zlacker

>>mwseib+(OP)
> So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it.

Taboos around violence for political are one of the crucial building blocks for a functioning democracy. If those taboos are broken, even for a good cause, you set a precedence that violence works. And the next cause won’t be as good. One only has to look at the lessons of the Roman Revolution that started with the murder of Grachus, and ended with an Emperor who everyone acclaimed as they were so tired of the bloodshed.

>>RcouF1+pg
I cannot condone violence nor encourage it, but you have to admit that the first few protests and property damage drastically influenced the quick arrest of an officer that may not have been arrested or even fired if it didn't happen.

The non-violent protests of Colin Kaepernick were mocked and used to rally the other side and just weren't effective.

The problem here is not the violence, but a policing system that is so fundamentally damaged and has not been effectively reformed fast enough.

The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard".

>>mmastr+Aj
Not an American. Can you share one or two reforms that you would like implemented. It is hard to grasp what is really going on from a distance.

>>mmsima+ip
Significantly expanding police training, and greater coverage of topics such as nonviolent de-escalation, community outreach, implicit bias training, and how to work with mentally ill individuals. Greater accountability through body cam programs, and community oversight boards for police departments everywhere. De-militarization of police, because right now, the police can legally buy surplus military gear and use it on American citizens, up to and including tanks. Frankly, I'd like to see most beat cops completely disarmed (but that seems unlikely to happen soon). I'd also like to see yearly community service requirements for police; make them volunteer their time in the communities they patrol, so they can feel invested in it and get to know the people there.

>>slysla+ds
I'm generally on board with everything you've said, but

>like to see most beat cops completely disarmed

seems absolutely crazy to me as long as the general public has such easy access to guns.

>>Improb+uw
The British model - and i know we have a much lower level of gun ownership than the US, but hear me out! - is to have bobbies on the beat not be armed, but to have rapid response units available which are very heavily armed indeed [1] [2]. So, if police on the street encounter an armed criminal, they fall back, radio for support, and wait for a group of colleagues with assault rifles, sub-machine guns, and proper training in using them, to arrive.

I wonder if a similar model, with different details, could work in the US? In the limit, that could involve police cars or foot patrols working in pairs, one unarmed and doing the actual policing, and another one following some way behind, but not getting involved unless a gun was spotted. Put body cameras on the unarmed unit, with the armed officers watching a live feed, so they don't even have to wait for a call.

That said, as the wikipedia article points out, the British model does not extend to the whole of the UK - police in Northern Ireland routinely carry guns, which in 2020 is rather depressing.

[1] https://www.eliteukforces.info/police/CO19/weapons/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the...

>>twic+ND
That could work in Massachusetts, Maryland or some other states with very low firearms ownership rates. I don't think it's fair to ask police to go out and police without at least letting them have (at their discretion) the same level of armament as the local law abiding citizens and holding them to the same standards when they do use force. Allowing a civilian police force to have things the local civilians can't have doesn't make sense IMO.

What cops really need is more training to not shoot first and ask questions later. 18yo marines manning checkpoints in the middle east are expected to more or less hold their fire until they come under fire. Domestic police should be held to similiar standards.

>>throwa+Tj1
A different argument in favor of disarmed police is specifically relevant for the presence of an armed citizen (at least in very urban and central area where reinforcements can be minutes away, not half an hour)

You could say that disarmed police in regular patrols can be safer as it is less of a threat to a criminal. this would obviously not apply to known cases of dangers or cases were reinforcements are unlikely.