cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12038511
ACAB
https://twitter.com/RightWingCope/status/1758494628481737161
I lived in a small town, and the cops were convinced that people were selling drugs at the Burger King.
So they had one of the new cops go undercover there for three months, and all they managed to get was some idiots who had a gram of weed (in a medical state) and five vicodin pills. The judge threw it out and warned the town about wasting the court’s time.
that sounds like a very cool judge.
He knew he had a lot bigger fish to fry than two kids who stole drugs from their grandmother to get their coworker to stop bothering them about it.
Sounds like it. I wish more people were like this.
From what I’ve seen, most judges are pretty straightforward with that shit. A couple are annoying about it, but it’s mostly the police force that pulls shit like that, and sometimes the prosecution as well.
Something about the police strikes me as odd. If a judge can stay uncorrupted by power, why cant police? Assuming that this is the reason for their actions.
The problem isn’t straight-out corruption.
It’s wonky incentivation.
Judges that are not measured by how many people they send to jail will always be, on average, less trigger-happy than cops who are.
I can see how this would make it worse on average.
a judge can stay uncorrupted by power
funniest joke of all time in my countries they released terrorist to satisfy radical political parties
Unfortunately judges can be corrupted too. They can accept bribes to rule favorably and their clerks can charge unsolicited fees to lose files or giving access to judicial decisions before they’re scheduled to release.
Absolute power currupts absolutely.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjva9m/afp-autistic-13-year-old-child-terrorism Original article, in case people don’t want to take the word of a pepe person named “Right Wing Cope” for some reason.
Thank you and sorry, I figured peeps would check the OP.
I think my largest issue was that they argued their point using a google-summary of an article. Thanks for linking the actual source.
That’s entrapment, innit?
The strictest definition of entrapment is when an LEO orders you to do something illegal; because you have to obey an order. Like if a traffic cop waves you through the intersection against a light to clear the road, they cannot then issue you a ticket.
It depends a lot on what the cops actually said to this kid, but I think there’s a good chance to make that case.
Sounds like it, but it’s Australia, and from what I know about Australian law, entrapment isn’t really a thing. Australian pigs can just tell you to commit a crime, and then arrest you for committing that crime.
Just another reminder that All Cops Are Bastards.
In the decision, Fleming found law enforcement used “the guise of a rehabilitation service to entice the parents of a troubled child to engage in a process that resulted in potential harm to the child.”
This type of cops would throw in a bag of hard drugs in someone’s car because they know the perp is using, but they can’t find the hiding place.
They should go to jail. My personal opinion is that breaking the law as someone under an oath (law enforcement, judge, lawyer) should always face twice the punishment. Once for the actual crime and once for the audacity to do so as a trusted hand of the law and corrupting public trust.
1312 1312 1312 1312
