zlacker

>>sorami+(OP)
I’m pretty sure the problem of police abusing their power is never going away, so long as we have policing in its current form rather than some sort of unarmed or lightly armed community helpers. The reason they are always equipped with lethal weapons and so quick to use them is that their role is mostly to protect the people who have property from the people who don’t. And in America that’s always going to have a racial element. Black people in America are mostly still used as cheap labor- human capital stock. Unless they are willing to start redistributing wealth away from the super wealthy towards the least wealthy the ruling strata will always have to use violence to maintain order. And that means journalists too.

That is why if you want to highlight who is holding the real power and address the issues of inequality, the best place to start is to attack the police directly. Because it’s something that they are structurally unable to fix without fixing a whole bunch of other stuff first, and it places the focus right in the center of where the violence is coming from. It forces a confrontation by making a demand that they cannot ignore but also cannot actually address.

>>fallin+ky
Being armed does not matter, unchecked power matters. I could care less if they carried ak47s as long as they used them more sparingly. Disarming the police might have more effect on how interactions happen, but is not the problem, nor a very workable solution where citizens have the right to be armed.

The police are bound by laws. Attacking them is not helpful. If the police are bad, the laws are bad, and/or not being enforced. The history of mandatory sentancing laws (funny enough brought forward by none other than Joe Biden) might as well be the soundtrack for police racism over the last 20 years.

>>anewdi+gB
> The police are bound by laws.

This is evidently not true.