sundin13 said:
I disagree pretty fundamentally with that first bit to the extent that I completely fail to see your logic. It is the responsibility of the police system to regulate itself. Like, it is the responsibility of my boss to ensure that I am meeting my task in a way which meets the shared goal of the organization I work for. Similarly, there is group responsibility when an officer fails to uphold their responsibility in the police system as there is within any organization. However, for the policing system, their responsibility isn't just to a boss or shareholders, it is to the community. When an officer fails to demand change within a broken organization that is negatively impacting the community, they are failing to uphold their foundational responsibility. None of these characteristics apply to a racial group. There is no system of responsibility linking individuals and there is no foundational responsibility. These are individuals with some shared traits, not a part of a common web with a shared purpose within a system of command and responsibility. The comparison simply fails. As for the second bit, maybe if this wasn't a problem that had been going on for generations I would be able to agree with you. I would like it if people protested the "right" way, however, we have largely seen that protesting the "right" way hasn't worked. More so, when someone does protest in a completely nonviolent way, they are still told "not here, not now, not like this, can't you do it in a way where we don't have to look at it". Like, I don't like violent protests, but all of this blood is on the hands of the system which has failed to implement change. I've quoted this a few times, but in the words of Martin Luther King Jr "a riot is the language of the unheard [...] And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention." Telling these victims of injustice how to protest after they've been given the finger every time they've tried to protest peacefully seems entirely inappropriate to me. You do what you want, but I feel my moral responsibility in this affair is to let the people express their entirely justified rage and sorrow as they would like, and focus my efforts elsewhere. |
"As for the second bit, maybe if this wasn't a problem that had been going on for generations I would be able to agree with you. I would like it if people protested the "right" way, however, we have largely seen that protesting the "right" way hasn't worked."
>The LA riots of the 90s didn't seem to do a thing to prevent Floyd's death either. Maybe rioting and looting isn't the way either?
"More so, when someone does protest in a completely nonviolent way, they are still told "not here, not now, not like this, can't you do it in a way where we don't have to look at it". Like, I don't like violent protests, but all of this blood is on the hands of the system which has failed to implement change."
>I'm still curious as to what change it is you'd like to see.
When one sets out to achieve a goal, it's important to define that goal so that one can track progress and discern the moment it has been achieved.
I think Dr. King knew that and practiced non-violence his whole life and managed to get things done without rioting or looting. I'm sure he had his detractors that told him "that's not the right way", among them people like Malcolm X, but had Dr King resorted to violence, that would have been the moment his detractors would have gained higher moral basis to oppose him and potentially win allies that were sympathetic to King's goals but also very much opposed to violence.
"I've quoted this a few times, but in the words of Martin Luther King Jr "a riot is the language of the unheard [...] And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
>Officer Derek was fired and has been hit with murder/manslaughter charges.
When person a kills person b, directly or indirectly, the appropriate course of action is to put that person on trial and carry out the sentence as given.
Not sure what more one could want. Perhaps we could put in place measures to reduce the risk of mishap but I don't think there ever will be a time where we can reduce the likelihood of mishap to absolute zero. Law enforcement means confrontation of some sort is ultimately inevitable and there will never not be a potential for something somewhere to go wrong.
How does one guard against human error? Against corruption? Against accident?
One can try with great success but never perfect success. The potential for something going wrong somewhere will never be absolute zero.
