• originalucifer
    link
    fedilink
    534 months ago

    yeah thats what we need, to protect an already over-protected class of people.

    you want to increase hatred for cops? this is how you increase hatred for cops.

      • originalucifer
        link
        fedilink
        104 months ago

        im somewhat torn in that i worked with many. these are fellow human beings… but all the bad stuff is true. there are handfuls of good cops here and there but there are absolutely bad cops almost everywhere, and theres nothing the ‘good’ cops can seemingly do about the bad cops without ‘outing’ themselves.

        hence, acab.

        the system is broken. it attracts both the worst and the best and turns them all into garbage.

        • TWeaK
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 months ago

          One bad apple spoils the bunch.

        • VindictiveJudge
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 months ago

          “This one goes to eleven.”

          “Why don’t you just make ten more angry?”

          “… This one goes to eleven.”

    • @Igloojoe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      They dont care how much hate the police receive. They just need to protect the fascism enforcers.

  • @Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The former would expand the definition of “crime victims” to include “law enforcement officers, correctional officers, or correctional probation officers who use deadly force in the course and scope of their employment or official duties.”

    Republicans want to redefine cops who use deadly force as victims? Color me doubleplusunshocked.

    • @Rivalarrival
      link
      -19
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Deadly force may only be used to stop a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

      If you kill me while I am in the process of attacking you, you are, indeed, my victim, whether you are a random individual, or a sworn officer. The fact that I am the one who dies during that encounter does not mean that I am the victim.

      Edit: Do people really not know the circumstances under which force may be used? Does the general public not understand the 6 conditions that must be met before lethal force can be justified?

      • Reasonable Person
      • Credible Threat
      • Criminal Threat
      • Imminent Threat
      • Severe Threat
      • Necessity

      Cops don’t get some special exception to this. These are the legal standards that they must abide by when using lethal force.

      • @Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        184 months ago

        The bill defines all cops or correctional officers who use deadly force on duty as victims. Not just those who kill someone in the specific circumstance that you described.

        • @Rivalarrival
          link
          -144 months ago

          Self defense and defense of others are the only circumstances where police can justifiably use lethal force. Self defense, they are clearly the victim. Defense of others, I would argue they deserve the same protections as the victim.

          The bill doesn’t protect other, non-justifiable uses of force.

          • @Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            94 months ago

            LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house? What about kneeling on someone’s neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air? What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death? What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?

            You act like this bullshit list is actually EVER followed by any cop in any situation. You act as though cops who DON’T follow this list are punished for murdering innocent civilians without following this bullshit process.

            Fuck you and your boot licking ass.

            • @Rivalarrival
              link
              -9
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              LMFAO what about shooting sleeping civillians through a closed door at the wrong house

              Not protected.

              What about kneeling on someone’s neck as they slowly die screaming and gasping for air?

              Not protected.

              What about spraying naked detained elderly women with scalding water until they burn to death

              Not protected.

              What about shooting more dogs every day than an average person will even even meet in their lives?

              Not protected.

              This bill does not protect officers in any of the scenarios you describe. None of these scenarios describe self defense or defense of others. None of these uses of force are justifiable.

              Also not protected is an officer mistaking an acorn for a gunshot and unloading his weapon into the back of his own cruiser, with a handcuffed suspect in the back.

              • @Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                64 months ago

                ALL OF THESE USES OF FORCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND JUSTIFIABLE YOU ABSOLUTE BOOT LICKING MORON.

                • @Rivalarrival
                  link
                  -2
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  In every case you described, officers were charged and prosecuted. Some were convicted, some were acquitted. None of them would have been protected under Marsy’s law.

                  Stop holding pockets.

      • @forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        64 months ago

        No, the general public is aware that cops are protected regardless of if these criteria are met. So are you.

  • TWeaK
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54 months ago

    So basically the laws are unconstitutional in the same way that arrest records and voting registration details are in the public domain in Florida.