this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
399 points (99.0% liked)

politics

24944 readers
2773 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 55 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Scumbags. Being taken, no Miranda rights read.

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Miranda basically hasn't been a thing in a while though... https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights

There's no repercussion for a pig to not read or even provide Miranda rights.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Another officer says, “They’re starting to resist more now,” to which an officer replies: “We’re going to end up shooting some of them.”

That feels too casual of a conversation when discussing fucking murder.

Also, I believe it should be illegal for law enforcement to be incentived to make arrests. If I were in a position to write laws, I'd make it illegal for cops to get bonuses. Fuck the idea they get more money to ruin people's lives.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If there have to be bonuses, they should be reserved for when a situation is successfully de-escalated without violence. I wouldn't have a problem incentivizing a cop for defusing a situation properly. The fact that they still get paid bonuses after doing something shitty is where I take issue. And getting paid leave after killing someone? That's straight-up encouragement right there.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

You mean like perhaps saying there's been no crime in this area for 90 days good job police versus everything that's happening now?

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is why we need to start shooting them. They're lawless criminals and we are merely defending ourselves.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nothing. I've increased my gun ownership threefold and am getting my concealed carry permit in two weeks.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago

A highway patrol officer asked everyone in the van to identify themselves, then called for backup. Officers with US border patrol arrived on the scene.

Video footage of the incident captured by Laynez-Ambrosio, an 18-year-old US citizen, appears to show a group of officers in tactical gear working together to violently detain the three men*, two of whom are undocumented. They appear to use a stun gun on one man, put another in a chokehold and can be heard telling Laynez-Ambrosio: “You’ve got no rights here. You’re a migo, brother.” Afterward, agents can be heard bragging and making light of the arrests, calling the stun gun use “funny” and quipping: “You can smell that … $30,000 bonus.”

[–] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

From watching videos like this, something is obvious to me. Half of a cop's job is seeking moral justification from the in-group for their inhuman shit.

Underground railroad, anyone?