this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
252 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4652 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Newsweek.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 65 points 8 months ago (5 children)

The video shows one officer pointing a gun at Bushnell, while others extinguished the flames. The MPD spokesperson did not confirm if that officer worked for the police department, but said the matter is under investigation.

Okay wtf is that supposed to mean? Who else should the pig be working for?

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 80 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I don't know why they say suicide is illegal in the US, all you have to do is call the cops and they'll send someone to help finish the job.

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They don't want to let a perfectly good practicing target go to waste.

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Gotta wait for a man to turn black before you shoot him without cause

[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

oof, nice catch

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 8 months ago

Without cause? He came right at them! Backwards! It was so scary!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Damn, that's bleak.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

Then it's extra-legal!

[–] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

There are dozens of police agencies in just a couple blocks of that area. And they can all dress similarly. MPD is for the entire district, but each government agency can have their own police.

https://publicsafety.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_agencies_in_the_District_of_Columbia

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 4 points 8 months ago

(don't pay any attention to the similarities to the Roman Empire and its multitude of "security" organizations)

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not defending the practice, but at least in North America, it's relatively common for cops to get hired to work security by private companies. It's usually called Paid Duty and those are the cops you see who seem to be working security guard like details at retail shops and sports games etc. They are still technically working for the police department in that situation though I believe.

[–] livus@kbin.social 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

@masterspace yikes that sounds like all kinds of conflict of interest.

It also sounds like an extreme form of policing for the rich only.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yup, that's why I wanted to make it very clear that I was not defending the practice. Seems inherently ripe for abuse. It often seems like it allows rich people to pretend like crime isn't an issue in their isolated bubbles rather than be forced to address it on a societal scale.

Though at the same time, if people are going to throw a massive event, you often do need to have extra police at least on standby, and I can see the logic of saying "well then that event organizer should be the one paying for it, rather than the general taxpayer"... that's still pretty radically different from a random Gucci store hiring a cop to patrol their bags with a gun though, and I don't even know if those two types of things would even fall under the same programs.

[–] livus@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

@masterspace yeah I can see that. It's basically taking people who were trained at public expense (and who are supposed to uphold public interests) and then having them selectively police in the private sector (and private interests) in exchange for that sector subsidising their salaries.

Has it been associated with police homicides at all, do you know?

[–] 520@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Could be feds, or another branch of LE

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago

Then he'd be a security guard, not an officer, no?