• 2 Posts
  • 107 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2024

help-circle



  • That simply isn’t true. All it takes is one good cop to nullify the statement.

    So ACAB is true, when you look at the philosophy of it and you separate the identity of the individuals from the job they do.

    An individual can commit good acts, that’s not in dispute. An individual police officer can be fair to people and do a good job. That doesn’t make them a good cop, because of the things they aid and abbett through inaction. Holding bad actors accountable is required for justice, and those acts are impossible to perform or are penalized within the structure of policing. An individual officer can’t decline mandatory training that supports a militarization mindset. An individual officer is punished by leadership and the organization if they do try to create internal accountability.

    So the structure of it means the only way to be good, is to decline to aid and abbett, which means stop being a cop. If the only way to be good is to not be a cop, that means all cops are bad.

    For other absolutes I agree with you, just not this specific one I think it’s a bad example.





  • So do you know what a PI is generally hired for?

    There’s a narrow swatch of misbehavior that the “skeletons” would need to be, for a PI to take the case and get involved. The client would have to have some vested interest or harm done to them, or some idea that the target is doing some harm to somebody before taking the case.

    If the idea was get dirt to be vindictive, the PI would not take the case.

    If they did take the case and there was evidence that things were clearly criminal, (quid pro quo, malfeasance, etc) they would refer the case to actual police. They would only continue investigating if the police declined to investigate, and their purpose would be privately prosecuting the person. ( Basically filing a suit to whatever court, like you were suing the person but you prove the criminal acts and they get sentenced potentially)

    If the skeleton was more of a civil harm like a breach of duty or breach of contract, the PI would gather evidence relevant to the harm, and not provide their client with irrelevant information like who their favorite callgirl is or whatever bathhouse they frequent. They would also not share info about infidelity unless their client was the spouse that was being cheated on.

    Still, what you think a legitimate reason could or couldn’t be probably doesn’t match up with what actually would be the basis of some surveillance.

    This comment is super cliff notes, and based on some PI training in Ontario Canada that I couldn’t make myself complete after I realised that it would be more of the same bullshit shiftwork that I was trying to get away from 10 years ago.

    OP might have a good time calling some PI firms local to them and asking to pay for a consult and fact check his narrative.