So here’s the thing: why do the police automatically close ranks and protect these abuses? Police unions, and even just regular PDs in small towns and big cities alike, will almost always close ranks around any sort of investigation into officers that abuse their power, or are accused of bad behavior. Why? If they really wanna “protect their loved ones”, shouldn’t they instead NOT tolerate abuses? Should they not, instead, strive to bring abuses to light, so the remaining officers can all hold each other accountable to that higher standard?
Additionally, I really take umbrage with the use of the word “defunded”, because what we usually mean is a little more complex - however, “the police in Millville, OH don’t need an armored personnel carrier and a crate of rifles and level IV plates all the time to protect their town of less than a thousand” doesn’t quite fit on a protest sign, and neither does “we shouldn’t be sending the police in to do things like wellness and mental health checks which they’re ill-equipped and ill-trained for”, or even “maybe not every situation should be immediately met with deadly force at the slightest inconvenience.” Moreover, if we do agree with your “protect and serve” mindset, shouldn’t the police WELCOME the help of a trained wing of people to deal specifically with things like suicidal tendencies, wellness checks on the elderly or the mentally unwell, and other situations that might escalate with the presence of an armed person shouting instructions at them?
So here’s the thing: why do the police automatically close ranks and protect these abuses? Police unions, and even just regular PDs in small towns and big cities alike, will almost always close ranks around any sort of investigation into officers that abuse their power, or are accused of bad behavior. Why? If they really wanna “protect their loved ones”, shouldn’t they instead NOT tolerate abuses? Should they not, instead, strive to bring abuses to light, so the remaining officers can all hold each other accountable to that higher standard?
Additionally, I really take umbrage with the use of the word “defunded”, because what we usually mean is a little more complex - however, “the police in Millville, OH don’t need an armored personnel carrier and a crate of rifles and level IV plates all the time to protect their town of less than a thousand” doesn’t quite fit on a protest sign, and neither does “we shouldn’t be sending the police in to do things like wellness and mental health checks which they’re ill-equipped and ill-trained for”, or even “maybe not every situation should be immediately met with deadly force at the slightest inconvenience.” Moreover, if we do agree with your “protect and serve” mindset, shouldn’t the police WELCOME the help of a trained wing of people to deal specifically with things like suicidal tendencies, wellness checks on the elderly or the mentally unwell, and other situations that might escalate with the presence of an armed person shouting instructions at them?