When was the last time a fry cook trainee at McDonalds was caught on video choking a person to death?
Really? You don’t think they had drilled into them that they had to obey all lawful orders of your TO? Because believing that they were told to obey illegal orders would take a special kind of disingenuity.
I am done here, have fun. I dont debate with people who do insults.
Moderating
Insults are not appropriate in this forum. You’ve been here long enough to know that.
Warning issued.
Not every job. In the military, before you have a chance to get to combat of any kind, they teach you about illegal orders. If they are far enough along in training to be assisting in arrests, they should no what the rules of force are.
Earlier, you said 5%. That is one in 20. That means every officer knows multiple “bad apples”. If 1 in 20 fast food workers were pissing in the ketchup I would never eat at that chain again. You expect us to be ok with every police department/precinct having a killer or rapist and not taking action to root it out.
That is true. But calling out a superior officer for a illegal order your first week on the job will make for a short career. They just dithered- Chauvin was the killer, they just didnt stop him, altho one did tell Chauvin to stop. Now, I got no problem with them being fired, they should have stopped him, yes. But does that make them killers too? I can see both sides there, but those two have a defense- with Chauvin it’s only what degree of murder he is convicted of.
I agree it is hard to call out your assigned supervisor. But this should not have been their first week in police training. They should have had extensive training prior to being out on the street. Whatever academy or program they had to go through should emphasize their legal responsibilities.
If there was a furniture delivery business with 100 employees and 5 of them rob the customers, I would feel their was some negligent hiring occurring.
Nothing at all against the furniture business but people being people, I can guarantee that 5 of the 100 take things they shouldn’t
The bottom line is this:
People who want to defund, whole sale demolish police forces are not being rational. What they don’t understand is that people are all fallible. Could police forces do a better job in the selection process. Absolutely, in fact that should be step #1.
Step #2 is made harder by the police union: But step #2 needs to be the blue line going away. Good police people need to be ratting out the bad and the force as a whole needs to stop defending anyone associated because it looks bad on the whole force.
t really looks bad on the whole force when someone is found guilty and others were found covering up for it.
First, there is a big difference between pocketing some loose change or or swiping a bauble and a house. If 5% of of police were misfiling reports on occasion or being rude we would not be having this conversation.
Second, defund the police or abolish the police is, for almost all proponents, not about totally eliminating law enforcement. It is about removing functions that would be better handled by another group (social workers, conflict managers, mental health workers, etc.) and recreating a law enforcement apparatus that actually is designed and functions to serve and protect everyone. There is no single vision for how all of this works, but what we have now is the opposite of helping.
Which is why step 2 is crucial along with step 1, which you didn’t comment on.
Your step #2 is a small, but important, part of “recreating a law enforcement apparatus that is actually designed and functions to serve and protect everyone.”
Ha! I don’t see either step as small , or easy but agreed, they both have to happen.
Police Union probably needs to be busted up
Honestly, it is an argument in favor of a general union. Not only do police unions protect bad apples and resist systemic change, they often support cracking down on other unions.
Such a system sounds very close to a form of feudalism. Basically whatever local group is strongest most well-armed would effectively become the de facto “law & order”. And one would have to assume the “policing” policies would be defined by self interest and political ideology with little to no civilian government oversight.
This assumes the OPs literally definition of “abolish” and not simply replacing local police departments with coverage by County or State level law enforcement.
I find it utterly amazing that so many believe that the only thing holding society together is the police. Get rid of the police, they say, and society instantly crumbles into a chaotic dystopia. I’m pretty sure these same people, except for the occasional traffic ticket, never have dealngs with the police, and yet somehow their lives go on. There are all kinds of “rules and regulations” that people in everyday society follow that are not enforced by the police. The industry that I work in has thick books (plural) full of regulations that must be followed and not one of them is enforced by the police. How can that be possible? The neighborhood I live in has customs that all of the residents abide by without threat of incarceration. The examples of people living together in a just and peaceful society without the intervention of the police abound.
The police are not necessary to live in a just and safe society.
Really? So give me a list of the top ten nations that are just and safe societies and dont have police.