wednesday night, the family’s lawyer said the police and the tow company got it wrong.
Merritt said on Instagram that Perkins went outside to investigate why the dog was barking. He said Perkins didn’t know the police were outside with the tow truck driver.
“In a matter of seconds the men hidden in the dark surrounding his property revealed themselves and simultaneously opened fire,” the statement added. “He never had a chance to surrender. Officers didn’t announce their presence until the very last moment. Steve was committing no crime. Officers surrounding Steven in his front yard fired over a dozen rounds striking him seven times— killing him. They later discovered the attempted repossession was a mistake.”
We need to start prosecuting the police for second amendment violations. It is not a crime to have a weapon on your own property. This is murder and a violation of the victim's second amendment rights.
Damn right, and it’s why I refuse to relent on the second. Anyone wants to repeal or and revoke the individual mandate, they damn well better be advocating for cops to be disarmed first.
Yeah, I know, that seems crazy, but the truth is that the cops attack in numbers, and their victims are trying not to get killed. If the victims just saw cops and started taking out their enemy, it wouldn’t be quite so one sided.
That explains why they murder people in a myriad of ways who very clearly don’t have guns, who they never say had guns and still get away with it, huh?
Liberals are brain dead on this issue. You have been propagandized to the point of idiocy. I’m sure you think that America has a rash of mass shootings that far outstrip every other country, and a bunch of other myths, as well.
But we can’t even seem to get our various governmental agencies to do anything useful on a regular basis, and (being honest), cops as they are serve as a better tool of oppression. Let’s face it, that’s the real goal of most governments, keeping the majority in line so we don’t rise up and take back what has been stolen. The only difference between various countries is what tools are currently the preferred tools.
In Germany out oppression is bureaucratic in nature. The police however are trained well to handle public disturbances and the like in a peaceful manner.
It’s not like our police shoots up civilians on a regular basis. There are problems, but they aren’t nearly as widespread. Also clarify for me: what do you mean by gangs? I have yet to see police roam the streets looking for someone to kill. You’re also not in mortal danger if you’re mentally ill and someone calls the police.
I agree. If the US populace were ever to be disarmed, the police should be disarmed first. I am more likely to be shot by (or have my dogs shot by) a cop than I am by a gang member or my spouse or some other random person.
The officer's excuse is that he only had the training he had to rely on. Putting his knee into the 7 year old's back and trying to scare the shit out of him saying that he's going to get familiar with the juvenile system, etc. etc. Being an overall piece of absolute shit and he's just essentially cowardly blaming his training.
If you need training on how not to be human garbage to a 7 year old then you surely shouldn't be an officer. That officer needs some serious psychological help.
What gets me is that spitting on someone is not a criminal violation in most states as far as I know. The supreme court has long held that a police officer’s only responsibility is to enforce the law, not protect or serve. In this case, there was no legal infraction so he should have just sat there eating his donuts and arresting active shooters after they finish.
Putting his knee into the 7 year old’s back and trying to scare the shit out of him saying that he’s going to get familiar with the juvenile system, etc. etc.
Nothing settles a child like ratcheting up anxiety with every tool at your disposal.
Also, can we take a minute to appreciate a police officer threatening a 7-year-old with the implication of sexual assault? Nothing more American than raping a child.
They know who they’re hiring. I’m just surprised they said the quiet part out loud: "It’s okay if you’re dangerously violent, everyone here is, so long as you only do it in private. "
This is literally the type of thing that happens in Fahrenheit 451. It was supposed to be a fantasy nightmare story to make a point, not a literal description of evil events to come.
This kind of systemic fuckery is exactly why ACAB has been and remains accurate. If cops with moral fortitude are removed from their posts for standing up to cops without it, then the system is selecting for bastard cops and those that allow bastard cops to thrive.
This is accurate. I don’t subscribe to ACAB, but I see the logic in it, and this certainly seems to be the case for it. The only time we hear about “good” cops are in these cases.
The fallacy I see, and the reason I don’t subscribe to ACAB is that any “good” cops that exist that aren’t in this situation (of being fired), go pretty much unnoticed by everyone. Nothing they do is newsworthy. The other, more personal reason that I have to not subscribe to ACAB, is that doing so would shatter the faith I have in our entire society to govern itself. IMO, one of the first and most important parts of living in a functional society is the laws and the enforcement of those laws. Police are the front line of enforcement, on the streets with the innocent and perpetrators alike. If they’re unable or unwilling to do the job as detailed in the laws of the society, all criminal cases are suspect, both in what’s prosecuted and very importantly, what isn’t.
If they’re intentionally not bringing in criminal law breakers, and intentionally bringing in otherwise innocent persons (at least in regards to any criminal charges), then the courts, where Justice actually happens, can’t effectively do their job at ensuring that criminals are put into detention facilities, and innocent people are released.
Cops make mistakes. They’re humans like everyone else, and the court should be keeping them in check. Making sure that when they charge an innocent person, that person is set free, and when they charge someone who is guilty, they convict them accurately with all the punishments required as dictated by the laws, written by the government which we all vote for.
Government and the laws on the books, all mean nothing if there’s no way to enforce those laws. The police are just the first step in criminal cases, without them doing the job, the whole system is useless.
1: “Expect the best and people will rise to the occasion.”
2: Good police officers like in OP are fired every month. 800,000 cops in the US… there is a police department trying to fire their good cop(s) RIGHT NOW! Why plaster ACAB everywhere and risk discouraging them?
I do imagine many would argue even the fired officer (Taisyn Crutchfield) was a bastard but that gets tough to defend.
I struggle with this myself, and I choose to look at it as a semantics issue. The point of ACAB is to highlight that bad cops are empowered by colleagues and departments who let them do that they want. It’s a condemnation of tolerating bad apples vs pruning them out. I think of it like the Nazi example – when 4 people happily sits down at the table with 6 overt Nazis, you end up with 10 Nazis. ACAB is condemning those 4 as enablers of the 6 and allowing them to persist.
So I agree, but I don’t think literally every cop is a bastard. There are some good people who are trying to use their position to change things while still helping the public – just like Crutchfield. It’s not worth the effort to specifically exclude them though because that’s not where change is going to come from. The good cops are fighting a losing battle. We’ll only see things fixed if there’s sweeping federal legislation to reform police.
And in that sense, ACAB is useful. It reminds people that these aren’t just a couple cops that needing weeding out, its entire systems and institutions. We can’t solve this by addressing only a few bad apples – we need to change the whole bunch. Now it might be that the only ones we throw away are the bad ones, and the rest of the bunch proves capable of realizing the problem. But you still have to address the whole bunch at once.
Maybe I can help you understand while I feel ACAB despite letting myself have cop friends. The problem is one of elevated responsibility.
Imagine a gang for a minute. Ever seen any good gang documentaries? A lot of “members” of the less insane gangs aren’t really criminals in that they just hang out and hang around. But they are in one of two real buckets, buckets that we can judge them for.
They are fully aware of many of their members are criminals, maybe even rapists and murderers, but take no action about it because they feel they can’t OR EVEN because “I’ve never actually met the members who did this. Our group is really big”.
They are not fully aware that the gang they are part of commits crimes. In this case, they are being willfully ignorant.
For police it’s the same. I live in an area where the cops are generally not going around abusing minorities for the hell of it. The breakdown here are the “Thin Blue Line folks” (bullet point number 2 above), and the “we’re good cops, so why would we go start trouble elsewhere?” (bullet point number 1 above) folks.
If I’m part of a subsidiary of a large organization, and my parent organization is allows for criminal enterprise, I am either complicit or fighting it.
Now the one exception I would allow for ACAB are cops who try to walk the fine line between forcing change and not getting fired. I may not agree with them in their passivity, but if in full honesty they believe they are being the most positive force for change they can without no longer being a force for change at all, I suppose I can give them that. I don’t believe I’ve met a cop like that in person in my entire life.
I can definitely appreciate your words here. I can’t fault anyone for subscribing to ACAB. I would agree that the whole institution should be torn apart and rebuilt from the ground up. I don’t realistically think that will happen, but I would support it if it did.
I understand your viewpoint, I’m not sure I agree with everything, but I understand it.
The underlying issues that caused the problem described in the OP, are definitely a good argument for ACAB. You have also made good points, and it’s all valid. I won’t argue the facts, and I don’t have enough information to do so. I’m about as far from police paying attention to me as you can get. I live in an extremely rural area; it’s quiet, and I work from home. The regional police service drives through my little town maybe two or three times a day (from what I’ve heard) and I almost never even see the police unless something happens… Like someone finds that a house is being used to cook drugs, which has unfortunately happened, not far from me, or there’s a major fire or something, and they’re directing traffic.
The last time I even saw police in my area was a few months ago when they were surrounding a farmers field just outside of town. I can only guess that they chased someone into the field and lost them; I truly have no idea.
cops who try to walk the fine line between forcing change and not getting fired. I may not agree with them in their passivity, but if in full honesty they believe they are being the most positive force for change they can without no longer being a force for change at all,
What’s wild to me is that this is a movie trope that cops still perpetuate today. Dirty and corrupt cops and departments continue to exist, and just like in the movies you have some genuinely good people who are trying to do the best they can and change things.
I wonder almost if we need a campaign to extol that rare virtuous cop archetype so that more officers actually try to be like that. Either way we need sweeping legislation and cleaning house. Keep funding levels the same but mandate better cop pay + higher training requirements so that we have high quality people applying. Good jobs attract good people.
I think you link to some seriously deep facts about police. The irony is that in many areas (northeast) a lot of cops were Irish because they couldn’t get other jobs (racism), and they were neither particularly respected nor particularly free to be abusive. Boston, however, now has a fairly large police-racism problem against black people.
There is the fact that being a cop isn’t the best job, and the bigger fact that trying to be a good job basically dials the shit factor to 11. I guess it’s like the military in that it takes a particular kind of people to be a cop.
Think about it this way. You spend your days ruining others’ day over “the rules”, and sometimes you need to use force to lock a human in a cage. Not out of any weakness, but I couldn’t do that. I have too much sympathy for people. Physically overpowering somebody that just wants to get away and to safety. That’s just a non-starter for someone with my disposition.
So how do you get people like me who care about everyone into the police force? I feel like pay wouldn’t even be the start of it. I wouldn’t be a cop if it were the last job on earth.
I think a lot of it is going to come down to a cultural change. The toxic culture that currently exists needs to be replaced by one that is compassionate and focused on service. You shouldn’t be locking a human in a cage unless it is absolutely necessary for the well-being of others. I couldn’t lock away someone with a drug charge or who was provoked into a fight, but I can lock away someone who was actively and purposely hurting people. Mercy needs to be granted where possible, but it cannot come at the cost of the innocent.
At the end of the day, someone still submits to the police when arrested, whether willingly or because they’re already handcuffed. Handcuffs should be used sparingly, as a way to stop violent individuals until they calm down. Otherwise, or after the person is calm, they shouldn’t be forcibly detained. I think 90% of people would quietly go through the process, and that it could go as high as 99% if people had faith the process was quick and fair.
We will still need prisons for individuals who refuse help or remain violent. But the footprint of that could easily shrink by an order of magnitude. Most cases could be resolved with mandatory rehabilitation and mental healthcare. And as we have a more equitable and compassionate system, hopefully we’ll stop needing prisons entirely.
This is all very idealistic, but if we’re able to make reforms and changes to policing, we should be able to implement a lot of what I described. In short though, to address your point, we need police to be public guardians more than law enforcement.
I think a lot of it is going to come down to a cultural change
Which is where, to me, police needs to be largely defunded. You will never have a compassionate organization where seizure-by-force is a common occurence… but there are times where seizure-by-force is strictly necessary. IMO, that should be the only purpose left to police, emergent defence or executing a high-risk warrant. Everything civil should be reconciled to an unarmed department that specialized in compassionate management. As silly as it sounds, “unarmed cops” will save lives, possibly even cop lives.
Mercy needs to be granted where possible, but it cannot come at the cost of the innocent
It’s hard to get 2 people to see eye to eye on the purpose of criminal justice. For me, utilitarianism is the only valid reason to deprive a person of liberty: a criminal is still not a lesser human. Either the punishment needs to exhibit a proportional deterrent effect or imprisonment needs to be protecting society from a person who will do worse than kidnap a person for years on end. And while I’m probably more frugal on my sense of justice than you show to be, there are those who think the suffering IS the intent.
This is all very idealistic
But is it? Our crime rate is only about the world average and our violent crime rate on the low end, but our incarceration rate isn’t just the highest in the world, it’s at least 15% higher than the second-highest. Statistically speaking, we could pardon everyone but repeat murderers and still maintain a low crime rate. Heaven forbid we then turn that $80b (about $46k per current prisoner) into a welfare and prevention fund.
Yeah it might be better at this point to just build something new instead of trying to reform the police so extensively. Make them the enforcement arm and cut funding while we replace the overall thing with a much healthier system.
I generally agree with you though, although I’ll admit I probably want punishment from time to time on cases I hear about. Those are a pretty small fraction though of all cases, which is important to keep in mind. Our justice system seems to be designed around that small number of high profile cases. It should be the opposite, where we design the system for the majority of non violent crimes.
I’ll admit I probably want punishment from time to time on cases I hear abou
In fairness, a part of civilization’s responsibility is separating our baser instincts from what we actually do. What we want is not always what is right, even in cases a majority of us want it. That’s why the US’s Founding Fathers spoke of “Tyranny of the Majority”.
I’ve been a victim of crimes before. No violent ones, but there was significant damage for the 20-year-old me who had to deal with the aftermath. My knee-jerk reaction was “I hope they catch the bastard and throw the book at him”. But society isn’t about making our urge for revenge a reality. In fact, justice was historically often the opposite, assigning judgement consequences so that a mob of people with knives and rope would not.
I worked in the search area for the Marathon Bomber. He went to the same college my mother did when she was his age. There was a lot of emotion around that situation as you might imagine. But one thing struck me. Many of the victims’ families pushed against the death penalty because in Massachusetts we don’t really believe in it. We can be above our desire for revenge, seeking instead for the betterment of everyone.
Our justice system seems to be designed around that small number of high profile cases. It should be the opposite, where we design the system for the majority of non violent crimes.
I would say right now it’s designed around solving crime by locking everyone in cages for a long time. As a society, we have a bad habit of “us/them” attitudes with various classes, and criminals are one of them. Once empathy dies, we cannot fathom “what’s fair” and instead focus on “who is that person trying to be soft on crime?” The person advocating for the criminal is seen as “Just as bad”. Hell, just look at the way people think of criminal defense attorneys. Nobody seems to consider that their job is trying to prevent injustice and to keep people from being locked in cages for extended periods of times.
Well said, especially about defense attorneys. A fair justice system requires that someone provide a legal defense for someone who may appear clearly guilty. Likewise, there has to be a prosecutor to provide an opposing argument. In weighing those two arguments against each other, we can understand what really happened, and that’s what both the defense and plaintiff should want.
Revenge is certainly an interesting thing. I think it has its place, and it’s important to know when that is and isn’t. If someone hurts a loved one of mine deliberately and has no remorse, I don’t think I could advocate for forgiveness. If it was an accident or they felt remorse though, I don’t think I’d be capable of vengeance. It would be like murdering someone in cold blood at that point.
Either way, even if they were unrepentant, that’s what we have the justice system for. The person who is wronged probably won’t act rationally until they’ve made their peace with it. We can probably tie that to several global conflicts, where there is no independent arbiter. They just take irrational actions that lead to more violence.
You have a very naive understanding of the function that police performs in our society - I’m going to go ahead and guess that you are not aware of the history of policing? Spoiler alert - it is drenched in the ideology of white supremacism and the politics of colonialism and class warfare.
I’m not concerned with the history of it, so much as their intended task in current times.
There’s a LOT of things that have horrific history, just look at America in general. There are no living persons from those years still living, though we’re still working on getting rid of the mentalities that some had, from current generations. They’re generally a minority
Then you have a serious problem - if you don’t want to understand the history of policing, you will never understand their function now because it’s still the exact same function.
thepoliceproblem
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.