SITE UNDER RECONSTRUCTION Check back often
Latest Blogs June 13, 2020 Police Protests May 30, 2020 Bad Dad May 16, 2020 Letter of Apology

The last couple weeks, you've doubtless heard about the protests sweeping the world about police officers killing black people. Probably hundreds of thousands took to the streets. And while almost every protest outside of the United States was peaceful, those in America took a serious turn south. I never take part in protests, but I know people who attended the rally at Discovery Green in Houston. They confirmed what was reported in independant media. The rally at the Green ended on time, followed by a march to City Hall, where there was another rally. That one also ended on time. But some stayed at the Green just to clean up afterward. The problem? They never got the chance because as soon as the City Hall rally ended, eleven blocks away, the Green was tear gassed. The Green wasn't cleaned up by the protestors, as they planned, and . . . well, that's the first issue I want to point out. The problem, and why things went so differently in the United States, is because the people assigned to security detail during the protests were the same people who were being protested. This is never good. Calling out volunteer organizations would seem to be the best thing, here, but not with the opposing (self-centered and disingenuous) view of the Second Amendment. There would be infiltrators and opposing groups ready instantly to do something about who they saw as unAmerican. But if the protestors have their own security group, like what happened a few years ago when a group of Marines showed up to protect protestors in New York City, things can stay much more peaceful. Give these protectors an understanding of the First Amendment, and you have a peaceful protest because they will act to preserve both sides. That's one issue. The second issue I want to tackle is the problem being addressed, that of how to stop this from happening in the first place. The truth is, it will never be entirely eliminated, but it can be drastically reduced. The calls for defunding the police won't work because they can find the same funding from other sources. The calls to disband them are badly misinformed because each organization has its own purpose; who else is better trained to respond to more serious crimes? The Second Amendment fails in this respect because the criminals will not only be allowed to bear arms, but also to infiltrate the "good guys", while the idea that "only outlaws will have guns" is disproven by results in other countries. (And right-wing Americans have no clue what's going on in other countries because they only listen to biased sources.) The only way to succeed is in three parts, of which I've only heard one (the second) addressed. The Internal Affairs department must be replaced with external, publicly funded organizations. If those who watch us are allowed to watch themselves, then who watches the watchers? And the organization must be publicly funded to ensure that pro-police bias is countered. The FBI can be called in for more extreme cases. Establish a minimum number of hours for empathy training by non-police sources. One of the sources of today's problems is that the hardened cops, those who have become stern in their attitudes toward crime, are the ones doing much of the training. The result is that the next generation graduates the Academy with a harder perspective than the last, and those who harden will be even worse than their instructors--and some of them will go on to teach the next generation. This cycle must be broken by teaching the officer how the general populace reacts to police behavior. This empathy is something I often do not see in the current generation of officers. Eliminate undercover work. This causes more distrust in the police than anything else. Who is this person I just met? Why did that person just look at my funny when I did this? Am I being scoped for something I didn't do? This secretive attitude is the main source of paranoia involving the authorities, and it *must* be stopped. (I do acknowledge that, because of the Fourth Amendment, it has been the main way of gaining information in many cases; however, I also believe the courts are too strict on this issue.) Finally, I want to address a fact that protestors refuse to accept: Just because protests worked during the Civil Rights Era does not mean they still work today. In fact, they are using a fallacy to claim their worthiness, saying that their protests are what led to changes, increased charges, and more. The fact is, they are claiming that since A (the protests) came before B (the changes), then A caused B. This claim is nothing more than self-serving. Anyone who understands cause and effect would not accept this because the people who chose B may not have even considered A. Unless they admit that they considered A, the claim is a non-argument because it can't be proven that B would not have happened without A. Protests have become so common that the protestors are like a football team with only four offensive plays. Not only that, but they announce their play to the entire world. The defense knows what's coming, and they will be ready for it. This has been seen many times through the years, most notably when the plan was to crash the banks by closing accounts, all on the same day, and the banks instead chose not to open on that day. Protests don't work, at least not any more. They worked a half century ago, when they hadn't been seen in the way they were presented. Today, those targeted have countless ways of defeating protests before they even begin. I have no idea what I'll talk about next time. Until then . . .

Web page designed and maintained by W G Walters.

All information copyright(c)2005-2013 with all rights reserved unless otherwise noted.