- cross-posted to:
- usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
ACAB. All those people saying “one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch” would feel Differently if someone made them an apple pie and one or two of the apples used were either completely rotten and moldy or one had been contaminated with industrial or radioactive waste or poisoned. Knowing that the majority of the apples were good apples and the existence of one or two bad apples mixed in shouldn’t ruin the pie itself im pretty certain those arguing this aphorism would refuse to eat a poisoned or tainted pie despite trying to force the rest of society to bend the knee to the rotting pie of modern policing
The saying is exactly the opposite, one bad apple spolis the whole bunch. But in a time when you have alternative facts, why not alternative sayings.
You’re right! But so many times i hear the wrong phrasing used to protect the institution of modern policing. Language matters. Which is why I believe “defund the police” was chosen after the george floyd and brianna taylor(and all the other mostly brown casualties of police brutality) inspired protests. It was chosen because it was destined to fail even though the police do need to be defunded and demilitarized however the proper language should have focused around ending drug prohibition which is the main factor allowing racist attitudes to continue permeating police culture and a majority of police tax payer funding goes to the enforcement of draconian drug laws that have blatantly failed their stated purpose. (Althiugh I personally believe the stated purpose of drug prohibition was never the true purpose and the true purpose was actually to increase the black market price of narcotics and funnel poor and mostly minority people into for-profit prisons despite the fact that affluent wealthy white people are the largest consuming and distributing demographic of narcotics.
Either way you are correct. one bad apple does indeed spoil the entire bunch and there are far more than one bad apple within all the collective bunches we have that comprise our modern militarized policing apparatus
Yes the real meaning is that a few bad apples WILL spoil the whole barrel if they don’t get removed. I don’t know where the other meaning came from but if you leave rotting apples with good apples then they will all go rotten quite quickly.
Dirty cops should be added to the list
All cops are class traitors
The deny defend depose list?
The Mario Party invitations
They’re getting sent to Luigi’s Mansion.
No need to specifically dirty, all cops are pigs
I’ve got a little list - I’ve got a little list
I wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a member of the ruling class that had been run down by this bandit.
So how do you refuse breathalyzer and just “get away with it”?
You have to be in a police union first.
Everyone can refuse breathalyzer. Everyone should actually, because it will take longer to get to the station. This guy is a POS but if anyone didn’t know, now you do
Doesn’t work everywhere. In Canada refusing the breathalyze test carries the same potential charge and failing the breathalyzer test. I know, I already agree with the “what the f*** kind of law is that”, but this is how things are.
DUI’s are a play-to-play win (paying enough for a good lawyer) or you need to be apart of an exclusive club, otherwise bend over.
Everyone should actually
Everyone driving drunk should. But, you know, you should maybe also not drive drunk
You’re assuming that police only accuse drunk drivers of driving drunk.
They can accuse you without a breathalyzer test as well and they can fake blood tests just as well as a breathalyzer test. If you assume the police are just gonna plant evidence, refusing a breathalyzer test will do nothing.
CaptnNMorgan clearly stated, that they recommend taking the test at the station because of the time to get there, indicating that it’s about degradation of the blood alcohol level. They’re clearly showing that it’s not about innocent people being wrongfully accused. I know ACAB, yadda yadda, that doesn’t mean everyone accused by the police is a saint. Some people are just assholes and anyone driving drunk should get the book thrown at them. Including of course off-duty cops.
Nobody should drive drunk, but everyone has a different tolerance. Someone can blow a high number and not even feel buzzed, if their tolerance is high. I’m not talking to bad people who don’t care about other lives, I’m talking to people who would otherwise be taken advantage of by the police and their obtuse laws.
Dude, you’re literally defending drunk driving. Please educate yourself on the effect of alcohol on decision making and reaction speed. Just because someone thinks they’re not impaired doesn’t mean it’s true and how they feel doesn’t play any role in it whatsoever
Bro, there is a difference between being drunk and not realizing it, and being sober while blowing a high number.
In UK you get a charge of failure to provide and it worsens when you refuse again at the station.
He’ll be back drunk driving in no time…
