In the past week we have seen (at least) two extreme examples of unnecessary police violence towards what seemed to be either subdued or compliant people. People who were of no threat to anyone at their time of death. The more and more we see these things happening the bigger the discussion about police brutality, often times seen as racially motivated, and unaccountably becomes. A lot of people would seem to believe we have a racist police problem. Police departments being mainly white, enforcing laws on people of mostly color. Now, I will not argue that there seem to be clear examples of police acting differently towards blacks and whites (often times quicker to do violence to a black guy), but I think the problem lies in the nature of the police, not so much in the nature of the racism some of them may or may not have.

The racism problem is a societal problem, not one that is only subject to the police. There are racists occupying all sorts of jobs. This is a problem that has been solving itself, and the best we can do is push it forward, promoting acceptance, and defending minorities when they cannot or will not (out of fear of more violence) do it for themselves. I'm sure if there was a government solution to racism (besides killing all but one race, because that is how government solves that problem) we would all be down to vote yes on it, but there isn't. The government cannot legislate morality.

The nature, the duty, of the police's job is to enforce the opinion of an arbitrary authority, an elite group, a majority, or a skewed mixture of the two. These rules, however immoral or illogical, must be obeyed by all (except the ones doing the enforcing and all those above them in the scheme of things) for the “benefit of society”. But what happens when those laws are too numerous, and the enforcement too extreme? How do we fix things? How do the people being oppressed stop their oppressor?

It seems that no matter how many times these things happen we ask for change, we ask for demilitarization of the police, we ask for proper training, but what results do we see? More of the same. The system is broken and it does not seem that we have any voice in the making and enforcement of laws anymore. Most of us break laws unknowingly every day. What happens when the day comes when the most minor infractions, like a busted tail light, can get you killed, and the man behind the gun can claim that he was just doing his job? Well, that day, unfortunately is clearly here. Shouldn't we talk about how that may not be a job we want to pay people to do? If fire fighters see it best to sit at the fire house to wait for fires, why shouldn't police wait around at stations for calls of emergencies?

A man named Philando Castile, with a legally purchased firearm (whatever that means, everyone has the right to protect themselves by whatever means they feel proper no matter other men's opinions),was shot dead for a broken tail light and suspected of a crime. Doing what was in his best interest, probably horrified the cop was going to get violent and scared if he saw Castile's gun, he let him know immediately that he had a weapon and a permit for said weapon. He did everything right in the scenario, but the handling of the scenario by the officer was tragically poor. We can hope for more competent cops to be hired, but is that really something to hope for?

In a 1999 ruling, a United States Court in New Haven, Connecticut decision came down that the police had the right to hire low IQ recruits. A man scores high on an IQ test and was given that as the reason he was not hired. The police defense was that people with higher IQ's would get bored with the job and leave more often, wasting expensive training. So, yes, instead of hiring people who are capable of thinking critically, rationally, morally, calmly, and nonviolently, they look for people who follow orders, react too quickly (often times leading to poor outcomes for the “offender”), and resort to violence quicker. Maybe instead of giving lower IQ recruits poor training, you could give the high IQ recruits a better level of training. You could probably save money in lawsuits (paid by the taxpayer) that could go towards that training. It sounds like the government gets the problem, but doesn't see it to be a problem. So, if that is the case I would argue this brutality is not only a consequence of this process, but maybe even its intent. Maybe they believe if people are scared they are less likely to fight back. They are more likely to obey. Maybe they are right. It seems like the redress of grievances is not something our government cares to hear, or take action for.

I think we should do away with the system as it stands because it seems too far gone to fix. But, people will always say, “Without the police who will keep us safe?” Well to those people I would say, talk to a black man who lives in Baltimore city. You don't have to be one, or go down to “the streets," you can just ask them (because every guy I know from the city cares to talk about it and wants the violence to stop). Who are they more afraid of, strangers on the corner, or a cop in uniform? Well, any black guy I know talks about how they never know what kind of bullshit a cop will pull on them. In the past month I've heard these personal accounts of how people are treated, and its awful. So,who are the police really keeping people safe from when they are the people the community fears the most? It sounds like they are the problem, not the solution. This solution of more violence has shown no positive results. Maybe we should look to less violent alternatives.

Maybe the agent of the state was bullied when he was younger, maybe he is a drunk, maybe he has mental problems, maybe he's just a normal guy enforcing rules of a state, and he feels honor in that (which could be argued as a mental problem). But the fact is we can't know what every one of these agents are like deep down inside so how can we offer them this badge, complete with its set of extra rights, that make him above the laws of nature (not aggressing on others when they have not aggressed upon you)? Well, it seems to me an obviously poor decision. When people take this badge, it makes them no more of a man than anyone without it. It doesn't give them the right to stop people from trading, to stop cars for busted tail lights, and to be clear, it doesn't even give you the right to step into situations where two or more people are in violent disagreement with each other. There is no natural right to aggress upon a situation (especially one where there is no actual victim) where you yourself are not the one being aggressed upon. Often times this escalates the problem. There is definitely the right to help people who ask for it, but this is not what the police do, if that is what they did you wouldn't have people being jailed or killed over victimless crimes. Without a victim, there is no crime.

If you are armed, walking down the street, and a woman screams that a man is trying to rob her, you have every right to help the woman who has asked for it to stop the mugging. She asked for help, and you helped. Someone was violating her rights and you stepped in to help. No need for anyone innocent to get shot.

Technology is helping make police a less efficient option. There are apps for our phones where you can connect with your community and, if in danger, can contact the closest available help. That is especially helpful if your community is well prepared for a variety of emergencies, or even just a couple of people who care enough about their neighbors. It is literally happening. It is a nonviolent solution to the violent nature of a monopoly on force.

We should place the responsibility of protecting one's life on that individual, as that should be one of his most prized rights. If a man cannot protect himself from others (the state even) what kind of man is he (or her) at all? With the right to protect ourselves, we have the right to protect anyone who asks for our help. Our families, our friends, our neighbors, our community. It is a natural feeling to want to protect one's own, and it is (not) coincidentally a natural right we are all born with (although most governments will take it away at birth as well depending on the arbitrary place of your birth).

My proposal for a solution is a system not based in violence, but based in individual responsibility for themselves and their property. A system where we as individuals respect the lives of others. Where we can walk down the street with a gun on our hip, but at the same time strike up a conversation with a stranger on the sidewalk. We should be free to interact voluntarily and never have to act involuntarily.

What I would ask all those who support the police is, do you voluntarily interact with the police? Do you voluntarily pay their fines? Or do you do it so that harsher punishment is not laid down upon you? Is it not a fear of threat and violence that makes you comply?