Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="refineryworker05" data-source="post: 3005595" data-attributes="member: 66082">One of the things I look at when trying to understand why a person takes the position they take on a given issue, is what is their stake in that issue as an individual.So, some Americans see police violence and misconduct as a real threat and a reality based on their personal interactions with the police, what they have seen first hand, the experiences of friends and family, combined with stats about the level of violence and misconduct carried out by police across the nation.So their stake in this issue is clear, based on their personal experiences as well as stats about police violence and misconduct, they want local police departments to be less violent with the citizens they serve, treat the citizens they serve with respect, and to be held accountable when they mistreat those citizens.So what&#039;s the stake of the individual&#039;s on the other side of this issue?It seems to be some combination of fealty to the authority of the state which endows police with a tremendous amount of power over someone&#039;s life, but almost zero responsibility in how that power is carried out, and a belief that police violence and misconduct levels are ok and can&#039;t be lessened or improved, but either way, their stake in the issue has nothing to do with the citizens who want to decrease levels of police violence and misconduct on citizens at the local level.So you end up with these strange discussions where people who care about police misconduct use incidents like the one in the video above to say see this is why this stuff has to be curtailed, and the opposition saying they are ok with whatever the cop did and the level of police violence in America is ok with them for these irrelevant reasons and the police must be obeyed. They two sides aren&#039;t even talking in the same realm.It is a very weird dynamic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="refineryworker05, post: 3005595, member: 66082"] One of the things I look at when trying to understand why a person takes the position they take on a given issue, is what is their stake in that issue as an individual. So, some Americans see police violence and misconduct as a real threat and a reality based on their personal interactions with the police, what they have seen first hand, the experiences of friends and family, combined with stats about the level of violence and misconduct carried out by police across the nation. So their stake in this issue is clear, based on their personal experiences as well as stats about police violence and misconduct, they want local police departments to be less violent with the citizens they serve, treat the citizens they serve with respect, and to be held accountable when they mistreat those citizens. So what's the stake of the individual's on the other side of this issue? It seems to be some combination of fealty to the authority of the state which endows police with a tremendous amount of power over someone's life, but almost zero responsibility in how that power is carried out, and a belief that police violence and misconduct levels are ok and can't be lessened or improved, but either way, their stake in the issue has nothing to do with the citizens who want to decrease levels of police violence and misconduct on citizens at the local level. So you end up with these strange discussions where people who care about police misconduct use incidents like the one in the video above to say see this is why this stuff has to be curtailed, and the opposition saying they are ok with whatever the cop did and the level of police violence in America is ok with them for these irrelevant reasons and the police must be obeyed. They two sides aren't even talking in the same realm. It is a very weird dynamic. [/QUOTE]

Verification