4 ms·

If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessiv

If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force. Derek Chauvin, the officer charged for murdering George Floyd, has had 18 previous complaints against him [0]. If police officers can get away with using excessive force, then they might think that it's acceptable behavior. Reducing the police force by 20% could reduce police brutality by 20%. But you're also reducing legitimate police activity by 20%. I'd rather see efforts focused on getting justice for victims of police brutality and excessive force. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-complaints-george-floyd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-compla...

leviathant 6y ago
>If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force. Regulation without teeth is ineffective. This is another example of what people mean when they say the system is inherently flawed and needs to be disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up: https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821 https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821
- mkolodny 6y ago
  > Regulation without teeth is ineffective. Then create regulation with teeth. Create laws that make it clear what counts as excessive police force. Create a government body whose job is to investigate and prosecute officers charged with excessive force.
  - verdverm 6y ago
    In the states, many of these laws are on a state by state basis. We could see something at the federal level, and then we have one more law that will be contended by someone. Even if a law where to be written, with more specifics, we still have interpretation in the judicial system which can take many years to become tested and understood enough.
jonahrd 6y ago
The scope of what we consider "legitimate police activity" is too large and this call is to reduce that scope as well. A 20% reduction in police activity is not an unfortunate byproduct, it's the direct result that people are calling for.
- mkolodny 6y ago
  Reducing the police department's scope may be a good call. I just don't think it will have the effect that people are hoping it will have - stopping police brutality. It's similar to how some people thought going to war with Iraq would be retribution for 9/11. But the Iraq War just caused more problems. Dealing with the problem directly was a lot more effective (going after the people responsible for 9/11 - Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda). If people want fewer police, that's one thing. But if people want to end police brutality, I think we should take that on directly.

leviathant 6y ago

>If the goal is to prevent police brutality, it seems like it would be more effective to deal with the problem directly - punish police officers who use excessive force. Regulation without teeth is ineffective. This is another example of what people mean when they say the system is inherently flawed and needs to be disassembled and rebuilt from the ground up: https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821 https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1270059013854711821

mkolodny 6y ago
> Regulation without teeth is ineffective. Then create regulation with teeth. Create laws that make it clear what counts as excessive police force. Create a government body whose job is to investigate and prosecute officers charged with excessive force.
- verdverm 6y ago
  In the states, many of these laws are on a state by state basis. We could see something at the federal level, and then we have one more law that will be contended by someone. Even if a law where to be written, with more specifics, we still have interpretation in the judicial system which can take many years to become tested and understood enough.

jonahrd 6y ago

The scope of what we consider "legitimate police activity" is too large and this call is to reduce that scope as well. A 20% reduction in police activity is not an unfortunate byproduct, it's the direct result that people are calling for.

mkolodny 6y ago
Reducing the police department's scope may be a good call. I just don't think it will have the effect that people are hoping it will have - stopping police brutality. It's similar to how some people thought going to war with Iraq would be retribution for 9/11. But the Iraq War just caused more problems. Dealing with the problem directly was a lot more effective (going after the people responsible for 9/11 - Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda). If people want fewer police, that's one thing. But if people want to end police brutality, I think we should take that on directly.