4 ms·
"Defund the police" doesn't mean what you think it means. I was glad the police, in this case, showed the restraint to not engage in violence due to an unruly
by rconti 6y ago
"Defund the police" doesn't mean what you think it means.
I was glad the police, in this case, showed the restraint to not engage in violence due to an unruly crowd who seemed to pose no threat to their lives. They showed how it could be done, although due to planning failures, they were BADLY under-staffed, and it got perilously close to the VP and other leaders. Deadly force was only employed as a last resort.
And I fully support snitching on violent criminals.
There are many consistent positions a large number of people hold. Trying to make this an "us versus them" by proclaiming in your comment that the entirety of "red vs blue" are only out for their own interests is only feeding into a narrative of complete polarization where there is actually a ton of common ground.
- smshgl 6y agoUnfortunately, it seems all too often we are sorted into red or blue containers if we don’t choose a side ourselves. > And I fully support snitching on violent criminals And when the criminals have all been removed, the police will give back their power? Or will they create more? They don’t need your help to arrest anyone, they do need your help to not question their methods.
- rconti 6y agoThe thing is, people choosing to turn in offenders is not an expansion in police powers. If anything, good people doing nothing gives police justification to ask for an expansion of their powers. For the police to be effective, I believe they need to work hand in hand with the people they are supposed to serve. They need the respect and consent of the citizenry. I think that's a two-way street. When that relationship turns adversarial, whatever the reason, we see an expansion in statutory powers, pretextual searches, etc.