I’m not complaining about spotty enforcement of the law against American police, I’m complaining about things like qualified immunity or the thin blue line shit used to protect cops from consequences when they explicitly and clearly break the law. A regulation with less than perfect enforcement is still a regulation. A regulation with legal doctrine (QI) explicitly stating that it can be broken with no consequence however absolutely stops being a regulation.
I generally agree with the content of your second two paragraphs, but i do not see how they are relevant to discussion about whether the police can accurately be called an unregulated militia. Yes, law is subjective and generally defined by the mores of the society that follows it. “Cops don’t have to follow the law and should be allowed to murder people with no consequences” is absolutely not part of the zeitgeist
“Cops don’t have to follow the law and should be allowed to murder people with no consequences” is absolutely not part of the zeitgeist
Tough on crime politics continues to be very big in a lot of places where the worst police abuses occur. For every one of those stories where a cop seriously injured or killed someone unjustly, you can find people in that community cheering for, not protesting against, the police. The “thin blue line” and “blue lives matter” flags and bumper stickers are very popular and frequently displayed by people who are not cops themselves.
Qualified immunity came out of Pierson v. Ray (1967), a landmark case right in the middle of the civil rights movement. There are many people in the US who continue to believe that civil rights are a mistake and that the government should’ve cracked down on the civil rights movement much harder. Watch a movie like Dirty Harry (1971) if you want an example of popular reactionary sentiment towards civil rights. Rather being called a villain, Clint Eastwood’s character was seen as a hero defending American values against violent leftist thugs.
That all said, police are still regulated by use of force rules. Here’s a case from December 2024 where a Fort Worth Texas cop was fired for unjustified use of force.
That officer was “fired” for similar abuses from a different department in 2013. Eventually being reinstated AND given back pay before then moving to Fort Worth and doing it again. He received no punishment and it is very likely this case will resolve in a similar fashion. The police union is currently defending him, this will end up in arbitration just like when he was fired in Irving.
The police union is one of the worst unions in existence. You’ll get no argument from me on this one. They’re every bit as bad as the Catholic Church at shuffling bad apples around to different communities instead of ostracizing them completely.
I’m not complaining about spotty enforcement of the law against American police, I’m complaining about things like qualified immunity or the thin blue line shit used to protect cops from consequences when they explicitly and clearly break the law. A regulation with less than perfect enforcement is still a regulation. A regulation with legal doctrine (QI) explicitly stating that it can be broken with no consequence however absolutely stops being a regulation.
I generally agree with the content of your second two paragraphs, but i do not see how they are relevant to discussion about whether the police can accurately be called an unregulated militia. Yes, law is subjective and generally defined by the mores of the society that follows it. “Cops don’t have to follow the law and should be allowed to murder people with no consequences” is absolutely not part of the zeitgeist
Tough on crime politics continues to be very big in a lot of places where the worst police abuses occur. For every one of those stories where a cop seriously injured or killed someone unjustly, you can find people in that community cheering for, not protesting against, the police. The “thin blue line” and “blue lives matter” flags and bumper stickers are very popular and frequently displayed by people who are not cops themselves.
Qualified immunity came out of Pierson v. Ray (1967), a landmark case right in the middle of the civil rights movement. There are many people in the US who continue to believe that civil rights are a mistake and that the government should’ve cracked down on the civil rights movement much harder. Watch a movie like Dirty Harry (1971) if you want an example of popular reactionary sentiment towards civil rights. Rather being called a villain, Clint Eastwood’s character was seen as a hero defending American values against violent leftist thugs.
That all said, police are still regulated by use of force rules. Here’s a case from December 2024 where a Fort Worth Texas cop was fired for unjustified use of force.
https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2024-12-23/fired-fort-worth-officer-violating-department-policies-irving
That officer was “fired” for similar abuses from a different department in 2013. Eventually being reinstated AND given back pay before then moving to Fort Worth and doing it again. He received no punishment and it is very likely this case will resolve in a similar fashion. The police union is currently defending him, this will end up in arbitration just like when he was fired in Irving.
The police union is one of the worst unions in existence. You’ll get no argument from me on this one. They’re every bit as bad as the Catholic Church at shuffling bad apples around to different communities instead of ostracizing them completely.