Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Diskussionsregler och -riktlinjer
Anmäl detta inlägg
I am sure it is a pain being a cop in the US. Especially nowadays.
What is democrat about it? Cops do good work and deserve praise.
I am sure it is a pain. But its also a pain being an innocent victim of U.S cops.
Why make it harder for them? I am sure most aren't even racist?
They won't stop that because they get away with anything.
Maybe add 6 months of education on corruption and social part of being a cop?
It's an example.
There is the intent to lawfully pursue the criminal who has committed a dangerous crime, child murder (or at least suspected of that and fleeing the active investigation), and that the person represents a serious danger to others, either mortal as implied or at least "serious bodily harm." (ie: running around with a knife/weapon, for example, represents that)
The intent by the pursuing officer is fulfilling their duty to investigate whether the crime has committed and/or to act to protect others from harm by a dangerous person/criminal who they believe, with observations they interpret, represents an immediate threat.
It's their lawful intent and the immediacy of the threat that qualifies the legal pursuit.
I am not an attorney or associated with law enforcement.
The whole point being that there are circumstances where it may be commonly thought that "police can't do that" when they actually can under certain conditions. Laws and the powers society gives to governments aren't usually completely unthunked out.
Does a fireman have the "Right" to break into your house in order to put out the fire? Yes. Why? Because of the same reasons - It represents an immediate threat to lives and, as an extension of their specific duties, property in protecting the lives, homes, and businesses of others where they can. There is no time, due to the immediacy of action required, to get some kind of permission to fulfill the obligation represented by what society expects of them.
Note: I am not familiar with anywhere outside the US in this way and don't know all the specific laws of all the jurisdictions in all the US States, which very well could have different laws and procedures. This is just "in general."
Doesn't the above seem sensible? Doesn't it seem as if such a thing does act in the interests of society? Should someone who clearly, as the officer truly believes with what appears to be sufficient evidence, be legally allowed to successfully flee immediate pursuit simply by stepping foot on private property? Go inside a house? Get into a car?
In the US, however, such things could be changed by The People if that's what they want. But, what would then be the repercussions of that? Dangerous people/criminals escape, houses burn down? Is that what people would want? Probably not.
plain and simple
You said it is natural to assume that because of people having bad experience with cops.
I did mistakenly misread your comment regarding all cops around the world, though, believing you were saying that everyone knows they're all bad.
My mistake, sorry about that.
Yes, it is natural to make those assumptions if one's experience doesn't dictate otherwise. I agree. And, it's also natural to be suspicious or apprehensive of others who may have power over you. Humans don't see being "too trusting" as a generally admirable trait.
But, I disagree that "ACAB" comes with it the necessity of understanding that "all cops are not truly bad"...
That's not what it says on the label. So, why is that? Because in order to have import and gravitas, it must seem a great threat or come with a great risk. Overgeneralizing that gains more attention and garners more support.
What are they supposed to say and paint on their signs?
"Some Cops Are Bad"
"SCAB?"
Well, aside from being not quite a genius observation, it'd have a distasteful abbreviation... and wouldn't be weighty or radical enough to attract much attention.
Which is exactly what I described.
My example wasn't "bad." Why should I say it was? It's just a general example and I am qualifying it with the fact that I'm not an attorney nor do I know the laws of all the States in the US or other countries.
When did that happen?
Why didn't you stop the last murderer before they murdered someone?
Cops don't show up when good things are happening.
Remember that. And, also know what most of the time when they are involved in situations that represent the sorts of risks people are talking about, things are progressing rapidly from bad to worse. There is not enough time to have a meeting about something and the officer's state of mind can't be evaluated on-scene by a therapist before they take action or believe they must take action in order to perform their duties.
That includes those they work with.
So, let's say a cop is alone and calls for assistance. Another cop arrives to find the wounded cop holding down a person on the ground and shouting for the other cop to help cuff and restrain him. He also says that person has or had a pistol, so he must be searched too. The first officer is clearly wounded by something and there's blood on the ground, evidence of a struggle, and a crowd of angry people are forming around them...
If the second cop is a "good cop" what should they do? What is right for them to do in this situation? What if the wounded cop was actually trying to get the drug dealer, the one they've been blackmailing for their illegal drug money, killed? What if that drug dealer acted in "self defense?" What if none of that was the case and the person on the ground is completely innocent and all this is just a big mistake?
Are you, as that responding officer, going to act quickly to get the situation under control or are you going to look at that other officer and say, "Well, now, let's not be hasty about this. Tell me about your childhood and did you ever have sexual thoughts about your parents?"
Aside from immediate actions, there are other things that can prevent good cops from acting. For instance, what if their department's procedure requires that certain protocols must be obeyed. That's a big deal. They have to talk to people, fill out paperwork, maybe even testify to a Grand Jury. Certainly, there's a lot of steps in some places, I bet.
There are "Whistleblower" laws in place. They can protect good officers. But, will they protect them outside of court?
Ever seen the movie "Serpico?"
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070666/
It's based on a true story and it's worth the watch in order to maybe understand other concerns an otherwise "good cop" may be hard-pressed by.
All I am saying is that doing things like calling for the revocation of Qualified Immunity and calling all cops "Bartards" (bad) is... wrongthink. We should, instead, be sure that the systems we have in place to prevent abuse and to pursue the investigation of same are robust and working well.
Bad people exist. Bad cops exist. Bad systems exist. But, not all people are bad, not all systems are bad, and not all cops are bartards.
Well yeah, but there is also cops who have a blue line on their U.S flag. Which is a sign of the total institution being at work and cops seeing themselves as a separate body of the general population. Which is usually a very bad thing and ends up badly, which we could also see with the BLM protests and how cops often acted.