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
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.