leady wrote:I hate to break it to you but the entire purpose of the police is to escalate to force compliance to social rules, you can quibble at the pace and means at certain points but not the end state.
That is not the purpose of the police. The purpose of the police is to keep people safe and to uphold the law. Nowhere does it say that the purpose of the police is to escalate a situation.
Over the course of their job, a policeman will have situations escalate on them. However, their job should
involve keeping this escalation to a minimum. In the cases discussed here they clearly did not keep the escalation at a minimum.
You can argue that to an extent some cops would still manufacture reasons to shake things up, but its pretty apparent that without the almost certain arrest and imprisonment of that last victims due to his inability to pay child support, then he doesn't run, fight the cop, run off again then get shot 8 times in the back.
For that specific victim, yes. But we are not talking about an isolated incident. And if it had not been that victim then I am sure it would have been another victim, arrested and killed due to another type of petty crime.
leady wrote:Its the nature of police action to leverage minor wrong doing to trap greater offences, rightly or wrongly
And you can't see the problems inherent with this view? It should not be the nature of the police to trap people. It should be the nature of the police to keep people safe.
(Now, how to do this is another kettle of fish entirely)
I disagree with how you are laying out your chain of events. The chain as you lay it out implicitely assumes that the police have not done anything wrong. Unless you can admit that the police are at fault here, then the societal issue will never be dealt with. This is because the base cause of the death is the policemen using the wrong amount of force.
I am also not talking about a single event. I can see a series of events (people of colour being killed by police) and am looking to solve the underlying issue that is causing these events. It is easy to say that in [specific case] if [specific thing] happened then [specific result] would not have occured. It is also useless. It is impossible to go back to that event and change things, the only thing that we can change is the causes of the event. And I think that by saying that the law caused the event you are actively undermining any effort to stop the societal reason behind these events, as you are directing attention away from the minor issue and tying up resources that could be better used.
Now, your claim is that the cause of the death is the law. In fact, your claim is that the cause is due to the victims breaking petty laws, and your solution is to remove these laws. So let us examine the first claim, that the cause of the deaths is the victims breaking petty laws.Here
is a list of people of colour who have been killed by the police between 1999 and 2014. Lets see how many of them had broken the law. Out of the first 13, I count two people who broke the law for sure, 3 people who may have broken the law, and 7 people who didn't break the law (I am leaving out the person killed by the security guards). I think this means that your claim that they are shot for breaking the law is bullshit.
My claim is that the police unnecessarily escalated the situation, leading to the deaths. As all 13 of these cases were unarmed, I think that it is pretty clear that a gun was not required in any case. I have not looked deeply into any of these cases, and will accept that for one or two
of them a gun might have been needed, but there are far far too many cases for them all to have required lethal force.
Also, those 13 were all in 2014, which is a shockingly high number of unarmed people killed by the police in America in one year.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.