> They didn't ban criminals from wearing masks, they didn't tell criminals that they had to identify themselves," Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.

I question the intelligence of suggesting that police should be held to the same standard as criminals. "If the bad guys can do it, we should be able to do it!" Is a wild take.

The core tenet that makes someone the good guy is "we treat them better than they would treat us". It's so disappointing to see the people who are supposed to be the good guys advocating they should be able to be as cruel as the bad guys they exist to prevent.

Am I missing something?

> Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.

holy shit, "eliminated" is not the appropriate word here... what is wrong with this guy? (other than uncontrolled anger?)

▲

UncleMeat 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm starting to see this everywhere. "There was no due process when illegal immigrants hopped the border" and "Laken Riley didn't get any due process" are widespread talking points at this point. Kavanaugh talks about how the goal of the criminal is to evade the law when considering the balance of equities in his concurrence on racial profiling in ICE stops.

I've even seen comments here and on reddit of people saying that the exclusionary rule should be eliminated, since if somebody is a criminal they shouldn't get constitutional protections.

It is worth remembering that the idea that the constitution seriously protects even those who really did crimes is pretty radical. Things that we consider to be baked into our judicial system (the exclusionary rule, miranda warnings) are not terribly old and were extremely controversial when first established. Congress passed a whole law saying that Miranda v Arizona was invalid (which they don't have the power to do). This means that we need active work to protect it.

▲

arp242 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In addition to that, you don't need to ban criminals from wearing masks because you can already arrest them for the crime they're doing. And also pretty sure you can identify them after that one way or the other. It's a dumb take throughout.

▲

sudoshred 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Moral relativism leads people to narrative extremes to justify behavior.

▲

lazide 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The part you’re confused by is the ‘supposed to be the good guys’.

▲

mrangle 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

grayhatter 15 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yes, what you're missing is that you are intentionally conflating "same standard" when you imply that the criminal standard is voluntary and the LE standard is legal.

This is hard for me to parse, what are you trying to say?

> See your quip about the criminals "than they would treat us" and "able to be as cruel". Voluntary behavior of the criminals. Which is not under discussion.

No, you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. The concept I was trying to explain and reinforce was that the cops should be the good guys. Good compared to what? The behavior of criminals. So it is a part of the expectations for the behavior of police. Or in other words, it's a mistake for Bianco to set the standard of behavior for the good guys, at the level of behavior we see from the bad guys. We should hold cops to a higher standard.

I.e. like you, I agree that it's wrong to compare the actions of police to the actions of criminals. everyone should hold the actions of police on their own, an ask is this what the good guy would do?

	▲	mrangle 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]