How We Finish

[The Hammer]

The dual origins of policing in America, and a question of where do we go from here?

How You Start is How You Finish? The Slave Patrol and Jim Crow Origins of Policing

What avenues should we look to, to reconcile and face the past? So as to make adjustments for the betterment of our future.

 

[F1fan]

I think teachers should teach about CRT and the current state of conservative politics to public high school students in every state, including those where it is banned.

How republicans are approaching politics in the last few years is in essence "policing" freedom and knowledge. Modern slavery is about how a nation is subject to one political party, and they will attain their power through unethical, but "legal" means. The means are legal only because there was always an assumption that politics would be conducted with respect to democracy. Today that no longer applies to republicans. The voting Rights bill is aimed to make democracy a legal requirement to conducting elections. Note every republican is opposed to this bill.

 

[Nakosis]

The dual origins of policing in America, and a question of where do we go from here?

How You Start is How You Finish? The Slave Patrol and Jim Crow Origins of Policing

What avenues should we look to, to reconcile and face the past? So as to make adjustments for the betterment of our future.

Which comes first? The narrative or the conclusion? I suspect most of the time it is the conclusion.
Therefore I don't really see narrative very useful in solving problems.

Second the past is the past. That doesn't mean we can't learn from he past but does mean we shouldn't use the past as an excuse for today's problems.

Why to people feel angry? I suspect with a narrative comes an expectation. The point of a narrative is to trigger some emotional response. A narrative is written from an individual point of view and expects to trigger a specific emotional response. We are not all emotionally equal. So yes it triggers a response but not always the one that's wanted.

How do we finish? That is a good question. I think we put ourselves, as best we can, in the place of the oppressor and the group being oppressed, try to understand the position of both and see if we ourselves could have done better. Hopefully learning to recognize causes and reasoning that happened so we can adjust our response.

Going forward, you can't force the change in someone else's "soul". You can write all kinds of laws and put in place whatever oversight you want but in the end it's the individual out there dealing with whatever enforcement situation at that moment. It's that individual that make their decisions. I think the best is to lead by example. Which means we have to put the right leaders in place. This is the hard part. We get easily misled by the media, political talking points, charismatic politicians. So again it ends up in our lap. We have to direct the problem to ourselves. Fix ourselves and be the example.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Learn from the past and stop repeating things proven to be detrimental.

 

[Stevicus]

The dual origins of policing in America, and a question of where do we go from here?

How You Start is How You Finish? The Slave Patrol and Jim Crow Origins of Policing

What avenues should we look to, to reconcile and face the past? So as to make adjustments for the betterment of our future.

Just some random thoughts coming to mind on a Wednesday evening:

I think cops are often put in a position of having to do the unenviable task of dealing with damage control as a consequence of government policy. They often have to operate in lower income and poverty-stricken neighborhoods, with sub-standard housing, underperforming schools, drug abuse, alcoholism, mental health issues, poor access to health services, malnutrition, domestic violence/abuse. So, they're already put into situations where the people around them are likely not very happy to begin with.

That, coupled with the financial reality faced by many local jurisdictions - the need for revenue. The fines collected from citations issued by cops can be a significant chunk of a city's revenue. That was one of the things brought up in the aftermath of the Ferguson riots. There's this notion that every cop is required to become Barney Fife and write people up for every piddly violation, and it helps to bring in money.

Is it really so necessary for cops to be so anal retentive? Does it serve any useful public function for them to do so? Does anyone believe it will lead to anarchy if they take on a more easy-going posture? They can still be ready to take on someone truly violent or dangerous, but they should vow not to be aggressive or hostile towards the weak or innocent. Is that asking so much of them?

I also think that retreating on the War on Drugs would work wonders towards building a better relationship between police departments and their communities. The War on Drugs has to stop. Treat drug addiction as a medical problem, and regulate/tax it. It may not solve the drug problem entirely, but I think it could have the effect of detoxifying the relationship the police have with many in their communities.

Too often, cops seem to reveal an attitude as if they think they're in a state of war with the American people. Whenever someone gets shot by a cop, the thing they always say is "I thought he had a gun" or "I thought he was going to kill me." It's as if they believe that every random person they see could be some kind of killer. Is that the mindset of a peace officer, or that of a soldier in a war zone?