>>Lendal+Ad
It's more than racism. There are plenty of cases where police brutality was exercised against "white" people. There's a consistent theme of police using violent force as a first resort rather than a last resort. Police are armed to the teeth and trained to preemptively strike at the faintest sign of trouble.

There's a gif that humorously demonstrates this mentality [1] and shows a police officer instinctively pepper spraying the air around him in response to falling down, even though there's no one around him.

Personally, I blame the laws & culture that encourage excessive civilian gun ownership. The common excuse for preemptive police brutality is the fear that a civilian could be reaching for a gun which puts the officer's life in danger. Without guns, police have no excuse to strike preemptively and it'd be much easier to gain political support for de-arming the police.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/mx6faSk.gifv

>>dragon+Ng
No, "defund the police" is a slogan proposed by woke, white upper middle class intelligentsia who live in low-crime neighborhoods, and are under a false impression that crime is low everywhere and police is "not needed". They do still expect that when they call 911, someone will show up in a few minutes. You can see it play out comically on the street too: anti-defunders attack the defunders and defunders say "call the police", which just seconds ago they wanted to "defund".

The moment Seattle organizes an "autonomous zone", they appoint a violent warlord with a Kalashnikov and proceed to shake down local businesses for funding. If you don't need the police, why the warlord? If you don't need capitalism, why the shakedowns and requests for, I quote, "soy products"?

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapHillAutonomousZone/comments/h0lo...

>>close0+Cy1
BTW, 5 years old but more relevant than ever. It also touches on the difference between police and military: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A

US citizens deserve the same response in daily life from a police under the "serve and protect" banner that an enemy combatant gets from the opposing military during an active conflict? You can't treat every citizen as if they are the worst possible one. If you got this "you could be the worst ever" treatment in any other situation you would certainly not find acceptable to reference the fact that the army also does it while in a war.