>> courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state
I am highly cynical about this methodology but it DOES work for the group, even if it is inefficent at it (and progressively getting more inefficient). Over the long run cops learn that they can't do X or Y, except for a few "new" abuses (e.g. civil asset forfeiture) we are probably better off than we were 50 or 60 years ago. At some point if we get too inefficient about it (which we may have already crossed), though, the equilibrium change will move towards regression since it is a cat-and-mouse game to some degree; cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize against protections, too.
Like playing popular music while being recorded by bystanders so that the videos get taken down for copyright infringement.
If you want to suggest an alternative, you have a captive audience including myself. Otherwise you're just fearmongering to fearmonger.
You just blatantly ignored years and years of news in all media and occasionally even here.
Usually I'm against posts making claims without adding a link, but please, this stuff has been all over sooooo many times, and singling out a few random examples doesn't do it justice.
You could start with long the Washington Post series about civil asset forfeitures to begin with something that is not just one case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/s...
As for individual examples, I only follow major news sources and I see posts about such cases several times every single week, have been seeing it for years. I would have to intentionally ignore the news to not see them all. I don't even want to see them since I can't do anything about it anyway and since I already read more than enough by now so making my day worse has no benefit any more if I read <yet another piece. But I can't even avoid it. So I don't understand at all where you are coming from claiming
> You're being unnecessarily negative here.
All the evidence points to it being realism and not. Sometimes it's reality that is "being negative".
>not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).
and
>The problem with expecting accountability is that system will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting federal judge once said, “truth and justice have no relevance; it is a court of law.” The law will take the side of the system.
The claims here are that cop malfeasance against US citizens will go unpunished because courts will pardon the cop under any circumstances, specifically because the "judge and prosecutor" will pardon the cop.
However, judges/prosecutors don't actually find citizens guilty - juries do. Furthermore, the defendant has a direct stake in how the jury is selected via their own attorney during voir dire. Therefore, the claim that judges/prosecutors will specifically pardon the cop doesn't hold water.
Furthermore, the claim that intimidation are coercion are viable strategies for the cops is bold in the face of bodycams during arrest and security cams during interrogation. Those two combined eliminate 99% of a cop's ability to harass or harm a suspect and not face repercussions.
So, the individual made two claims that don't stand up to scrutiny and did not offer an alternative that would solve their claims.
As for your claims of a preponderance of evidence, I've seen only anecdotal evidence over the past few years. The most evidence I've seen of system violence are the BLM riots and the crime statistics showing that African-Americans commit 52% of murders in the US[0].
[0]https://www.informernet.com/opinion/how-to-respond-to-africa...
Always try to stop the police at the point of abuse.
Now, that obviously that is not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).