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. 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.
True heroes, these rich cops. Not like schoolteachers, who are suspicious villains and possibly freeloaders, am I right?
*sigh
Not incentivizing our teachers/academics/social workers but highly incentivizing cops is going to devastate our country's output soon.
We need to cap police OT. They are making off like bandits.
Think about a surgeon. We put peoples lives in their hands. We expect them to be preposterously educated, able to perform extreme tasks under significant duress, to maintain ongoing technical and specialized training, to prove that the training is effective, and they are compensated accordingly. If they fuck up, they can be held personally liable for their fuck ups. There are consequences to the career and its not a role to be taken on lightly.
Hear me out.
We raise the amount we pay cops to 1.5 million dollars a year... but.
No qualified immunity. It no longer exists (guess what? it already doesn't exist for military service members). Any crimes they commit, the consequences are 10x'd and they are no longer allowed to engage in public service, ever. They can be publicly executed for any crimes beyond misdemeanor. They have to pay for their own equipment. They have to carry liability insurance for any violations of civil rights which might occur in the line of performing their duties.
The minimum qualification is a PhD in constitutional law. They need to be able to run a 6 minute mile, do 100 push ups in 2 minutes, 200 sit ups in 2 minutes, and 80 burpees in 2 minutes. They need to be able to carry 120 lbs for 10 minutes up an incline. They need to be able to recite the US Constitution, the state constitution, and the local city and county charters where they are stationed. They are expected to have advanced knowledge of any and all laws they are expected to be enforcing. They have to undergo annual psychological, physical, technical, and legal reassessments to prove their suitability for the job; these reassessments are maintained as a part of public record.
We 10x the pay and we hire 1/10th the number of cops. It becomes a career path somewhere between than a doctor or a lawyer or an astronaut. Its not something a HS drop out should be able to consider as a career path.
Look, obviously, hyperbole. Or is it?
We are so bad about this across the board. Why is society so content to expect the worst from people like police and politicians?
Honestly, probably because we've been conditioned to get angry at the employees of the super rich rather than the hoarders themselves.
This is the way. I can’t tell you how much it hurts me when I see an obese cop.
Practicality-wise though, if the police have recruitment issues now though, finding recruits with a PhD will be impossible. People really overestimate how many PhD’s are out here in the wild.
1.5 million dollars a year.
Maybe I'm too easy to please but I'd be happier if they took the money that currently goes towards tanks and "how to shoot first" seminars and put it towards ongoing education for officers on law, de-escalation tactics, and critical thinking in stressful situations.
I mean, I agree entirely with the "abolish the police" movement. I don't think policing in the US is recoverable. Its rotten to the core. Its a remnant of slavery. In that sense I'm an abolitionist.
But I also think its a thing that "law enforcement" is a thing that will be expected to happen. So if you are going to abolish policing as we currently know it, you need to replace it with something different.
What about this, instead we just take that 1.5 mill a year and put it towards things that actual solve problems, rather than making sure we have the best and brights super soldiers doing traffic stops and taking notes on your break in.
Since we're engaging in fantasy, sure.
But I think you'll find no matter what you do, some version of a person whose role in society is to enforce the laws, a kind of "law enforcement", emerges.
The properties of that role can vary widely from society to society, but pretty much every society independently comes to the same conclusion, that the role is necessary, once the society determines a common and well structured code of conduct is necessary.
100% abolish the police. They are a corrupt institution which finds their roots in re-enforcing a slave culture. 100% let every prisoner free. The roots of the prison system in the US are the same as the police state.
But countries with no history of slavery have police forces and prison systems. They are an emergent property of large social systems. Society will re-invent the role. We might as well fill the niche in a manner we want, instead of a manner we dont want.
For a couple of teachers?
I don't understand what you mean.
For some reason my lemmy app glitched as I was scrolling and I was seeing this title above This post
It's impossible to work 3000 hours of overtime in a year. This is fraud. If that person is actually working those hours, then it's incompetence by the Sergeant above them allowing them to work that many overtime hours for no reason.
14.47 hour days to the maximum legal amount of days before days off. And working on holidays is time and a half or double time by default as well. Could be done. Not good, but not fraud.
The trick I read before is to arrest someone at the end of your shift, then you have to process them at overtime and possibly wait for a judge or something. They know the tricks to draw it out.
Of course why didn't I think of arresting someone just to get overtime? Probably because I'm not a fucking psychopath
Sorry to inform you but your application to the police academy has been denied
The money is in police detail work And a lot of them are able to do it during their normal shifts. The person probably did legitimately log that many hours or near that many hours, the problem is that they were able to do it in the first place.
3151 hrs of overtime.
78.775 full-time 40 hour weeks there.
So assuming 2 weeks of vacation, he somehow managed to work 128.775 weeks in a year?
128.775/50 - let's see how many work weeks he had to work each week to get there - 2.5755
So each week he had to be working about 2.6 normal weeks, or about 103 hours a week.
Assuming he worked 7 days each week, he was doing 14.7 hour shifts every day of those 50 weeks of working 7 days with no breaks.
Hmm.
52 weeks in a year. If he worked all 52 full time it’s 4000hrs, which means we’re talking 40+ weeks which most people do work. So yes it’s within range. Remember you don’t have to be awake and working to be considered on duty. Overnight work is still paid work In a lot of industries
At the end of the day we’re both speculating here. The larger point is that unfortunately a lot of this is legal, which is the entire problem. They can get away with this shit without any recourse.
Your definition of full time is incorrect. Full time is 40h/week, at 52 weeks per year that’s 2080 hours per year. 3000 hours of overtime puts the total at 5080, or 19.5 hours per day.
That’s by working 5 days a week, every week, no vacation nor PTO nor sickness.
It is fraud
I think you are a bit off with your assumptions. In California, overtime is earned either when you work more than 40 hours per week, OR more than 8 hours a day.
So technically he could have for example worked three 24 hour shifts in a week, which would equal three 8 hour shifts (24 regular time hours) and three 16 hour overtime blocks (48h OT). 48 * 52 = 2,496 OT. He could have even been sleeping and on call while working that OT.
Definitely poor management but not guaranteed fraud. The math is more nuanced.
You’re right i used the 78 figure for some odd reason.
anyway again the sad reality is this is all probably legal, maybe grey. And we are both still speculating as to the numbers and how OT works for them.
Cops at my hospital are all in overtime. They bring in inmates for psych holds/psych eval and then supervise them hands-off for the entire hospital stay. Easy money. Then the really entitled ones try to act pushy and basically want us to give the patient shots for unjustified reasons. Just so they can sit and watch movies without being bothered.
He surely did work 11,5hours everyday additionaly to his regular shift 🥴
That "No Tax on Overtime" pitch makes perfect sense now.
Yes especially when Project 2025 also wants to reclassify what counts as overtime hours to make it unachievable for most.
No wonder that cop in Parks & Recreation moved to San Diego.
Since you can be 'too smart' to be a cop, can we get them to remove the america's finest from their cars and gear? Clearly that is no longer the case.
Now do California Highway Patrol.
I want the police abolished and the prisons emptied today. I don't care what happens next.
If you're making wild suggestions, you should probably care about the effects it will have
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
You're not familiar with prison abolition? I have some links if you'd like to educate yourself. :)
the reason for my latter sentence is that any impediment stops this goal from materializing. the right will always have a worry, or question, or addition, or delay, and each of these impediments prevents achieving the end goal. that latter sentence is strictly necessary to achieve the result.
You're either being hyperbolic or you're willfully ignorant about what would happen if we did that, neither of which help your case
Your failure to imagine a successful alternative doesn't mean that the person you're talking to is ignorant.
Your imagination seems to only go as far as 'the prison doors open and anarchy occurs'. There are many alternatives to changing people's behavior that isn't simply locking them into boxes for decades at a time.
Nobody is saying that justice shouldn't be done, only that the current system is not just and doesn't improve the people that are put into it.
Why should this person need to use their imagination to legitimize someone else's argument, especially one so absurd? OP should make their own argument.
Person A: The Police and prisons should be abolished.
This is a person making a point. What they're talking about is pretty obvious from the text.
Person B: "If you’re making wild suggestions, you should probably care about the effects it will have"
This is a person making an implication. They never define what 'the effects' are, they simply hanging an implication. What they mean is left up to the imagination of the reader.
Person B again: "You’re either being hyperbolic or you’re willfully ignorant about what would happen if we did that, neither of which help your case"
Once again, they're not actually saying anything. They're not saying "what would happen if we did that" they're implying the the Person A is hyperbolic or willfully ignorant for believing... something. Something that they won't actually define.
Again, this isn't a point, this is the person implying something but never actually saying what it is.
This is a shitty conversational tactic where the person never has to take a position that can be argued against but can appear, to the ignorant, as if they are actually saying something cynical and intelligent.
I'm replying to the most obvious reading of the implication which is "If you abolish the police and prisons then there will just be criminals everywhere".
But, because of this shitty conversational tactic, of not actually stating their position, Person B can simply come back and say "Oh I didn't mean that" and move the goalposts elsewhere.
Why should this person need to use their imagination to legitimize someone else’s argument, especially one so absurd? OP should make their own argument.
It is that person who's arguments are left to the imagination. Since they never actually say what they mean.
The first person in the conversion was pretty explicit about their position.
Don't get angry. Abolition is a good thing. It helps you. Instead, try to envision what the goal is. What do you think I'd like to achieve?