Police in the US are making their own true crime podcasts
bbc.com
bbc.com
Something about the administrators of state power capitalizing on their execution of it for fame.
I'd probably want that banned?
Aren't the administrators of state power the prosecutors? Police are more rank and file dealing with the issues. Then it gets kicked up to prosecutors and court system that indirectly drives police action. If crimes don't get prosecuted, police don't make arrests. That's why I pass by half a dozen people illegally selling weed or fake handbags on the streets every day.
For instance, police can have a different perspective more in line with reality. They'll arrest the same person multiple times, know his story and the story of the victims. By the time it goes through the legal system (essentially upper management) and through all the layers of bureaucracy, it morphs into something else entirely.
If body camera footage taught me anything is that overwhelming majority of the time I sympathize with the police. They're often very reasonable and act with restraint in a difficult situation. I see clips regularly where without a video the situation would appear very bad for police. This is so common, some commentators like John Oliver came out against police cameras because they're too sympathetic to police because I don't know, angles or something? Really broke the illusion that cops are mostly a group of bullies terrorizing neighborhoods and arresting people at random.
Sure bad cops exist, but I trust their incentives and instinct a lot more than the judicial process, the true "administrators of state power"
You're living on a different planet dude. But I'm sure vox will have some article about the one in a million case
Try the Instagram Reels explore feed. I see at least one US cop bodycam a week where they are blatantly abusing their powers over nothing.
The 'for no reason' is doing a lot of work here I think. The reason might be that they didn't like the person's attitude, the person was annoying (but not breaking laws) someone more rich and powerful than them, and so on. These are technically 'reasons' I suppose, but I would want the bar to be much higher than that.
The fact you have not personally witnessed something does not mean it never happens. It's like saying "I've never seen someone be murdered" as if it has some meaning for actual murder occurrences. Excusing illegal actions just because you don't witness them is a bizarre take.
Anyway, it sounds like your mind is made up, but someone willing to expand their world view might be interested in Jeff Gray's videos on youtube. He is regularly threatened with arrest, typically for standing in a public place with a sign that reads "God bless homeless vets".
I actually love the narrative he gives people: when accused of "soliciting" (pathetically invoking a term that, in a police context, is used to refer to sex work) he tells people that he is, in fact, soliciting good will and compassion for homeless veterans in America. (And, again, he is often threatened with arrest for it.)
Go to a different neighborhood. Police behavior is zipcode based
Why do you think police grab protestors, beat them up, declare they have nothing to charge them with and release them? That is the punishment for protesting. The punishment for protesting is not getting a jail sentence (usually), it's getting beaten up and released by cops. In America it's getting shot by cops and probably dying. In the UK it's getting picked up from your home after the protest and taken to the police station for questioning.
Somehow I get the feeling that your bar for "huge disturbance" is different from mine. Could you give an example of what you mean?
We can make this clear by simply inverting the roles. Imagine that criminals were making true crime podcasts about their own crimes. It means they could (and obviously would) play it for sympathy, downplaying their own actions and denouncing the actions of the state.
As it is, the police could for example be looking for someone for something legal that someone in power doesn’t like, like having an abortion, and lie through their teeth about the reason they are searching for them so the populace helps them and stands with the police even when they are wrong.
https://letsaddresstexas.substack.com/p/texas-police-used-83...
The could also, as another example, use it to search for legal immigrants and citizens with dark complexion while accusing them of crimes they did not commit.
If they wanted to do this honestly, they could instead have the facts of ongoing cases open to everyone publicly, so that journalists could verify and do their own reporting (not that I believe that in today’s world that wouldn’t backfire either).
From the article;
>Chadwick had been charged and pleaded not guilty, but not tried - yet the podcast made no use of the word "alleged" and called the millionaire a "murderer".
Yeah, like that.
The police are very aware of the "street justice" they're encouraging. Just because they keep their hands clean doesn't mean I'm defending them either. This is mob rule.
> https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-true-crime-consumer-repor...
But it's absolutely true that the internet-based tribe called the "TCC" -- the true crime community -- is a hotbed of severe mental illness and moral depravity. It's a very young-skewing demographic, too. You can think of it as Fandom for killers. I monitor my son's internet activity in large part to ensure that he's not exposing himself to it, and I would view any exposure to the TCC as the reddest of red flags.
Makes sense, would be a huge conflict of interest. That's why most modern countries have separate independent investigative agencies whose purpose is to investigate the police. Sadly, some of the more police-horny countries tend to give these agencies faux power rather than something real, and in the worst ones, the police has qualified immunity anyway.