480
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
480 points (98.6% liked)
News
23296 readers
928 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I call bullshit, and would like to see the law and/or court rulings that support this assertion.
Because if cops have no duty to protect the public, then in what sense do they have a duty to take this complaint seriously?
You are right they have no duty to protect the public, their job is to maintain the status quo and defend capitalist interests. Two guesses into which category searching for this book in a middle school falls under.
When people say police have no duty to protect the public, they are talking about a legal affirmative duty to act.
Usually the law does not impose a duty to act. If you see someone drowning, it's not negligent to NOT jump into the water and save the person. You can stand there and watch your neighbor's kid drown and you're neither breaking the law nor being negligent. Even if your neighbor's kid screams for help and looks right at you and says please help me, it's legal to do nothing: there is no affirmative duty to rescue.
It's the same for police. The exception are when there is a fiduciary relationship, if you created the peril, or if you start rescuing someone you can't leave them worse off. Usually these exceptions don't apply to police, even if you call and ask for help, they have no duty to act. That doesn't mean they won't show up and do their best. Just means you can't sue them for negligence if they fail to save you.
Therapists, doctors, lawyers, architects, have legal duties to act.
Clear takeaway: when they said “Because this complaint was made directly to the police department, we are obligated and have a duty to examine the complaint further" it really means they wanted to do it but didn't want to be held responsible for wanting that. (after all, if they had no choice in the matter it's not their fault they're doing ghoulish police-state things most people don't want done)
So I wonder:
Does MA have some statutory requirement, such as how many states have statutes requiring police to followup to a 911 hangup call, perhaps requiring a response to complaints about sexual deviance with children or something, and perhaps the police had no choice but to make contact with the teacher. They didn't find the book. Could have been showing up a friendly warning of a nutjob parent, and the ACLU is taking liberty with the storm.
What was the extent of the search? IMO, even showing up at the school and entering the classroom whilst having eyeballs, let alone a camera, is a search.
What the fuck is wrong with parents that they can't have these conversations with their kids, or... Fuck, I don't know, check the book out at the library and read it to their kid and talk about it in a context they are comfortable with? Oh k forgot, that requires emotional intelligence and these people who try to control their environment instead of their emotions are fucking ghouls that nobody wants to fuck.
I'm not sure why this had to be typed out.
Anyone who has had their bike stolen or car broken into or otherwise be victim of a crime the police don’t really care about knows this is not the case. You’ll be told to come in and fill out a form, or if you’re lucky you might have someone call you and fill out the form for you. They’re not going to send a cop out for that, and the form doesn’t really get acted on, it’s just for records keeping.
The last time I had my car broken into, they sent an officer out to take the report. They, of course, did nothing with that report, and I found the person who had broken into my car later through reliable sources.
For a while, I had a partner who lived in Harlem. Their apartment was broken into multiple times by forced entry via the fire escape.
I remember the cops laughing as they took the report, which we only filed to get the insurance claims. Nothing was done other than sending out two officers to spend five minutes taking the report. I’m not saying they need to find every stolen laptop in NYC, though. I’m just saying that they absolutely choose how to investigate and resource complaints.
Last time I had my car broken into they told me to file a report online. It took them over a year to send a form letter reply saying they got it.
Yeah I don't want my police spinning their wheels hunting for a used bike. The police time and resources could pay for a new bike.
Unfortunately, that’s not the tradeoff the police department offers. And we do need to distinguish between relative and absolute values. Relative to myself, having a multi-thousand dollar bike loss isn’t all that big of a deal, and I have insurance anyway. For others who depend on their bikes as their primary mode of transportation and who don’t have the ability to just walk into a bike store and slap down a credit card without thinking twice, it’s a much bigger deal. For those people, their lives are impacted as much as a car theft would on someone else.
I do get that we have limited resources and they need to be used for more serious violations, but by that same token book banning isn’t one, and would not have required an officer to physically investigate. This is about purely fascistic thought control and book banning. Honestly, I would have preferred that cop go track down a stolen bike ring.
I agree with all of this. Especially the part about insuring against risks you cannot afford. How much was your policy? I imagine it's less than $100 per year.
I have to confess that I don’t remember. I carry riders on my other policy for high value items like my camera gear and bike. It all goes into a lump sum that just gets auto paid annually.
But you’re right - they’re fairly inexpensive to insure.
A rider's rider rider.
If it's explicitly bike insurance, $100-$300 a year.
If you're adding onto a homeowners policy it's usually a lot cheaper.
"Pro Tip" I learned looking up camera insurance - don't get specific item insurance, if for whatever reason you're not doing a home insurance rider contact an insurance agent to get you a Inland Marine policy (I have no idea about the naming). I got like $11,000 in coverage for ~ $150 a year, with a $100 deductible. Covers theft and me breaking it accidentally.
EDIT: And how this relates is it seems like you can schedule just about anything with a serial # and declared value via the agent on the policy.
The full news article states that they do not have that authority, this is just ass covering by wanna be heroes of oppression.
This "report" was done anonymously probably for the reason they knew it was BS, and just looking at the report should have been enough to dismiss it. At the very most a phone call to see if the school wanted to handle it, but sending an officer should get all involved parties suspended without pay. That principal should have also called bullshit and never escorted a cop to a classroom to search for a book. They should also be suspended and the policy gone over again on what to do with these bullshit book banning "reports" (deleted/recycled).
Edit - extra shit
The problem with the principal refusing to escort the officer is then they are obstructing a police investigation, and that is a crime. It isn't fair to put this burden on them, the blame lies squarely with the police chain of command.
In fact the root problem of all things police is that once police decide to do something, even if that thing is illegal, interfering is a crime.
This is how we end up with people being charged with resisting arrest, and no other crimes that would warrant an arrest. This is also how we end up with a bunch of people live streaming George Floyd's execution, because stopping a cop from killing someone is a crime.
Should have asked them to come back with a warrant as that is within his legal rights. The officer had no reason to suspect any real harm to any child in a school classroom after hours (this all happened after school was out for the day).
With a complaint and a full description of the offense, the officer had cause to force entry.
Same as if someone called in a suspicious package, they wouldn't need a warrant to gain entry.
Society gives police an incredible amount of leeway.
On the complaint of a book? I'll call bullshit on that, and no way that would hold up in any sane court. A book is not something that should give police any probable cause, and really something that the police shouldn't even be investigating. Having police coming in to schools to look for books is so far out of what they should be doing the principal should have laughed and called the station to ask what the hell is going on over there.
I agree with you, but it doesn't change the implications of a police officer having a complaint and a sufficient description to follow up on it without a warrant.
It is at their discretion, same as if you called in that your grandma didn't answer the phone, they could ignore it or bust down the door. Both would be fully legal.
Court is a different matter. A judge could say there wasn't cause to search after the fact, but that won't change what the police do in the moment.
Because this complaint hurt little piggy's feelings.
Yeah I don't believe it either. The courts have agreed the cops don't have to help anyone.
Yeah, but that's because they don't want to help people. They actively recruit cops who hate the communities they're going to police.
So it's never an issue when they're asked to do harm. That's why they became cops.