Police Reform

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Police Reform

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

It's helpful to remember that one of the major problems with policing is voters. Turnout in municipal elections is generally abysmal and the people who do turn out would often prefer Judge Dredd to Andy Griffith. The general opinion of people for whom policing is an issue at the voting booth is "There are too many criminals/coloreds in my neighborhood and I wish somebody would crack their skulls." This is why we still have the death penalty in 2014 and why three strikes laws exist.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2014 19:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 08:34

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Samurai Sanders posted:

Oh? What's the basis of their opposition?

They represent the cop when the cop decides to put the boot to someone and gets a complaint/lawsuit filed against him. Presumably they'd prefer not to have those incidents recorded because it makes representing their members more difficult.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2014 20:44

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Samurai Sanders posted:

That seems kind of indirect to me; have they come out and said that these cameras would be bad because of x?

Police unions have campaigned pretty strongly against cameras and generally any kind of disciplinary process that actually works.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2014 20:52

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

rudatron posted:

The answer then should be to stock the community oversight board or whatever with randomly selected people, or at least put some protections in place so you get a broad sample of the population.

You can talk about adding technology and so on, but it's fundamentally a problem of power structures; Power serves its own interests, and a lack of accountability will, over time, always lead to parochial relations and corruption. It's easy to wax poetic about the inherent nobility (or vice) of law enforcement as a profession, but they're just human beings like the rest of us.

So while adding cameras is good, lacking actual human beings to audit and use them for oversight, it's just a wasted opportunity. And who should commit that oversight? The only reasonable solution is 'the public'.

I find it hard to believe that using the jury duty system for police oversight would be a major improvement considering what we know about juries. I'd much rather see an independent investigative agency handle the issue at the state level. Then again I tend to think and independent IG would solve a lot of the problems in government so I may have a bias.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 13:28

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Nathilus posted:

In my opinion, this reflects a common misunderstanding about dealing with corruption. It's always suggested that the most notoriously corrupt sorts of action get forwarded to another authority. The reasoning is that someone more divorced from the specific kind of situation in question is less biased and will be more accountable, and will thus be less prone to corruption when it comes to that certain thing.

But it's not an unhealthy closeness to any given sort of power that gives rise to corruption, rather corruption is a natural and unavoidable part of being human interacting with authority, so much so that if you try to take the power that's being abused and give it to someone else, they are just going to monopolize that power as it can be used for their personal gain. Then, eventually, when enough people have been getting the undue benefits of that power for long enough, whatever fun oversight agency you've come up with gains enough institutional inertia that it sustains itself. Now you've created another monster, almost completely separate from the original corruption you were trying to fix. Which is still going on of course because we're all human, albeit now its happening at a higher level of governance.

Once upon a time a civilization went so far as to chop the balls off a bunch of the dudes in Court so they could function as unbiased watchmen for the rest, unburdened by a need to create a genetic dynasty and male ego. They STILL ended up being massively corrupt and ended up toppling and/or being the shadow masters of more than one monarch.

Corruption can't be made to vanish by swapping the burden of authority around, because at the end of the day the authority will still be invested in a person, and people are the entire problem. The only way I can see past this is to make such authority systemic in such a way as to no longer require human judgement at all. How you could even make a such a system without involving judgment to create in the first place (and thus turning the implementators and maintainers of the system into the corrupt watchmen) is beyond me, however.

What is clear to me is that there is no one person or agency which would be the perfect maintainer of authority and never fall to corruption. No matter how carefully you nest and couch authority behind recursive oversight, the will of people to futz with the rules to get ahead will beat you every time. I don't think it's necessarily savagery or uncivilized behavior that can be educated or bred out, either. People are a little bit sketchy by nature. It's a solid survival trait and a side effect of cleverness.

What was the point of this post? Is it just "Everything is hosed, we should all kill ourselves now."? Because I think you can safely assume nobody in this thread thinks any solution is going to some kind of perfectly incorruptible beep-boop computer.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 16:37

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Nathilus posted:

It's a critique concerning your method of dealing with corruption. I don't have a great counter-plan, I admit it, but the first step is getting brighter minds than mine looking at the issue from this perspective. Where it is understood that authority-swapping doesn't work and we need another way to deal with the issue. Just because you or I can't think of any better way to remove the harmful kinds of human agency from the equation than "computers" doesn't mean there isn't one. Perhaps we could find one, if more people could be convinced to look at the problem from this angle.

That's not a critique, it's just doomsaying.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 16:56

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Nathilus posted:

No. Your solution wouldn't work and I'm fairly confident that history is on my side in that regard. That doesn't mean there isn't a workable solution. It would be the epitome of stupidity to try the same thing again and again once it was clear that it never works. Instead it would become a better use of your time to consider alternate solutions.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you but so far what I've gathered is that you believe that all organizations eventually become corrupt if given any authority. That's not a critique of anything. It's just boo-hooing over the world not being perfect. The status quo is deeply flawed. Any replacement system will likewise be imperfect, but if it results in less injustice that's still a win. Doing nothing because we're all waiting on "brighter minds" to come up with some kind of perfectly incorruptible system that determines when it's wrong for a cop to kick the poo poo out of people is not an improvement.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 17:24

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Nathilus posted:

Since you acknowledge the flaw in the way we have been trying to do things, instead of just doing that all over again, why not try to do something that hasn't failed a few thousand times already? Whatever you want to try doesn't have to be incorruptible as long as you're trying to learn from your previously flawed premises and adapting. In that way, even if the solution isn't perfect, there can be advancement and more justice.

What do you suggest? Your requirements seem to be that there not be any actual humans involved and that no one have any authority whatsoever lest it inevitably corrupt them. I mean, I suppose we could just go back to trial by combat and let God decide, but that seems like a step backward.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 17:38

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

I think you could go so far to say that unions are a good thing but current public sector unions should be razed to the ground and rebuilt.

I don't know how you could rebuild a police union into anything other than a giant mess unless you neutered it to the point of uselessness. Unions will always go to bat for their members, even when they're utter shitbags, because that's their job. The police and guards unions aren't uniquely bad in this respect, their members just have a disproportionately large effect on the public.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 21:51

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Shbobdb posted:

Are there any practical steps that can be done to reduce police funding?

TheImmigrant posted:

Politically impossible.

Not even close. Police funding gets slashed just like anything else. More than a few departments in my area simply ceased to exist after the economy blew up. The cities closed them down and paid the counties for service instead because they couldn't afford the payroll. Not that I think "starve the beast" is a valid response to problems in policing.

Liquid Communism posted:

Short of outlawing asset forfeiture or explicitly earmarking those funds to go into, say, a trust for compensating innocent bystanders shot by police instead of funding SWAT teams and being used to buy more surplus military arms and vehicles, no.

Asset forfeiture is indeed hosed, but most of those surplus goodies are free. Nobody is actually buying an MRAP. The DoD and DHS are giving that poo poo away, often with a fat grant.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 21:55

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

door Door door posted:

Free for the department, but not the country.

Yes, but why the federal government buys poo poo it doesn't need is well beyond the scope of this thread.

KernelSlanders posted:

Welcome to federalism. Also, the maintenance on those things probably greatly exceeds the purchase price as a share of TCO, even if the departments did pay retail.

Exactly. Though I doubt most of the really big expensive toys come out of the garage but once or twice a year for county fairs and photo ops.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2014 22:15

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

KernelSlanders posted:

If you're a stock broker or work at an investment bank everything you say or do from the moment you enter the building at work to the moment you leave is recorded. Every file you click on on your computer is logged, your phones are recorded, your conversations are recorded. If you want to make a private personal call, then you do it on your cell phone after you leave the building off company time. I see no reason why the standards for public servants with guns should be lower.

Even if all that were true stock brokers aren't also expected to work 12 hour shifts and never leave their desk in that time.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 03:30

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Everblight posted:

I think a major step in reforming the police could be taken very, very simply - no more blackout tactical vests and ballcaps with alphabet soup on them.

The vests and ballcaps are way more comfortable though. Vests are also a lot better for your back than carrying all that poo poo around on a belt. Other than that little niggle I agree with you though. If you walk around dressed like a stormtrooper you're going to produce a certain response.

Everblight posted:

Right, and don't wear clothes like that if you don't want to be raped. It's just common sense!

Yeah, that analogy kind of falls apart at "If you don't want a ticket, don't do illegal things." because that's perfectly reasonable advice.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 18:42

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

litany of gulps posted:

If the cops actually just followed the laws and were consistent, you might see less hate and fear of them.

If cops actually maxed out every misdemeanor they found the legal system would loving implode. We'd all get charged with about half a dozen crimes a day, and you'd be lucky if your grandchildren were alive for your court date.

The law is routinely insane and discretion in charging is pretty much the only thing that keeps the courts even semi-functional.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 20:50

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

litany of gulps posted:

If the legal system wouldn't work without putting the burden of making it work on the judgment of the lowest tier workers in the system, then maybe the system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Pretty much. I don't think your version of legal accelerationism is a particularly good idea for reform though.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 20:55

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

litany of gulps posted:

So if the court system got flooded because the police started acting with consistency, do you think it would be valid to assume that the judges would begin throwing out en masse tickets for things that they decide are bad or stupid laws?

Judges already do this as has been mentioned more than once in this thread. Although relying on a judge to be the first person to exercise discretion would turn what is already a quagmire into a total disaster. Even if an offense gets dismissed it's still costing the accused a reasonably large amount of time and money to deal with it.

litany of gulps posted:

Do you feel as though this discretion should lie with the police officers or with the judges?

I feel that if you're going to train and employ a person with the expectation that he can make a reasonable judgement regarding the use of lethal force you can simultaneously trust him to make a reasonable judgement about traffic violations.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 21:14

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

litany of gulps posted:

The idea is basically accelerationism, as Rent-A-Cop mentioned earlier. Push the system into highlighting the worst aspects so that they get fixed. It would be disruptive, yes. Many judges are scum, yes. They're often more accountable to the public (as elected officials) than the police, however. I know it would be ridiculous, but that's sort of the point. How do you trigger adaptation without forcing a confrontation or breaking point of some kind?

But how many people are you willing to throw under the bus to catalyze the change you want? How many people sent to jail on garbage charges that should never see the inside of a court, how many crimes unsolved because the police were busy imploding the justice system, how many tax dollars flushed down the drain just because you hope that when the whole thing collapses the people who built it in the first place rebuild something better?

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 23:26

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Liquid Communism posted:

This is unironically a good idea. If the laws enforced as written cause the legal system to implode, then they desperately need reform, not spotty and half-assed enforcement based on how badly a particular cop's marriage is falling apart, or how much of a hard-on for loving over dumb stoner kids he has.

Yes there needs to be reform, but accelerationism is still dumb. There are better way to reform the system than to do a nationwide experiment in exactly how terrible you can make people's lives before they revolt.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 05:20

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Liquid Communism posted:

What's the counter solution?

Literally every alternative that isn't "gently caress the world, let's stack the dead like cordwood."

If your plan to solve any problem starts with "Step 1: Make the problem a thousand times worse" you have a defective brain.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 06:28

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

cheese posted:

The entire point of accelerationism is that we have reached a point where meaningful reform is impossible through legal means. The overused JFK quote about violent revolution becoming inevitable when peaceful revolution becomes impossible is at its core. If you can honestly lay out a plausible theory for how we restore sanity to law enforcement (and you might as well take care of corporate/1% capture of our entire governing apparatus at the same time since the two are linked), then please elaborate. I can't think of one that doesn't involve a lot of hand waving, wishful thinking and "umm"ing.

Ah yes, any kind of reform is obviously impossible because of 1%ers but "Burn everything to the ground in a glorious orgy of destruction!" is a totally achievable policy goal.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 06:30

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Liquid Communism posted:

Again I ask, what's your counter solution? How exactly do we root out endemic corruption among so many departments that it regularly makes national news, stop openly racist and classist selective enforcement, and work towards law enforcement that people actually trust to help them rather than gently caress with them if they're bored, or below quota, or happen to hate their skin/culture/religion/economic status?

I don't think it's particularly fair to demand realistic alternatives from me when your solution is to literally bury people under the weight of a broken system until the rich notice their lawns aren't getting mowed and feel obliged to usher in the utopia.

If you'd like some actual policy proposals though here are my top two:

End drug prohibition and cut the legs out from under the vast majority of organized crime in America. Drugs and drug money are the source of a huge amount of violence in the streets and corruption in the law.

Empower a federal Office of the Inspector General, give it a mandate to hunt corruption, and let it keep some portion of the funds recovered and assets seized. Watch it become the best funded federal agency inside of six months. Corruption runs rampant where honest people know it won't be prosecuted and start to ignore it as a sort of background criminality. Give those people a hammer and let them go find some nails.

Admittedly that second one is a bit unlikely. Congress would probably have a moment of true bipartisan cooperation and kill it immediately.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 19:11

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Bedshaped posted:

I sure do love to harp on about my gun-free society

Someone should tell the IRA they aren't supposed to have guns.

Then again they're generally more interested in murdering each other / the PSNI than they are in shooting it out with the Garda.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2014 19:12

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

wateroverfire posted:

Make Coffee County deputies qualify on the pistol more often.

Have you seen what ammo costs these days? Cheaper to just settle when a deputy shoots a kid.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 02:22

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

wateroverfire posted:

Just hypothetically, as a canvasser you can drop your materials on the porch and leave. As a cop you don't really have that luxury in most situations.

Police are incapable of walking backwards. Police are also incapable of utilizing fences, cars, trash cans, trees, small changes in elevation, any of the half dozen things commonly carried by police and designed to subdue humans that are much larger than dogs, spoken language, or higher reasoning when presented with dogs. It is extremely ableist to condemn them for this severe disability inherent to their species when they resort to literally their only option which is to shoot at the dog and hit a child instead.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 06:03

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Ableist Kinkshamer posted:

Cops don't have the luxury of assuming they aren't in an active combat zone.

Everything you need to know about policing in America.

This isn't your neighborhood, it's fuckin' Fallujah. War on Crime is 24/7/365 citizen.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2014 08:10

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Ableist Kinkshamer posted:

If you want to just vent and rage about hosed up poo poo that cops have done, well that's fine, carry on. If you're interested in actual solutions to police brutality, you can start by not trivializing it by lumping in the dog shooting poo poo with it, also by realizing that the main issue is the lack of accountability and not the fact that cops are all secretly cackling demons.

Cops are humans and if you give humans a gun and the authority to shoot pretty much anything they want with no consequences awful things happen. Thanks for stating the obvious.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2014 03:12

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Network Pesci posted:

Now I've personally had that story told to me once and seen it told to the driver of the vehicle two other times. This isn't nearly as bad as physical or sexual abuse, but I find it more than a little insulting and condescending, not to mention the fact that nobody my tax dollars pay for needs to be equating their relationship with me to my relationship with a fish. I don't serve and protect fish, I catch them, kill them, and eat them.

I'm going to go ahead and say that any adult who uses "But the other kids were doin' it too!" in an attempt to get out of a ticket deserves to be insulted and that the above is not an example of police abuse so much as it is an example of what happens when you're stupid.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 21:15

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

anonumos posted:

No. In most jurisdictions, failure to keep with the flow of traffic is ALSO a ticketable offense. Meaning, we're hosed either way.

Specifically which jurisdictions? Because Google is failing me on this one.

Edit: The ones I'm seeing pretty much all echo the same "normal and reasonable movement of traffic" language which can in no way be interpreted to encourage or condone exceeding the posted speed limit.

Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jul 16, 2014

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 21:24

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

KernelSlanders posted:

Because anyone who's had a bad experience with a cop and isn't basically a Cole or Rent-a-Cop from this thread personality wise will get struck from the pool.

Why do I get lumped in with Cole? Did you not actually read any of my posts in this thread, or were you just offended when I expressed the opinion that getting stopped for speeding when you're speeding isn't comparable to sexual assault when it comes to police abuse?

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 20:25

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Cuntpunch posted:

No, the tacit racism by proposing crime reduction by targeting specific, largely vulnerable populations.

"If american jobs paid better crime would go down" is not tacitly racist. "If blacks had better jobs crime would go down" makes a tie between these things in a way that suggests specific correlation. The language is targeting a specific population and correlating 'fixing' its problems as a means to reduce crime.

I found a racist windmill, do you have a lance I could borrow?

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 23:01

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Cuntpunch posted:

If the call came in to riot-suit up and tear gas a crowd of nonviolent protesters and the entire PD said "gently caress this, we're standing aside unless there is violence" the system would change really loving quickly.

More likely they'd all be fired, the Chief/Sheriff would be sacked and someone "tough on crime" would take his place.

What people don't get is that voters love this poo poo. Joe Arpaio hasn't been Sheriff for 20 years because he has sorcerous powers. His constituents fuckin' love profiling, heavy-handed violence, brutal jails and tanks.

Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Jul 26, 2014

# ¿ Jul 26, 2014 10:05

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

rudatron posted:

The only group you can count on to serve the interests of the general public is the general public itself.

The general public is dumb as poo poo and is massively in favor of pretty much everything wrong with policing in America.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2014 14:27

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

LeJackal posted:

vast empire of mind control that forces your 'good people cop buddies' to rob, rape, and murder.

Shithead sheriffs have now officially been elevated to the status of Ming the Merciless ITT.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2014 17:11

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

meat sweats posted:

Ah yes, the famous media bias against law enforcement agencies.

How did you even get that from the post you quoted?

# ¿ Aug 4, 2014 03:29

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Samurai Sanders posted:

Oh okay, I had trouble finding a collected article about the whole thing, so I didn't hear that. Anyway yeah, it was only as of the Zimmerman incident that I found out that there was any scenario where someone with a gun could shoot someone who is unarmed and not go to prison. I mean, other than being a cop.

The pavement makes a pretty great anvil for pounding someone's head into and it doesn't take much of that to cause permanent injury or death.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2014 18:10

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Obdicut posted:

They were indoors and there is no allegation that the guy was pounding his head into pavement, but just that he was punching him a lot.

If you're on the ground with someone on top of you punching you in the head you're getting your head pounded into the ground. I'm not sure how being indoors makes a difference, the basic laws of physics don't change when you enter a Burger King.

I'm assuming this wasn't one of those rare Burger Kings where the floor is made out of cotton candy and the guy getting punched didn't have neck muscles like the Incredible Hulk. If either of those were true I think I might reach a different conclusion.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2014 18:25

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Obdicut posted:

I disagree with you that getting punched a lot, in a place with a lot of other people around, requires a lethal response. I also disagree that getting punched a lot without other people around requires a lethal response, but at least if you're in a MacDonalds and there's other people around, it's really unlikely you're getting beaten to death.

In the interest of ending a derail I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think getting mounted and repeatedly punched in the face is likely to result in serious bodily injury and I generally don't have a problem with laws that allow the use of lethal force to prevent serious bodily injury. I don't think the fact that other people were standing around watching the beating makes a difference considering how apathetic people can be to horrible poo poo happening.

Obdicut posted:

Also, if you went ahead and interjected yourself into the argument in the first place, you're a dumbass.

Well duh, but sadly it isn't legal to knock dumbasses down and then wail on them until you feel better.

Obdicut posted:

Back when I was a kid we could take ten or twenty punches to the dome

Yeah but your mom punches like a girl.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2014 18:46

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Obdicut posted:

Yes.

Well you're wrong. There isn't even an argument here. You're just boldly stating untruths. I suggest you do some reading before you get yourself or someone else seriously hurt or killed with your "Don't worry punches can't kill you and someone will do something anyway" attitude.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2014 19:21

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Obdicut posted:

I'm glad I didn't say those things, because they would be silly to say.

That's true. You said:

Obdicut posted:

It is really hard to beat someone to death with your hands.

Obdicut posted:

True, but most fights still get broken up by bystanders, when there are bystanders.

Which is basically just as stupid.

Obdicut posted:

And really, this is a derail, if you seriously want to call me dumb and poo poo about this PM me.

I think the thread is on track now that we're back to calling you dumb instead of arguing about self defense law.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2014 19:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 08:34

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Cuntpunch posted:

How does this even happen without crossing into 'actual' crimes like assault?

Refusing to be lawfully detained and/or refusing to gently caress off when told to gently caress off basically.

In my own Sunshine State the law reads thusly:

quote:

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.�Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2014 17:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Police Reform

«‹›5 »