this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
433 points (98.9% liked)

politics

25084 readers
2241 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 150 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This seems like a strict improvement over the old situation, in a way that should be directly felt by lots and lots of people every single day.

I don't get the urge to take a needlessly cynical take on news like this. Yes, the system is still flawed, but yes, it's better than it was before. Take the win and move on to the next reform.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Absolutely this. If anything is going to change, we're going to hear about those changes like this. If the reaction is always "fuck you -ACAB!" the change won't work.

I actually strongly feel that ACAB, but I'd like to live in a society that could have fair and just policing, not one without police.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 17 points 2 years ago

Yes. We need police in a society, as a force to prevent and stop crime. But what we have now across the US as police are shit. We need them to be rebuilt from the ground up as community policing with a focus on protecting people, not just enforcing violations.

ACAB makes sense with the system we have. But I kinda doubt we're going to get many tear down-rebuild efforts. Our best bet is to focus on stuff like this: institutional change in huge areas that change how police think and operate.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 11 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Any system of government will require some way to handle unlawful/harmful conduct, yeah. It's just a matter of making it not complete shit.

No idea if it would work in practice, but I once heard an idea where policing is a (mandatory?) duty for all citizens, but in regular rotation. Meaning, at any given time, some % of the population is now cops, and once your turn is up you're back to a regular person with no enforcement obligations or privileges. No idea if that would work in practice, but it would give people real consequences for being a shit cop. Nobody could just be a terrible cop in perpetuity.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Just make working in retail a mandatory service. That would fix society in a few years.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 86 points 2 years ago

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Because you got straight C's in high school."

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I don't see how this is transparency. Either way, the cop can just lie.

I mean this is nonsense:

California’s new law promotes these elements of procedural justice. During a traffic stop, for example, an officer who immediately shares the reason for the stop is being transparent. This allows the motorist to directly engage with the legitimate, legal reason for the stop rather than feel as if they are being interrogated for no reason or an ulterior motive. This more respectful form of communication makes police officers more accountable to those they wield power over.

If a cop pulls a black guy over for 'speeding,' it's still the cop's word against theirs. The only difference now is that the cop doesn't have to make the black guy guess which lie the cop is going to use.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If a cop pulls a car over for speeding, and the motorist says "because I ran a stop sign", the cop can now give two tickets. Removing the fishing question still makes the driver's situation better.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That and the dash cam.

If you're worried enough about police integrity, have a dash cam and have it on. I've seen videos (rare) where the cop lied about speed and the dash cam was used to knock it down.

Even cheap ones could be used to figure out speed based on landmarks and time stamps. GPS speed would be more conclusive, though.

For that scenario all you'd have to do is pay a lawyer to file a motion of discovery, and the charges will almost certainly be dropped. You could probably talk a paralegal to do it for cheap, or your jurisdiction might allow you to file it yourself.

It costs more to gather the evidence than they'll get from the fine.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I got a dashcam a few months ago and it's already paid for itself several times over. I've been hit twice and it's pretty easy for insurance to get the other party to pay when you've got video evidence that they're in the wrong.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How have you been bit twice in a few months? That sounds insane to me. 12 years since my last even bumper scuff.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I'm convinced it's some cosmic irony caused by me buying a dashcam. Hadn't had anything happen for about 10 years before that.

[–] Che_Donkey@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

LAPD & Sherrif deputies being held accountable...

I have a small doubt

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

More accountable than Texas.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 2 years ago

This seems like a clear upgrade.

Cop pulls you over, and immediately states the reason. They lied about you speeding? That's ammunition for a defense. They said you were swerving? Dash cam footage might tell a different story.

The effect on cops will be the biggest piece. They'll stretch the truth or lie in court, because they have a script. They might not even remember the event.

But suddenly, they have to choose to lie in the moment, they might even be caught in the lie before a judge

It's not everything, but it's certainly something

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 2 years ago (4 children)

The only correct answer is along the lines of “I couldn’t fathom!” Don’t talk to cops. They aren’t your friends.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've always just said "it's because you think I'm sexy and want my number." But in retrospect, your approach is probably better.

[–] TommySalami@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure "did we have a moment?" got me out of a minor ticket once.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago

"No, but I sure am glad you did" with a quick wink and smile might get you their number lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Is it because of my ligma?"

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Nah. It probably smells like a dikfore.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I was out at a bar the other night with a bunch of fellow dads. I mentioned how I just got my son with the dikfore joke, figuring everyone knew what I was talking about.

One guy is like "I havent heard that one" and it was like time stood still. I was once again a middle school boy about to drop an embarrassment bomb onto someone, from which they would never recover. Everyone else seemed to sense it in the air because they all went silent too.

"You don't know the dikfore?"

We all know what comes next, and he realized what he had walked into the second it came out of his mouth. We all started cracking up, thinking it had been 30 years since the last time we were able to get a peer with that joke.

He still hasn't lived it down. He never will, as long as I'm still breathing.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cmhickman358@thelemmy.club 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Was it because my vehicle exceeded the weight limit with all of this updog I'm transporting?

[–] bronzle@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] yuriy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TengoDosVacas@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Because you're avoiding a school shooting?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Yeah this was outdated. They should be informing you why they pulled you over.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Now now folks, as long as the lovely police officers are still able to either plant, or pretend to find illegal drugs in the victim’s uh… criminals car so they can arrest them randomly, then everyone will be happy, yes?

[–] bhmnscmm@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Just as long as the police can still steal any property and call it civil forfeiture.

[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

IANAL and it's best to know and understand the laws of the state that you're in. But in general you're under no obligation to answer any questions a cop has for you and you're not being rude or difficult by simply saying nothing at all. If a cop actually wants to help you they can do so by promptly giving you a citation and letting you go on about your day, not by trying to pry on your personal opinions or activities.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Of course, this also means smart-asses can't respond with, "What, don't you know?"

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 years ago

Even if the legislation falls short of the ambitions of its supporters, however, it does hold promise for furthering community trust in police by promoting what’s known as procedural justice. In simple terms, procedural justice is the perception of fairness in interactions with authority such as traffic stops.

So, not actual fairness?

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago

"I don't answer questions".

[–] Liz@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago

"I would prefer if you just told me."

load more comments
view more: next ›