- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Is Lemmy full of sovereign citizens now days? In all countries including China when you drive dangerously you get a ticket.
I’m not driving, I’m traveling!!!
https://priceonomics.com/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from-innocent/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/08/18/civil-asset-forfeiture-explained/74802279007/
Those are just the top 3 search results for “cops steal money”.
People should still be punished for driving dangerously. Civil forfeiture is another issue.
Feel free to point out in the meme where the driver was driving dangerously.
The same place it says it’s for civil forfeiture. This being said the police officer does have a ticket in hand which implies some sort of safety violation.
This comic could be taking place in China. The same scene could play out. Nothing specific to injustice in the USA here.
expired registration is not a safety issue
If your state doesn’t do safety inspections that’s something you should talk with a state legislator about.
they officially are done, but only in the major citys and people living pretty much everywhere else is given exceptions. Safety inspections seem like a weird idea anyway, how does the government know what is safe for my usag of the vehicle. Is a lack of coolant a safety issue? What about a missing bumper? A half rotted frame?
Nope. Regulatory.
You’d lick the boot in China too, but nice try.
If I was driving dangerously it would only be just that I be punished proportionately. Same goes for everyone in every country.
If you call that boot licking so be it.
Who
Is
Driving
Dangerously?
Assumptions in your head don’t count anymore than anything else in there.
And yet this meme is clearly about traffic enforcement.
First you have to stops the cars to gets the money.
I’m sure the Ferengi could have said it better.
If you can help us get rid of cars then great. Otherwise, yes we need some kind of accountability on people driving several tons of metal at insane speeds.
If only we had that, rather than revenue generation…
I don’t care if the small town gets paid because commuters can’t get off the gas pedal. If it keeps me out of the hospital from some asshole merging into a traffic jam at 80 mph then I’m all for it.
And when some asshole merges in front of you going 30mph when traffic is going 60-70 and there’s no way you can avoid it, so you bounce off him into someone else and it ends up being a 5-car pileup, it’s ok because at least he wasn’t speeding.
Well yeah. If you search for a topic, the top results should be relevant. That’s how searching is supposed to work.
That was my exact first impression of this post.
Basically Sovcit nonsense
We started by making fun of sovcits, now we make fun of anyone who criticizes police. What the fuck is happening on Lemmy.
well sovshits are genuinely hilarious.
but lampooning them should not come at the cost of critiquing law enforcement.
In addition to issuing tickets officers all over the country take the opportunity to seize what they in their sole judgment regard as suspicious amounts of cash without benefit of a trial or charges. Many such seizures are in the mere hundreds of dollars with the average seizure only $1200 and the legal cost to reclaim such is usually in the thousands so people are left without recourse. Even when the money is reclaimed there is no punishment for officers for essentially robbing the populace.
In the last 20 years they have taken about 70B from citizens mostly without actually charging the person they stole from and disproportionately from minorities.
Regarding the victims, many people especially contractors prefer to deal in cash and frequently carry a significant amount of cash on hand to purchase goods and pay help. Others transport large quantities of cash from their business or to make large purchases particularly used cars purchased from owners instead of dealerships.
Woah that’s a lot. Source?
Civil asset forfeiture used to be all the rage in outrage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
I mean depending on the state or even the town that officer is going to take any cash they have on them and might shoot them if they don’t comply…
I don’t think so. I mean cops can be jerks but they’re really not dumb enough to just risk their jobs for $40 USD out of someone’s wallet. Let alone build a culture out of this.
Civil forfeiture of greater than $1000 USD where that stuff gets documented and people have the prove the “innocence” of that money on the other had is another issue.
Cops stopping people for cash just feels like a childish characterization. There are enough real problems with police to address (ie systematic racism and nepotism) no need to work with characterizations.
I generally agree with you but have you not seen the news? They get away with killing innocent people illegally all the time. Do you think they’re actually afraid of getting in trouble over stealing 40 bucks?
And that stuff is terrible. But I think it’s caused by systematic racism. (aka what we should actually worry about)
Like the comic empathizes the wrong thing. It reduces valid concerns with police to the level of sovereign citizens.
I heavily suggest you Google “monopoly on violence”
We don’t need to start from Hobbes to understand that, as a society, punishing dangerous drivers is a good thing.
There is a lot of good reading out there. I recommend this as a starting point when coming to an understanding of violence and society.
We don’t need to start from Hobbes
Recommends Hobbes as a starting point
I agree 100% but just had a bit of a giggle
lol. I realized that as I was writing that. But I went with it. Hobbes is a great starting point for people new to political philosophy.
We just don’t need to start with him.
I think John Rawls is a better starting place if we were to start a society from scratch. Just a bit harder for people less used to reading philosophical works.
Sure, but if simply keeping the roads safe was their only objective, they wouldn’t have things like quotas where they have to shake down a certain number of people for the sake of their budget.
That depends a lot on the quota system. If they’re easily achievable then it’s not going to incentivize bad stops. If you have a county that gets four cars a day and the quota is four cars then there’s a problem. Generally it’s a useful way to make sure your police aren’t sitting at the donut shop while they should be working. Like most policies its problems lie in the extremes.
Fuck off. If I had a button to ban every person who upvoted it I would. Local governments all over the country make up enormous percentages of their yearly budget directly taken from the citizens in the form of “parking enforcement”. Nobody said sovereign citizen anything this is a specific issue of police and what they’re for and who they do it to. Huff glue and choke:
Are you saying this ironically? Everyone I don’t like should be banned and should die? This seems really authoritarian to me.
Complaints about parking enforcement? Clearly not a fuck cars member.
Getting a ticket for driving unsafely around others, while on a public road provided by the government for the people to use to get where they want to go… yes, surely this is authoritarianism /s
If we could count on unsafe drivers getting tickets, then maybe that would be acceptable, but that’s not how it works. It’s really hard to quantity “safety”. It’s really easy to quantity speed. It’s difficult to quantify what speed is safe, so in most cases, we pick an arbitrary number, which damn near everyone ignores. At least where I live, 5 over is a minimum, 10-15 over is common. So cops can pretty much pull anyone over at a whim. And they do. But they don’t make a dent in actual unsafe driving.
I wonder how many times throughout history someone was caught doing something that the “authorities” didn’t like, but then some lawmaker was like “damn that’s clever” and then they legalize that action for themselves, their friends, or the police
NYPD officer cites ‘courtesy cards,’ used by friends and family of cops, as source of corruption
Though not officially recognized by the NYPD, the laminated cards have long been treated as a perk of the job. The city’s police unions issue them to members, who circulate them among those who want to signal their NYPD connections — often to get out of minor infraction like speeding or failing to wear a seat belt.
In a federal lawsuit filed in Manhattan this week, Officer Mathew Bianchi described a practice of selective enforcement with consequences for officers who don’t follow the unwritten policy. Current and retired officers now have access to hundreds of cards, giving them away in exchange for a discount on a meal or a home improvement job, he said.
In the Staten Island precinct where he works, a predominantly white area with a high percentage of cops and other city workers, Bianchi said multitudes of people he pulled over for traffic infractions flashed him one of the cards.
I wonder whether you’re wondering something or actually just making shit up to then rely on as fact later.
I don’t give a fuck what you wonder ☺️
In most states nothing happens. If they have you on body camera then they can match it to the driver’s license database. You’re going to get your ticket and another for driving off, in the mail.
Doubt. The amount of cops who are either going to A give chase or B open fire regardless of the local laws is going to be far beyond statistically relevant. Maybe even a large plurality.
Never, never assume that a cop knows the law. Their job is to enforce, not to know. That’s the DA’s job.
I don’t usually go “in my country it’s different”, but that affirmation is absolutely wild to me.
Guessing this is US-centric, but you are saying if you recklessly drive away from an officer stopping you, they are likely to give chase and potentially open fire ?? What ?? Would the chase not be more dangerous than whatever you are being fined for ? Would them opening fire not make the whole (armed) country you are living in more likely to shoot back ? Are you guys playing cops & robbers IRL ? Sheriffs & bandits ? What is this about ?
Where I’m from the cop has already written your registration plate down, and possibly got your id. The last panel of this meme would be “well no one is stopping you, but it’s going to become a lot more expensive”. “Also I really don’t care enough to chase you or anything, my lunch break is in 20 minutes”. “Btw I am not allowed to carry a weapon when handling traffic”.
Not saying there aren’t assholes that will waste your time with a more tedious procedure than necessary, but nobody is going to chase, and nobody is going to shoot…
US, yes. Yes, they do give chase or open fire with surprising frequency, often creating far more dangerous situations. 5 months average training time, additional training given through unions with a focus on “officer safety” (see, how to pull your gun before the other guy does) creates an ecosystem that creates a bunch of fucking cowboys rather than actual peace officers. Yes, a non-zero amount of them think they’re playing cops and robbers for real.
It depends on where you are, the cop, and a lot of other context. It’s one of those cases where America is more like 50 different little countries than one big country.
My state police force has a policy to only chase if there’s an active danger to public safety.
That doesn’t apply to the sheriff’s of the 83 counties in the state, or the approximately 500 other police agencies, although many counties mirror the policies of the state police.Weirdly, I generally trust the state police more than any of the others. They tend to be significantly better trained and more focused on public safety than making money for the county.
I’ve only been pulled over by one once and he just wanted to make sure I was okay, which was fair considering my car was failing and it sounded like a shitty old lawnmower that was also broken.In general our police are powerfully undertrained, underpaid, over funded, improperly screened and with a radically unhealthy attitude on their relationship with non-police. We also lack enough uniformity for that assessment to be universal.
Would the chase not be more dangerous than whatever you are being fined for ?
It’s not just cars, just recently cops in New York City shot each other and several bystanders on the subway trying to hit a guy with a knife they had been following over a <$3 fare evasion. Land of the free, home of the brave.
On stuff like whether they’re supposed to be chasing people over traffic infractions it’s very much their job and expected knowledge. If you want to have a talk about state sanctioned violence you don’t get to detour to rogue officers.
Well we can’t have the doubt without its two precursors. Thanks for being so complete.
In what universe is this paradise?
No chase policies aren’t uncommon. They’re not universal but they’re not uncommon.
Given the rarity of chases, the danger they pose, and the lack of benefit in most cases, the guidance is usually to not bother unless there’s reason to believe there’s something like a kidnapping or murder.
Or the cop will fire blindly through the back windshield of the car. Luck of the draw really.
I’m in Oklahoma. They might not chase a motorcycle here, but a car. For sure.
The universe in which we still need cars and cars kill 42,000 people a year. If you don’t want this problem then make cars unnecessary.
Monopoly on violence is literally something good. The biggest problem in the US is that this just doesn’t exist (see gun legislation), which leads to all the school shootings and a more militarized police.
Violence doesn’t just become good because you legitimize it through the state.
But there can be less of it, if it is exercised by a monopoly.
Nah, it just institutionalizes it and perpetuates it in a different form – namely structural violence. It’s oppressive and coercive in nature, ultimately used to protect the interests of those with property and further instantiate inequality.
You can’t eliminate violence through violence. You have to meet people’s basic needs. A society that coerces people to act a particular way – especially in regards to meeting their basic needs – through the threat of force could not have been built on freedom, or compassion, or mutual solidarity. It’s unjust, imo
This doesn’t look like a post promoting concealed carry for those with a batman complex, but I could be convinced.
LMAOOO im fuckin dead
no, it’s not something good, look at Honkong, Tibet, Russia, Iran, Belarus, etc.
Are you advocating for multiple, competing armed groups in the US?
Generally, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is considered a cornerstone of “government”.
I don’t like the government, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist. that means different syndicates would be armed and they’d probably be competing, so yeah, I’m advocating for multiple armed forces
Cool. That’s a coherent political philosophy, you just don’t normally run into people arguing for more legitimate use of violence.
Personally, multiple armed entities sounds like the worst aspects of government without the redeeming aspects.
I’m the breed of anarchist more concerned with involuntary power hierarchy than specific forms of said dynamic, like class. Reducing the number of groups who can coerce others into doing stuff isn’t aligned with more legitimate armed factions.
I voted for my sherrif, so I’m more okay with him pointing a gun a me than your trade union, whom I didn’t vote for. It’s not wholly voluntary because I didn’t get to vote for “disarm the sheriff and make the fire fighters the principle law enforcement group”, so it’s far from perfect, but at least I know who’s holding the gun.personally I think, that multiple armed syndicates would be less likely to actually use that violence, since war is not only unprofitable in every aspect but they also couldn’t legitimize the violence. I think, that a monopoly doesn’t have any reason to provide quality, in this case the quality being how “legit” the use of violent force is. and we see this all around the world, states don’t only use violence to protect people, but against entities they just don’t like (like the lgbt community in russia or china for example) and even if a state intended to just use violence in a “moral” way, a monopoly on it means that I can’t even use it against a police officer going rogue for example
I can see the rationale, but I disagree.
I think it’s difficult to make a good assessment because every situation involving multiple legitimate armed factions that’s come about has had a lot of other Context around it that makes it hard to know if what you’re seeing is because of the factions, or because of the context.
That being said, the vast majority of cases I can think that involve multiple armed factions seem to devolve less into rational actors minimizing conflict to reduce cost, and more into rational actors executing violence to maintain control of resources or impose conformance with their beliefs.
Violence is often very profitable. It gives you control over resources you didn’t have, and compels people to cooperate with your wishes.they also couldn’t legitimize the violence
In the absence of a monopoly on violence, all of it is just as legitimate. Each group sees their use of force to further or protect their interests as legitimate and others as illegitimate. This can manifest as blood fueds, vendettas, communal violence, or the myriad forms of organized crime.
I totally agree that the leviathan, which is a much cooler word for the entity with a violence monopoly, has no reason to offer overmuch quality to their violence. The leviathan only wants to use force to perpetuate their monopoly on force.
I’d argue that the violence required to maintain the status quo is less than what competing factions would exert trying to establish themselves.While there are plenty of states doing horrible things, there are plenty that are relatively benign, and even the horrible ones are, on the historical scale, less common and more mild.
The most docile areas seem to me to be ones with a single legitimate violent actor, and pro-social systems in place to reduce the need for cooercion.I don’t think we can ever entirely get rid of the state, since at some point people will form a structure to manage or, at least document, the society they’ve built, and a state by any other name is still a state.
But we can wither it away if we make sure to replace it with non-coercoercive social replacements instead of leaving a vacuum like the “starve the beast” folks want.As the smallest nit, the states monopoly on violence isn’t to be the sole doer of violence, but to be the sole arbiter on the legitimacy of violence.
In a perfect system, you fighting back against the rogue cop is legitimate because the state legitimizes your use of force.
Practically, we usually only see that legitimazation happen with stand your ground laws and castle doctrine, and less police issues because the police are “special”, but that’s aside from the lofty theory.
Sounds like a nightmare to me, but it’s politically coherent so /shrug
deleted by creator
Yeah this is dumb.
Police officers can and should stop people that break the law. Having kids in the back is irrelevant, and if it were relevant and police officers would not stop people with kids in the back, criminals would perpetually drive around with kids in the back.
On the other hand, police officers should be trained to just let fleeers go. You got their license plates, you’ll be able to find them later at home, no need to start a dangerous chase over a traffic violation or something
