Law Enforcement Reform Thread (formerly Defund the Police) (1 Viewer)

[First Time Poster]

So I got busy the other day with the intention to revisit this topic and answer some of the responses put forward but I realized the thread was deleted. But, I felt we had good dialogue happening before I left so I wanted to restart the topic to get the conversation going again. We started some dialogue about it on the liberal board but I feel this topic transcends party lines so I'm making a MCB thread. Post #2, or my next post, is the post I made on the liberal board when asked to elaborate how I felt.

 

[Richard]

I don’t have time to read anything from The Atlantic tonight, lol, they are not known for brevity. I will try to check it out another day though.

The people you’re talking about are probably never going to support police reform, because it doesn’t affect them and they are already disengaged. I say let’s not worry about the disengaged. That’s all.

I understand where you are coming from, but those people still vote. Trump proved that you don’t have to worry about specifics and depth of understanding if the core message is clear. His messaging spoke to the disengaged, many of whom weren’t interested in the details.

My wife is only marginally interested in politics. She is a good and decent person who would never want to see someone harmed because of the color of their skin, whether it be by police, hiring managers, whoever. Over the last two weeks, I have had to try to go deeper with explanations of context and history. So a common conversation might go like this:

Her: Defund the Police? That’s just ridiculous.

Me: They don’t really want to get rid of all police. Departments need to look at their methods and why so many blacks are dying in their custody or in confrontations. They want to move money to services better able to handle some problems.

Her: But that’s not what they’re saying. They are saying Defund the Police and I saw another sign that said they want to abolish the police.

Me: That’s a fringe perspective, not what most people want. Most want an end to police brutality, profiling and unreasonable police actions that are primarily targeting black Americans.

Her: Well, that’s not what they are saying. And why are the protesters looting and burning and damaging property?

Me: Again, that isn’t most of the protesters. The vast majority are protesting peacefully and ...

Her: They wouldn’t want to defund the police if it was their property being burned. Come help me change the sheets. I want to get that done and throw on a load of clothes before I can sit down and call the kids.

Good person. Kind heart. Votes. But the message isn’t being conveyed in a way she can hear it, either by me or TV news. It isn’t that she doesn’t care, but she isn’t engaged either. And she’ll vote in a way that makes sense to her, so I am hopeful that the messaging can be packaged in a manner that speaks to people like her. Just dismissing her because she isn’t engaged ignores the fact that there are millions of voters out there who are just like her and those people are swayed by surface messaging. And Facebook.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don't agree with the title of this article or some of the arguments. I do think black people are unfairly profiled more often then whites, they don't receive equal treatment in the justice system compared to white people and I support police reform including ending qualified immunity.

But I also think the media makes it look like the killing of blacks both armed and unarmed is much more prevalent than it really is. We should fully prosecute any police officers that break any laws especially when they use violence or kill citizens when it's not warranted. I'm not posting these statistics to try to downplay the need for reform, but it does seem like some context is needed.

This charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today. However sickening the video of Floyd’s arrest, it isn’t representative of the 375 million annual contacts that police officers have with civilians. A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.

On Memorial Day weekend in Chicago alone, 10 African-Americans were killed in drive-by shootings. Such routine violence has continued—a 72-year-old Chicago man shot in the face on May 29 by a gunman who fired about a dozen shots into a residence; two 19-year-old women on the South Side shot to death as they sat in a parked car a few hours earlier; a 16-year-old boy fatally stabbed with his own knife that same day. This past weekend, 80 Chicagoans were shot in drive-by shootings, 21 fatally, the victims overwhelmingly black. Police shootings are not the reason that blacks die of homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined; criminal violence is.

The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.

A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects. Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.

Opinion | The Myth of Systemic Police Racism

Hold officers accountable who use excessive force. But there’s no evidence of widespread racial bias.

www-wsj-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Richard]

I don't agree with the title of this article or some of the arguments. I do think black people are unfairly profiled more often then whites, they don't receive equal treatment in the justice system compared to white people and I support police reform including ending qualified immunity.

But I also think the media makes it look like the killing of blacks both armed and unarmed is much more prevalent than it really is. We should fully prosecute any police officers that break any laws especially when they use violence or kill citizens when it's not warranted. I'm not posting these statistics to try to downplay the need for reform, but it does seem like some context is needed.

The statistics may say otherwise, but it certainly seems that an outsized number of excessive uses of force is against blacks. In some of videos I have seen over the years, the shooting deaths involving white subjects almost always seems justifiable. In many of the videos involving blacks, I have had to ask myself if there couldn't have been another outcome than killing him. Even in less than lethal situations, the actions of officers when dealing with people, especially young black men, seems to be greater than is required.

Even the incident in Atlanta seems as if the officers could have chosen another path. They had already identified him, given him a breathalyzer and apparently had enough for an arrest. Two officers were not enough to subdue him when he chose to resist arrest. The man could have gone after an officer's gun, but fortunately only grabbed a taser. In the moment, the officers couldn't know whether he would use the taser to get one of their guns or not, so they could have been justified in drawing their weapons. However, when he decided to run, they had other options. They could have called for additional backup while chasing him at a safe distance. They had his car and ID, so they had the option of securing a warrant and arresting him later. Chances are, knowing that the police had his car and ID, there is a possibility he would turn himself in. No further danger to the officers, the man or the people around the Wendy's. I don't know if that is the way to do it or not, but the situation reminded me of when we debated the necessity of high speed chases within the city limits. Most places chose to stop chasing at high speed, deciding it was better to apprehend them by other means.

 

[RobF]

They are for most part, but so is the population, for the most part, that they serve.

That's largely accurate. Police officers in the UK aren't routinely armed in most locations (Northern Ireland being a notable exception), but each force has trained firearms officers and armed response units (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom). As for the population, yes, we do have gun control here, but there's still legal firearm possession, and there's also a relatively low but significant level of illegal firearm possession (e.g. in the year ending March 2019, 9,787 offenses were committed with firearms involved, 2,726 of them involving handguns).

There are and have been calls for the police to be routinely armed, particularly when terrorist threats are in the news, but most police officers don't support it themselves (a 2017 survey by the Police Federation - which is the staff association for constables, sergeants, and inspectors - found 34% personally supported routine arming - https://www.polfed.org/our-work/firearms/).

That resistance to the UK police force being routinely armed has been there from its foundation in the 19th century, when the Metropolitan Police force was established on a model of 'policing by consent' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles. They mostly carried truncheons, with only higher ranks being allowed to carry pistols.

Aren't the officers in England unarmed, or am I making that up? It's a potential model if so.

So in terms of the model, I think it's really the broader model of policing by consent that's applicable, rather than the specific question of firearms. For reference, the Home Office published a definition of that in 2012 here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent

In practice that means, as well as officers being routinely unarmed, they receive considerably more training, including in de-escalation. Post-training, there's a lot of outreach and community engagement with regular visits to schools and preschools, community meetings, etc. (the last time I had an encounter with the police personally, it was during 'Operation Wave', which involved them stopping by houses to wave to children and surprise them with an Easter egg during the lockdown).

But I have to add it's not a magic approach. The reality does not live up to the ideal. We still have underlying issues with systemic racism, with disproportionate numbers of black and other minority ethnic people imprisoned, black people being much more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested, or tasered. For example, following the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, the handling of the case by the police and Crown Prosecution Service came in for huge criticism. A public inquiry reported, in 1999, that the 'investigation had been incompetent and that officers had committed fundamental errors, including: failing to give first aid when they reached the scene; failing to follow obvious leads during their investigation; and failing to arrest suspects', and found that the Metropolitan Police force was 'institutionally racist'. And while there has perhaps been some progress since, problems remain: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47300343.

 

[SaintForLife]

The statistics may say otherwise, but it certainly seems that an outsized number of excessive uses of force is against blacks. In some of videos I have seen over the years, the shooting deaths involving white subjects almost always seems justifiable. In many of the videos involving blacks, I have had to ask myself if there couldn't have been another outcome than killing him. Even in less than lethal situations, the actions of officers when dealing with people, especially young black men, seems to be greater than is required.

Even the incident in Atlanta seems as if the officers could have chosen another path. They had already identified him, given him a breathalyzer and apparently had enough for an arrest. Two officers were not enough to subdue him when he chose to resist arrest. The man could have gone after an officer's gun, but fortunately only grabbed a taser. In the moment, the officers couldn't know whether he would use the taser to get one of their guns or not, so they could have been justified in drawing their weapons. However, when he decided to run, they had other options. They could have called for additional backup while chasing him at a safe distance. They had his car and ID, so they had the option of securing a warrant and arresting him later. Chances are, knowing that the police had his car and ID, there is a chance he would turn himself in. No further danger to the officers, the man or the people around the Wendy's. I don't know if that is the way to do it or not, but the situation reminded me of when we debated the necessity of high speed chases within the city limits. Most places chose to stop chasing at high speed, deciding it was better to apprehend them by other means.

I totally agree with your post and I made sure to mention that I wasn't trying to diminish the need for police reform. I hesitated posting the article because some might see it as me being insensitive or downplaying the need for reform.

One thing that concerns me is many in the media making it seem like all or most cops are like the cop that killed Floyd. We shouldn't hesitate to fully prosecute those who commit violence or kill black people and that's why I'm for ending qualified immunity. There are too many police who act like the guy who killed floyd, there are plenty of a-hole cops, plenty of cops who abuse their power, but the majority of cops are good people trying to do their jobs. We have corrupt and horrible people in every part of society, but unfortunately those same types of people as police can cause much more harm than in other professions.

I have respect for police in general who have a chance of not coming home to their families every day they work. I couldn't have a job like that because that's very stressful and they deal with dangerous situations every day. Police need to be paid more, get more and better training which would help attract better candidates rather than some who failed at everything else so they become a cop. Unfortunately with the demonization of police in general by the media, some politicians, and people on the fringes it will make it even tougher to attract people to be police and also better candidates. I'm guessing we will also see increases in crime even after the riots are finished because cops will be hesitant to respond to calls.

 

[dtc]

The people who only read the headline of an article, get their news from Facebook, don't follow politics, don't understand nuance, etc are the ones that the bad messaging won't get through to.

I support police reform, but I can also make clear that the message will never reach certain segments of society with the current terminology. Check out the Atlantic article I posted earlier in this thread.

I agree.

You have any suggestions?

 

[SaintForLife]

I agree.

You have any suggestions?

I would say they need to change the slogan to reform the police.

 

[bdb13]

I agree.

You have any suggestions?

I would say they need to change the slogan to reform the police.

This article suggested "redefine police." https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/502648-what-defund-the-police-actually-means

I kind of like it actually because it almost calls for a conversation about what is meant by the term.

 

[insidejob]

I kind of like it actually because it almost calls for a conversation about what is meant by the term.

Me too. Redefine, reimagine, restructure, etc., all seem to invite discussion as to how the new police force would be formed and funded - discussion with those people the police "protect and serve."

Abolish, defund and other words like that are so specific in their definitions that people just assume those demanding change are asking for anarchy. I wish they'd change the name of the movement before it flames out over misunderstanding of the purpose because of the name of the movement.

 

[SaintForLife]

The article talks about how Roberts prefers baby steps to big changes in court precedents.

Supreme Court won't consider limiting police immunity from civil lawsuits

The justices' decision not to hear any new cases follows the recent death of George Floyd, a Black man in Minneapolis, while in police custody.

news.yahoo.com

 

[MT15]

I totally agree with your post and I made sure to mention that I wasn't trying to diminish the need for police reform. I hesitated posting the article because some might see it as me being insensitive or downplaying the need for reform.

One thing that concerns me is many in the media making it seem like all or most cops are like the cop that killed Floyd. We shouldn't hesitate to fully prosecute those who commit violence or kill black people and that's why I'm for ending qualified immunity. There are too many police who act like the guy who killed floyd, there are plenty of a-hole cops, plenty of cops who abuse their power, but the majority of cops are good people trying to do their jobs. We have corrupt and horrible people in every part of society, but unfortunately those same types of people as police can cause much more harm than in other professions.

I have respect for police in general who have a chance of not coming home to their families every day they work. I couldn't have a job like that because that's very stressful and they deal with dangerous situations every day. Police need to be paid more, get more and better training which would help attract better candidates rather than some who failed at everything else so they become a cop. Unfortunately with the demonization of police in general by the media, some politicians, and people on the fringes it will make it even tougher to attract people to be police and also better candidates. I'm guessing we will also see increases in crime even after the riots are finished because cops will be hesitant to respond to calls.

I agree with everything you wrote here until that last sentence. I think you are short changing the dedication of the majority of police officers that truly do see themselves as public servants. The good ones are drawn to that service as a calling. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that these days have been very difficult for them. When your profession is in total upheaval that has to be stressful, added on to the stresses of doing their jobs.

This whole redefinition is necessary, though, I just hope it has a positive outcome.

 

[dtc]

This article suggested "redefine police." https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/502648-what-defund-the-police-actually-means

I kind of like it actually because it almost calls for a conversation about what is meant by the term.

I guess the fact that Americans are dumb, lazy and arrogant means that instead of having an indepth conversation about anything, we must brand it in a way to get a succinct slogan-based policy or have no chance for success.

Of course, by the time the emotionally charged anthem becomes a saleable slogan/policy I'd hope that it was well enough thought out that it might gain support from all of us including the police, but doubt it. The side doing the selling is too mad and hellbent on emotionally charged rhetoric and the others too willing to brand it antifa/socialist to actually do anything.

Sad times.

 

[insidejob]

Good thread on twitter about "Defunding the Police."

 

[First Time Poster]

So, I started typing a response to @UncleTrvlingJim about how I disagreed that we haven't quite hit critical mass. I still feel we have but in reading some of the responses here and dealing with the things I have outside of here...I am becoming skeptical. Because it still seems so many simply don't get it. You just don't. Y'all frustrate me so much but, in the end, it is because your life, your family's lives aren't in the bullseye and it is easy to be passive about this.

That's fine. Keep sending out mixed messages and keep losing the people. Keep getting upset when you are screaming at the air with no one listening. Keep blaming everyone else for not solving a puzzle you created. Do you want actual change in system or do you want a new system becasue people don't really know and it appears that neither do the protesters.

But for that message to be understood clearly, it should be articulated clearly. It shouldn't be the hearers' responsibility to decipher the code.

OK, but if there's a problem with the message landing and actually being heard with people who should be more inclined to be naturally supportive then I can all but guarantee that the difficulty in reaching people who are less inclined to be naturally supportive will be exponentially greater.

So I picked these three posts, not to single out these posters, but for two other reasons. One, honestly, at the time I started typing this they were the three that stood out to me, at the time, that exemplified my frustration (I've been writing and deleting this post for days. I waver with whether I want to go here but it feels necessary). There have been other posts since but I stuck with these three. Two, I, honestly and sincerely believe, these three posters want the type of changes that we are talking about. And I feel you three represent a broad enough spectrum on political ideologies that I'm confident everyone will know I'm not speaking to, or targeting, a specific political party. This really is apolitical to me.

At this point, I had typed up a really gritty, eye-popping, graphic analogy to explain the depth and hurt of the issue and properly represent the urgency with what we need it fixed but like Chappelle said "These ****** will never understand. I'm tired of explaining it to these people something that is so God damned obvious." We are. I am. So, I don't know, here is a different, less inflammatory, milder analogy to do just that, explain my perspective.

There is a pill. The pill cures cancer. All forms. You take it and keep taking it and in one year you are cancer free. Not only that, even if you don't have cancer, you take it, and it will prevent you from contracting any form of cancer. It is a large, red pill and for some reason the manufacturer named it Satan's Penis. Facepalm, right? Whatever, your mom has an advanced stage of cancer and you need to get her on this pill asap. "Mom, start taking this pill immediately! It cures cancer! Really?! What's it called? Uhh, don't worry about that, just start taking it. Well I need to know the name of it so I can get it and inform my doctor. It's called Satan's Penis mom. Satan's Penis?! I'm not taking something called Satan's Penis son."

What do you do at this point? The manufacturer didn't create cancer, they only have provided a fix for it. Well it seems some would march to the manufacturer and say, "Listen, you created this problem. This puzzle. It's on you to fix it. Either change the name and clear up the message or we won't take this seriously. We'll go back to our regular lives, you know the life where we watch loved ones die with cancer." Seems others might say, to the maker, "This isn't our responsibility to figure out this pill cures cancer. We shouldn't have to decipher that. Clarify the name, market this thing correctly so we can get it out there."

That wouldn't happen. Why? Because cancer doesn't just predominantly kill black people. It is indiscriminate in its victims and, therefore, everyone would have significant skin in the game and have the necessary impetus to get behind Satan's Penis. "Mom, I don't care if the forking pill is called Satan's Sweet Dick Juice! This pill will save your life and you ARE going to start taking it right this second. I'm not losing you mom. I'm begging you, start taking Satan's Penis. We'll get the name changed. Just take it mom!"

Sure, we would be on the manufacturer's arse to get it changed to Cancer Free! or Cancer Be Gone or some fancy name. But, we would be working just as hard, if not harder, to get that pill in the gut of every able-bodied person, while its named Satan's Penis, because we know the pill would SAVE LIVES. We all know someone killed by the scourge of cancer. A name, a label, couldn't stop us from promoting, pushing or supporting a fix, a cure. Because it affects someone you know, someone you love.

You see, it is the posture you are taking. The complacency it represents. Black people didn't create this issue. We are victims of it. And, finally, there seems to be a climate where real change can happen (because someone died over it) and because someone decided to name fixes to it "Satan's Penis" we get all this pushback on something that you all purport to be eager to fix. "Defund the police? Abolish police? Lulz, listen, yall huddle back together, fix the name of your movement, clarify what you really want, and then we'll think about helping you fix this, m'kay? Otherwise, you're on your own and we gonna get back to our lives." "Defund the police? That is too confusing. Listen, it's not our responsibility to have to decipher that defund and abolish don't mean defund and abolish. That's your responsibility. We are behind you but you gotta clean that up if we are gonna get everyone on board." "There are people who are inclined to help but they are less inclined with that name. They want to save lives but if we are gonna push them to our side, let's get that name changed, okay?"

That's how yall sound to me. I'm sorry, I know that's not your intent, but that's how yall come across. Misguided. Or unfocused. Your demographic has the ability and power to come together and not only support but help push and enact real change, real reform that will SAVE LIVES. You don't like that it's called Satan's Penis. I get that. So do I. So change it. Or ignore it. You don't like certain resolutions being offered. Fine. Don't support those. Or offer alternatives. But lead on this. Your wife is caught up on the name? Get her attention, like your cancer infested mother, and make her understand. More importantly, make her understand what's at stake.

Yall keep asking SO much from my community. Keep in mind, White America has a horrendous track record on fixing this. But, here we are, on the cusp of a real groundswell to make a difference, and we gonna let three words trip us up? Yall looking for reasons to sit this out. The name if the idea. It's important. Yes! I forking agree. Spelling your name right on the test is important too. But is it THAT important?! You gonna spend 30 minutes of the hour making sure you're name is correct? Come on. This man knelt on this man's neck FOR EIGHT forkING MINUTES. Reporters are being blinded while reporting on protests. People getting beat and tear gassed IN AMERICA. Defund the police, bankrupt the police, yall know what type of reforms are needed to help change this shirt.

fork that dumbass pill's name man. You really think your mother, cancer free, gonna care she took Satan's Penis to live?! But, its not your mother who has cancer, is it? We could name it whatever yall want. But this won't change until yall care, really care, like this affects your mother. Your father. Your kids. You. And that's the truth. And we, I, can't fix that for you. I can only hope enough of you get there. This is my last post on labels bruh. I'm tireddddd. I only want to discuss fixes to this shirt. Name it whatever the fork you want. Whatever makes you comfortable. Just help me fix this shirt.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, I started typing a response to @UncleTrvlingJim about how I disagreed that we haven't quite hit critical mass. I still feel we have but in reading some of the responses here and dealing with the things I have outside of here...I am becoming skeptical. Because it still seems so many simply don't get it. You just don't. Y'all frustrate me so much but, in the end, it is because your life, your family's lives aren't in the bullseye and it is easy to be passive about this.







So I picked these three posts, not to single out these posters, but for two other reasons. One, honestly, at the time I started typing this they were the three that stood out to me, at the time, that exemplified my frustration (I've been writing and deleting this post for days. I waver with whether I want to go here but it feels necessary). There have been other posts since but I stuck with these three. Two, I, honestly and sincerely believe, these three posters want the type of changes that we are talking about. And I feel you three represent a broad enough spectrum on political ideologies that I'm confident everyone will know I'm not speaking to, or targeting, a specific political party. This really is apolitical to me.

At this point, I had typed up a really gritty, eye-popping, graphic analogy to explain the depth and hurt of the issue and properly represent the urgency with what we need it fixed but like Chappelle said "These ****** will never understand. I'm tired of explaining it to these people something that is so God damned obvious." We are. I am. So, I don't know, here is a different, less inflammatory, milder analogy to do just that, explain my perspective.

There is a pill. The pill cures cancer. All forms. You take it and keep taking it and in one year you are cancer free. Not only that, even if you don't have cancer, you take it, and it will prevent you from contracting any form of cancer. It is a large, red pill and for some reason the manufacturer named it Satan's Penis. Facepalm, right? Whatever, your mom has an advanced stage of cancer and you need to get her on this pill asap. "Mom, start taking this pill immediately! It cures cancer! Really?! What's it called? Uhh, don't worry about that, just start taking it. Well I need to know the name of it so I can get it and inform my doctor. It's called Satan's Penis mom. Satan's Penis?! I'm not taking something called Satan's Penis son."

What do you do at this point? The manufacturer didn't create cancer, they only have provided a fix for it. Well it seems some would march to the manufacturer and say, "Listen, you created this problem. This puzzle. It's on you to fix it. Either change the name and clear up the message or we won't take this seriously. We'll go back to our regular lives, you know the life where we watch loved ones die with cancer." Seems others might say, to the maker, "This isn't our responsibility to figure out this pill cures cancer. We shouldn't have to decipher that. Clarify the name, market this thing correctly so we can get it out there."

That wouldn't happen. Why? Because cancer doesn't just predominantly kill black people. It is indiscriminate in its victims and, therefore, everyone would have significant skin in the game and have the necessary impetus to get behind Satan's Penis. "Mom, I don't care if the forking pill is called Satan's Sweet Dick Juice! This pill will save your life and you ARE going to start taking it right this second. I'm not losing you mom. I'm begging you, start taking Satan's Penis. We'll get the name changed. Just take it mom!"

Sure, we would be on the manufacturer's arse to get it changed to Cancer Free! or Cancer Be Gone or some fancy name. But, we would be working just as hard, if not harder, to get that pill in the gut of every able-bodied person, while its named Satan's Penis, because we know the pill would SAVE LIVES. We all know someone killed by the scourge of cancer. A name, a label, couldn't stop us from promoting, pushing or supporting a fix, a cure. Because it affects someone you know, someone you love.

You see, it is the posture you are taking. The complacency it represents. Black people didn't create this issue. We are victims of it. And, finally, there seems to be a climate where real change can happen (because someone died over it) and because someone decided to name fixes to it "Satan's Penis" we get all this pushback on something that you all purport to be eager to fix. "Defund the police? Abolish police? Lulz, listen, yall huddle back together, fix the name of your movement, clarify what you really want, and then we'll think about helping you fix this, m'kay? Otherwise, you're on your own and we gonna get back to our lives." "Defund the police? That is too confusing. Listen, it's not our responsibility to have to decipher that defund and abolish don't mean defund and abolish. That's your responsibility. We are behind you but you gotta clean that up if we are gonna get everyone on board." "There are people who are inclined to help but they are less inclined with that name. They want to save lives but if we are gonna push them to our side, let's get that name changed, okay?"

That's how yall sound to me. I'm sorry, I know that's not your intent, but that's how yall come across. Misguided. Or unfocused. Your demographic has the ability and power to come together and not only support but help push and enact real change, real reform that will SAVE LIVES. You don't like that it's called Satan's Penis. I get that. So do I. So change it. Or ignore it. You don't like certain resolutions being offered. Fine. Don't support those. Or offer alternatives. But lead on this. Your wife is caught up on the name? Get her attention, like your cancer infested mother, and make her understand. More importantly, make her understand what's at stake.

Yall keep asking SO much from my community. Keep in mind, White America has a horrendous track record on fixing this. But, here we are, on the cusp of a real groundswell to make a difference, and we gonna let three words trip us up? Yall looking for reasons to sit this out. The name if the idea. It's important. Yes! I forking agree. Spelling your name right on the test is important too. But is it THAT important?! You gonna spend 30 minutes of the hour making sure you're name is correct? Come on. This man knelt on this man's neck FOR EIGHT forkING MINUTES. Reporters are being blinded while reporting on protests. People getting beat and tear gassed IN AMERICA. Defund the police, bankrupt the police, yall know what type of reforms are needed to help change this shirt.

fork that dumbass pill's name man. You really think your mother, cancer free, gonna care she took Satan's Penis to live?! But, its not your mother who has cancer, is it? We could name it whatever yall want. But this won't change until yall care, really care, like this affects your mother. Your father. Your kids. You. And that's the truth. And we, I, can't fix that for you. I can only hope enough of you get there. This is my last post on labels bruh. I'm tireddddd. I only want to discuss fixes to this shirt. Name it whatever the fork you want. Whatever makes you comfortable. Just help me fix this shirt.

This is kind of the root of my pessimism. The problem is for most of us, the urgency is not that strong. If I'm being uncharitable, it's easy to view it as an academic problem. We can rationally understand that the use of force by police is not correct and we should do some police reform. But I think most white Americans believe it's more of a tweak that needs to be made, versus a crisis type situation. And with that attitude, I fear that you'll see some relatively minor tweaks and reforms. Those will be good and move things in the right direction, but I think will be a further source of frustration for the black community.

For example, most of the reforms being discussed seem to center on protocols, such as banning chokeholds. Which is good, but I think that's only a surface fix. Does banning chokeholds restores faith in the black community in the police, if you still have stop and frisk, or other aggressive policing in poorer (ie black) areas?

I've said it before, I don't think we have a problem with cops or police themselves, but with how we're "aiming" police (for the lack of a better term). If you're asking police to get out and after crime in a proactive manner, that means they need to be aggressively "seeking" out potential crime, which means profiling... and the standard profile for a criminal is a young black man. Never mind that the probability that any individual young black man is a criminal is really quite small, police will use the faulty logic that since most crime is committed by young black men that is who they should focus on. It's a bit more complex than what I laid out, but that's the net effect.

And that's the source of my pessimism. I think we have critical mass on some surface level reforms, which will help. However, I think we'll still be left with the major issues and that will continue to be a source of frustration for the black community. It's because there is a fundamental difference in opinion on how to prevent or lower crime. You can see it here. "Without police, how will you keep law and order?" There's an underlying assumption that law and order comes from force or the threat of force. Without that major stick, chaos is just around the corner. So, if you view the police as the primary tool to prevent crime, rather than a tool to investigate and apprehend criminals of past crimes, then you have the source of that conflict. You are going to ask police to take greater liberties with regards to the 4th amendment.

As long as we ask police to try to find future criminals, and let them use their instincts to determine who to stop and question, then there will always be a problem.

I can also say that as long as we decide to treat all crimes with prison sentences, we'll also continue to have similar problems.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I will also say, that I think you, @First Time Poster , have a higher belief in the power that most of us have than we do ourselves. I will say that many white Americans feel pretty powerless against a whole host of injustices against themselves and others. There is a strong sense that unless you are very rich and influential, your ability to make change happen is very low.

I don't personally subscribe to that, but it is a strong feeling.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Wow, I feel like I wrote a fair amount, and I still didn't say a third of what I wanted to say. This is a really complicated problem.

I should add, @First Time Poster , I don't want you to become pessimistic, but I wanted to more highlight potential problems to real change. I think this feels way different than after the Rodney King riots, or even Ferguson. I think we have as a country recognized there is a real problem... but I think the depth of it and the solutions is still very much in debate.

 

[bdb13]

@First Time Poster I get that you're frustrated man... All I can really respond with is to say that I do genuinely care about this, I support the movement and that I am trying to help while also trying to figure out my role to play and how to play it. I'm sorry that it's not coming across that way, but I do care.