"Vhere are your papers??"
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
779 points (99.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
12937 readers
1463 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
ACAB. They’ll never change if our only resistance is peaceful. No significant swing in power between a people and its government has occurred absent of violence.
Bad policing is bad for good cops.
Good cops? You mean the ones that stand and watch the bad cops?
Sigh. The responses you got really dishearten me. We really are moving fast to a binary world where everything is good or bad and any opportunity for nuance is thrown out the window.
You are of course 100% correct.
Well good thing there are no good cops 🅰️©️🆎
Yeah woukd suck for them if there were. I bet they woukd stop being cops immediately.
They've had over 100 years yo fix the system from the inside. If good cops ever existed, what have they done to stop shit like this from happening?
Fuck them all. There are no good cops when savages like these ones are allowed to do what they do. Every last one of them may as well be kindling for the fires of the revolution that's coming.
Some kind of police is necessary. Public order needs to be kept, laws enforced, crime fought, dangers prevented. A state monopoly on violence is not a terrible idea and needs to be enforced somehow.
What kind of powers, tasks, oversight, and so on police gets is the issue.
A state monopoly on violence is not a terrible idea and needs to be enforced somehow.
Maybe it's pedantic of me to say this but was not a state monopoly on violence and there certainly isn't now. A lot of goon squads are composed of private security forces.
There should be a state monopoly on violence, and that violence should be heavily regulated.
Sadly, neither of those statements are currently true.
Yeah thats what im saying. A good cop is someone who realizes on the first day 'oh. Oh that training makes a lot more sense now. I need every shower.' And quits. Or dies in a training accident pretty quick.
There are no good cops.
Hard disagree. My wife was stopped due to expired registration on our car - My fault, long story. The cop gave her a fix it ticket. Nothing else happened. They're a good cop, or at least they were in that moment.
You know what would have happened if they were a bad cop in that moment? She would have been deported for having brown skin.
Good cops don't make headlines, but they exist, and I'm grateful for the good ones we've encountered.
That being said, bad cops can fuck right off.
Bad cops, even the worst of the worst, do a normal job 99% of the time. It's the other 1 % of their actions that have such a negative impact.
"Good" cops become automatically bad just by failing to police their own. One single openly bad cop is enough to make ALL of them bad. They have way too much power to be allowed one single abuse, let alone a systematic persecution of poor people.
They always say "we have a few bad apples" and never acknowledge the complete expression "bad apples" comes from, which is "a few bad apples spoil the bunch". I think the full expression makes the analogy correct.
My dude, that cop did the bare minimum of their job. I don't believe that should be your definition of 'good'.
Bare minimum would have been not pulling her over in the first place, or giving a warning. I've encountered cops in the past that ticketed me for things that I found out later I should not have been ticketed for, and they were dicks while they did it.
This wasn't the bare minimum, and they didn't abuse their power. Definitely wasn't a "bad cop".
There are no good cops.
There are outright bad cops, and there are cops that are somewhat competent at following procedure -- but that doesn't make them good cops. A lot of the time it's the doing of the job itself that makes them bad cops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
Not exactly a new thing.
"Resonable Suspicion" is a lower threshold than "Probable Cause".
Reasonable suspicion of a crime. You need to say the whole thing.
The number of cops that thinks "I've got reasonable suspicion of you being suspicious." Has always been too goddamn high. You need reasonable suspicion OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Being suspicious isn't a crime. Being black or Latino in a subway station isn't a crime. Even stop and identify laws need to be based in reasonable suspicion of a crime because the 4th amendment demands it.
That is why cops have Terry Stops that allow them to fill in the reason as whatever and the judge always sides with the cops
I'm no expert on American law but I'm pretty sure you don't have to show ID unless you're given a good explanation for it.
ACAB
"Reasonable articulable suspicion", is the official way of saying that.
"A good explanation" is very undefined. The police has to have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, and they have to be able to articulate, ie explain that said reasonable suspicion of having committed a specific crime.
They just make it up all the time though, but most of the cops don't even seem to know the law. They just do what other cops do. And never have to take responsibility for breaking the law.
So the 4th amendment of the US Constitution, which outlines the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, protects people from being forced to verbally identify or show documents of identification without reasonable cause, among other things. What that has been interpreted to mean by the SCOTUS is that, while they can always request ID without it being a lawful order, a request you can deny without consequence, any policy or state/local ID law that requires identification upon officer request without any other reasonable cause is unlawful. In other words they cannot demand id for no actual reason nor punish you for failing to ID without said reason.
At minimum, they need "reasonable and articulable suspicion" of a real crime that has happened, is happening, or is about to happen, in order to legally require you to ID yourself in every state, district, and city in the country (with the exception of if you are driving a car and get pulled over for a lawful infraction, you must provide your license to prove you're allowed to drive the vehicle). "Reasonable and articulable suspicion" means that there are real facts that can be pointed to that a reasonable person would deem as a likely indication of crime, not hunches or racial profiling. Some states have higher levels of requirements in order to ID someone, but none can have lower requirements.
BUT, the unfortunate and infuriating truth is that they do not need to actually explain their reasonable and articulate suspicion to you at the time, which ultimately means that they dont have to have it until they justify it to the court much later. They could be just demanding it for no reason unlawfully. Or they could be demanding it because they just saw you pick pocket someone, or someone pointed you out as someone that threatened them, or you match the description of the person that just broke a bunch of windows nearby. All of those things qualify at reasonable suspicion allowing them to ID you in places where that is the minimum requirement. Even if you did nothing wrong, you could still match a description but aren't the right guy, or they thought that saw you do something unlawful but were actually mistaken. It doesn't matter. They still have reasonable suspicion unless you somehow factually dispel that suspicion. If you do not dispel that suspicion (maybe because they didn't even explain their reasons in the first place) and they demand ID, you can be lawfully required to present it even if you did absolutely nothing wrong and don't have a clue why they are asking at all.
In other words, if they demand ID and don't explain why, there's functionally way to discern at the time if the demand is lawful or unlawful even if you have committed no crimes. So you either comply or go to jail and argue your case in court later, regardless of the truth. And btw, even if they had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to lawfully demand ID at the time, they can just lie to justify it. If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it's assumed to be true. So... enjoy your "freedoms", I guess.
If the lie is not demonstrably shown to be a lie by other evidence, it's assumed to be true. So... enjoy your "freedoms", I guess.
Yeah. This is why I actually enjoy quite a lot of those first amendment auditors. Not all of them, some of then are just attention seeking arseholes. But for instance one guy who streams his shit and I see sometimes shorts, he wears a bodycam and is simply blessing veterans or something.
Since he just stands in a corner and doesn't interact with anything or anyone, and is quite the striking fella (big man), there's little if no bullshit excuses the cops can come up with, and these guys are ready to go to court.
At least in the US you can try to get your rights, especially if you can afford a lawyer. And you can actually get compensation when the police are noted to have broken your rights.
Not here in Finland.
The police are polite and well behaved on the streets, but...
Well I got abused pretty bad and definitely my rights were broken. But I can't even get anyone to discuss that. In the US I'd have lawyers doing this pro bono just for the payout at the end.
So all cops are bastards, some just in a different way.
Or a man with a gun kidnaps you.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›