THE POLICE PROBLEM
The police problem is that police are policed by the police. Cops are accountable only to other cops, which is no accountability at all.
99.9999% of police brutality, corruption, and misconduct is never investigated, never punished, never makes the news, so it's not on this page.
When cops are caught breaking the law, they're investigated by other cops. Details are kept quiet, the officers' names are withheld from public knowledge, and what info is eventually released is only what police choose to release — often nothing at all.
When police are fired — which is all too rare — they leave with 'law enforcement experience' and can easily find work in another police department nearby. It's called "Wandering Cops."
When police testify under oath, they lie so frequently that cops themselves have a joking term for it: "testilying." Yet it's almost unheard of for police to be punished or prosecuted for perjury.
Cops can and do get away with lawlessness, because cops protect other cops. If they don't, they aren't cops for long.
The legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" renders police officers invulnerable to lawsuits for almost anything they do. In practice, getting past 'qualified immunity' is so unlikely, it makes headlines when it happens.
All this is a path to a police state.
In a free society, police must always be under serious and skeptical public oversight, with non-cops and non-cronies in charge, issuing genuine punishment when warranted.
Police who break the law must be prosecuted like anyone else, promptly fired if guilty, and barred from ever working in law-enforcement again.
That's the solution.
♦ ♦ ♦
Our definition of ‘cops’ is broad, and includes prison guards, probation officers, shitty DAs and judges, etc — anyone who has the authority to fuck over people’s lives, with minimal or no oversight.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.
② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.
③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.
④ Please don't dox or post calls for harassment, vigilantism, tar & feather attacks, etc.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
It you've been banned but don't know why, check the moderator's log. If you feel you didn't deserve it, hey, I'm new at this and maybe you're right. Send a cordial PM, for a second chance.
♦ ♦ ♦
ALLIES
• r/ACAB
♦ ♦ ♦
INFO
• A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions
• Cops aren't supposed to be smart
• Killings by law enforcement in Canada
• Killings by law enforcement in the United Kingdom
• Killings by law enforcement in the United States
• Know your rights: Filming the police
• Three words. 70 cases. The tragic history of 'I can’t breathe' (as of 2020)
• Police aren't primarily about helping you or solving crimes.
• Police lie under oath, a lot
• Police spin: An object lesson in Copspeak
• Police unions and arbitrators keep abusive cops on the street
• Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States
• When the police knock on your door
♦ ♦ ♦
ORGANIZATIONS
• NAACP
• National Police Accountability Project
• Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration
view the rest of the comments
Still think you have rights? Still think they'll eventually treat you fairly? Still want my guns? Fuck. You.
I feel like a cornered rat watching all the other rats yell slogans at the cat. Predators don't have empathy. Not having feelings for your prey is a rather important part of being a predator.
I've actually changed my view on gun rights. I've been a proponent all my life. We need them today for the same reason we needed them in the Revolutionary war; to protect from tyranny. And yet here we are, with a couldn't-be-more-clearly tyrannical government and the people who are supposed to stop them are yelling "tread harder, daddy!" and the other people abhorr violence. So down we go.
You've been pro gun your whole life but your view has changed?
Yes, sorry if that was unclear.
Yeah like ... What changed? You were pro gun before and are still pro gun now?
Yes, that's how change works, right?
No usually when change happens something actually changes. I was going to ask what changed your mind, what your stance was prior to that change. But since you never actually changed it doesn't really make sense to have that conversation ...
The person you're replying to just misread your comment, he said in another comment elsewhere that he is no longer pro gun.
Oh! Thanks. What a mystifying man...
Same here. I never thought I would buy or own a gun. Did some research and decided to buy a Mossberg 500 pump action shotgun which is cheap (~$500), reliable, easy for many different types of people to use, and relatively safe.
It's also pretty easy to disassemble and modify if desired. There are some great step by step videos on how to do it and also there's even a video game called gunsmith simulator thats pretty accurate (atleast for the Mossberg) which you can use to virtually disable and learn about your gun.
Congrats! Best choice for a shotgun to my mind. I have a Revelations brand from the 70s that's the exact same gun, rebranded to sell in Western Auto Stores. It's rattly and loose all over, cannot fail to function. Only malfunctions have been operator error.
You gotta practice though! Shooting is a perishable skill. You don't want to spaz out and short stroke it, forget how to clear a stovepipe, be subconsciously afraid of the recoil, stuff like that. Speaking of, I need practice. Bought these stupidly powerful shells for another shotgun that wouldn't work with regular loads. Now that's all I have and it hurts.
Totally. I go to the range once a week.
I also have been testing out different shells. Buying ammo is pretty confusing sometimes.
I went for the 590 back in the day purely because you can mount a bayonet to it. Just to be silly. You know, knife-gun. On brand.
I'm sure you could retrofit a 500 for the same. The difference is the lug on the mounting ring on the barrel, and the tip of the mag tube cap is tapered to wind up being the same diameter as an M4 flash hider, what for to fit the ring on an M4 bayonet.
Do you mean yourself and your family/friends/neighbors? What have you done to organize them?
If the line has been crossed where The People should be using violence to fight tyranny, why aren't you fighting?
If you're not willing to take the same action, your motives are obviously questionable and you should be regarded as either a provocateur or just someone who hasn't thought it through enough.
If you're not willing to bear arms against tyranny, you should admit that it's not at the level which warrants armed violence. Maybe there's no level of tyranny which would compel you to violent resistance?
Tyranny happens at all levels. We can't pretend that the petty tyrant who abuses a low-level position of authority justifies an armed response. At the other end of that spectrum the line obviously isn't crisp and narrow. Each person is going to have their own line across which violence is justified. But that's for them to decide. You decide your own line and your action or lack thereof will speak for you.
It's interesting that you automatically assume that I'm not doing anything.
I’ve moved in the opposite direction. Clearly it’s a constitutional right, some people have valid uses for weapons and they can be fun to use. However they also very clearly cause more harm than good, and they do more harm than good just looking at the subset of personal protection. Your right to bear arms should not put me in danger, and it is. Where is my right to be safe and secure.
But one thing the authoritarian regime in the us has made clear is that overwhelming force is overwhelming. We long since past the point where personal weapons could be argued as a useful “militia” against a politicized military. However now police forces have been militarized past the point where personal weapons could be argued as useful against abusive authority. Arming yourself will get you and others killed without any likelihood of causing change.
We see that any violence just gives pretext and any effective resistance has been non-violent. Our best weapons are still checks and balances, eroded as those are, and human decency, despite the sociopaths
I'm not herein suggesting you murder cops but people as a group are as a rule maybe prepared to kill rarely prepared to die. If you look at the history of insurgency your local PD isn't really prepared to contain one nor is your national guard long term. Nor are your citizens prepared to fight one.
Peace is mostly a function of people valuing their own and their neighbors lives and right now people still believe that they can have one and may continue to do so as their neighbors are dragged to concentration camps as they did in Germany.
I think I was not clear. I was pro-gun. I am no longer.
I disagree, but it's also clear that no one is going to exercise that right.
LOL there are none. Trump exposed our entire political system as a sham. All non-violent legal avenues have been exercised, with nothing to show for it, because Trump and the conservatives don't care about the law, ignore and abuse the law, and have openly expressed contempt for the law. We're just fucked.
Noone is doing so because they know thats what 47 wants. He wants an escalation, to send in the troops, to have his night of broken glass. Instead cities and citizens are resisting without hurting the thugs the feds hired and they are failing publicly to detain large people who just sit down (because all the fit and smart officers are not supporting this) and hippies in frog costumes. The feds and their leaders look like fools (and they are), I would cap this off with an emporer Nero joke, but the country is not on fire (it has its problems, but they are fixable) and I dont think he could play any instrument with his fat tiny hands anyway.
What exactly do you think is being achieved with pacifism? Did the nazis just go home when the people left them alone?
The President is weaponizing the military to invade US cities. US citizens are being disappeared off the streets and deported to random foreign countries for absolutely no reason (other than offending the tangerine in chief), and with no due process. When questioned about it, they spout just blatant and obvious lies, with no supporting evidence. The President is ignoring orders from his own Supreme Court. He considers himself a King and has open contempt for the law. The entire government has been shut down for the sole purpose of denying the citizens any semblance of socialized medical care. The country is very much on fire. We are speedrunning the playbook of corruption and tyranny.
Why would they want to detain them?
I'd love to see evidence for that.
You just pointed out all the things 47, and his handlers, alone are doing, validating his reality. The overwelming majority of people are carrying on with normal lives, normal job. You are going to solve none of those problems, but it is our duty to help those who need it and draw attention to injustice where it is found.
Points 2/3 were validated this sub, not 3 posts ago when a guy resisted arrest by just sitting down and refusing to move. Made a scene about it, but thats what your supposed to do. The thugs in masks just left after a crowd gathered. The point is this new wave of feds are not the best and brightest.
Furthermore, if you escalate, your giving the enemy what they want. DCs escalation was predicated of some shitheel from DOGE getting beat up. Do not give them the ammunition to spin a narrative.
They really don't need ammunition to spin a narrative, they'll just make one up like they've done for 50 years....
You're replying to my comment so I'm assuming you're in the same reality as the rest of us.
I don't understand what that's supposed to mean?
Or this, either.
What else am I supposed to be giving them? You think they don't want people to stand by and just let them do whatever they want?
We can't stop them from spinning whatever narrative they want. They just state is as a fact, with no evidence at all, and tribalistic morons eat that shit up.
Guns were never the solution, but it sure did make gun manufacturers rich!
You're still advocating for hugging Nazis into peaceful coexistence out here, huh?
And your still advocating for us to murder our way out of this like a good fascist?
*you're. Can we at least have a civilizational collapse with proper grammar?
Thanks grammar Nazi!
The other option is rapidly degrading to be murdered instead.
Fighting back against fascism and tyrannical applications of force is not being fascist.
Listen, we have already covered this. Fascism was never defeated by violence in WWII. In fact, it thrives stronger than it ever was.
Fascism thrives on violence so you have to be a special kind of useful idiot to advocate that more violence is going to fix things.
People have things so mixed up in their head they think using the authoritarian playbook is going to work for them. That their ideology will magically rise up from the ashes.
It is a fucking fantasy. The sooner you stop living in self defense fantasyland and start working with your fellow Americans the closer we will be to solving our problems.
This is class warfare and the wealthy would love for us to tear each other apart.
Yeah, everyone knows WWII was ended with pansies and pleasantries, and totally not with the single largest display of violence the world has ever seen before or since.
WWII ended up with the largest fascist nation in history claiming victory if that is what you mean. Considering the Red Army did most of the work and the US got most of the spoils it has always been a war of questionable results.
When you can solve the Paradox of Tolerance without the use of violence, then you can try to make a point. Not that I expect you to be able to. You're just not that intelligent.
You're both right. Every ideological movement benefits from having violent and nonviolent factions. You can have violence alone but, if victorious, that often trends towards a different brand of authoritarianism. Nonviolence alone doesn't have enough bite I'm afraid. For every MLK Jr there needs to be a Malcolm X. Bhaghat Singh and Subhas Bose for Gandhi. Mandela was initially nonviolent but, due to that lack of bite, he changed his tune over time.
But I will qualify this with the fact that all of these men stood for oppressed groups (whether minority or majority). Whether violence alone can work depends on where your alignment lies with the state. Violence alone will accomplish your goals if you are aligned with the state.
What often gets ignored in American revolutionary history is that it started with nonviolent resistance. This can actually be enough if you outnumber your oppressor vastly. Violence, of course, is a necessary last resort when injustice and inhumanity persist.
This kid isn't advocating for what you think they are. They're advocating for the oppressed to relinquish their defenses so the oppressors won't use violence against them. The solution, to them, is submission. They've made it clear they don't actually take a stand against fascism in other threads. They are a fascist apologist that uses divisive language to drive wedge issues, and really nothing more. That's why they were so quick to label me. They know that I know what they truly are.
Looking more closely it appears that their argument is that when you defeat fascism with violence you're at risk of becoming / become a fascist / authoritarian yourself. History attests to their point of view. I think theres validity to the idea that the US has retained some fascist / authoritarian elements. Its just that the rest of the world has had to bear the brunt of that post WW2 (as opposed to American citizens, so they may be noseblind to it).
There's sophistication to their viewpoint no doubt. I think arriving at the conclusion that pacifism is the only acceptable solution is misguided but I don't believe that aspiring to a nonviolent worldview equates to fascist apologism.
I guess the message I'm not getting is that they believe WWII didn't solve fascism in the US so that extrapolates to today's issues. Thus, according to them, violence is bad. The reason I never acknowledged this message is because we never fought a war against fascism in the US, and thus fascist elements were largely shielded from the violence and never dealt with, only suppressed. So I found that entire argument too absurd to consider.
I get you and respect your approach. I'm referring primarily to a discussion I've had with them before. I'll roughly quote myself from another thread: Treating fascists like fascists by being fascist doesn't make you fascist. It makes you reasonable. This is what treating intolerance with intolerance is and feels like. He's arguing in favor of horseshoe theory. A common tactic to dissuade people from fighting back against violence. They also believe the United States isn't becoming more fascist. This isn't an oddity, it's part of a dangerous message.
Whether they're cognizant or not isn't important because they simply refuse to debate or accept fair criticism of their approach. Also, if you have time: Could you qualify in what case history has attested to their point of view? I can only think of the rise of communism and the left vs right political violence in Germany-pre WWII that someone might consider that. Europe did not become more fascist after WWII, to my knowledge but I'm at risk of sounding like I'm trying to argue your point with that.
I advocate for intolerance towards intolerance which is a choice that fascists make. Fascists victimize people not for choices, but for circumstances outside an individual's control. That difference is the difference between the just and the unjust.
If these guys start messing with you on the street are you going to shoot them then and there? Really? I bet you wind up dead if you try it. I own guns myself, but I don't see anyway that they are a solution to the political problems that we're having, either individually or collectively?
It sounds like you're asking the question of "are you willing to die defending your rights"
Then the answer is yes. I've made plenty of comments on the subject. I have plenty to lose, but I'm no longer young.
For example, if ICE tries to drag my legal wife off, I am prepared to fight to the death. That's not braggadocio. It's a thing I've thought long and hard on. That's a hill I will die on.
How about did you defend your rights if you’re dead?
Will your death stop them from taking the rights of others?
Will shooting them just give an excuse to attack more unarmed people that they prefer to kidnap?
We need organized response, not a few morons shooting back.
And an organized response needs martyrs, something to set it off
Over broad question. I've made dozens of comments here as to what I will and will not do. And I am not ignorant of the consequences. You will also find that in those comments.