When we get to the point where people are tagging and changing “All Plumbers are Bastards”, then yes, plumbers should carry when entering an unknown situation.
So, I do get it, but it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are chanting "all police are bastards" as a result of police carrying guns everywhere (and the downstream effects, like those guns occasionally shooting innocent people).
Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
We don’t tolerate when it group X is a racial group or when it’s a religious group, but otherwise intelligent and reasonable people seem to give zero care when group X is cops. It’s weird to me.
> Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
You missed a second clause there... Some members of <group X> did <bad thing Y>. The remaining members of <group X> have failed to hold those members accountable (and in most cases work to actively cover up their misdeeds). Therefore all members of <group X> are bad.
Have you considered how your logic applies to non-police groups? I never thought I would see such blatant racism against black people on this message board.
Being black is something people are born into where policing is something people join. Judging black gang members because their gang members isn’t racist any more than judging black police officers because their police officers.
By that logic people shouln’t be judged for Al-Qaeda membership. There is a meaningful difference between groups people join voluntarily and those people are born into.
> but otherwise intelligent and reasonable people seem to give zero care when group X is cops
You might want to wonder then if those intelligent and reasonable people might have knowledge or experiences they're basing these things off of that you don't have direct access to.
It's not prejudice if it's not pre. For me I didn't come to truly hate all police until I had accumulated years of experience of their violence and dishonesty across so many different jurisdictions and even countries that I realized it really is a problem with the system itself rather than any specific individual within it.
ACAB doesn't mean only bad people become police, it means you must become bad to remain police. Well-meaning people join all the time and they either leave, are forced out, or get in line and start covering for the really heinous shit.
If someone had a bad experience with different black people multiple times in their country and abroad, would you feel it justified for them to be racist?
What part of your post was about groups who have voluntary vs involuntary membership? Your baseless assertion of "you must become bad to stay police"? Would you look up Eric Talley, who was a family friend of mine, and tell me that he was a bastard or a bad person?
And...maybe people are "born" cops? What if some people are born with ultra high points on "law and order", and they disproportionately become cops through their genetics?
I’ve met plenty of police that want nothing more than general order in their jurisdictions. They come up to my car when I’m broken down on the side of the road and ask if there’s anything they can do to help. I’ve also met police that go out of their way to give me a hard time for going 5 mph above the speed limit.
The difference is the geography - when police are used as a “follow every guideline some bullshit group of representatives set forth” enforcer, they tend to be bullshit. When they’re used as a “make sure people are being reasonable” force, they tend to be reasonable as well.
It’s up to the people in the jurisdiction to elect a chief who matches their viewpoint. And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see.
> It’s up to the people in the jurisdiction to elect a chief who matches their viewpoint.
The chief of police is rarely an elected position (in most US jurisdictions). Sheriffs are typically elected, but that's an outlier in terms of law enforcement leadership positions.
> And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see.
It seems likely you have a pretty narrow view on the world if you think everyone (or even the majority of folks) have the resources to choose where they live based on that criteria.
I didn't say you were more "able" (though if you don't believe different levels of ability exist, I'm not sure what to tell you...). I said people have different available resources. If you're working a part time/minimum wage job with no car (which is just one example that covers a massive number of people), then you don't have the option to decide you don't like the policing in your neighborhood and just up and move. There are countless other scenarios that would similarly limit someone's options to simply move somewhere else if they were being harassed by the police.
My experience is limited to the US, but in most US jurisdictions, the police chief works for the local municipal government and goes through the same hiring process as any other city/town employee.
Different levels of ability may exist, but the thinking “if people aren’t living the way I want to live, it must be because they can’t” is pervasive. By and large, people have agency. Assuming they are passive blobs forced into situations beyond their control is both disrespectful and out touch. I frequently speak with people who have been in far worse situations than “low income and no car”, who have been able to travel the country and reach their desired enforcement zones.
In my experience, heads of policing candidates each put their “mission statement” and intended enforcement levels in an essay/Q&A hosted online by the local news. The community can read through the statements and choose the policing they feel most appropriate for their situation. If communities have chosen levels I don’t like, I respect their ability to do so - and live elsewhere.
If your community doesn’t have elected control over their police, and you want it to - I suggest you live elsewhere. Oregon is lovely this time of year.
>It’s up to the people in the jurisdiction to elect a chief who matches their viewpoint. And it’s up to the individual living in that jurisdiction to choose an area that matches the enforcement they’d like to see
A less nice way to put this is "all you jerks around here who want to live in some nice urban area/suburb need to come to terms with the fact that this will require using police and state violence or the threat thereof to enforce the kind of conformity that requires."
What do you think would happen to police if they didn't carry guns? How many police would be killed the first day in America that policy is implemented?
I'm not suggesting police should never carry guns! If you're going to apprehend a suspected murderer, you should probably have a weapon on you.
But if you're going to e.g. help a heart attack victim, I think it's reasonable to ask officers to leave their guns in their car, just as a doctor wouldn't bring a gun. I'd expect exceedingly few officers to be killed as a result.
If someone calls in and says a burglar shot a family member and the burglar ran away, would there be any reason for a cop to bring a gun to give first responder treatment to the family member?
