Stats and "nuance of thought" don't matter if entire communities have no choice but to not trust their police departments.

No, you wouldn't, because only a very simple mind would think that quitting your job and risking your own family's well being would have any real impact on the independent actions of someone else at your company.

There's no competing police force for these people to go to, and it's not their job to hand down appropriate punishments on their peers. There's an entire division of law enforcement tasked with that.

You can only make the argument of quitting to join another field if you believe that the primary role of law enforcement is to inflict suffering on others. If so, then I guess you're just a goddamned idiot and there's nothing I can say to change that.

It is unethical to participate in a system that protects murderers, even if you're not a murderer, and even if leaving that system doesn't stop all the murderers by itself.

Once it evolved from its earlier(say prior to ~1830) iterations(social) 'control' was absolutely a part of the foundation. So violence may not be explicitly a part of the recipe it tends to pop up pretty frequently in the context of controlling behavior. Also kinda why the cops are out on patrol rather than say just responding to specific incidents/calls. Do you want to eat your peas or do you want a nice little spanking to motivate you? Or do you want to get out of that seat or get cracked in the jaw a couple times before we drag you out of here? Keeping the working class/poor in line and maintaining order has pretty much always been a part of it.

In earlier iterations the 'cops'(slave patrols, constables etc) pretty much did mete out punishment(both on the spot and by decree) as part of the job.

If there are a lot of questionable shootings, odds are that they get things wrong a lot of the time when there aren't shootings to.

Anyways, your objection is misguided. You can have a systemic problem even if there are exceptions to your problem. Let's say for example that a country is plagued by high rates of drug addiction. You don't expect to find uniform rates of drug addiction across demographic groups or geographic regions. That doesn't mean treating the problem as isolated incidents is a good solution.

LOL. Your great "nuance" here is that the cops who do nothing to stop misconduct and even cover up for each other are fine, the problem are disciplinary boards? Amazing

I don't have time today to put together the extensive whataboutism list that you'd ignore anyway, but suffice to say you're more than happy to do this with systems and organizations that you otherwise feel aligned with.

I haven't seen or heard of any cops protecting or advocating for murderers staying on the force. You've chosen that word because of the type of emotional response you want it to obtain, but it does have a real meaning, and murderers never get to keep their badge.

Oh right, murder isn't murder if a friendly prosecutor lets them off, lol.

Here's a whataboutism for you: The existence of signature bonds have led to significantly more dead black people than cops could ever hope to.

Almost invariably, actual murderers have been bounced in and out of sympathetic courtrooms on prior offenses many times before finally doing real time for killing someone. No calls on your part to defund the DA's office and get legitimately dangerous people off the streets. No, we had a few dozen cops over the past few years make some poor split-second decisions or show a lack of proper training, so let's dismantle that entire industry. It's too dangerous to exist.

Meanwhile, you all sit there in your ivory suburban towers, relatively disconnected from any real consequences of a world without police. Not everyone is so lucky in life.

LOL, look at this clown trying to dress up bog-standard "we need to put minor offenders in jail for much longer" 1990s tough-on-crime bullshit with a veneer of wokeness. "If a single shoplifter was let out of prison sooner than 5 years and killed somebody, what about that black life, huh libtards?"

I mean, for a tit, this is not a bad post inso0. And I will prob eat a lot of **** for saying that.

Let's make every other teen a felon for life then sit around and scratch our heads wondering why the socioeconomic problems persist

Yes, you will, if you think it's a major problem in America that we go too easy on low-level offenders. It's an awful post.

I'm not talking first offenses. It needs to at least be a 5 strikes and you're out situation.

As far as signature bonds go, I don't know about your area of the country, but around here even literal murder suspects get let out on signature bonds as a matter of routine. Every couple of months we get to hear about so and so was killed by someone currently out on a signature bond for such and such.

They're common enough though that the story generally only makes real news when the victim is a child.

"We just need to jail more people, and for longer!" declares nation that jails more people than anyone else and still hasn't solved crime.

Dealing with the underlying cause of criminality is a separate issue from enforcement.

You don't solve crime by simply pretending it isn't happening.

Man, if only some people had thought about reducing funding on enforcement to address the underlying causes of crime. If only!

Well, I think we are about to find out whether reducing funding for police in large, urban cities is an effective first step to reducing crime. Early results are not too promising, but the cities pushing this social experiment still seem committed to moving forward, so we shall see.

Yeah, **** all those people who have to live with the consequences during the literal generations of time that'll be needed to deal with the fact that Americans can't seem to behave themselves.

Again, dealing with the underlying cause is a separate issue from enforcement.

Is this sarcasm?

The pharmaceutical industry has A LOT of blood on its hands for various unethical practices, eg. pushing narcotics. So by your logic it is unethical to participate in the pharmaceutical industry, correct?

Entire ndustry, no. Purdue Pharma? Absolutely.

Oh, so now we are making a distinction between systems and individual entities. Interesting. You didn't seem willing to make such a distinction when it comes to policing.

So in this example a system can in fact facilitate and protect murders, and yet it isn't incumbent on every individual participating in that system to leave or be complicit.

What's a word that encapsulates both "police departments" and "companies" as entities but that excludes entire industries of independent or competing actors? I chose "system." What's the better word? Maybe organization? And no, someone at Merck isn't part of the Purdue system. An entire segment of industry isn't a single system.

Let's not forget that Wookie is a lawyer. A profession which is quite literally tasked with standing up for and defending murderers, among other reprehensible individuals.

Wookie, better brush on those shelf facing skills.

1. It is most definitely ethical to defend murderers. They have rights, too.
2. I am not a lawyer.