![image.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmVkmWFuGwUJYQiUmf3ksBtKpfacmNEMu8MZWkQejjfxsP/image.png)



It is important to have empathy for officers who face life-threatening situations. But that doesn't mean we need to be complete boot-lickers when it comes to blindly defending law enforcement and the law in all cases.

I think part of the problem is outlook. When you look at an exchange, you think to yourself "alright well, the guy should have complied with the officer and things might have worked out differently." A more productive perspective I think is "Alright well the law that put that officer in that position to begin with is unworthy" or "Alright well if that officer had responded differently things might have turned out better."

The officer is the one with training, legal authority, and deadly weapons. When something doesn't go right, my gut impulse is that the one in the position of power didn't so something right. Obviously that isn't always the case. But if I hear about something and I don't have any other information than an officer killed or harmed someone, I tend to not automatically assume it's the victim's fault.

After all, you'd assume the worst the other way around, right? If I told you an officer was dead after a standoff, your gut reaction would probably be lock up whoever did it and throw away the key. Even before knowing if the officer was in the wrong.

Yes, officers put their life on the line. But they're also called to exercise their power with great responsibility. And, within our current culture, we often put the burden of that responsibility on the average citizen rather than the officer. When, realistically, it's the person with training, legal authority, and weapons who should bear the bulk of the responsibility.

We certainly need some major reforms and, though I'm skeptical that we need a whole new constitution, a new approach could certainly help us.

However, I'm not convinced billionaires are overlord puppet-masters manipulating the strings of our economic systems and the government behind that economic system.

I certainly think they can be. Billionaires certainly have the means to control the mechanisms of force. But, then, isn't it just the mechanisms of force that are the real enemy?

And if you took the control away from billionaires (not sure if they have as much control as you suggest, but let's assume they do) and handed it to some other group, would the mechanisms of force be less harmful?

Under what circumstances or under whose power do the mechanisms of force become not-harmful?

"Money is power" is very true in America and under a capitalist system more broadly. (Using "power" in the negative, oppressive connotation, here).


But is money the only avenue to power?

After all, there are people in positions of power everywhere. This is true in every social, economic, religious, or political atmosphere. Other places have corruption and bestow disproportionate influence on the few despite not having a capitalist system or a billionaire class at all.

So, again, it seems like "money" is only dangerous insofar as it enables people to have "power." So let's assume we push through all sorts of reforms to disempower the monied class. No more billionaires running our lives.

Who then fills that power vacuum?

Even if you successful eliminate the super wealthy from their poisons of power, would those same positions of power not still exist? Would they not still be exploitative?