“Rob” is a white man in his 70s. I’m a white woman in her 30s. We have both worked in Christian ministry. Rob kindly reached out to me after a disagreement on Facebook. I have greatly shortened this conversation. I have bolded some sentences and added short notes in brackets. Conversation lasted from October 2020 through February 2021. Conversation shared with permission.
Summary: Rob is my only conservative friend who has told me that the police need to be reformed. But he insists that other conservatives agree with him and would be happy to work with liberals to find solutions. I am skeptical: I provide quotes from a powerful political leader and people I know who support the police no matter what. Rob seems to place the blame on activists who aren’t using good slogans and make good cops feel bad. My insistence that America has a problem with police-worship is considered offensive and eventually kills the conversation.
Rob
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00.htm
This seems to me to be a logical way to correct the sentencing problem. Article also included info on how drug enforcement is mostly done in black neighborhoods causing a greater number of black people to be arrested. We know they are not the only ones in this business.
[Article questions the war on drugs, seeks to eliminate mandatory minimums, increase alternatives to prison, increase treatment and prevention. “Eliminate racial profiling and require police to keep and make public statistics on the reason for all stops and searches and the race of the persons targeted.” Good stuff.]
Ginger
Those are good points! Why do you think it is that America doesn't enact them?
My first year at [community college where I do ministry], I met a student in the criminal justice program. He also worked as a mall cop. He told me that at mall cop training, they were advised to check black and brown folks for stealing, because "they're the ones who do it the most," and the trainer also said, angrily, "The police aren't allowed to profile! But we [mall cops] aren't restricted by those (dumb) rules."
I was so shocked, I unfortunately wasn't able to give a coherent response. This student later unfriended me when I joined Black Lives Matter, so I don't know how he's doing now.
Rob
Just heard on the Radio about Ice, the rapper, meeting with Trump. He (Ice) has a plan for making changes in how the government and black people can relate. No much more than that, but look this up on Google. I think they said it has to do with police and jail time.
I disagree that taking profiling away hampers police. They have found it successful, but never mention the failures. I have said that if I wanted to traffic drugs, it would be in a new car, obeying traffic laws, with my white arm hanging out the window. Dressed really nice, not thug, etc. Seems to be the best way to beat profiling. Get an older white woman to do it!
Ice said, In his “Contract with Black America,” Ice Cube asks politicians for banking, police and prison reform, elimination of all Confederate statues, federal funding of “baby bonds” starting with $1,000 at birth, among other reforms to support the Black community in order to earn the “support of the Black vote.”
“Descendants of slaves, the ones who built this country are being kind of forgotten in the fray,” the rapper told Wallace.
After a fan accused Ice Cube of working with the “Darkside,” he responded, “Every side is the Darkside for us here in America. They’re all the same until something changes for us. They all lie and they all cheat but we can’t afford not to negotiate with whoever is in power or our condition in this country will never change. Our justice is bipartisan.”
Ginger
I appreciate you having this perspective! What do you think it would take for Americans to be willing to change?
“Bob” [Rob’s relative] for example, thinks the police are doing a great job and shouldn’t be criticized.
Rob
Hard question to answer. It will have to take an approach as not so much as condemning, but of reform. Lots to unload there. But the point is, most of us have either experienced first hand or know about abuse. I think the union has gone too far in protecting. The union needs to understand that they will serve their members best when it is possible to discipline or fire the bad apples. It will have to be a multi perspective of both rooting out and making things better for the good cops. It will not be perfect, but with all political questions there is finesse needed.
John Kennedy could not advance a civil rights bill. When Johnson became president, he was a much more experienced man and willing to work with others rather than insist on getting his way. He knew how to get people on board. His work with Everett Dirkson, Senate Minority leader, Republican, ended the impasse. Dirkson convinced Republican senators to vote for the bill. Dirson said at a meeting , "It is time to get on this train, it is the way of the future. Otherwise, the train will run over us." Southern democrats would not get on board even though they were the minority. Politics!
If pressed, Bob will admit that there is a problem. But he is too defensive. In seminary, I had the advice that I ought not try to make people change, but present changes in such a way as they wanted them and thought it was their idea to begin with. This was very effective for me. No, I did not win all the time. But, I made few enemies along the way. If I befriended opponents and asked for their help, they were willing more often than not to see the idea as not a threat, but an improvement. It is hard work. It isn't about tricking people, it is about helping them see a better way without saying the current way was bad.
Defunding is not the answer. It is too scary. Yes, finding new ways to police is a good idea. Cops do not like having to make calls for domestic violence. It is dangerous. But a community based program that calls for intervention by the neighborhood may work After all, not having to work with someone who will send you to jail is better for your ego and you might see that working through a problem with neighbors has merit. Who knows until we try. There are good ideas. But we must follow through and quit making it a political issue every few years with nothing happening in between. That is the point Ice was making. Stop talking and promising and start doing. His plan is not perfect, but it is a starting point. If it begins, the final product may look much different, but hopefully it will be better. The best thing that could happen for America right now is for people, especially leaders, to stop looking for enemies and start making friends. Move it beyond Politics. It cannot be a Republican or Democrat plan. It has to be an American plan. In the old days it was calling for a "Blue Ribbon Committee" (The "blue-ribbon" aspect comes from the presentation of the committee as the "best and brightest" for the task, and the appointment of such a committee, ad hoc, is meant to signal its perspective as outsiders of the usual process for study and decisions.).
Ginger
I don't know that Bob would back down. Maybe if you asked him to. I did see him concede to “Dan” once, but I think it was just because Dan is louder. I have no reason to believe he changed his mind.
I understand your point about befriending opponents and working together. But you can't apply that to every situation. The issue is oppression. Abolitionists didn't make friends and try to work together with slave owners.
Yes, defunding the police is scary. So is every big societal change. America has been trying to reform the police for years. This usually involves giving them more money. (I think we made a mistake back in 2015 advocating for body cams.) Police typically have the largest portion of a city's budget. Can you imagine if even half of that was given to social services focused on preventing crime rather than punishing people for crime? Amazing! This should be inspiring, not scary. But America worships authority and violence.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say, "Making it a political issue." Of course it's political. It's about the policies that guide our communities. And Black Lives Matter started in 2014, not an election year. Maybe you mean partisan? I wish it wasn't partisan, but I don't blame activists for that. They try to change something, and the GOP leadership opposes them. (And the Democrats pay lip service to the cause, but aren't really all that helpful.) It's divided across party lines, but we don't want it that way.
It's fine that a rapper is trying to work with Trump. Anything is worth a try. (Black Lives Matter has worked with, and made many changes on different governmental levels.) Personally, I don't spend my time discussing violence with someone who encourages violence against protesters. In the "good old days" (pre-civil rights?) when the police would have to "carry protestors out on a stretcher." "When the looting starts, the shooting starts." [Those are Trump quotes.] Why would civility win over the most uncivil president? The best I can hope for is to vote him out.
(I recognize that several prominent conservative Christians have been effective in manipulating Trump by flattering him. I assume that's not what you're suggesting.)
I'm generally confused about your arguments, and am having a hard time understanding, because I don't share (what I perceive to be) your optimism. You think if both sides sat down at a table together they could work something out? I don't see that. I am glad -- really, really, genuinely happy -- that you have issues with the police and see a need for reform. But I would need to hear that from a lot more conservatives before I could feel hopeful about bipartisan work. Because I hear people defending the police no matter what.
Either: "They should have just obeyed orders" or "the police were scared for their lives" or "they committed a crime." There's always an excuse, always a justification for police brutality. I had a student tell me- just after telling me that she definitely would have marched with King -- then a teen girl getting beat by a school cop on video must have done something to deserve it. After all, we didn't see what happened before the video started.
And if you want to go dark, police violence is celebrated. There are photos of white people kneeling on each other's necks after the George Floyd murder, laughing and smiling and showing us how it's no big deal. The cop who murdered Mike Brown got hundreds of thousands of dollars raised for him. The comments section said things like, "Thanks for being the thin blue line that protects us from the animals." I think about that every time I see that police blue line American flag.
When I was in ———- a few years ago, we visited ——— working at the [law enforcement] office. They eagerly showed off the new tank their department received. Because small towns need tanks to wage war against their own citizens. [The kids] had fun climbing all over the tank and pretending to shoot. I think the [law enforcement officers] do the same thing, have fun playing war.
Politicians didn't make changes in the 60's because the time had come. Protestors forced them into it. "You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored... We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. “-Martin Luther Kings Jr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
Rob
First, you did not think that working with those who opposed your view would always work. I did say that while I tried to work with others, it did not always succeed. That is reality. But if I assumed that everyone would reject me, why do anything? We can be quite surprised by other people. I do not think it was always my arguments that won them over. But I give credit that they were open to and led by the Spirit to consider what I had to say.
Second, “Abolitionists didn't make friends and try to work together with slave owners.” They did however, flood the South with anti-slavery literature. They were politically active and ran for offices. There were many in the South that opposed slavery, and some gave their life for it. They sought to change hearts. No, I doubt that they buddied up and tried to be friends with slave owners. Yet somehow many slave owners began to see the light. Benjamin Franklin was a slave owner who late in life saw the light and became a leading advocate for freedom. Do we not understand that someone got to him? Thomas Jefferson is a strange case. Even after he became an advocate for the end of slavery, he kept slaves. Not a perfect guy. A slow learner? We cannot know his heart. I cannot condemn someone who is on the right road.
Third, “I don't share (what I perceive to be) your optimism”. If I am not optimistic, what do I have except a negative attitude that paralyzes me? History tells me that while things can change suddenly, in reality, many years have gone into the change. History tells me that people can be stubborn and need to lead in love and grace. The truth is always before them. Watch “Amazing Grace” the story of William Wilberforce, the English abolitionist.
I just watched a video about “Barachah Home for Girls in Arlington”. https://youtu.be/FXCufQiPiNk?t=32 An atheist young man accepted Christ and became a Methodist minister. He soon found that in Waco, Texas, there were many young women who were thrown out of their homes for becoming pregnant. Also, Waco had many young prostitutes who were basically slaves. .. This sort of thing makes me an optimist. Optimism makes it possible to believe that all sorts of people can be changed in spirit and mind. It helps me believe in the transformation of people. I think that comes from relationships, not politics.
Old laws are not made better by being replaced by new laws. It is a matter of heart.
Ginger
I still don't think police need tanks.
I also attached a "defund the police" cartoon that some folks seem to like.
Regarding optimism.
I do believe people are capable of change. Where your argument confuses me is that you imply that conservatives already know there is a problem with the police, and that all that remains is negotiating the best way to solve that problem. Am I interpreting you correctly? Because I constantly feel like I'm always on page one, having to explain things like why executing someone in the street without evidence or trial isn't the world we want.
I'm not a pessimist and I haven't given up. I think I'm a little frustrated because I work hard, and I want you to see that it's hard.
I do talk to people about these things. I do work with people who disagree with me. I support people running for office. I write and educate. I teach Bible studies. I educate myself, read and share thoughtful informative articles. Students have been receptive. Conservatives, particularly ones I'm related to, have been deeply offended.
I'm curious to know how your community would respond if you posted, thoughtfully, on facebook about how the police (and prison system) need to be reformed. I don't think you would get a good reaction, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. (I have been surprised by the way the South Baptist convention has been positive toward Black Lives Matter.) I understand facebook isn't the ideal media for these conversations. Are you having these conversations with family, or at church? Let me know.
But yes, I also sometimes choose not to engage. I'm trying to have discernment about what conversations are a waste of time and effort. I'm refraining from commenting on a "prophecy" about Trump right now. Maybe I should, to save people from a cult. But I'm feeling like I don't have enough trust built up for my voice to be heard in that group.
Or sometimes it feels like the odds are too heavily stacked against me. [When I last visited] “Amy” was listening to the Christian radio station with a conservative news report. They criticized a priest for speaking at a Democratic rally of some sort, and used the phrase "the godless left" several times. Where's my starting point to talk to Amy when this is her news?
Laws vs. Heart:
You and I also aren't one the same page because you seem to be focusing on individuals. I'm focused on systems. Yes, I spend a lot of time talking to individuals. I'm a minister. But I support activists and teach about the importance of changing systems.
I do agree about the importance of changing hearts, but that's not a reason to neglect the law. William Wilberforce is an obvious example. And King always has a poignant thought: "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Thank you for the Arlington pastor story. It was very good.
Rob
Words fail often to communicate. Also, our ideas may make sense to us but are read differently than others.
The cartoon: It makes a valid point, but without the image, defund carries only the meaning of doing away with it does not indicate that find a new way to do things. That is partly where anger enters. One image I disagree with totally involves prostitution. Decriminalize and regulate is out of touch with reality. Yes, there are women who choose to do this. But there are far more women involved who do not want to be there. Criminals rule over thousands of women. Yes, go after the pimps, but with the power of what they are doing is criminal, It is also slavery. The cartoon would also have one believe that these things do not already exist.
For example, if you think any government program will get people into mental health care, you are very wrong. I have been involved with that for many years. You cannot force people to take their medicine. This is one of the big problems for health care workers. So, you see, even a great little cartoon can lead to misunderstanding. Do use it. It helps explain that there are good alternatives.
I am confused as to why you assume average people approve of people being gunned down in the street. Are you listening to those who support the police who say why are we so quick to condemn any shooting without having time to investigate? There are bad people out there who would kill a cop, we need to find out facts. You disagree with body cams. I can not understand that. Cost too much? I know lots of folks you call conservative, let's just call them people, who have firsthand knowledge of bad cops. But they do not like the implication that these bad ones represent all.
I know that you work hard and that you are passionate in loving ways about this issue.
Sometimes I am offended by the word offended. I know people will disagree with me. I just wish they did not get angry. One of my best friends in seminary disagreed with me on about half of what I said and vice versa. We loved to talk about those issues and then go off and have fun together, that is the sort of world I wish existed everywhere. Perhaps if it did our culture would have more time to work together to solve problems instead of calling each other names. Do not think that you cannot talk to Amy. She has been following this discussion and has stated. “We may disagree, but we love her and do not want anything to come before that and divide us.”
I hope that Biden will take these issues as a matter of importance. I want him to at least try to get a bipartisan task force to get onto this. It must be seen as a national priority and not just another way that people can pick on each other.
I think it was John Adams who insisted that there only be one party. Two or more would only lead to division and hatred. I do not know how one party could be possible, we always seem to break into fractions.
So, follow your heart. It is impossible to please all people. But take time to ask; “What do you think? Please do not think I am trashing you or your beliefs. Talk to me!”
I do not like to post much on Facebook. Seems like it is not a place of real discussion and people too easily get “offended.” It is a medium for you, but maybe add more humor, I really don’t know.
Ginger
"why you assume average people approve of people being gunned down in the street."
“Jan” has told me several times that Mike Brown "was up to no good" and that ends the conversation for her. My friend “Jason” from high school posted a t-shirt after Eric Garner's death that said, "I breathe just fine, because I follow the Law." (Mocking Garner's dying words of "I can't breathe.") When two of my students were watching a video of a tiny teen girl being forcefully thrown to the ground by a school cop (I don't remember the name), one student said that the video was wrongly edited, because we didn't get to see what the girl did to "deserve" that treatment. My friend “Ed” was baffled when I said police need to de-escalate bad situations, and he asked why that should be their responsibility. Portland recently had secret police throwing people in unmarked vans. People are fundraising millions for the teen who shot up a protest. Trump bragged this week about Marshalls killing an Antifa suspect: “They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him, and 15 minutes, that ended.” Does any of that concern you?
I don't think most people will admit to holding this belief in the blunt terms I've used here. I'd like to think it's the sort of question I could ask that would help us find a common understanding: We both agree police shouldn't execute people! Yet I worry we don't share that core belief. Just like Trump says, "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and not lose a single vote," people who love the police aren't swayed by how many people the police kill, every day, in many different circumstances.
I wrote about hateful memes during the first wave of Black Lives Matter a couple years ago. Here's some that promoted violence. http://oddestnotions.blogspot.com/2016/07/terrible-memes-about-black-lives-matter.html
Re: the comic
Just to be clear- yes, we want to take budget money away from the police. This also includes taking away some of their duties. But “Defend the Police” is not “Abolish the Police.”
I won't be posting the cartoon, no. Yes, the prostitution part seems like it will ruffle feathers and distract from the point. But, the cartoon seems like a helpful tool in a small conversation like this.
The other reason I don't love this cartoon enough to share as a main argument is that it doesn't address police brutality. Yes, the police are overburdened, but that's not the main/only problem. A "defund the police" comic needs mene mene tekel upharsin!
Lastly, I feel like you are giving me well-intentioned advice. But, it feels like a double standard. I've never seen you write, "What do you think? Please do not think I am trashing you or your beliefs. Talk to me!”
My most recent Black Lives Matter post is about a black man with mental problems (Walter Wallace Jr) who was shot instead of given the medical/ psychological care he needed. I would feel inappropriate saying, "What do you think? Should the police shoot folks having mental breaks? If you think so, don't worry, we're still friends!"
I know I'm being harsh. But it's a harsh subject. So I feel frustrated that the people trying to fix it get criticized. You hope Biden will make a team to address it. Will your conservative friends support what they decide? Is there a moderate, bipartisan reforms that they'll like? Because my conservative friends "support the police." So reformers can't try to make everyone happy.
I think you and I have a level one agreement:
1. Police brutality is a problem. (and the whole justice and prison system is a problem.)
I'd like to progress to higher levels- 2. WHY is it a problem (long history of brutality, current bad training), and 3. WHAT can we do about it (defund the police? switch to a new system? hold police accountable, etc.) - but it's been my experience that I don't have a level one agreement with a lot of folks. I need that basic agreement. I feel like I'm stuck in a level one conversation because people are so protective of the police. It's hard to admit there's a problem with a trusted institution that represents American law and order.
This is a messy conversation. I keep trying to reorganize it into something cohesive, but I can't yet. One last random note: I appreciate Amy wanting to be a peacemaker. But I am still extremely concerned about this Christian radio news source. https://townhall.com Do you think this is a reliable news source? And should it be the news source for a Christian radio station? It doesn't make sense to me that someone who likes peace and unity would support this news source.
Rob
However, about my not asking, "what do you think" is partly because I am answering something about what you think. I am interested in what you think. In general many people are weary of social activists There has been so much PC in recent years, accompanied by if you do not agree, you are a hater. Don't make too much of that statement. It is just that some many needed reforms accompanied by, you are evil if you don't agree. Again, this is just as much about what people hear and not just what was said. Any good psychologist will tell you that there is danger when we think we are clear and the hearer is reading between the lines.
One of the major problems in America is in the police forces, and not just here, it has been world wide. Reform movements never seem to get much done. Back in the old west, it was, hang the first one you see, even if he didn't do it. Small town "speed traps" are another type of abuse that tick people off. but it goes on.
Reform is going to have an incredible well thought out plan that people can all get on board with. We cannot "sound like" all cops are bad, if we want reform. It is simply not true, anymore than all priests are child molesters. The rhetoric has to focus on solutions, not name calling.
Well, enough for now. I do not understand why people get so upset with one another, except that they are defending themselves when they "think" they are being attacked. Civil discourse is a lost art; if it ever really existed.
Ginger
A couple thoughts. You said; "this is just as much about what people hear and not just what was said." I don't think this is something I can take responsibility for. You've mentioned being annoyed with people who are easily offended- but this sounds like people who are easily offended to me. If I say, "Racism is a problem in America," and they say, "Stop calling me a racist! You hate America!" the communication problem is on their end. (And I think some of that misunderstanding is intentional.)
You also have mentioned several times that everyone needs to agree and work together. This is a nice ideal, but as I've reflected on it more, it seems like a way of slowing reform. Why do we have to wait on Bull Conner and Jim Clark? Why let them impede civil rights? Having everyone agree sets a very high standard. Can you give me an example of that happening? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I'm having a hard time envisioning this.
It's not that I don't want the Bull Conners of the world to be redeemed- of course I do! Nelson Mandela said, "The oppressor and the oppressed must both be liberated." But I don't see any reason to prioritize Bull and let him go first.
Rob
I think that a lot of what we have been talking about revolves around that question of “Why do we have to wait on Bull Conner and Jim Clark?” We do not wait on them or other who would impede any progress. But what does it mean to wait? If waiting means doing nothing, then that is evil.
Yet waiting can be opposed to rushing ahead and creating more enemies that we already have. There is something in-between that is important. Waiting can simply be a realization that for the best possible outcome, one must take time to create friends and develop a strategy that will win not just a battle, but the “war.”
Take the issue with the police. What is the best path to reform? I am not sure, but certainly it is not to wait for them to reform themselves. The history of police around the world is one of bad police; police who are brutal, on the take, faking evidence, etc. We have already discussed the path of defunding. Given that your ideas are valid, still the details are not discussed. All many hear is “defund”. That sounds atrocious to them.
Reform can come from one of at least three places: Federal government, local government, and the police union. Until and unless the union is involved and required to cooperate, little will be accomplished. Public opinion drives these three forces. And all three must be involved.
I would point out that of all the issues that I am hearing the new administration discuss, police reform is not there. It may be there, but it is not in the news. For some reason they are still venting their hate for Trump and wasting not only time on him but are keeping him in the news which will do little to help them move on.
My point is simply that groups like Black Lives Matter, Black Political groups, other concerned activists, and news media have to say, “This is more important than Trump, politically correct language, and minimum wages. The senate is in a battle over power sharing. It seems that they have forgotten why people are still occupying many cities in protest of this issue. Even the city councils seem unable to move forward with their own police departments. The protests have come and mostly gone and still we Wait.
Ok, I just read that Biden has said, "A cry for racial justice, some 400 years in the making, moves us," Biden said. "The dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer." We will wait to see what that means. We can hope.
Still, will it be something substantial or just another law? It is already against the law for cops to kill people. The institution has to be changed. I believe many police officers will welcome it.
Ginger
I think we can expect politicians to be capable of addressing multiple issues. I don't need them to set aside other issues and only focus on the police. Also, most issues overlap. If we can reduce poverty, we'll reduce crime. If we can hold wicked leaders accountable for lying and spreading conspiracy theories and trying to overthrow democracy, maybe we can figure out how to hold bad cops accountable too.
Here's Biden's platform from the election: https://joebiden.com/justice/ (I agree with you that it isn't getting a lot of publicity.)
It's fine. I think most activists would like more, but Biden is, I think, attempting to be reaching across the aisle. He's already doing all those things you say you want. But Trump-followers think he's a communist instead of a moderate. Trump said: “Biden has made a corrupt bargain in exchange for his party’s nomination. He has handed control to the socialists and Marxists and left-wing extremists like his vice-presidential candidate.” And the election was “a choice between a socialist nightmare and the American dream.” How do I have a productive conversation with someone who believes lies? Are you honestly sure it's worth the time and effort?
I don't think changing the laws is enough. I want to change culture. I'm a teacher -- I want everyone to have access to good information, and have the skills to know how to interpret it. And I am always happy to explain my perspective. But, it's hard to battle willful misinformation. I try to take a hint and move on. (If someone thinks I'm a godless leftist, they won't have an honest conversation with me anyway.)
Only 6% of white police officers think reform is a good idea. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53159496
Which brings me back to an earlier question: What do you think of townhall.com? Is this a news source you approve of? Should Christian radio be promoting it? Here's some articles promoting the election fraud idea. This one especially, which states that of course there is fraud, because democrats are inherently untrustworthy.
Ann Coulter is a contributor there. How do you feel about having her as a voice for American conservative Christianity? If you're not familiar with her, here's some favorite quotes: "There's nothing good about diversity, other than the food, and we don't need 128 million Mexicans for the restaurants." "I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote." "Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet."
—————————————————————————————————————
another facebook conversation about this article:
We discussed my disagreement with “Jane.”
Rob
I think that the biggest problem is the lack of "Concrete proposals" to debate.
Ginger
Jane thinks no money should be taken from the police. There shouldn't be a single less police officer. Even though she agrees that STAR is a good program.
I'm happy for Jane that all of her personal experiences with the police have been good. I'm glad that they've helped her.
Conservatives love the police. (Maybe you're the exception.) But no occupation should be beyond criticism. I wish every pastor was a good person! I wish every public school teacher was a good person! But of course we know both bad or lazy people get both those jobs and cause harm.
I am offering a clear "concrete proposal" of the programs our governments should spend money on. STAR in Denver and CAHOOTS in Oregon. And I have long and specific lists about police brutality. But the police are a golden calf. That's the problem here.
Rob
And yet you continue to demand defunding the police. Can you not see that it is a “trigger"?
Neither program will involve an arrest that is progress that goes sour, for whatever reason. If a STAR worker gets in the middle of a dangerous situation and needs help, can the police be called? Do not sugar coat the situation. GO AFTER the bad cops. Do not say that they cannot be removed. The big battle will be with the unions. Get behind that battle while you promote the good programs. Police are..., pastors are... teachers are... are losers in the battle. The good cops hear themselves as villains. Get with a better way of wording your request. Good cops hate bad cops; but they cannot do anything about it. "Defund the Police" was a cry heard as an attack, not a reform. When a slogan goes bad, get a new one.
Ginger
I didn't demand anything. I gently explained the meaning behind a controversial and maligned catchphrase.
I understand that the catchphrase makes people mad. But Jane isn't truly upset about the phrase; it's about the idea. She isn't willing to take any money away from the police department at all. She was very clear about it.
I've been making people mad for years by saying, "Black Lives Matter." But it's not my fault they are mad. This is a simple and Godly concept. People are CHOOSING to be offended.
There is no slogan that will make people who worship cops happy. If it were easy, activists would have done it already.
If you want to disprove this to me, you need to model it. Talk to Jane or Bob or someone about police reform and let me know the words to use for an effective slogan. Or walk them through the document you showed me at the beginning of the conversation. I'm sure it will sound better coming from someone they consider to be on their team.
Rob
Yesterday you sent a letter to me that was offensive. No, I am not choosing to be offended.
Forget slogans and catchphrases. I simply am stating that there is no need to connect your programs with defunding. It is a losing tactic. You have no data that can indicate or much less prove that defunding is necessary. Go with the reforms you have stated. Go after bad cops.
Defunding will not eliminate them. I do not need to model anything. I stand by my ideas and do not need to convert anyone. Your comments about "worshipping cops" is uncalled for and untrue.
Ginger
I apologize for getting upset.
I was unaware you were part of the group who considers “Black Lives Matter” to be an offensive phrase. You had not mentioned it. If I had known, I would have attempted to be kinder rather than venting my frustration and hurt about that group. I'm sorry for being offensive.
I feel the need to summarize: probably just for the sake of my own vanity, as I dislike the idea that you may consider me foolish. After this summary, I will cease to bother you on the subject.
I have not suggested that STAR employees attempt to solve murders. As we discussed in the police mouse comic, the police retain the job of keeping the peace. As I told Jane, no one is trying to fire good cops.
Ultimately, I believe that social programs will be more effective in preventing murders and other violent crime. This will reduce a need for police. Like I told Jane- prevention is more important. Perhaps we disagree about this, but I simply want to be clear.
You are, of course, allowed to believe that the police budget should never be reduced in any amount, if that is what you believe. It is not offensive for any of us to disagree about policy. I only focused on it because I thought we were approaching some agreement. I should not have made assumptions.
Again, I apologize for responding in anger.
Rob
Yes, perhaps it is best that we seek other things to talk about. I will say, I am not against "Black Lives Matter" I am saying it is much more than this one issue. I think more support can be found in the reform mode. Police reform ought to be no more offensive than a corporate downsizing. It has to be done, but again I think it is a bigger problem than city councils can take on. Your previous suggestions like Star make great sense, but putting them into place is easier than restructuring a vast bureaucracy like the police department.
So. I just want it done by experts, not politicians. To quote President Obama, “'Year after year, decade after decade, we have seen problems papered over and tough choices kicked down the road,” said a clearly frustrated Obama.' But he also acknowledged Washington had been part of the problem."
Tough choices do not come from quick actions, ok my opinion. In short we are closer than you might imagine in theory, but differ in how to get it done. Nothing wrong with that. I apologize for anger and frustration, mostly from feeling misunderstood. Someone said it is not good to communicate on paper. Sounds weird, but the point was that it misses human communication skills that come in one to one verbal discussion.
