3 ms·

I'm so past fed up with police in America. The drug war is pathological. The notion that a cop can kill an unarmed suspect with impunity (especially if they're

I'm so past fed up with police in America. The drug war is pathological. The notion that a cop can kill an unarmed suspect with impunity (especially if they're black or homeless or mentally ill) is disgusting. The belief that "law and order" is a value worth allowing one group the exclusive privilege of breaking any law and causing any disorder they like without consequence simply has to end. I'm at the point where I think the only sane thing is to dismantle the police, as we know it, and rebuild something less violent, less systemically racist, less prone to imprison or kill the mentally ill, and more aligned with basic human decency. Talking about how dangerous flashbangs are misses the point of how dangerous the system that wields them is and how dangerous the people employed by that system are. Police have dozens of tools and techniques for destroying human life. As long as they are empowered (and even expected) to use them with impunity, there will be tragedy after tragedy, where children, the mentally ill, and innocent people, are injured or killed or imprisoned. Not that talking about flashbangs is a bad idea. I just think we're past the point where fixing flashbangs will significantly fix things. This is a systemic problem which can only be resolved by systemic solutions.

Normati 12y ago
America isn't the problem, Americans are. Everyone who voted for this is to blame. From what I understand you can even vote for some of the local judges or prosecutors too! There's no excuse but to recognize that your neighbors are responsible for the problems due to their own selfishness. They want the police to be brutal because the drug raid isn't going to be on their home, it'll be on some poor person's home and they don't care about poor people. This might sound harsh, but it's what most American voters do. That's why they continually vote for police violence. If they don't understand the consequences of their vote then they're as negligent as the policeman who doesn't understand the consequences of throwing a flashbang into a bedroom.
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  You're partially right, though overly optimistic about the power of "democracy" in America. It's worth recognizing the power of gerrymandering and money in elections. But, that's another discussion. There is no such thing as a viable political candidate who discusses reigning in police power...not because of the voting public. In America we choose between two parties who have differences, but there are entire categories of governance on which they are in lock step. Police is one of those categories. You will never hear a Republican or a Democrat suggest abolition of the institution of police as we know it, or even demanding basic accountability for killer cops. Short of revolution, the only effective tools citizens have is to educate more people about the problems (and the cost of "tough on crime" policies), protest the clear human rights violations, film police so there are fewer invisible victims, demand accountability from city councils and mayors and police chiefs, etc. And, I do a little bit of all of these things (there's a Black Lives Matter march on Saturday here in Austin; I'll be there). So, yes, many Americans are stupid, violent, poorly-educated, racist, and vindictive, or at least support law enforcement that is all of those things. But, the number of people who support no-knock raids is surely not high enough to claim the people chose this (I don't know, but I can't imagine it would be).
  - thomyorkie 12y ago
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ron-paul-ferguson-militarization-police-110112.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ron-paul-ferguson-mili... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/ron-paul-police-manhunt-boston-marathon-bombing-su/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/ron-paul-pol...
- puredemo 12y ago
  It's not like there are any other countries where there isn't a drug war. Every first world country outlaws addictive drugs for the same ignorant reasons. (not harm-reduction)
  - boomlinde 12y ago
    I think you are allowing "war" to be a metaphor for restrictive policies, where "war" in this context is literally armed conflict with a death toll.
anigbrowl 12y ago
You are right, but there's a huge obstacle in the form of people who trumpet the notion of liberty (for some) while simultaneously supporting draconian/authoritarian policies for other people, and who make up a fairly solid political constituency. Even people who don't necessarily approve of such policies are strongly conditioned to accept them through their incessant repetition on television shows, news, and so forth. Producers of such shows aren't necessarily part of a secret conspiracy to scare the populace - although you could wonder about their network buyers - but are simply trying to provide engaging entertainment, and police shows reliably draw large audience, as do detective shows and stories. I'm not immune from this, I love a good detective story. The net effect is an ideological structure within which the distribution of power becomes further entrenched. No conspiracy to engineer such an outcome is required; like many other social phenomena, it can emerge naturally due to market forces, and is arguably a unintentional by-product of the economic and political structures.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Normati 12y ago

America isn't the problem, Americans are. Everyone who voted for this is to blame. From what I understand you can even vote for some of the local judges or prosecutors too! There's no excuse but to recognize that your neighbors are responsible for the problems due to their own selfishness. They want the police to be brutal because the drug raid isn't going to be on their home, it'll be on some poor person's home and they don't care about poor people. This might sound harsh, but it's what most American voters do. That's why they continually vote for police violence. If they don't understand the consequences of their vote then they're as negligent as the policeman who doesn't understand the consequences of throwing a flashbang into a bedroom.

SwellJoe 12y ago
You're partially right, though overly optimistic about the power of "democracy" in America. It's worth recognizing the power of gerrymandering and money in elections. But, that's another discussion. There is no such thing as a viable political candidate who discusses reigning in police power...not because of the voting public. In America we choose between two parties who have differences, but there are entire categories of governance on which they are in lock step. Police is one of those categories. You will never hear a Republican or a Democrat suggest abolition of the institution of police as we know it, or even demanding basic accountability for killer cops. Short of revolution, the only effective tools citizens have is to educate more people about the problems (and the cost of "tough on crime" policies), protest the clear human rights violations, film police so there are fewer invisible victims, demand accountability from city councils and mayors and police chiefs, etc. And, I do a little bit of all of these things (there's a Black Lives Matter march on Saturday here in Austin; I'll be there). So, yes, many Americans are stupid, violent, poorly-educated, racist, and vindictive, or at least support law enforcement that is all of those things. But, the number of people who support no-knock raids is surely not high enough to claim the people chose this (I don't know, but I can't imagine it would be).
- thomyorkie 12y ago
  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ron-paul-ferguson-militarization-police-110112.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ron-paul-ferguson-mili... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/ron-paul-police-manhunt-boston-marathon-bombing-su/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/ron-paul-pol...
puredemo 12y ago
It's not like there are any other countries where there isn't a drug war. Every first world country outlaws addictive drugs for the same ignorant reasons. (not harm-reduction)
- boomlinde 12y ago
  I think you are allowing "war" to be a metaphor for restrictive policies, where "war" in this context is literally armed conflict with a death toll.

anigbrowl 12y ago

You are right, but there's a huge obstacle in the form of people who trumpet the notion of liberty (for some) while simultaneously supporting draconian/authoritarian policies for other people, and who make up a fairly solid political constituency. Even people who don't necessarily approve of such policies are strongly conditioned to accept them through their incessant repetition on television shows, news, and so forth. Producers of such shows aren't necessarily part of a secret conspiracy to scare the populace - although you could wonder about their network buyers - but are simply trying to provide engaging entertainment, and police shows reliably draw large audience, as do detective shows and stories. I'm not immune from this, I love a good detective story. The net effect is an ideological structure within which the distribution of power becomes further entrenched. No conspiracy to engineer such an outcome is required; like many other social phenomena, it can emerge naturally due to market forces, and is arguably a unintentional by-product of the economic and political structures.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]