1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 10 points 9 months ago

It's not surprising.

But very much revolting.

  • source
  • 31 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 62 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Every responding officer should be held accountable… But, unfortunately, our current laws don’t provide a framework for such a thing. Legally speaking, this case was kind of a shit show from the start. It’s very surprisingly even got an indictment.

    That’s not to say these officers should not be held accountable, but the sad thing is that we simply do not have laws for their crimes

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Police can lie to you and they aren't legally required to help anyone. Yet they demand our obedience and cooperation. Shit is fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Yet they demand our obedience and cooperation.

    And people willingly bootlick these brave heroes who "f34r for muh life!!!" and start blasting when an acorn falls. Or when they step in front of a moving vehicle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Can I join his force and get paid to also not do my job?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Police are not required to help you under any circumstances. Period. They can literally watch you being stabbed to death and just decide they want to sit this one out. I’m surprised you’re just now finding this out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Police are not required to help you under any circumstances.

    When I want to see heads explode I mention

    • Warren v District of Columbia (the basis for the situation you mention); and
    • that Social Security doesn't work the way people think
      • there is no personal account that holds your contributions
      • you have no right to get any of your contributions back in your old age -- the benefit is defined by Congress and they could make it whatever they want (including nothing)

    In both cases one are required by law to pay but the recipient is not required to perform. As they say, "it's good to the the king".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Social security is a very different case, it's designed to be a safety net, even in its inception. There is no claim or language that indicates it's anything else.

    Police however are prompted up by things like "protect and serve" and a lot of other language/guidance/media to be portrayed as protectors, when that's not necessarily the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    There is no claim or language that indicates it’s anything else.

    Agreed, the SSA itself is not making claims that mislead the public.

    Police however are prompted up by things like “protect and serve”

    I agree that's a problem.

    a lot of other language/guidance/media to be portrayed as protectors, when that’s not necessarily the case.

    I don't want to beat the dead horse, but IMO the public language/guidance/media discourse regarding the SSA is as misleading as "to protect and to serve".

    If I were pushed I might say that the security part of social security is an implied guarantee that it will provide security of some kind. It does bolster financial security for many at the moment, but there is no guarantee it will do in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    I can at least entertain the idea that people "back the blue" to make their communities safer. But isn't this the exact fucking thing that they're supposed to protect the community from? Fuck this piece of shit and every one of those pig fucking cowards.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago

    Uvalde remains the final proof that police militarization has been a complete failure. It has resulted in police that will hold someone down to deluge their eyes with pepper spray, but won't protect children from a single shooter.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago
    [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    "Police can shoot civilians in the face without consequences, but they have no obligation to protect kids from school shooters" -the american judiciary

    Fuck this country.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    May he never have a night of peaceful sleep.

    🪶

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    We don't need cops.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    Cops only duties are to protect private property. Nothing more.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Who would hire any of the cops that didn’t bust into the room? “Think of the children”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Australia already has new gun laws from the attack in December. We shall eat our tails with bbq sauce!

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 9 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Because as we see the right to keep and bear arms prevents that from happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    You need

    I don’t need anything, not my shit show

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Perhaps and if so, having a gun probably won’t help much. That said, if it gets to that point I’ll have no issues getting one.

    I remember those days well. Being armed didn’t help Queenslanders if Joh wanted to turn his wrath on them. What did was unity and watching each others backs. Having safe places

    The key to doing well in that situation is looking after each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Good luck using your civilian gun to fight an army.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Well… no. Your gun kink has proven to be exactly as effective as our “nothing”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Not sure using two examples of never ending civil war is quite the slam dunk argument you think it is mate but you do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    If you think civilians stand a chance against the largest most powerful military the world has ever seen i have a bridge to Hawaii to sell you.

    Most Americans can't even pass the minimum for military training yet some how you think a bunch of overweight chain smokers with Walmart rifles is going to "stand a chance".

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    The system is still working as it's designed to, I see. Shit like this is why we can't have good things.

  • source