[drdeca]

Right, there’s clearly a problem, and I think even a systemic problem. I just don’t think it follows that literally every officer is therefore culpable. I think I would say that probably almost every police union leader is culpable.

[roywiggins]

The good cops, such as they are, get run out if they try to challenge the institutional problems in police forces. This radically restricts how good a cop can be while still being a cop.

Can good cops speak up about bad cops and keep their job, or do they have to remain silent? How many bad things can you see in your workplace without quitting or whistleblowing while still being a decent person? Can they opt out of illegal but defacto ticket quotas and still have a career? Does writing a few extra tickets so you can stay in the force long enough to maybe change it make you part of the problem?

Many people look at the problems in policing and say that anyone working inside that system simply must have compromised themselves to stay in.

[QuercusMax]

And who votes for those union leaders? The cops. They vote for corrupt people to protect their own corruption. It's a corrupt system from top to bottom.

[drdeca]

Well, who votes for politicians? The public. Are all members of the public therefore culpable?

Voting isn’t a means by which every voter’s preferences are amalgamated into a coherent set of preferences.

Voting is better than the available alternatives, but one person voting for something better doesn’t make the outcome of the vote be that better thing.

[QuercusMax]

You might have a point if we actually had an anti-police-corruption movement led by police officers - but we don't. The people who are supposed to be protecting us and enforcing the laws are really just bullies who like to abuse people, or they'd do something about it. They keep voting for union leaders who will cover up their crimes.

[pstuart]

I explicitly stated that it was "more than one" and in no way intimated that it was all cops.

One of the simplest things we could do as a country to help mitigate this is to end the War on Drugs. It was never about protecting people, and was always about enabling oppression of "others".

The other simple thing to do is to stop using cops for "welfare checks" and mental health crises -- those situations are uniformly better handled by social workers. This has tragically been put under the category of "defund the police", but the idea itself is sound. The "defund" slogan is so bad it's almost like it was created to sabotage the effort.

[lotsofpulp]

As much as I understand ACAB due to their systemic corruption and acting as a gang to provide their friends and family with more “justice” than others, I disagree with ending the war on drugs.

While it would be nice to think we can live in a world where everyone can be healed from mental problems (including drug addiction), I don’t think it’s possible to come back from the hardest of drugs (on a population level). The only thing you are inviting is chaos into your neighborhood.

[pstuart]

I understand your concerns about this (living outside Portland OR) but would counter that there's plenty of chaos with the current system.

I lost my brother to heroin decades ago and the laws on the books did nothing to prevent it, and a better system could have helped prevent it.

It would have to be done "holistically" (coordinated with the legal system, policing, health care, etc) but it's technically viable. The only thing stopping us from doing it is, um, us.

Even if it wasn't truly legal, it could be vastly overhauled if it actually was about doing what it pretends to be about: protecting us from the dangers of drugs.

[drdeca]

Sorry, I think I replied to your previous comment too quickly without reading it carefully enough.

I was trying to defend my previous comment, and didn’t adequately consider your point.

[pstuart]

All good -- I just wanted to clarify.

Police reform would be simple to implement if we could all agree on what that looked like.