[ SECRET POST #5515 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5515 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________


06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #789.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. https://i.imgur.com/xz7l7dQ.png

[feotakahari]

I suspect “cops are all bad and should be killed” is like “soldiers are all bad and should be killed,” “landlords are all bad and should be killed,” “teachers are all bad and should be killed,” etc.

(Yes, I have actually seen someone say teachers should be “shot and dumped in a mass grave.”)

[(Anonymous)]

You think it's hyperbole? It's not. None of those are. I don't agree with them, but the people who say them truly believe it.

[(Anonymous)]

one of these things is not like the others...

[(Anonymous)]

Two, actually. Unless you seriously think potentially killing people is in every landlord's job description as well.

[(Anonymous)]

have you seen rent rates the last few years? passively killing people is still killing people

[(Anonymous)]

The way that this is phrased is just so funny. Like, what's even the purpose of the first sentence here? Just come out and say you think cops are criticized too much.

[(Anonymous)]

Are we? I don't hate cops.

[(Anonymous)]

DA Same here. I think there are some bad apples that need to be dealt with and some instititutional practices that need to be changed, but I don't think all cops are evil.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT - I don't think most cops are individually evil. I do think there needs to be significant reform and meaningful civilian oversight on police practices, and my impression is that most cops, even ones who aren't evil, are opposed to reform and support police unions who regard any increase in oversight as an outright attack.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT
Well, I think in many places it's a lot more than just 'some bad apples'. But that doesn't mean I hate all cops, it means I hate the system that allows bad cops to continue being bad cops. Something definitely needs to change. Actually a lot of things.

[(Anonymous)]

And that requires the "good apples" to cover up for the bad ones, allowing them to perpetuate their badness day upon day?

[(Anonymous)]

There are few campily evil cops, but there is a lot of the banality of evil in them all. The ones who aren't actively causing harm will still cover up for those who do, will look the other way, will not intervene to deter harm, and that is the real everyday evil of all cops.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 This is exactly what finally frustrated me to the turning point. Sure, not all cops are bad. But then why aren't the good ones keeping their shitty coworkers in check?

[pantswarrior]

According to various accounts I've seen posted on social media (which does not necessarily make them true, but they certainly seem to be plausible): when good cops try to hold bad cops accountable, they're fired or otherwise forced out.

I don't believe this to be the case in EVERY police force - I very much suspect that there's some small town somewhere that has like 300 people and maybe 5 cops total who wanted to be cops so they could be helpful and protective for their families and neighbors, and the entire police force there is good. But when you get into large police forces in large/historical cities with a "traditional culture" among the police that dates back to the days when they were out there to catch runaway slaves and the like... I doubt good cops survive in those places for long before they're no longer cops.

[(Anonymous)]

i would suspect it's the same reason that most people aren't inclined to whistleblow in general: their priority is keeping their own job and not getting entangled in all of the legal hassles involved in reporting someone for wrongdoing.

[(Anonymous)]

That's true in 90% of jobs, though. Just look at Blizzard/Activision, for example.

[(Anonymous)]

Yuuuuup. A good apple that's been in a barrel with a bad all its whole apple-career is a bad apple. Some are worse and some are trying to fix the barrel but until there is a major overhaul I can't exactly assume the best.

[(Anonymous)]

I hate cops who won't do their job.

Hmm.

[(Anonymous)]

There are some very obviously bad cops out there. And I think there are lot of other cops that don't mean to be bad. Unfortunately, the culture, the evolution of policing, and the union mean that mean that they are. Every cop who hasn't reported another cop for a serious crime, who has helped cover up the crime of another cop, who hasn't tried to stop another cop from committing a crime when they could have, who hasn't protested illegal policies, is a bad cop. In a moral sense, yes, but also in a very literal sense - it is their job to uphold the law and they are not doing it.

[(Anonymous)]

"Acknowledging there are some good cops" is more critical than the majority of the media landscape gets about cops. Most shows that feature cops might occasionally nod to the possibility that there are some bad cops - but not the protags though, the protags will expose them and take them down, without any lasting negative impact on their own careers. Even media that centers criminals as the protagonists will usually treat cops as bumbling obstacles at best, and hero antagonists at worst, and if they do feature a dirty cop, there's a point made of "not all cops though".

I don't personally think there's anything particularly wrong with enjoying police procedurals, any more than I think there's anything wrong with enjoying spy fiction, or fiction about serial killers. But it's silly to pretend that "good cop" fiction isn't the norm, or that the slow turn against cops in progressive spaces has had any real impact on the media landscape.

[meadowphoenix]

Understandably, you don't know what copaganda is. Cops, all of them are state (a political division of a body of people that occupies a territory defined by frontiers) actors, they act on behalf of their power structure, whether municipal, city, county, state or federal. That's their purpose. And so, there is no cop that can be separated from the operation of the state in enforcement.

So when media presents the idea that individual cops can be effective on at least one case, they are doing so as a form of inductive persuasion, a metonymy of the state. Because what it does do is allow you to believe in the credibility of police tactics, because they worked right? Even though, a lot of police tactics and forensic practices have significantly less credibility. A lot of solved crime is incredibly stupid criminals or a great deal of happenstance. There is zero way to you to gauge the actual effectiveness of these tactics with singular cases, but the significantly higher solve rate in the aggregate is going to give you a incorrect idea, because that's simply how the brain works unless you know better.

Furthermore, it's a tv show OP. Nothing about the media you see isn't framed by the producers, even if they do mostly tell the truth (a lot of true crime programs straight up make-up narratives, but I'm assuming this isn't one of them). It's reality tv, and just like reality tv, it doesn't present an "real" understanding of anyone involved to make sound judgements about, including the police officers, prosecutors, and forensic specialists.

Here are the real questions. Do you see all the cases those cops have worked? The prosecutors? The forensic specialists? Would the heroes in these cases be willing to show you, the audience, the places where they fucked up in others? What understanding of anyone's general behavior could you possibly get from one instance? Seriously.

Like the show, if you want. A lot of cop shows are both comforting and entertaining for the reasons you mentioned. It's really satisfying to see women get justice. But media depictions, especially of actual police departments with their willing consent, are still very much copaganda.

[(Anonymous)]

So when media presents the idea that individual cops can be effective on at least one case, they are doing so as a form of inductive persuasion, a metonymy of the state. Because what it does do is allow you to believe in the credibility of police tactics, because they worked right?

Yeah. I saw an interesting article about this the other day talking about The Wire - and The Wire is obviously one of the most realistic and probably one of the most critical depictions of police in American media, it portrays the police largely as a venal, corrupt, ineffective bureaucracy and most street cops as little more than stupid bullies.

At the same time it still portrays homicide detectives as cynical and not overly concerned with legal niceties, but basically intelligent, competent and dogged when given a chance to do their jobs. But it turns out that the actual detectives that the characters from The Wire were based on have had tons of convictions overturned because they had essentially framed a bunch of people by doing things like pressuring witnesses to lie and hiding exculpatory evidence. In other words, even the most critical depictions of police in American media end up overstating the effectiveness of the police and implying that when police break the rules it's justified.

[meadowphoenix]

That's really interesting about the wire (and is probably true of homicide life on the streets), but not surprising. Passive incompetence does not a compelling protagonist make, and David Simon was a police reporter so we know that to a certain extent reporters collude with police narratives.

[(Anonymous)]

Good cops don't last long. They either end up frozen out or killed, or if they're lucky just fired or sent for mental help. So no, a good cop would be a rookie with stars in their eyes, not someone staying on a largely corrupt force because otherwise they're covering for the bad ones.