|
Top-level
@RnDanger @dalias @bmalsuj Some do, but they're not *supposed* to. If we get it in our craw that they are supposed to be working for us, and taking the steps to make that so, they may eventually get it in their scared little heads that defense of wealth, a.k.a. their paychecks/benefits, isn't the service they need to believe they were hired to do. We are their context. We can use that. 3 comments
@RnDanger @dalias @bmalsuj Depends on which way you flip it. From180Β°, it's sliding a new foundation underneath, taking on the load of fundamental change. Although I totally agree, big-picture thinking is one step away from throwing a penny in a wishing well. I think we know we want policing to change, but we need to be realistic, it's not going away. The question is what to do next. @janisf @RnDanger @dalias @bmalsuj right, AND $$ flowing from the MIC to keep this kind of policing intact is substantial, and often invisible to the public. SCIENCE has shown for DECADES that community based policing works much better than adversarial policing, AND it also doesn't need near as many guns, riot gear, tanks, or kevlar vests. But arms dealers profiting from *surveillance tech and weapons* truly see their cash cows drying up if there's a switch to community based policing. |
Gregory's Server
@janisf @dalias @bmalsuj
I don't know about your area but in America police are often trained to be fearful of every encounter with the public, to the point that they are trained to shoot people before they can determine what's happening. I'm all for being their context, but i think just saying that we are may be glossing over a lot.