Why do people say ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards)?

[Defenestration]

If being a cop is inherently a corrupt position, what alternative solution is there to do? Not have cops and let the streets turn to unnecessary chaos? There are indeed corrupt cops out there but to say that ALL of them are corrupt?

[Mina]

They’re comfortable with getting a point across by affecting the majority to be known, a larger voice, it makes a bigger impact

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

"THERE ARE GOOD COPS! ITS JUST SOME BAD APPLES!"

Oh yeah? How come those good cops haven't stopped the bad ones yet? Why do they defend them?

[Morkonan]

Publicado originalmente por Zeno:

Publicado originalmente por Morkonan:

Well, if they're not a criminal, then they say that because they are dumb. Truly. They shouldn't be allowed around open flames, to handle sharp instruments, allowed to dispose of plastic bags, or to be near deep water.

You can't generalise like this.
Some people might have made very bad experiences with cops.

But... did they have that experience with "all" of the cops?

[ZZZZZ]

in some countries cops are a bigger threat than normal criminals

[Morkonan]

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

Publicado originalmente por Defenestration:

If being a cop is inherently a corrupt position, what alternative solution is there to do? Not have cops and let the streets turn to unnecessary chaos? There are indeed corrupt cops out there but to say that ALL of them are corrupt?

make them be held accountable for their actions, remove qualified immunity.

And, watch the cop go to jail for "Breaking and Entering" because, in the dark of night, they mistakenly chased the child-murderer to the wrong house?

Sure, the police should pay to have repairs done and apologize for the mistake. That'd be decent of them. But, to send the cop to jail for trying to do their job and making that mistake?

Criminals will rejoice, since few police officers will opt-in to expose themselves to such liability. It's already happening...

[Morkonan]

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

...
unless they have a warrant they can not enter a house no matter who is in there.

That is not true, AFAIK, if they have immediate evidence that there's a clearly dangerous person who is an immediate mortal threat to others that has taken refuge in a building during the chase. It's not like it's a safe base in a "Hide & Seek" game. They will go in and get them.

[WeeHawky RIP Norm]

My God more Democrat threads.

[Morkonan]

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

..
you just said they entered the wrong house though, based on what evidence did they do this?

Yes, they made a mistake while chasing this theoretical criminal, but it was one made during performing the duties society has demanded of them and with their best intention to achieve the greater good.

[Morkonan]

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

Publicado originalmente por Morkonan:

Yes, they made a mistake while chasing this theoretical criminal, but it was one made during performing the duties society has demanded of them and with their best intention to achieve the greater good.

if they make a mistake they are liable. the trick is to not make mistakes.

Uh huh...

What about arresting and detaining the wrong person for a crime? What if that person is then found innocent in a court of law? Is everyone down the line "guilty" of "kidnapping" and must serve time in prison?

There comes a time when it needs to be recognized that removing "qualified immunity" is not a good idea. That's a... mistake.

Society empowers "police" to enforce the law and during that duty necessary action must be taken that may infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of others. However, during the performance of those duties is it also acknowledged that any instances of the abuse of that power must be pursued.

That is a sensible approach.

Destroying the functionality of a police system by holding those professionals criminally liable for the actions necessary to carry out the duties society demands of them is... a mistake.

[Morkonan]

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

they do all the time, false imprisonment faces lawsuits of upwards of 10's of millions of dollars.

Correction - "Civil Lawsuits" not "Criminal" cases.

What you suggest would make those actions "criminal" with jail-time sentencing, not just Civil monetary damages.

[SvarogX]

Publicado originalmente por Morkonan:

Publicado originalmente por Zeno:

You can't generalise like this.
Some people might have made very bad experiences with cops.

But... did they have that experience with "all" of the cops?

No they did not, but this is how humans work! Its natural, are you a robot ?
If you get beat up by a group of cops or lose a beloved family member to some bad cop, you will also change your general attitude towards cops and might drop bombs such as " ACAB ".

So what ?

I think everyone who says this knows deep down that not every single cop on the planet is bad.

[SvarogX]

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

Publicado originalmente por Morkonan:

Correction - "Civil Lawsuits" not "Criminal" cases.

What you suggest would make those actions "criminal" with jail-time sentencing, not just Civil monetary damages.

as they should be.
not only should you get money from the state/county/city
you should be able to prosecute cops for making heinous mistakes and overstepping their authority.

So you basically mean like in every other civilised first world country in the world? Such as Norway, Switzerland, Italy or Hungary?

Yes, I agree.

Btw, the U.S is the only country I know, where cops can get " fired " from their departement and then start working in another departement or even in another state's departement. Here in my country in Germany, you are out.

If you get removed from being a cop, you are not going to be able to work for the Police in any other state nor will you be able to work for ANY other government authority that enables their personnel to carry firearms nor will you work for any security / law enforcement agency or position.

If here you get kicked out because you unlawfully shot or tased or beat up someone as a cop, you are basically done and you will be persecuted like anyone else and serve a prison sentence in most cases.

The U.S is the only place that tolerats Police power abuse and murder (next to some corrupt third world countries of course).

Hell, even in countries like Ukraine or Russia you will receive more persecution as a cop if you mess up like this. If not by the state then by the people.

[Morkonan]

Publicado originalmente por Zeno:

Publicado originalmente por Morkonan:

But... did they have that experience with "all" of the cops?

No they did not, but this is how humans work! Its natural, are you a robot ?

So, you're saying Racism is OK, then?

If a person has only had bad experiences with a certain race of human beings, then you're saying it's OK for them to be racist. It's just... "natural."

And, for that matter, all beauticians, barbers, and hair stylists are bad because they can't do a competent job with cutting my hair since I've got a bald spot? Thanks!


Or, maybe some assumptions are just plain wrong, no matter how strongly someone may feel about those assumptions.

I think that's probably the smart way to think. Your opinion may be different, though.

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

...
not only should you get money from the state/county/city
you should be able to prosecute cops for making heinous mistakes and overstepping their authority.

Which is already being done, but that's not what you suggested. You said that we should take away "qualified immunity." I already reaffirmed that what is actually done is that instances of abuse are investigated and that did not require removing qualified immunity because qualified immunity only applies to the legal carrying out of their duties, not to the abuse or illegal use of their power.

[SvarogX]

Publicado originalmente por Morkonan:

Publicado originalmente por Zeno:

No they did not, but this is how humans work! Its natural, are you a robot ?

So, you're saying Racism is OK, then?

If a person has only had bad experiences with a certain race of human beings, then you're saying it's OK for them to be racist. It's just... "natural."

And, for that matter, all beauticians, barbers, and hair stylists are bad because they can't do a competent job with cutting my hair since I've got a bald spot? Thanks!


Or, maybe some assumptions are just plain wrong, no matter how strongly someone may feel about those assumptions.

I think that's probably the smart way to think. Your opinion may be different, though.

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

...
not only should you get money from the state/county/city
you should be able to prosecute cops for making heinous mistakes and overstepping their authority.

Which is already being done, but that's not what you suggested. You said that we should take away "qualified immunity." I already reaffirmed that what is actually done is that instances of abuse are investigated and that did not require removing qualified immunity because qualified immunity only applies to the legal carrying out of their duties, not to the abuse or illegal use of their power.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying?
And now you are trying to claim I support racism? Are you for real ? What kind of low blow trolling is this ?

I basically said that generalisation and overexaggaration are a natural and normal thing in humans to express themselves.

When your grandfather makes vacation in Rome and gets ripped off there on numerous street corners, you are going to talk him down for saying " Rome sucks " ?

I think every toddler knows what he would mean. Same in the ACAB case for some people.

But reality is that ACAB is mostly used by ANTIFA and other left wing movements just to trigger cops.

[ZZZZZ]

Publicado originalmente por Tom Macdonald:

Publicado originalmente por Morkonan:

Uh huh...

What about arresting and detaining the wrong person for a crime? What if that person is then found innocent in a court of law? Is everyone down the line "guilty" of "kidnapping" and must serve time in prison?

There comes a time when it needs to be recognized that removing "qualified immunity" is not a good idea. That's a... mistake.

Society empowers "police" to enforce the law and during that duty necessary action must be taken that may infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of others. However, during the performance of those duties is it also acknowledged that any instances of the abuse of that power must be pursued.

That is a sensible approach.

Destroying the functionality of a police system by holding those professionals criminally liable for the actions necessary to carry out the duties society demands of them is... a mistake.

they do all the time, false imprisonment faces lawsuits of upwards of 10's of millions of dollars.

if u are american, if u european u get 20k for 10years of prison and if u are neither american nor european u prob get another 10years of prison