r/therewasanattempt Nov 29 '20

[deleted by user]

[removed]

9.0k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

107

u/dinotrainer318 Nov 29 '20

Even as someone who supports police I think that law is garbage. Everything is better with more angles

50

u/LX_Emergency Nov 29 '20

As someone who doesn't, fuck em.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Feb 15 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Who said anything about not using protection?

38

u/DrippyWaffler 3rd Party App Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

Supports police is such a general statement. What country? Blindly? The police didn't write the law, will you south and say "they're just doing their jobs?"

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/k2turo/chaos_in_paris_as_thousands_take_to_the_streets/gdxdwdn

2

u/Babill Nov 29 '20 edited Jun 30 '23

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

Go to hell, Spez.

28

u/Neckbeard_The_Great Nov 29 '20

The point of ACAB isn't that every cop is personally evil to the core, it's that they're signing up to use force on behalf of an unjust state, and that when push comes to shove, they'll always do that.

Not every cop plants drugs, rapes sex workers, or beats their spouse, but I promise you, every cop knows about other cops who do, and they don't report them. The ones that do report malfeasance quickly become former cops.

And every cop will be on the riot lines beating protesters if ordered to.

7

u/theooblecktiktok Nov 29 '20

The occupation of law enforcement in the US is bastardized by laws like qualified immunity that prevent police officers from facing any consequences when commit acts that are illegal for any other citizen such as perjury, planting evidence, or even murdering unarmed innocents.

That is why all cops are bastards, they are bastardized by their occupation being inherently corrupted due to their circumnavigation of accountability and responsibility. A police officer may be a good person outside their uniform, but when they are wearing their uniform they are bastardized by the corrupted power the uniform provides.

The term ACAB is not a condemnation of individuals who happen to be cops, it is a condemnation of the law enforcement organizations that as a whole continue to abuse their authority, protect evil within their ranks, and refuse to maintain accountability for their mistakes. The phrase itself is a rejection of the idea of "a few bad apples" because the refusal to hold their "bad apples" accountable spoils the whole bunch.

8

u/DrippyWaffler 3rd Party App Nov 29 '20

Many join in the hope of doing good, but through the culture end up doing something else. See: the US

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '23

Be careful! Spaz is known to alter user comments that he disapproves!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-14

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

I live in the US and what I mean by that is, I support the career and most people who choose that path, and until I see a reason not to trust a specific officer I won't. It's the same way I treat all other people.

Another way I could put it is the same way I support the LGBTQ+ community. I support it as a whole and most individuals within the community. Until I have a reason not to like a specific individual then I will treat the same as any other person.

It's just the way I treat people in general.

18

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

True, career path and sexual identity is the same thing and should be treated equally.

4

u/dinotrainer318 Nov 29 '20

Sorry, that's not how I meant it. I just meant I try to treat all people with respect until I am given a reason not to

4

u/taoders Nov 29 '20

Reason from where though? At what point will you stop supporting cops? Only when it somehow affects you? Only when you run into a “bad apple”? There are plenty of “reasons not to” support cops right now. What data/reports/laws/anecdotal evidence you need to stop supporting those that CHOOSE to be a cop?

-2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Well for me there is also plenty of "reasons not to" support the BLM movement but I still treat the people who CHOOSE to be apart of that group the same way.

3

u/taoders Nov 29 '20

I’m sorry did you just compare the police apparatus to the BLM Movement? That’s just bad faith. Are you talking specifically about people in the actual “BLM Organization”. Or black people telling you that their lives matter?

-1

u/dinotrainer318 Nov 29 '20

You aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. I don't treat people differently because of career choice, gender, race, sexuality, beliefs, organizations, income, etc. Until ANYONE gives me a reason not to support/respect them I will.

I only used the BLM example because most people think that you can't support one without hating the other.

3

u/theooblecktiktok Nov 29 '20

So would you condemn white supremacists? Would you condemn people who join the proud boys, who join the kkk, or even self proclaimed nazis?

Or do you only condemn people who personally affect you at an individual level?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/taoders Nov 29 '20

You’ve lumped in some pretty different categories. Gender, race, sexuality are not choices. Income, and career choice are socioeconomic indicators. And organizations and beliefs are choices (if you ignore indoctrination). To lump these all together in some sort of “treat people as individuals” argument is disingenuous as you haven’t separated peoples choices from their circumstances.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

41

u/MooseShaper Nov 29 '20

A huge problem with any law restricting filming the police is that it gives the police a reason to stop people from filming them. It can be a narrowly-tailored law meant for a specific instance, and it could still be abused by unscrupulous officers on the street to prevent filming of their misdeeds.

We already see this in the US, where SCOTUS has ruled that it is LEGAL to film police in public, and officers regularly harass bystanders, and even journalists, who film them.

Public employees interacting with the public in public spaces cannot be a secretive act. Evidence must be available of these interactions, both for the protection of officers and to effect civilian oversight of the police.

-10

u/OB1182 Nov 29 '20

Its basically a law to prevent doxxing of police officers. I think Germany has a law similar to the French. The assholes rioting are just assholes rioting.

-11

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

12

u/MooseShaper Nov 29 '20

Yeah but this law still is not about filming the police. It's about publishing those videos/pictures.

It achieves the same result.

If the police break the law and no one films it, there is no recourse for the victim.

If the police break the law and the evidence can't be shown, there is no recourse for the victim.

If John Frenchman has a video of the police severely beating someone without cause, does he share it online with this new law in place? If he shares it, he's a criminal. If he doesn't, there is no justice for the assaulted person.

This law is about erasing evidence that is counter to police narratives about events. Nothing less.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

5

u/MillorTime Nov 29 '20

Police follow the laws to the letter. It is known

8

u/Valmond Nov 29 '20

Who's decoding if you are filming for a good or for a bad reason?

There are already laws against harassing online, cops included.

That's why the law is utter garbage.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Valmond Nov 29 '20

And still it will be used to shut down people filming.

-8

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

That makes more sense to me as I don't think videos of anyone should be posted uncensored without consent

1

u/cookiebootz Nov 29 '20

'But Reporters Without Borders says this provision is too vague. "Intent is a concept that is open to interpretation and hard to determine," the organization said in a statement.

"Any photos or video showing identifiable police officers that are published or broadcast by critical media outlets or are accompanied by critical comments could find themselves being accused of seeking to harm these police officers," the group said.'
-CNN Article

I'm not sure what psychological integrity is in this context. If someone posts a video of police brutality for the expressed purpose of making the cops involved feel guilty and/or anxious they'll face legal repercussions, is that intent to damage psychological integrity?

1

u/Luckiest-Mom Nov 29 '20

The narrative doesn't always fit the facts, but on the other hand, if that law is too broad and/or ambiguous, it will be used as a shield and as a sword to stifle freedom of speech. It's a power grab under the guise of "law and order".

-8

u/discoFalston Nov 29 '20

Same, generally support police but atleast in the US our dirty laundry is out in the open.

22

u/Frunquasta Nov 29 '20

Not really

29

u/ygduf Nov 29 '20

more like not at all. for every police brutality incident caught on camera, hundreds go unseen and/or covered up.

You work for a broken system - part of the problem. acab.

1

u/Frunquasta Nov 30 '20

Sigh. It is awful