• Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 year ago

      Until cops get consequences for their actions and I mean prison time they will not only continue to do this shit but get worse.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My prediction is this will stay roughly the same until a major event involving someone killing or grievously wounding a cop, claiming self defense (or defense of others) , and being acquitted of any major charges. And I don't mean a no knock warrant situation where a good ole boy shoots at "intruders" just busting down the wrong door. I mean like a George Floyd case or a Daniel Shaver case. Something with a ridiculously over aggressive cop starting shit and losing.

        • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There was an incident years ago where police carried out a no-knock raid at the wrong house and killed a baby with a flashbang grenade and they suffered no consequences that I can recall.

          • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah not even that will deter them. Only way this changes for the good is if majority of progressive take charge of the government and they pass a law forcing cops to carry liability insurance then you will drastic changes.

          • SynAcker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Wasn't that in Detroit where they threw it in the kid's crib? And also while being filmed for a reality TV show? Edit: I was a little wrong on the details, in fact, she was flashbanged first and then shot. Wiki

        • jasory@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You realise this has already happened? Plainclothes officers attempted to arrest someone without identifying themselves, one was shot and it was ruled as self-defence.

          Police get killed all the time, and nothing happens. I'm not exactly sure why you think this specific situation, that has already happened, will suddenly change things.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Police shouldn't have guns. Because their ultimate go to for any situation is, "so anyway I started shooting"

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why does every cop need a gun to protect public safety case law has established they're not responsible for that.…protect capital interests when police in countries like England don't?

        • jasory@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          30
          ·
          1 year ago

          Case law established that police do not have a responsibility to act, (because nobody has a responsibility to act and making an exception would cause problems). This does not mean that there isn't an expectation to act, or that being armed would make individuals more willing to act.

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It seems as though you're correcting me saying they're not responsible for protecting public safety, by telling me they're not responsible for protecting public safety. If you say so.

            Why do they need guns to not protect public safety not protect public safety? Seems as though having all police carry a tool literally designed to kill people at the press of a button at all times might enable, and potentially encourage them to kill members of the community.

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Bingo! This guy just shot his own argument in the foot. (pun intend) "So if police have no obligation to protect the community they patrol than not having a gun should be a problem." but simultaneously boot lickers will also argue they need guns to stop the methical bad guy with a gun. Remember everyone, giving the state/government a license to do violence will never just be used against just those "bad people / enemies" it will also be used to subjugate the citizens

              • jasory@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Except that wasn't the commenters actual argument. It was merely a premise, upon which they argued that LE should be unarmed. I accepted (and clarified) the premise, but pointed out that premise is not actually sufficient.

                "It will also be used to subjugate the citizen"

                All power can be used for immoral purposes, even citizen militias (like naively extolled by anarkiddies) are perfectly capable of abuse.

                The problem therefore is to minimise abuses and the solution is to implement immediate repercussions for immoral actions. Not disarm the police. That does nothing but mean that as long as you have enough bullets, you can run your own unaccountable government.

            • jasory@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are not legally required to, they however are expected to.

              Just like you are not legally required to do your job (with rare exceptions), but you are still expected to and would certainly like the equipment to do it safely.

              "It seems as though"

              Things are not always what the seem prima facie, perhaps you should be studying more English.

              • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                We have the legal precedent that protecting public safety isn't their job because this was challenged in court, and their jobs were protected. They can't be sacked for not doing what's not their job.

                If I don't do my job, I get sacked - I assume it's the same for you… But what do I know - maybe it's different for you enlightened English scholars.

                Let's try to bring you back a third time… Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button? We have courts to deal out death sentences with due process and separation of powers, other countries' cops don't need guns.

                Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand, eh?

                • jasory@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  "Why is it necessary for all police to have the ability to kill people with the press of a button"

                  Why prohibit them? Everyone else can carry guns, why aren't police permitted to have an equal amount of weaponry? In fact civilians even in many European countries can outgun police.

                  Additionally you realize you can kill someone with a baton? It's not that difficult, you characterising guns as particularly dangerous weapons that let police kill with impunity is pretty naive.

                  "Let's try to bring you back a third time" Considering that you flatly refuse to acknowledge the first two times, why am I supposed to expect you to acknowledge it a third time? I've already refuted your argument, and yet you beg for more, and are puzzled why I call you illiterate.

                  You've been playing a grand Motte and Bailey, alternating from asserting that police are just fatasses eating doughnuts because they have no legal obligation to do their job, to portraying them as Einsatzgruppen massacring civilians just because they have a 9mm.

                  "Maybe you should be studying the topic at hand"

                  No, I'm not the one here who talks out of my ass. So let me ask you two questions.

                  How many people have been shot by police in the US?

                  What percentage of police involved shootings involve an active shooter? Not an armed person, an active shooter that is firing a weapon to kill either police or another person. (You know a clear and obvious attempted homicide case).

                  Just because people riot and burn down precincts doesn't mean that their concerns are valid. After all by this standard Donald Trump must have won the 2020 election because some people really believed it.

                  People being unjustly killed by police is such a small fraction as to be inconsequential. Keep in mind that the vast majority of police killings would be classified as self-defence if committed by any other citizen. There would be much greater harm in stripping police of there ability to act/react to a violent assailant. (There you go, explained it a third time for you).

          • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            nobody has a responsibility to act

            Yeah, let me use that as a defense when a patient codes and I ignore it. Get the fuck out of here with this shit.

            • jasory@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              Already pointed out by myself in this thread. I sure hope you aren't relying on the literacy skills you've demonstrated here when treating your patients.

                • jasory@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I bet you think you're so clever for directly admitting that you didn't want to read more context.

                  I don't think anyone here realises how little I respect their opinion. A Markov chain bot would have greater factual accuracy than the lunatics here.

  • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    Regardless of any legal outcome, I wish every one of these fuckers, plus the judge who signed the warrant, has nightmares about what they did that night every time they close their eyes for as long as they live.

    I know they'd have to give a shit in order to have nightmares about it, but a man can dream.

      • broface@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I'm sure they don't even care about what happened.

        It's just a paycheck to them.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ex-cop who fired into Breonna Taylor’s apartment in flawed, fatal raid murdered Breonna Taylor goes on trial again

    Fixed that for them.

    edit: Oh yeah… I almost forgot - fuck the police.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am vehemently pro-union, but the police union either needs to be broken up or made to seriously reform. Protecting cops from corrupt superiors and getting them fair pay is one thing. Protecting them from the public is quite another. Unions are supposed to do the former, not the latter.