I sometimes wonder whether the reason there is near-impunity for police violence and police shootings is that we, as a people, value the collective trauma this violence inflicts on people, particularly on Black people.
I don't really wonder, I am pretty damn sure.
Look at the responses from police apologists. What words do they use?
The person did not: comply, obey, respect, listen
The person was: talking too much, angry, defiant, resistant, aggressive
In other words, they were not servile.
We see the high tolerance for disrespect, aggression, anger, and abuse from white suspects while poor Elijah McClain could not apologize enough.
And the police go unpunished and I think it's not so much that people think what they did was right, but they think what they did was useful.
After all, taxpayers end up paying millions in lawsuits over police abuses. Millions of dollars not spent on roads, water, schools, parks, and libraries, but on paying for abusive police actions that violated people's rights.
We seem to be fine with having to pay those millions
White America is willing to spend millions to inflict trauma on Black America. White America is willing to risk white lives to police abuse in order to inflict trauma on Black America. White America is willing to cede some of its liberty and freedom to inflict trauma.
White America wants the trauma. If we didn't, qualified immunity would be gone nationwide. If we didn't, police would be convicted. If we did not find value in the trauma, we would end it.
And what does that trauma give us?
Look at the Beckys and Karens calling the cops. They act in confidence their actions will instill fear and prevent Black people from being in the space they think is their space. You don't belong here, let me call some cops to come to kill you
The collective trauma of police lynchings gives white people the feeling we have authority over public spaces, the parks, the stores, the sidewalks, the roads. It is white supremacy written in blood.
And yes I am white and until we end it, not one of us is innocent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Require every officer have liability insurance. If the union wants to pay for it, fine, but not taxpayers. Let the union eat the cost of police violence. Insurance companies will raise premiums based on cops who are abusive. Police will have an incentive to purge bad actors.
Absolutely end the taxpayer subsidy of police violence. Police officers and unions must be on the hook for settlements, not taxpayers. If a few cops end up up bankrupted, perhaps they will think twice before murdering someone for an expired tag.
Not one more taxpayer dollar in settlements for police malfeasance and murder. Why should we take money from schools, libraries, roads, health care to pay for criminal cops?
More training is not necessarily the way to reduce police murdering the public. I would argue that one reason police kill people is their training. Take the "Shoot, Don't Shoot" simulator. kb.osu.edu/bitstream/hand…
Since they are penalized for failing to shoot more than they are penalized for shooting in error, in essence, they are being encouraged to shoot. The answer is not more training, it's better training and training specifically in managing their own anxiety and in de-escalation.
And of course, the most important thing is to change Use of Force policies which in most places do not emphasize de-escalation. Tell the cops not to shoot people and they will shoot people less.
Why are our police armed all the time they out in public? Why can't they lock their guns in the trunk in a gun safe to pull out when they are called to an armed robbery or other situation actually involving violence and menace?
The UK police manage to make arrests without SWAT
Are American police too incompetent and cowardly they can't work without a handgun? Can't they, with their training, assert authority without the threat of violence?
Weapons are not necessary for writing tickets for expired tags.
Whenever @CarolLeonnig is on MSNBC, I listen so much more closely and for such a stupid reason. Yes, what she says is interesting, but it's her voice. I could listen to her read the phone book. Her voice is so soothing, rich and calm.
I have always been someone who reacted emotionally to people's voices. There are people I cannot stand to listen to. Ronald Reagan - his voice made my skin crawl. It made me think of a child molester trying to entice someone with free candy to get them in their car.
And it's not partisan. Ron Wyden is my senator and one of the better senators in the Senate and his voice nauseates me. Not in one-on-one discussions when we would talk health care reform, but when he projects in a crowd he gets so nasal I can't bear it.
I was immediately wary after reading this humdinger. I mean, it is though the CBO wars of the past never happened. As though they were not forced to adopt the right-wing, ALEC-promoted dynamic scoring that presumes tax cuts raise revenue
The CBO is required to make their estimates based on the false historically-always-wrong supply-side theory that tax cuts always mean so much growth they raise more tax revenue. modernhealthcare.com/article/201505…
Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper and far too many other anti-imperialists only oppose what they see as American imperialism while they excuse, promote, and defend Russian imperialism.
Rohini Hensman wrote a book I wish everyone would read. It's called "Indefensible" and is directed at the "left's" indifference to imperialist adventurism from Russia & Iran and the tolerance for totalitarian oppression in other countries haymarketbooks.org/books/1164-ind…
It's a commitment. Reading about genocide is not easy. She also spends a lot of time on Marx and Lenin's views on imperialism. But, it is a valuable corrective to the pseudo-anti-imperialist left who conflate globalization and neoliberalism & whose anti-imperialism is not about