this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
882 points (98.9% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

2967 readers
456 users here now

    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

Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.

If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.

Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.

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

!abolition@slrpnk.net

!acab@lemmygrad.ml

r/ACAB

r/BadCopNoDonut/

Randy Balko

The Civil Rights Lawyer

The Honest Courtesan

Identity Project

MirandaWarning.org

♦ ♦ ♦

INFO

A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions

Adultification

Cops aren't supposed to be smart

Don't talk to the police.

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

So you wanna be a cop?

When the police knock on your door

♦ ♦ ♦

ORGANIZATIONS

Black Lives Matter

Campaign Zero

Innocence Project

The Marshall Project

Movement Law Lab

NAACP

National Police Accountability Project

Say Their Names

Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration

 

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The March 14 directive, signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, uses an obscure 18th-century law — the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — to give law enforcement nationwide the power to bypass basic constitutional protections.

According to the memo, agents can break into a home if getting a warrant is “impracticable,” and they don’t need a judge’s approval. Instead, immigration officers can sign their own administrative warrants. The bar for action is low — a “reasonable belief” that someone might be part of a Venezuelan gang is enough.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

If anyone forces their way into my house without a warrant, they are getting shot.

[–] match@pawb.social 42 points 1 day ago (4 children)

weird question, do i have to be black to join the black panthers

[–] Guidy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

The Black Panthers arming themselves because of (I hope you're sitting down) police brutality is why assault weapons were first banned in California. Backed by Democrats, Republicans, and the NRA, and signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. I'm talking about The Mulford Act.

Just so you know how it's going to go.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee 16 points 1 day ago

You might be better off looking into something like the Socialist Riffle Association and if they have a chapter in your area. No idea how good they are but I'm in the DSA and some people mention them as an option.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can buy a gun and practice. Start a club with your neighbors.

[–] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

There are clubs for every group you can imagine. Find one and protect yourself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago

"Hiel Trump" is required when people meet in public or private. Any hesitation must be treated with aggressive concern and reported to all, immediately. This is the only way to keep America safe from (insert current list of threats).

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Remember when democrats got all heated about G Gordon Liddy saying “if the feds come to your door, shoot them in the head” (to account for body armor)?

I don’t know why that popped into my head just now.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 25 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Don't do that.

Shoot them in the dick.

Seriously.

The lower abdomen is chock full o' arteries, and a hit on the pelvis is going to instantly drop someone; you can't walk with a pelvis that's been shattered by a 9mm. It's also generally an easier target.

[–] thepenismightier@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago

Buckshot to the belt buckle.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I like your ideas.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] kooks_only@lemmy.ca 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 day ago

It's totally fine everyone. Obviously this would only ever happen to poor people or bad people or other people /s.

Seriously though, where the fuck are all the people screaming about freedom?

[–] mutual_ayed@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 day ago
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"According to the memo, agents can break into a home if getting a warrant is “impracticable,” and they don’t need a judge’s approval."

They're going to have a fun time here in Oregon:

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_161.219

"a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Well, thats one way to get rid of them. Cleaning up the mess is on you though

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (6 children)

a “reasonable belief” that someone might be part of a Venezuelan gang is enough.

Considering they've actively deported someone for having a tattoo that supports autism awareness as evidence of being a Venezuelan gang member, the fact I had a burrito for lunch today is probably an equally "reasonable belief" for them.

This is an alarming suspension of all of the protections of the Constitution if this is allowed to stand.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

Can't wait to hear people like Alex Jones defend this. Can't wait for every sovcit to defend this. Can't wait for every Gadsden flag flag and bumper sticker to defend this.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 10 points 1 day ago

The only time the Alien Enemies act should be used is in an extreme emergency: Say, for example, an orange man wanting to press a big red button to burn the world to cinders.

ICE, if it truly wanted to do things the right way, can do the 'practicable', by waiting for judges and their juries to render judgement. As we have clearly seen, ICE doesn't measure up to even basic sense nor decency. Here's hoping that ICE is broken by the people, for the people.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 day ago

“Fuck your rights.” - the party who claims to love the constitution

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The memo and policy are not meant to survive Constitutional challenge. It facially and clearly violates it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No, this is meant to give the veneer of an arguably defensible policy, a temporary measure. And why would that be enough? Well, one possibility is that after a period of time it will not to matter anymore.

When wouldn't it matter anymore? Oh, say - just throwing this out there - if it ties the issue up in courts long enough for Trump to secure permanent dictatorial power after harassing or disappearing political opponents and judges.

[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

In California remember you have Castle Doctrine. Protecting yourself, your home, and property from unwarranted unannounced invasions from ANYONE allows you to use deadly force if available

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (4 children)

...Except cops. You do not have a legal right to resist illegal actions by police. The ONLY state where that's a legal right is Indiana. Look, I get it, you should have that right everywhere, but if you shoot a cop that's illegally breaking into your home, you will be arrested, charged, and convicted, IF you survive. And you probably won't.

Should you shoot them anyways? Absolutely. Just understand what the result will be.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What makes a cop a cop? Could we establish a new town, which would of course have its own police department, and everyone in that town is part of the department.

Yes, it's a bit of a facetious question. But we are entering very stupid times.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mdd@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Wait. CA allows the Castle Doctrine?

A quick search shows it does. I'll be damned.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 23 hours ago

Fortunately the courts say otherwise

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›