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
Why do we need a video to share five words!?
Video is just another form of media.
With exception to the introduction which uses video evidence to set the stage for what they will talk about. Most of the video is framing the historical context with legal precedent (which would be better done with text imho) although they do use archival footage to exemplify the time periods being talked about. Watching the KKK march down the street is different than reading about it.
However, an important part of the video, the "We Are Not Powerless" chapter uses video examples and talks about them directly. This is similar to how one can use quotes in text but it's a lot easier to do this in video when you are talking about a chaotic recording of a crime which has many small details in it. The speaker also talks about the importance of actually seeing what is happening and to not look away.
Personally, I think it's a very well done and important video dispite the YouTube shilling and self promotion (which I auto skip with SponsorBlock) and worth a watch.
However, if you don't have time to watch a ~30 min video. I'll help you skip to the end.
TLDR: If the 5 words "of The United States or ..." were added to the text of Section 1983, then people could sue "federal agents" for violations of their freedoms protected by the Constitution and it's amendments.
PS, I think media literacy is more than just being able to read and understand text. Firstly, there are people with disabilities like dyslexia. Secondly, when you watch a movie like Casino (1985) and misinterpret it, you might end up like Stephen Miller.
Don't even need those 5 words. Just need congress to enforce that the congressional record and the federal register are actually in agreement.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
That law was illegally amended, by a single secretary in 1884. Which is what has led to the QI crisis.
"just watch the video, it's fine if you use this third party app to remove the embedded ad" is not the ringing endorsement you think it is.
Especially if the whole point is a sovergin-citizen esque reading of the constitution that ignores either the legislation or supreme court precedent that argued against the point.
(While it's stupid, offensive, and.un-american, ICE agents DO currently enjoy personal immunity for any acts done in accordance with ICE directives.)
how you gonna not watch the video then talk ignorant bullshit about what the video is supposed to be, and dont give me "i did watch the video" cuz if you had you wouldnt be able to talk that ignorant bullshit like you did. not in good faith anyway