All Cops Are Basterds, nothing asinine about pointing out normalized system of corruption. The cops across the country can stop protecting their bad actors then then the public will stop calling them basterds. They did this to themselves.
You've met every cop, everywhere then, wow! Please tell me how you met all of those cops, I would love to have the ability to travel all over the U.S. and meet every single one and talk with them and observe them work. That's a monumental task, congrats on you for doing that! That is so selfless of you!
I see your username is "righthand", did you know I met every single left-handed person in the U.S. and they're all bad! They cover for each other, including the one who is the only left-handed person in a small town in Washington state, I just know he's covering for all of the left-handed people in Florida.
I almost forgot: All Tow Truck Drivers Are Bad. They should be towing each other for parking in illegal spots. All Doctors are bad too, they should be ratting each other out left-and-right for all the malpractice they commit. All HN users are bad, we are enabling all of the bad things in tech companies etc.
> You've met every cop, everywhere then, wow! Please tell me how you met all of those cops, I would love to have the ability to travel all over the U.S. and meet every single one and talk with them and observe them work. That's a monumental task, congrats on you for doing that! That is so selfless of you!
It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime".
You did say that, or rather implied it. You claimed this person must know every single cop, but you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system.
So it's sort of self proving, or proven by definition. By definition of what cops are and what they are allowed to do, all cops must be bastards. If they weren't, they wouldn't be cops!
> you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system.
???
No, that is not a logical at all. Nor did I admit that. Please stop. You keep assuming things that are not true about what I've clearly written.
Yes, you did admit that, by implication. To replay what exactly happened in this conversation.
Person A: It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime".
Reduced: "you do not understand that covering up a crime is also a crime".
You: I did not say or imply that.
Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. So, if what I'm saying sounds stupid or obvious... uh, okay, reflect on that.
Regardless, you're missing the forest for the trees here. You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
The ACAB viewpoint comes from the preposition that policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice. Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
It's sort of how all jesters are silly. To be a jester, you must be silly, so by definition of a jester all jesters are silly.
Sorry, I rarely look at usernames and assumed you were the same person as earlier.
> Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
> Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
The first implication is reasonable. It also assumes facts not in evidence, however I will say this: I do understand that covering up a crime is criminal in places where I am familiar with the law. I am not familiar with laws everywhere. I will also say this: a cop covering up a crime of another cop is bad, thus that person would be considered a bad cop. I think we can both agree on that last statement.
The second implication is a bad take. That assumes that all cops are covering up crimes. I posit that not every cop has done that, but an unknown percentage somewhere better 0 and 100, have.
> I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value.
Based on your second implication, I believe that statement to be incorrect.
> What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing.
I would say that is more applicable to you.
> You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
Please reread the HN Guidelines.
> policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice
I am open to agreeing with this, because some percentage greater than 0 but less than 100, is.
> Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
Again, no, please stop. Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships.
It is impossible to have a reasonable argument with a person who cannot reason, therefore I will not continue this discussion with you (with someone else, sure).
It has nothing to do with the cops as individuals and some of them being “nice” or not. It has everything to do with the normalization and systemization. If you come to Nyc and live here you will see that the “cops are bearueacrats with guns” stigma is pretty much true. A lot of the lower crime areas have cops looking for a minor infraction to write up a ticket (often a desk appearance ticket that usually gets thrown out by the courts). They will attempt to stop and frisk you even though you can deny it and even though it’s illegal. So here we have a system of pointless ticketing because stops and tickets are how they get a promotion. In high crime neighborhoods they take this tactic to new levels.
So no, I dont consider cops good people because as soon as one gets caught they back each other up. As I stated previously they soured their own image with decades of backing bad actor cops up and normalizing bad behavior.
Left handed people (I’m one of them) don’t have a history of systematic violence and abuse of peoples rights as enabled by the government. Left handed people dont have a union to corral around and get protections when they murder someone. Left handed people often don’t kill someone or steal their belongings then turn around and say “I was just doing my job, give us $1B more to build a surveillance dragnet and bail out our bad actors”.
Left handed people don’t violently kettle and beat protestors asking for basic reform of left handed people.
> All Tow Truck Drivers Are Bad. They should be towing each other for parking in illegal spots.
My doctor does his best to double dip on telehealth + “come in for tests”. Because a lot of clinics have devolved into sending health data to labs. What should be a “come in for tests” ends with an additional $75 telehealth call where my doctor reads the results over the phone.
I personally don’t think you’re going to convince anyone saying ACAB that “cOpS ArE aCtUaLlY nIcE gUyS oNcE YoU sHrUg oFf SySteMatIc StAtE VioLeNcE aNd vIoLaTiNG RiGhtS tHeY eNAbLeD fOr DecADes! jUsT iGnOrE tHe pOliCe stAtE.”
And we havent even begun to discuss “civil forfeiture” theft scam that is relative to this article.
It seems like you are very invested in this, and a discussion here is probably not going to change that, nor my opinion.
Yes, there are a lot of bad cops. No, not every single cop is bad.
(You should see my other comment about Civil Asset Forfeiture, where you will see that I am aware of it, and it is used in evil ways.)
I would never condemn a good lone cop in a small town who has not seen any illegal, corrupt, or otherwise anything less than professional behavior by neighboring jurisdictions, as you seem to.
My default opinion of people is not that of hate.
Nor do I judge people by prejudices.
Since another user here (who made up something to try to make me look bad) picked on my username, I think it is more rational to judge individuals by their own actions and not judge people you've never met by the actions of others.
The less you have to buy, the more money you have. Or the more stolen goods you sell, the more money you have. Or the more stolen goods you can give to others, the more goodwill you can get with them and possibly favors which can save you money elsewhere.
I recall that a lawyer who talked about how they were developed and explained how they work, came to that conclusion. The tests are completely subjective, and the way they are graded means that unless you are an Olympic-level athlete, you will fail it. Can you balance on one foot without swaying or puting the other foot down (even when you first start and find your balance), with your eyes closed, for one minute?
Might I suggest that you research it and post what you find.
reply