The Sacramento Bee https://www.facebook.com/share/bndN19oNXQb2ecPG/?mibextid=LQQJ4d
the problem is police are not held accountable for their ignorance of the laws they are hired to enforce.
they need to be prosecuted for their ignorance. dont like it? dont be a police officer.
I don’t know if this is ignorance, it could just be a lie so they don’t have to face more scrutiny.
ive worked in healthcare, where even some of the lower roles require periodic (regulation required) training. ignorance is no excuse in healthcare.
ive also worked in police departments where ignorance is just a tool in their box, because they are not actually required to know anything.
best case, police should have a 4 year degree in law enforcement to even be considered to hold a human-killing device.
worst case; police should be periodically challenged on their knowledge of the law, just like every other role with elevated responsibility.
I don’t disagree, but considering how averse the police are to being filmed, I’m willing to bet they just don’t want to be filmed, despite their ignorance on the law.
In fact, I think a cop saying things like “It’s illegal to film cops” or “It’s illegal to film an ongoing arrest” or “It’s illegal to film a crime scene” cannot be viewed through the lens of ignorance. If you know little about the law you might misinterpret the law, or not know specific laws exist, or not know legal processes. But they aren’t “not knowing” the law, they are inventing a new law that doesn’t exist. They are inventing a new law that benefits them, and then using their authority, perceived knowledge of the law, and threat of force and violence to get their way.
If anything, cops hate accountability. And cameras are good at holding them accountable. And even if what they are doing is legal (such as clearing an unhoused camp), the public outcry will not be super pleasant for them. I remember the anger cops had when my state made them wear body cams, and I remember early scandals about cops disabling the cameras before doing horrible shit.
I mean, technically it is a crime scene after scotus cleared the way to make existence a crime. That doesn’t make it right.
Copypasta from a first-level reply because it’s relevant here:
I mean, technically it is a crime scene after scotus cleared the way to make existence a crime. That doesn’t make it right.
ACAB
Yup they just don’t want to be on video destroying people’s lives. They know this is wrong. They feel shame, but they’re doing it anyways. So the last thing they want is video evidence they were ever this cruel.
Consequences. Because once you understand that for profit housing is the root cause of homelessness and not some vague unwillingness to live indoors then homeless people are victims not criminals. And if we ever get this country to actually be worker centric instead of owner centric we’re going to look at those videos and identify the people willing to punch down on victims. They don’t want that, and they especially don’t want people seeing them haul senior citizens off to prison because they didn’t comply with the destruction of everything that won’t fit into a duffel bag.
Blue lives don’t matter. ACAB
The personality disorder that leads people to be cops ought to be a disqualifying trait. I don’t really know how we would get appropriate people. The job itself probably creates some of the personality disorder- repeatedly seeing horrible crime scenes is probably traumatic and encountering awful people might create prejudices. It’s also bad that some departments disqualify candidates if their IQ is too high.
A partial solution is quite simple: Separate violent crime police from administrative police. This is actually the point of police defunding. You don’t need to SWAT unit, or even a firearm to respond to traffic violations, noise complaints, loitering, or domestic abuse.
