This post says a lot about your capacity for empathy, and your understanding of history.
An example can, and should be made. Perhaps firing these 57 cops can serve as that example due to their egregious display of cruelty and insensitivity.
But also keep in mind that folks like Jim Clyburn (among others) are calling for police reform, not defunding or abolishing.
I don’t think it does. UV may be being argumentative, but he’s not wrong.
She has every right to be angry and to express that anger vocally. Hearing her and embracing the fundamental changes needed is the correct response. But neither you nor I have an obligation to support her call or justification for destruction. Just as so many examples we’ve seen of protesters actively preventing wholesale destruction, we have an obligation to diffuse that impulse. She does not speak for her entire community or even the majority of her community in this respect.
All she did was express anger, in a raw and unfiltered way. I don’t think it’s appropriate at all for a white person to tell a black person in this country what kind of feelings are inappropriate with regards to white supremacism. AFAICT she has neither hurt anyone nor harmed anyone’s property.
A start:
- Legislate against qualified immunity.
- Stop worshiping and arming the police like they are a military branch.
- Make it illegal for anyone to hire a police officer that has been kicked out of any police department before.
- Admit that policing is a dangerous job that you should not apply for if you are afraid of danger.
- Acknowledge that your coming home alive is not the most important thing if it means other people die by your hand.
Nobody has said she does not have the right to be angry. Nobody has accused her of destruction of property. We are having a conversation about whether her rhetoric is: a) an effective response/justification for her anger, b) is reflected/endorsed by the majority of her community.
I think we all get it. People get angry and people say regrettable things in a highly emotional state. If your argument is that we should take her seriously - I couldn’t agree more. I don’t imagine your argument is that we should take her literally. So, if we agree on that, then what are we talking about? If not, then what are we talking about?
- Make psychological evals the first step and ongoing process of LEO training and well into the probation period. Perhaps include regular re-eval throughout the career of a LEO.
I’m saying that folks like UV should realize that her pain and anger are real, legitimate, and based on an accurate characterization of the country. And that the way to address that real anger and pain is to move towards real justice, not to chide her for not being concerned about property damage.
And I think that what UV, and others are saying, is that they understand and agree with the need for real justice reform. But that the path forward cannot include a tacit acceptance of justification for destruction. Not because his feelings as an upper class white guy need to once again be validated by black people. But because there needs to be a fundamental understanding and agreement by all those who wanting to see justice reform, that calls to violence and destruction are antithetical to achieving that goal.
In your view, is it okay to say to this woman that you understand why she is angry but that you do not agree that calls for destruction are the way to go about it?
Yes, and
7. Tighter controls on police union contracts so that PO disciplinary records aren’t expunged every 60 days, or so that they aren’t given special privileged access to information in inquests against them.
I don’t think she’s actually calling for destruction. She’s expressing righteous anger, and saying that property damage really isn’t important when compared to the mass injustice faced by black Americans. And she’s right. Anyone focused on the property damage who ignores the broader injustice has their priorities terribly out of whack.
How about …
- Moving oversight of police complaints and discipline to the state level?
I know this creates a new potential cesspool of state bureaucracy at a time when many states are desperately trying to get leaner, but ISTM a big reason police reforms never seem to make any progress is that each department is responsible for “policing” itself, with all the conflicts of interest that entails.
I think the charges levied against the two cops was the example and the 57 cops resigning from the special group was reaction to those two being made an example. We can make those 57 an example, does that just make the next 500 officers act poorly and become the next set of examples?
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in fixing the problem. The police are heavily invested in idea that this violence isn’t a problem, or if it is, it’s not THEM with the problem.
From a marketing point of view, abolish the police is a more aggressive statement than what the vast majority of people want. But, I do like the idea of going Zero Base Budgeting on them and forcing the departments to justify each and every piece of their responsibility, staffing, policies and armaments.
How are you going to convince enough people to actually do this job, without paying astronomical salaries?
“It’s dangerous, we’re going to limit your ability to protect yourself, the public hates you, and if you fuck up once, your career is over.”
No. You’re saying that.
What she said was:
“Why do I care about burning the Hall of Fame? Why do I care about burning Target? …They broke the social contract!.. Far as I’m concerned, they can burn this bitch to the ground!”
Her anger is justified. I’m not about to tell her she should tone down her rhetoric, lecture her on her choice of words, or try to provide her with some different perspective.
But since we’re just talking here about the fundamental need for justice reform to address institutional racial inequality, is it objectively wrong to respond to angry rhetoric, like she has expressed, that ‘Burn it down’ & “Abolish the Police” are not the means by which the much needed change will be achieved?
Yes! Separate the oversight.
They used to do it, and do it well. If “the public hates you” that’s on them. People will still do it though.
“we’re going to limit your ability to protect yourself”? Everyone has this already.
Also, reform police training to emphasize public service and protection as opposed to self-defense.
Requiring psych evaluations sounds like a good step, but it’s actually already a part of the problem. Departments already do psych evaluations to make sure you have the right kind of personality to be a police officer. It’s just that they’re exactly dead wrong about what the “right kind of personality” is.
Some level of angry rhetoric like this might be necessary to get some people to wake up.
This sounds like tone policing to me. For some Americans, gentle explaining might work, to make them understand this problem. For others, very serious and logical explanations, complete with historical cites. And for yet others, perhaps only fiery and righteous anger like this might be the only thing to help someone understand.