zlacker

>>dtagam+(OP)
If there ever was a case of "don't comment unless you've RTFA" this it: people extrapolating their viewpoint on a list of 700 things from watching 1, 2, 3 ...

At a minimum, watch 100 videos. I did last night, only took about an hour, it's easy to find some to nitpick, some which are ambiguous ... and plenty that are totally horrifying.

If you can watch 100 videos in a row from Greg Doucette's list and say, "the militarization and use of force tactics of US law enforcement are not a problem" then I'd like to hear why you think so given this evidence.

Otherwise you're not speaking from an honest grappling with what these videos contain.

>>kthejo+YV
As a non American I am not getting this at all. In many US cities/towns sheriff is elected. In all other cases city mayor is elected. How it happens that all those mayors and sheriffs are still in the office if police brutality is such a big issue?

Does this mean that people just do not care, or there is only some minority who thinks that the police is too violent and the rest is ok with that?

>>piokoc+0d1
Police unions have considerable influence to block reform even when the elected politicians support it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo...

The efforts to "defund police" would solve some of the same problems that police currently address through other means. This would weaken the influence of police unions. For example, spending more to treat drug addiction as a disease rather than paying police to address possession as a crime.

>>markst+Th1
Instead of "defund", maybe a better word, then, is "reform", or "reorganize"? Or maybe define that it is "police unions" who should be defunded, not the entire bucket called "police"?

I am just curious at this choice of word that seems to be the clarion call, which means entirely different in the dictionary than what is being implied! :-/