So over thanksgiving my brother-in-law was talking about how he’s currently going through the training to become a cop (being fast tracked for reason below) and I’m not quite sure how I feel about that. On one hand, I’m firmly in the ACAB camp. On the other hand, if somebody is going to be hired a cop, he seems like the kind of person that would do the least harm.
Frist off, he is an MP in the army and has been for several years so he already has more and better training/dicipline than most cops out there. He has actual training in conflict deescalation and proper restraint methods that don’t kill people. Unlike most cops he actually has real firearm training so he can be trusted not to shoot at falling acorns or blow an infants head off in an altercation. He has actual medical training, which most cops aren’t required to have.
Outside of training he also does seem like a decent guy. He’s not an agressive macho shitbag like most cops and he does what he can to help people. He does strike me as leaning slightly conservative but he also lives in a rural area of a red state so that’s to be expected. I don’t think he’s a trump supporter but if he is then he’s smart enough to keep his mouth completely shut about it even after the election (which trump supporters usually aren’t).
So I’m kind of torn on this one. On one hand, our current policing system is rotten to the core and he’s someone looking to be a part of that. On the other hand, even though the current system needs to be burned down and rebuilt, we do need some form of police force and he seems like someone who would do the least harm in that roll.
So yeah, I’m not sure how I feel about that. I would be interested to hear what y’all think though. Have any other lemmings experienced similar or have family members who are cops?
The fundamental reason that people say ACAB is because the people that are trying to do good things still enable the shitty ones. That is, they fail to act when they see shitty cops; the ‘good’ cops don’t police the bad cops, and that makes them, in turn, bad cops themselves, because it allows bad behavior to be normalized. The relatively few cops that won’t go along to get along quickly find themselves left high and dry; the get the worst duties, don’t get backup in a timely manner when they need it, don’t get promoted or end up being demoted, rack up a long list of bullshit infraction of departmental rules, and so on, until they get forced out.
People talk about reforming the system from within, but it’s a top-down problem, and the police unions are either directly involved or, at the absolute minimum, are complicit by working to protect cops that the union knows are corrupt.
How can it be fixed top-down when it’s all cops?
All. That’s the first word in the initialism.
It’s a powerfully dismissive generalization that inhibits differentiation. That’s what we often accuse them of doing.
How can it be fixed top-down when it’s all cops?
The serious answer is that you need to have outside control over the process. Cops need to be accountable to someone other than themselves. Civilian review boards are a good first step, but you need to make sure that the civilian review boards have real teeth, and that they don’t get captured by the police (e.g., the people on the review board all being family members of cops). Note that police unions and officers have long opposed civilian oversight boards, because that removes part of their power.
You also need to ensure that prosecution is always handled by an independent agency. A local DA will need to continue to work with police, so it’s against their interest–and hopefully also in the public interest–to create a hostile environment where the police think that the DA is ‘against’ them.
You also need a way to limit the power of the police union. A police union does serve a real purpose, in that it should insulate cops from acting as directly political agents. OTOH, it also protects the worst cops out there, and makes it nearly impossible to quickly get rid of someone that’s clearly unfit for public service of any kind. I don’t know how to do the latter without also undercutting protections against the former.
The serious answer is that you need to have outside control over the process. Cops need to be accountable to someone other than themselves. Civilian review boards
… are targeted by screeching tinfoil-hat types as being ‘in cahoots’ with cops, the same as ACAB people claim prosecutors are in cahoots to keep bad cops doing wrong with impunity.
In this case, our IIO fills an important investigative role, as a Public organization created 12 years ago to investigate cops’ actions during bad incidents, and then where applicable forward charges onto the same crown counsel who charges and prosecutes civilian criminal behaviour.
But, you see, the IIO and CC and Cops, they’re all in cahoots. They talk to one another; they’re friends. And they’re all agents of the evil government we elected to manage our shared and collected resources as per our goals. They’re agents of The Man - nevermind the Man is agents of us - and thus all evil, etc, etc.
In short, civilian oversight is neat, but it’s not the automatic win; or even something the crunchies even respect any more than the cops they’re investigating.
It depends on your local police department, honestly.
People are products of their environment. If the local police are decent, your brother-in-law may actually be a good fit. If the local police are shit (ie the average in the US), then your brother-in-law will either become fired, immensely stressed, or shit just like them.
We relate a lot of stories about bad cops, and Lemmy isn’t the most military-friendly place, but one thing I constantly see repeated by veterans, both those with and without police experience, is how baffling the utter lack of discipline and oversight in US police is. Pointing out that RoE are looser for cops than infantry in active combat zones is common.
I wonder if the ROE thing is more about a lack of command and control. There are whole buildings dedicated to tracking what everyone is doing and a lot of vets say you couldn’t do ANYTHING without contacting higher command. Usually cops are mostly left to use their judgement as long as they are in the area their designated patrol area. There’s more and more gps tracking these days but odds are that isn’t monitored in real time.
Just to get this out of the way, this is why I’m not a fan of the ACAB and similar blanket statements. I get it cops in general have done fucked up things. But slapping a label on all of them is passing judgement on the good ones making a difference. And there ARE good ones and good departments. They don’t make national news and definitely don’t deserve that kind of shade.
We have cops that have become family friends and one I am now related to. They are genuinely top notch cops. I was heading home and seen them work serious car accidents first hand. They know their use of force and laws well enough that even some local sovereign citizen types gave them some praise in a video they made.
Being an MP going to be a regular cop isn’t as seamless as you might think. Laws on a military base and real life differ so sometimes there’s issues unlearning the stuff the military teaches as far as procedures go.
For gun stuff you don’t need to be John Wick and the military does NOT teach you guns as well as some think unless you clear rooms for a living. Little to no shoot/no shoot scenarios either for most of the mil. But they do teach you solid gun safety and enough medical to make a difference. In most cases lower levels of the use of force contiunuum are going to be used long before a gun anyway so that’s where the training focus should be so a gun can stay holstered longer.
Anyway yeah real life is messy and I’m glad people like your brother in law are willing to do unsexy but important work that can expose them to very traumatic things. I hope they serve the community well
The point of ACAB isn’t to take it literally. It’s a reminder that a whole fucking lot of cops, particularly in the USA, are bad. And the problem is that when you’re dealing with an individual cop at an individual interaction, you don’t know which you’re dealing with. And you won’t until it’s too late.
So the smartest thing to do is, with any interaction with police, clam up and lawyer up. No matter what. Because you don’t know if they’re asking questions because they’re investigating someone else or investigating you. And when the latter, the bad cops (and remember, you don’t know which kind you’ve got!) will cheerfully lie and cheat and distort and generally railroad you to fit their theory.
It’s meant literally. Even the best cop you can think of is at a minimum looking the other way when it comes to misconduct of fellow officers.
But people do take it literally. If the phrase doesn’t match the intended meaning a different phrase is needed
That’s one HELL of a can of worms to be opening. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush isn’t about birds, nor hands, for example.
Perhaps people should just learn?
Oh so it’s all metaphors not blanket statements, I see.
Yes. That’s exactly what I said.
🙄
I guess this is what happens when people grow up with video games instead of people.
Think about it this way; you meet a cop in an unexpected situation. You do not know this cop. Should you trust that this cop has your best interest at heart, and treat them as a fellow comrade? Certainly not if you want to live!
ACAB because if you do not make that assumption, you will get killed by one of the bastards and they will get away with it. If you want to get deeper into philosophy, we can talk about how all cops are complicit in a system that grants them limitless freedom to terrorize the populace, making even the nice ones inherent class traitors, but the simplest truth is ACAB is a motto that keeps people alive.
“Don’t trust strangers” is just as well then. Still a generalization but people need a reminder because sometimes terrible things happen. Doesn’t sound as cool though.
“All strangers are stranglers” is overkill but it has a nice punch to it and grabs attention. But then you have to explain in long comments how it’s not really ALL strangers and they’re not REALLY stranglers every time we just want people to be very cautious when interacting with strangers just to make sure they can avoid being strangled if they are indeed dealing with one. It’s not meant to be literal there is truth in there if you ignore parts of it.
Isn’t that exhausting?
I want police reform and an end to shitty cultures in bad police departments. And I want unjustified killings to end as much as you do, truly I do. But I can’t get behind the phrase ACAB even though alternatives don’t sound as bold in a protest.
Nothing will ever change if only rotten people go into the system. Of course, there’s a high chance he will become corrupt himself, but it’s a necessary risk.
You can’t hope for some higher power to come down and fix things. Nobody is going to magically dismantle the police and form a new one. The best you can do is make the police as diverse as possible, especially in the personality profile of it members.That’s kind of where I’m at right now. He is the best person to be working a bad job.
As far as the higher power coming down and fixing things, I am hoping for that. That higher power being our government. The only way things are going to improve is with proper oversight and accountability which can’t come from within. As it is the rotten system isn’t going to un-rot itself. The few decent cops out there are more likely to be fired for it than to change anything. The change needs to be forced upon them from the outside.
Hey why can’t we hope for a larger reform? It’s not like police reform is an impossible concept, just having oversight boards staffed with the civilians cops are meant to be protecting would go a long way towards curbing police brutality, as it would actually allow prosecution and consequences for bad officers.
Sending good people to get framed/killed/terrorized by bad cops on an individual basis is far less likely to enact any meaningful change than supporting and voting for local police reform.
If he’s really a good person you should be worried. Good cops get fired if they’re lucky. They get killed if they’re not
ACAB (except those I like) is a pretty sad stance. Reminds me of when conservatives get abortions.
That’s a false equivalence.
In the abortion case, conservatives want to be the exception to the rule, while in OP’s case, they want the rule to change to match the exceptions they see.
ACAB is not about all cops being personally bad people, but that the system of policing is broken.
No, I think my point was valid.
Thinking isn’t being.
