THE POLICE PROBLEM
The police problem is that police are policed by the police. Cops are accountable only to other cops, which is no accountability at all.
99.9999% of police brutality, corruption, and misconduct is never investigated, never punished, never makes the news, so it's not on this page.
When cops are caught breaking the law, they're investigated by other cops. Details are kept quiet, the officers' names are withheld from public knowledge, and what info is eventually released is only what police choose to release — often nothing at all.
When police are fired — which is all too rare — they leave with 'law enforcement experience' and can easily find work in another police department nearby. It's called "Wandering Cops."
When police testify under oath, they lie so frequently that cops themselves have a joking term for it: "testilying." Yet it's almost unheard of for police to be punished or prosecuted for perjury.
Cops can and do get away with lawlessness, because cops protect other cops. If they don't, they aren't cops for long.
The legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" renders police officers invulnerable to lawsuits for almost anything they do. In practice, getting past 'qualified immunity' is so unlikely, it makes headlines when it happens.
All this is a path to a police state.
In a free society, police must always be under serious and skeptical public oversight, with non-cops and non-cronies in charge, issuing genuine punishment when warranted.
Police who break the law must be prosecuted like anyone else, promptly fired if guilty, and barred from ever working in law-enforcement again.
That's the solution.
♦ ♦ ♦
Our definition of ‘cops’ is broad, and includes prison guards, probation officers, shitty DAs and judges, etc — anyone who has the authority to fuck over people’s lives, with minimal or no oversight.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.
② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.
③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.
④ Please don't dox or post calls for harassment, vigilantism, tar & feather attacks, etc.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
It you've been banned but don't know why, check the moderator's log. If you feel you didn't deserve it, hey, I'm new at this and maybe you're right. Send a cordial PM, for a second chance.
♦ ♦ ♦
ALLIES
• r/ACAB
♦ ♦ ♦
INFO
• A demonstrator's guide to understanding riot munitions
• Cops aren't supposed to be smart
• Killings by law enforcement in Canada
• Killings by law enforcement in the United Kingdom
• Killings by law enforcement in the United States
• Know your rights: Filming the police
• Three words. 70 cases. The tragic history of 'I can’t breathe' (as of 2020)
• Police aren't primarily about helping you or solving crimes.
• Police lie under oath, a lot
• Police spin: An object lesson in Copspeak
• Police unions and arbitrators keep abusive cops on the street
• Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States
• When the police knock on your door
♦ ♦ ♦
ORGANIZATIONS
• NAACP
• National Police Accountability Project
• Vera: Ending Mass Incarceration
view the rest of the comments
What law allows cops to detain you for not answering irrelevant questions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that the act of being unresponsive is not a way to affirmatively assert your right to remain silent, even after having been read the Miranda warning and expressing an understanding of that warning.
Different state and local jurisdictions will handle this in different ways, I'm sure. It's going to take me some time to find it, but I distinctly recall knowing that an officer during a traffic stop can take a person's unresponsiveness to be a hostile act from at least one Audit the Audit video, and treat the person accordingly - at least in one jurisdiction.
I will continue to look for the specific thing, but Berghuis v. Thompkins is what makes it possible anywhere in the United States.
Hmm, you may be right. I can't find any specific results that say if this also applies to traffic stops. I read it as when you are detained and in court but there may be no legal difference.
Here's the actual case ruling:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/370/
Excerpts:
Perhaps not relevant to the present discussion, but I find it notable that you must "unambiguously" assert your Miranda rights in order to claim them, but that you don't have to unambiguously waive your Miranda rights. All you need to do for the justice system to consider your Miranda rights waived for a particular question is to answer it.
I would also mention that you have Miranda rights at all times, whether they have been read to you or not. Indeed, the only time those rights are required to be read to you is immediately before the police ask you questions about a crime you are suspected of committing. Considering that a "witness" statement can oh so easily make the witness into a suspect, it is highly possible for someone being questioned by the police for any reason to make a self-incriminating statement prior to being Mirandized.
tl;dr: Shut the fuck up.