Exactly. A lot of people just love circlejerking that literally everyone in the justice system is a cop

Absolutely not. They are a legal officer, which is very different from law enforcement. They work at separate parts of the legal process with very different goals.

DA’s get stuck trying to clean up the trampling of rights by actual cops.

I’m progressive, so your weird quote is even weirder.

I never think lawyer when I hear ACAB. I do think “fuck lawyers” all the time, but rarely towards public servants (I mostly dislike corporate and greedy defense attorneys)

Are ya’ll just lumping them together out of convenience of disliking both, or do ya’ll really not understand the difference between a lawyer and a cop?

I guess you consider court clerks cops, too. And the reception workers. And the maintenance workers, right?

Lawyers are not cops. Lawyers have their own issues, but different from cops and not at all the same thing lmao

Who has she arrested/beaten/killed?

I call myself Robocop. Does that make me a police officer, too?

No, legal professionals are very different than law enforcement

Does anyone actually consider a prosecutor a cop?

He doesn’t have to be intelligent; he just has to be smarter than his voters. That’s the point

He can be a stupid, racist, sexist miser and evil at the same time. And there’s a 200% chance he’s not the smart one strategizing everything. He’s, as you say, not that smart. But smart enough to follow simple directions and regurgitate his hateful shit on cue.

I absolutely believe he is doing it intentionally. He will lie and promote violence any time he thinks it will help him do as he pleases or avoid consequences.

Yes, it’s in his very nature, but let’s be honest: he knows exactly what he’s doing

But these make sense. If someone is harmed in the process of you committing a crime, you are at least partly responsible for that harm. I agree with these, but I can see how they can be weaponized as well

We see Trump consistently make an outright lie, and in the same breath pivot to a personal attack such as “she’s a nasty woman.” This is another technique that adds something controversial after the lie so that the focus is on the controversial topic instead of the lie.

It makes it harder to peel what he says apart and puts space between the current point of conversation and the lie

If you think caring about one tragedy means ignoring another, that’s a ‘you’ problem.

People who actually care about human suffering don’t play the ‘whataboutism’ game—because it’s not a contest, it’s a crisis. Your deflection isn’t advocacy; it’s just lazy, performative outrage disguised as moral high ground.

That will not suffice

Strawberry doesn’t appear to include a visualizer?

You may be short on reading comprehension, so the idea that a law in one state could have helped find justice in another is confusing to you. That’s okay.

Replying and adding to the conversation are two very different things, friendo. Lmao

Lmao okay reply guy!

Yes, you could play that game for many laws. One like this, specifically, could have helped Kyle face justice. That’s the point.