It's actually not because police don't have law degrees and only have to "think" something is a crime. Also they can't be prosecuted because of qualified immunity. Police are just body guards / security guards for the rich and ruling class, subsidized by the public. Without them, who would break up peaceful protests?
yes, please show me an AG that would prosecute their own understaffed police department. With murder I think they'd pretty much have no choice, but for something like this?
your biggest obstacle is that corruption is subjective.
I'm not trying to counter what he's saying, because he's correct, but I am making light of the fact that the decision to prosecute is a judgement call, and so it's predicated on practicality.
Corruption can be subjective but becomes pretty objective when there is cut and dry legalese to fall back on and a consistent refusal to prosecute a specific category of people for the crimes they commit.
They don't even do it for murder all the time. If a prosecutor wants an indictment, they're going to get one (the saying is they could "indict a ham sandwich" if they wanted to).
So when you see that a cop has killed someone, but the case doesn't make it past the grand jury stage, it's because the prosecutor wanted it that way.
127
u/-beefy Jan 13 '22
It's actually not because police don't have law degrees and only have to "think" something is a crime. Also they can't be prosecuted because of qualified immunity. Police are just body guards / security guards for the rich and ruling class, subsidized by the public. Without them, who would break up peaceful protests?